I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | JURNAL ARBITRER SubmiSSion Track A B S T R A C T Recieved: January 30, 2021 Final Revision: April 02, 2021 Available Online: April 25, 2021 The previous studies that describe the phonological system of the isolects and the description of their differing and uniting linguistic features have not yet answered the doubts among Indonesian linguists whether or not the Proto of Sambori-Teta (PSm-Te) were descended from Proto Austronesia (PAn). Thus, this article aims to describe the interrelatedness of the two protoes and to describe the types of sound changes from the PAn to PSm- Te etymons. This descriptive study applied a comparative method by implementing bottom-up and top-down analysis in reconstructing the PSm- Te. The linguistic features as the evidence of the interrelatedness of the two protoes were identified and analyzed using sound change theories. This study found 1691 (99.35%) definitive etymons of PSm-Te among 1702 etymons of Sambori and Teta Isolects identified in this study, and the types of sound change from PAn to PSm-Te etymons showed addition, deletion, metathesis, diphthongization, fusion, fortition, lenition, fronting, and backing. The definitive PSm-Te and the identified types of sound changes can be used as the linguistic evidence to determine that PAn descend PSm- Te. Therefore Sambori and Teta isolects reflect PSm-Te. keyword Reconstruction, types of sound change, proto Austro- nesia, proto Sambori-Teta correSpondence E-mail: gede.budasi@undiksha.ac.id Articles The Reconstruction of Etymon Proto of Sambori and Teta Isolects Spoken in Bima Regency-NTB-Indonesia I Gede Budasi1 1English Language Education, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, Indonesia Under Liscense of Creative Commons Attributioni-NonCommercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.7.2.14-24.2021 I. INTRODUCTION The subgrouping languages in Indonesia, including in Bima Regency, NTB Indonesia, has not yet been done completely though some isolects in the region have been determined as languages. Budasi and Sudirman (2018) found that Bima, Sanggar, and Kolo isolects were quantitatively determined as different languages of the same family using lexicostatistic analysis. In contrast, Taloweri and Mbojo isolects involved in the study were found as two dialects of Bima language. Previously, based on quantitative and qualitative analysis, Syamsuddin (1996) identified that Bima language was descended from Proto Austronesia (PAn). If Sanggar, Kolo, and Bima isolects were quantitatively determined as three different languages of the same family, rationally, it means that Kolo and Sanggar languages are also inherited from PAn. However, Sambori and Teta isolects, which were also spoken in the regency, were not involved in Budasi and Sudirma’s study Budasi and Inriani (2019) proved the two isolects’ status as two dialects of the same language. So, in this regency, there are four languages include Sambori. In this study, Sambori and Bima quantitative kinship language relatedness was found 38.8%. Referring to Swadesh’s language classification, they are two languages of the same family. Budasi and Inriani’s study also found that the kinship relationship between Teta and Sambori is 98%. Based on the Swadesh language classification, the kinship relatedness (81%-100%) should be classified as two dialects of the same language. So far, it is not known yet whether or not Sambori language is also descended from PAn. Based on the researchers’ prior observation, most Bimanese people mentioned that Sambori language does not belong to Bima language subgrouping. It was even said as the original language of Bimanese before 14 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) the speakers of Bima, Kolo, and Sanggar languages were spoken in this region. They stated that their mutual intelligibility with Sambori speakers was not so strong. The subgrouping of Sambori isolect as one of the languages spoken in the area has been conducted by some researchers. However, their interpretation of their lexicostatistic analysis results is still questionable since the cognate percentage between Sambori and Bima language was controversially interpreted. Arafiq (2016), for example, stated that the status of Sambori isolect is a dialect of Bima language for their cognate lexicostatistic analysis showed that the two reached 61% dissimilarity (or 39% similarity). Yusra, Lestari, Ahmadi, Asyhar, & Soemerep (2016), who also did a lexicostatistical analysis of the two, declared that Sambori is a dialect Bima (61.2% dissimilarity or 38,8 % similarity). When we see the levels of language classification by Swadesh (1952) mentioned earlier, the percentage of 38.8% is between 36% and 81%, which means that their status should be two different languages of the same family. Rosadi and Hermanto (2018) examined the fundamental differences of the dialects of the indigenous people of Sambori Village with the Bima Community. They concluded that Sambori only a dialect of Bima language. If we connect the figure of 38.88% with the language classification by Sawadesh (1952), it is no doubt aware of saying that Sambori and Bima should be two different languages. Based on the discussion above, no study yet has been done to determine whether or not Sambori and Teta Isolects are inherited from Proto Austronesia, such as the one mentioned by Samsyuddin (1988) as mentioned earlier. Therefore, further investigation urgently needs to be done. The branch of linguistics which can be used to overcome the matter is historical-comparative linguistics (HCL). It can identify the two isolects’ kinship and their historical developments (Adhiti, 2016; Anggayana et al., 2020; Campbell, 2013; Ino, 2013). The research in HCL tends to apply a comparative method, a study to observe the development of isolects or languages by comparing their characteristics. Its quantitative data in the form of 200 Swadesh Word List were analyzed using lexicostatistics. Its results were usually confirmed by the qualitative ones (Bynon, 1979; Dyen, 1975; Nothofer, 1975). The assumption that underlies this method is the number of vocabularies in one language can be differentiated into two big groups: (a) the basic words which are not easy to change, that is, the ones which are related to the human body, pronounce, emotion, feeling, weather and nature, number as well as the words related to household tools. They are grouped as basic words; (b) the words that are easy to change, include loaned ones to or from other cultures. They are the ones like chairs, table, and lamp. They are easy to diffuse (Crowley, 1997; Dyen, 1975). The quantitative data are used to determine the percentage of relatedness and determine the family tree of language. The result of quantitative-based language subgrouping is usually used as the working hypothesis for further exploration of the qualitative subgrouping languages (Anggayana et al., 2020; Dyen, 1978; Mbete, 1990). The next step is to count separating the period of two isolects or language by applying glottochronological statistics (Keraf, 1997). The assumption based on that calculation is a set of words with universal characteristics and remain constant along the years around (Adhiti, 2016). The language classification from the quantitative analysis may be measured using Swadesh’s theory (1952), as mentioned in the following. Tabel 1. Language classification Level Time of separa- tion in a century Cognate % Language 0-5 100-81 Language Family 5-25 81-36 Stock 25-50 36-12 Microfillum 50-75 12-4 Messofillum 75-100 4-1 Macrofim 100- above >1% In an attempt to investigate the kinship relationship among isolects, Nothofer (1975) suggested researchers apply bottom-up analysis in examining the early stage of their proto-language and apply top-down one to check the linguistic evidence of phonological or lexical retention, and phonological and lexical innovation that happen to the compared isolects. The two approaches are known in reconstructing proto-language. To identify the 15 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) interrelatedness between PAn to its descendant languages, historical-comparative linguists used to describe the phonological correspondences by mentioning the types of sound changes from PAn etymons to its descendant languages. Some linguists such as Crowley (1997), Anttila (2009), and Cser (2014) mentioned different types of sound changes. Crawley (1997) mentioned 11 types; lenition, fortition, sound addition, metathesis, fusion, unpacking, vowel breaking, assimilation, haplology, and paragoge, abnormal change; Cser (2014) underlies nine types; lenition, fortition, deletion, insertion, metathesis, assimilation, dissimilation, diphthongization, and raising; and Anttila (2009) declared five types; insertion, assimilation, dissimilation, deletion, fronting, and backing. So, based on the three experts, there are 13 types of sound change; addition/insertion (prothesis, epenthesis, and paragoge), deletion (aphaeresis, syncope, and apocope), diphthongization (vowel breaking), unpacking, fusion, fortition, lenition, fronting, backing, raising, abnormal change, assimilation, and dissimilation. Based on the description mentioned above, it can be stated that: (1) quantitative and qualitative linguistic evidence can be used to determine subgrouping isolects. The approach characteristics make use of linguistic aspects static in nature with theoretical consideration fand linguistic aspects, particularly the 200 Swadesh’s word list. The words in the list are assumed to be difficult to change and statistically inherited from its language proto. In comparison, the qualitative linguistic evidence is considered dynamic. They are assumed to be easy to change, (2) qualitative linguistic evidence can also be used as the basis to determine the definitive subgrouping. Each subgrouping is supposed to have its proto-language, (3) When the result of quantitive subgrouping language is similar to the qualitative one, the determination of definitive subgrouping language is considered perfect (Mbete, 1990; Nothofer, 1975). If the comparison shows a different result, the qualitative one is used to determine the definitive subgrouping language(s). Based on the argument discussed earlier, determining the language classification status of Sambori and Teta isolect is so important. In connection to this, Ratna (2019) successfully described the phonological system of Teta Isolect, while Allan (2019) described the phonological of Sambori Dialect. Lately, Mitta (2019) successfully described the linguistic features which differentiate and unite the two dialects. However, the qualitative linguistic evidence determining the interrelatedness of PSm-Te to PAn assumed as the proto of all languages in Bima regency was not yet discussed in the three studies. Based on the study background and the theories mentioned earlier, determining the language classification of the two isolects is not only important to research, but it must be done as soon as possible since the success of categorizing their status will help make subgrouping local languages in the regency, and in Indonesia as a whole. Thus, this article aimed (1) to describe the interrelatedness of the two protoes by firstly reconstructing PSm-Te etymons and (2) secondly to observe and describe the types of sound changes from the PAn to PSm-Te etymons. By doing the reconstruction, the missing structure and language system will be identified through the language features that are still used today (Cho, 2020). II. METHODS This article was designed in qualitative research whose subjects were the speakers of Sambori and Teta isolects. Three speakers of each isolect were selected as the informants of the study, and their selection was based on a set of criteria suggested by Samarin (1967, 1988). The study objects were the two dialects’ cognate words and the sound change types of PAn etymons to PSm-Te ones. The primary data in the forms word lists; 200 Swadesh’, 973 Holle’, and 488 Nothofer’s were collected using interview and recording techniques. The secondary data were based on the ones available in Finderlist Dictionary by Wurm and Wilsom (1975). The procedure of data collections and data analysis passed the following steps: a. Cognate words of the two isolects were firstly identified using the three types of word lists, and secondly, the PSm- Te etymons were determined based bottom-up analysis and passing the following procedures: (1) if the cognate words of the two isolects showed the same forms, they were directly determined as PSm-Te etymons; (2) if the two isolects show similar cognate, both forms were determined as the 16 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) PSm-Te etymons; b. To define definite PSm-Ten etymons, the top-down approach was considered. The approach passed the steps: (1) the analysis of step a. mentioned earlier was compared to the PAn etymons in the Finder List dictionary by Wurn and Wilson (1975). The etymons selected were the ones that show cognate to the PSm-Te reconstructed in a; (2) If the PAn etymons showed the same forms with the PSm-Te etymons, they were directly determined as the definitive PSm-Te etymons. If they are different, the definitive PSm-Te were determined the same as the ones which were based on the bottom-up approach, and 3) If PAn etymons showed similarity to one of the PSm-Te etymons reconstructed based on a bottom-up approach, the more similar forms were determined as the definitive PSm-Te; c. the types of sound changes from PAn etymons to PSm-Te ones were finally described based on Crowley’s (1997), Anttila’s (2009), and Cser’s (2014) sound change theories. Some types of change were found, but other than those mentioned by the three experts were also identified. III. RESULT 3.1 The Obtained Data based on Bottom-Up Analysis Based on the obtained data analyzed using bottom- up analysis, 1691 (99.35%) PSm-Te etymons were determined. 11 (0.65) glosses from the three types of word lists were found empty. The etymons were originally grouped into two categories; (1) cognate, which the same forms, and (2) cognate different forms of Sambori and Teta isolects. See Table 2 and 3. Cognate of the Same Forms between Sambori and Teta Isolects Table 2 shows the examples of PSm-Te etymons, which mean; person, man, female, husband, wife, father, mother, child, name, who, I, you, he, they, hand, foot, fruit, soul, evaporate, sit, blow, indigo, grilled, palm wine, and teacher which were respectively reconstructed from the cognate words of Sambori and Teta isolects which had the same forms. When the cognate forms in Sambori and Teta Isolects are the same, they are reconstructed using the same form as those two forms. For instance, PSm-Te *dou, which means person, was reconstructed from Sambori ‘dou’ and Teta ‘dou.’ Table 2. The Examples of PSm-Te Reconstructed Based on the Cognate Forms in Sambori and Teta Isolects English Sambori/Teta PSm-Te person dou /dou *dou man mone/mone *mone female wine/wine *wine husband la’i/la’i *la’i wife wei/wei *wei father ama/ama *a:ma mother i:na/i:na *i:na child a:na/a:na *a:na name ŋanta/ ŋanta * ŋanta who se/se *se aku rae/rae *rae he re/re *re we ame/ame *ame they re-ra/re-ra *re-ra hand lima/lima *lima foot laŋge/laŋge *laŋge soul nawa/nawa *nawa evaporate mawa/mawa *mawa Sit to’o/to’o *to’o blow upi/upi *upi indigo nila/nila *nila grilled tunu/tunu *tunu palm wine tua/tua *tua teacher guru/guru *guru Note: PSm-Te: Proto Sambori-Teta Cognate of Different Forms between Sambori and Teta Isolects Table 3 shows the examples of PSm-Te etymons: flower, string, fire, we, you, eye fill, female, road, close, bite, hate, male, sap, long, famous, blood, dog, turn, listen, see, and under. They were reconstructed from Sambori and Teta Isolects’ cognate words, which had different forms between Samboi and Teta isolect. When the cognate forms in Sambori and Teta are different, both forms are taken as the reconstruction forms. For instance, PSm-Te*wunta/*buŋa was reconstructed from Sambori ‘wunta’ and Teta ‘Bunga’ which means flower.17 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) Table 3. The Examples of PSm-Te Etymons (Reconstructed from Different Forms between Sambori and Teta) English Sambori /Teta PSm-Te flower wunta /buŋa *wunta /*buŋa string u:ma/ kafa *u:ma/*kafa fire suw/api *suw/*api We yinta/ame *yinta/*ame you oene/emerance *oene/*emerance fill isi/ pai *isi/*pai female wilo/wina *wilo/*wina road daŋa/doŋka *daŋa/ *doŋka close tapa/kabu *tapa/*kabu bite aka/ŋaka *aka/*ŋaka hate iti/benci *iti/*benci male pria/priw *pria/*priw sap puru/mana *puru/*mana long loi/dopi *loi/*dopi famous mbou/mbaba *mbo/*mbaba blood ra’a/ra’ara *ra’a /*ra’ara dog lako/asu * lako/* asu turn poku /pokune *poku/*pokune listen paliŋa/sado’o *paliŋa/*sado’o see eta/lie *eta/*lie under utumba/ untum- bara *utumba/ *untumbara Note: PSm-Te: Proto Sambori-Teta 3.2 The Obtained Data Based on Top-Down Analysis Based on the top-down analysis, this study identified PSm-Te 1691 etymons. Among them, 551(30%) were found underwent retention; (1) retention with change were 493 (28,97%) and (2) retention without change 18 (1.06%), (3) 366 (21,5) were different from PAn, and 816 (47), 9% were not found in PAn., and 11 (o,65) were found empty glosses. See the examples in table 4 and 5. Retention with Change (Similar Forms) Based on the etymons in Finderlist Dictionary (Wurm & Wilsom, 1975), PSm-Te etymons in Table 4 which mean live, none, mous’, snake, fur, wood, grass,’ leaf, roo, fruit, cook, eat, such, hous’, string, dust, ‘ as, fire, person, male, female, husband, wife, father, mother, child, we, they, house string, ash, dust, salt, soil stone lake, and rain reflected respectively from PAn *atay, *ijun,*labaw, *sawa,*lawi, *kayu, *awa, *rau,*yamut, *buwah, *nansu, *pangan *soso, ‘rumaq, *waRo’, *lebu*, *abu’, *siraq, *tanaq, *batu, *danaw , *hud’an. In Table 4, column two shows the PSm-Te *etymons reconstructed based on the bottom-up analysis. In contrast, column 3 shows the data sources under PAn experts and their years of identification, 2 figures after the expert’s name in PAn, and column 4 shows the definite PSm-Te etymons reconstructed based on the Top-down approach. Using the examples mentioned in table 4, the definitive PSm-Te that can be determined are PSm-Te*a:te, *i:lu, *lawo,*sawa, *rambi, *hadu, *rata,*ro’o, *amu, *rua, *manasu, *maŋga.* noso, *u:ma, *wa’u, *kalubu, *kalubu, and *api. Furthermore, some PAn and the PSm-Te etymons (reconstructed based on bottom-up analysis) show the same forms. Some examples can be seen in Table 5, column 2 and 3. Table 4. The Examples of the Similar Forms of PSm-Te Etymon (Reconstructed Based on Bottom-Up Approach (BUA) and the PAN Etymons English PSm-Te (BUA) PAn/ Expert/ Year PSm-Te (TDA) liver *a:te *atay/ PANC43 *a:te nose *i:lu *ijun/PAN- DYPMP53 *i:lu mouse *lawo *labaw/ PANS72 *lawo feather *rambi *lawi/PANBI- ROLI 65 *rambi wood *hadu *kayu/ PANS72 *hadu grass *rata *awa/PCP- PAW69b *rata leaf *ro’o *rau/PWF- PAWF 71 *ro’o root *amu *yamut/ PANC43 *amu fruit *wua *buwah/ PANC43 *wua cook *manas u *nansu/POC- GR69 *manas u eat *maŋa *paŋan/ PAND38 *maŋa suck *noso *soso/POCB- LA73 *noso house *u:ma *rumaq/ PANDYM70 *u:ma rope *wa’u *waRo/POC- GR69 *wa’u18 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) dust *kalubu *lebu’/ PAND38 *kalubu ash *kalubu *abu’/ PAND38 *kalubu fire *api *apuj/PAND38 *api person *dou *cau/PANL72 *dou male *mone *many/ PANC43 *mone female *wine *biney/ PANDYM70 *wine husband *la’i *laki’/PAN38 *la’i wife *wei *beHi /PPHZE 71 *wei father *a:ma *ama/PAN- DYPMPL53 *a:ma mother *i:na *ina’/ PAND38 *i:na child *a:na *anak/ PANS72 *a:na we *yinta/a me *kinta/ PAN- DYTV49 *yinta they *re-ra *ra/PF- PAWF71 *re-ra house *u:ma *rumaq/ *u:ma string *wa’u *waRo/POC- GR 69 *wa’u ash *kalubu *lebu’/ PAND38 *kalubu dust *kalubu *abu’/ PAND38 *kalubu salt *sia *siraq/PAND- LO (n.d) *sia soil *dana *tanaq/ PAN- DLO (n.d) *dana stone *watu *batu/ PAN- PR74 *watu lake *danaw *danaw/ PANS72 *danaw rain *u:ra *hud’an/ PANS72 *ura Note: BUA= Bottom-Up Analysis PAn/Expert/Year: Proto Austronesian/Expert who identified the form / The year of identification (only the last 2 figures are presented) PSm-Te= Proto Sambori-Teta TDA=Top Down Analysis Retention without Change (Different Forms) Based on data presented in Table 5, the words which mean hand, breast, snake, flower, come, life, safe, yawn, indigo, grilled, burn, breast milk, string, extinguish, iron, swallow, sit, and teacher show the same forms between PAn etymons and PSme-Te (reconstructed based on bottom-up approach). Therefore, the definitive reconstructed PSm-Te etymons were determined based on the forms, which are the same. Table 5. The Same Forms between PAN Etymons and PSm-Te Etymons (Reconstructed Based on Bottom-Up Analysis) English PSm-Te (BUA) PAn/Expert/ Year PSm-Te (TDA) hand *lima *lima/PANS72 *lima breast *susu *susu/POM- CI61 *susu snake *sawa *sawa/PANS72 *sawa come *mai *mai/PAN- BLAA73 *mai life *nawa *nawa/PANS72 *nawa seat *to?o *to?o/PM69 *to?o yawn *mawa *mawa/ PAMS27 *mawa indigo *nila *nila/PAN- BLWO 71 *nila grilled *tunu *tunu/PNCHA71 *tunu burn *tunu *tunu/PNCHA71 *tunu breast milk *oi susu *susu/POCGR(- MA) 69 *oi susu string *kafa *kafa/ PPNDF29 *kafa iron * besi *besi/ PANDYMC70 *besi swallow *nono *nono /POC- GR69 *nono sit *to?o *to?o/ PMLS69 *to?o teacher *guru *guru/ PPHZA *guru Note: BUA= Bottom-Up Analysis PAn/Expert/Year: Proto Austronesian/Expert who identified the form / The year of identification PSm-Te= Proto Sambori-Teta TDA=Top Down Analysis The form of PSm-Te reconstructed from bot\tom-up analysis, as mentioned in Table 5 column 2, means hand was found the same in PAn etymon*lima see (column 3). Therefore, its definitive PSm-Te is *lima, as presented in column 4. The form of PSm- Te in Table 5 column 2, which means breast was found the same as PAn etymon*susu mentioned in column 3. Therefore, its definitive PSm-Te is *susu (column 4). 3.3 The Different Forms of PAN and PSm-Te 816 (47.94%) etymons of PAn (see example in column 3 in Table 6) underwent lexical innovation 19 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) (see column 2). The etymons PSm-Te in Table 6 column 2 which means she, we, you, shoulder, blood, neck, hair, teeth, ear, eyes, top, mouth, soul of feet, female, bed, mat, borrow, fill, and close were undergone lexical innovation of PAn*ia(h), *kita, *kamu?, *baya, *{dD}araq, liqeR*, *d’[ae] (m)but *gigi’ *teliŋa*mata, *teliŋa *ŋu(s)u*(g) age, *palapana *binay *lapik, *pola, *beles, *oso, and *ekub. The definitive PSm-Te , therefore, was determined like the one in column 4. Table 6. The Examples of Different Forms of PAN from PSm-Te (Bottom-Up) English PSm-Te (BUA) PAn/Expert/Year PSm-Te (TDA) she *re *Ia (h)/ PANDYPM PL53 *re we *ame *kita/ PANDYMC70 *ame you *oene/e merance *kamu?/ PANDYMC70 *oene/eme rance shoulder *dunce *baya/PANC43 *dunca blood *ra’a *{dD}araq/PAN- DYTV49 *ra’a neck *wo’o *liqeR/ PANDYPM- PL53 *wo’o hair *hoŋgo *d’[ae](m)but/PAND 38 *hoŋgo teeth *woi *gigi’/PAND38 *woi ear *wiro *teliŋa/PANC43 *wiro eye *porom u/ isi poro *mata/PANDYMPL53 *poro top *kawoŋga *kasiŋ/PPHCH73 *kawoŋga mouth *asa *ŋu(s)u/PANBIROL 65 *asa soles of the feet *kopa laŋge *(g)age pala pana / PCPPAW69b *kopa laŋge female *wilo / *wine *binay/PANS72 *wine bed *difa *lapik/PAND38 *difa mat *topo *pola/PPNDF *topo borrow *sepe *beles/PPHCH 73 (SC) *sepe fill *isi/*paisi *oso/POCMI61 *isi close *tapa/* kabu *ekub/PANBL73 *kabu Note: BUA= Bottom-Up Analysis PAn/Expert/Year: Proto Austronesian/Expert who identified the form / The year of identification PSm-Te= Proto Sambori-Teta TDA=Top Down Analysis 3.4 Types of Sound Change from PAn Etymons to PSm-Te Based on the comparison of PAn etymons and the definitive PSm-Te etymons, and the top-down analysis mentioned earlier, several types of sounds were found. Each of which is described as follows: Addition Three types of phoneme addition: prothesis, epenthesis, and paragoge, were found from PAn to PSm-Te etymons; The examples of each are presented in the following: a. Prosthesis PAn*ua found in (PAMS27) which means aunt→PSm-Te*dua, where PAn -Ø→ PSm-Te-d; PPHZC71 *aku which means confest→PSm- Te*ŋaku, where PAn Ø→PSm-Te*ŋ. b. Epenthesis PAN*panii seen in PANDLO12 which means bat underwent epenthesis →PSm-Te*paniki, where PAn Ø- PSm-Te *-k-/, PAN *pi-a seen in PANDL72 which means dishes→PSm-Te*piŋa, where PAn Ø- →PSm-Te -ŋ- c. paragoge PAN*tan as seen in PANDM72, which means know underwent paragoge →PSm-Te*tanda, where Ø- →/da/. Deletion Deletion, which occurs from PAn to PSm-Te includes aphaeresis, syncope, and apocope. PAn*koe in PPNBIWO70, which means you underwent apheresis →PSm-Te*oe, where PAn*k→ PSm- Te*Ø. PAn*namu in PPNBIWO70 which means smell→PSm-Te*nu, where PAn*am→ PSm- Te*Ø; PAn*moquri in PEPPAW70 which means skinning→PSm-Te*koi, where PAn*qu→ PSm- Te*Ø; PAn*leyqa in PANDYMT46 which means ginger underwent syncope→PSm-Te*lea, where *-yq- → PSm-Te*Ø/ a. Apocope Most of the data of PAn etymon underwent apokope. For example PAn*bawaŋ in PANDYMPT74, which means onion→PSm-Te*bawa, where PAn *ŋ- in ultima → PSm-Te*Ø. PAn*tolur in PANPWS47, which means egg→PSm-Te*tolu, where PAn*r- → PSm-Te*Ø-. PAn*teras in PANDB72 which means hard →PSm-Te*tera, where *s-→ PSm-20 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) Te*Ø-. PAn*timun in PAND38 which means cucumber →PSm-Te*timu, where PAn*n-→ PSm- Te*Ø-. PAn*timah in PAND38, which means tin →PSm-Te*tima, where PAn*h-→ PSm-Te*Ø. PAn*kilap in PAND38, which means flash →PSm- Te*kila, where PAn*p/ in position → PSm-Te**Ø. PAn*bawaŋ in PANDYMPT74a, which means onion →PSm-Te*bawa, where*ŋ→ PSm-Te*Ø. PAn*kapuk in PAND38, which means kapok →PSm-Te*kapu, where*k/→ Ø-. PAn*gendaŋ in PAND38, which means drum→PSm-Te*genda, where PAn*ŋ-→ PSm-Te*Ø-. PAn*lintah in PANS72, which means leeck→PSm-Te*linta, where PAn *h-→ PSm-Te*Ø-. b.Syncope and Apocope Some PAn etymons underwent deletion in syncope loss of vowel in the midle of a word and apocope, removing a phoneme at the end of a word (Keraf, 1996, Crawely 1997). PAn*diyus in PANC43 which means bathe →PSm-Te*diu, where PAn*-y- in penultima position→ PSm-Te*-Te*Ø; and PAn*s- →PSm-Te*Ø PAn*balikat in PANDLO (n.d) which means shoulder blade →PSm-Te*blika, where PAn*-a- in prepenultima position→ PSm-Te*Ø. and PAn*t- in ultima position→ PSm-Te*Ø; PAn*(bB) uqayah in PANPR74 which means crocodile →PSm- Te*buaya, PAn *-q- in penultima position → PSm- Te*-Ø-. PAn *h- in ultima position → PSm-Te*Ø; and PAn*ti(m)ke(jd) in PPHCH73, which means heel→PSm-Te*time, where PAn*-k- →PSm-Te*Ø and PAn*dj-→ PSm-Te*Ø. PAn*tuha? in PAND38, which means old→PSm-Te*tua, where PAn*-h- in ultima position → PSm-Te*Ø and PAn*?- →PSm- Te*Ø. PAn*sira in PANDlO (nd) means salt →PSm-Te*sia, wherePAn*-r- in ultima position → PSm-Te*Ø. Metathesis Some PAn etymons underwent metathesis, the transposition of sounds or syllables in a word (Crawely, 1997; Anttila, 2009), as well as phoneme substitution. For example, PAn*ekub means close→PSm-Te*kabu and PAn*-e →PSm- Te*-a- in the middle position. Phoneme PAn*-k- was transposed into the penultima position and PAn*e → PSm-te*a was transposed to a mid- position in penultima; PAn*nisa which means blood →PSm-Te*sila where PAn*-l- in the ultima position →PSm-Te*n in penultima position and PAn*s in penultim, and PAn*n →PSm-Te*l in ultima position was transposed to ultima position; PAn*kolo which means cut →PSm-Te*loto, where PAn*k in penultima position is substituted →PSm- Te*t in ultima position and PAn*l in ultima position was transposed into penultima position. PAn*duna means log fire →PSm-Te*hadu, where PAn*n in penultima →PSm-Te*-h in penultima position and PAn-Te*d in penultima position was transposed in ultima position in PSm-Te. Dipthongization Some PAn etymons underwent diphthongization, the sound change where one single sound becomes diphthong (Crawely, 1997; Anttila, 2009). For example, PAn*kasawari which means cassoary →PSm-Te*kasuari, where single phoneme PAn*-a- in prepenultima position →diphthong PSm-Te*- ua-. Fusion/Monofthongization Some Pan etymon underwent fusion sound change where a diphthong becomes a single sound (Crawely, 1997). For example, PAn*atay in PANC43, which means liver→PSm-Te*ate, where /ay/ in ultima position →/e/. PAn*apuy in PAND38, which means fire→PSm-Te*api, where PAN*uy→ PSm-Te *i. Fortition Some PAn etymons underwent fortition, a consonantal change from a weak sound to a strong sound (Anttila, 2009). It is the opposite of the more common lenition (Crowley, 1997). The following are 9 PAn etymons found to show fortition in PSm- Te. PAn*cau, which means a person in PANL72 →PSm-Te*dou, where PAn*t in penultima position →PSm-Te*d; PAn*dana in PANLO/Nd which means soil →PSm-Te*dana, where PAn*t in penultima position→PSm-Te*d. PAn*tumbuq in PANDYPMPL53, which means body→PSm- Te*(sa)rumbu, where PAn*t in penultima position →PSm-Te*r. PAn*asi in PMLS69, which means liver→PSm-Te*, is where PAn*s in the ultima position →PSM-Te*r. Lenition Lenition is a type of sound change that alters consonants, making them weaker (Crowley, 1997). In table 7 below, some PAn etymons underwent lenition. Phoneme PAn*b in penultima 21 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) position→*w for the etymons, which means: female, wife, mouse, lips, and. Phoneme PAn*-ʤ in the etymons, which means nose →PSm-Te*-l-, PAn*v in penultima position in the etymon, which means hit →PSm-Te*p, PAn*w in the etymon which means turtle →PSm-Te*b in penultima and ultima position. Table 7. Lenition from PAn to PSm-Te English PAn/Expert/ Year PSm-Te Sound Change ’female’ biney/PANDYMC70 dou wine /b/→/w/ ‘wife’ BeHi/PPHZE71 Wei /b/→/w/ ‘nose’ iʤun/PANDYPMP53 Ilu /ʤ/→/l/ ‘mouse’ labaw/ PANS72 lawo /b/→/w/ ‘stone’ batu/PANPR 74 watu /b/→/w/ Hit tovo/PAMS27 topa /v/→/p/ ‘lips’ bibiy/PAND 38 wiwi /b/→/w/ ‘turtle’ penu/PANS72 fonu /p/→/f/ Note: BUA = Bottom–Up Analysis PAn / Expert/Year: Proto Austronesian / Expert who identified the form / The year of identification (only the last two figures are written) PSm-Te = Proto Sambori-Teta TDA = Top Down Analysis Fronting Some PAn etymons show fronting, which happens because some phoneme in the PAn etymons is made toward the front of the mouth. PAn*paŋan as in PAND38, which means eat →PSm-Te*maŋa, where PAn*-p in penultima position →PSm- Te*-m. PAn*koe in PPNBIWO79, which means you→PSm-Te*woe, where PAn*k in penultima position →Psm-Te*w. PAn*losi, which means squeeze→PSm-Te*posi, where*l in penultima position →PSm-Te*p. PAn*koRo, which means cut →PSm-Te*loto, where PAn *k in penultima position →Psm-Te*l. Backing Some PAn etymon also shows the backing type of sound change, the changes that happen when they occur by replacing front sounds to back sounds in a language (Crowley, 1997). The following are examples of backing, PAn*dindin in PANDLO (n.d), which means jerked meat→PSm-Te*dandan, where PAn*i in ultima and penultima position→PSm- Te*a. PAn*tono in POCGR69, which means swallow →PSm-Te*nono, where PAn*t in penultima position→PSm-Te*n. PAn *kena in PANDLO (n.d), which means hit →PSm- Te*kana, where PAn*e in penultima position →PSm-Te*a. IV. DISCUSSION Phoneme change is a common process in a language change (Hruschka et al., 2015). Phoneme change could be caused by several factors, namely geographical, social and historical factors (Risdianto, 2017). Based on the result of the study, it is seen here that this study is successful in investigating the qualitative data as the existences of the interrelatedness of PAn to PSm-Te since some PSm-Te etymons were found showing phoneme correspondences between the two protoes. Besides, this study also found that the retention form of PAn to PSm-Te shows the existence of characteristics of sound changes such as addition, deletion metathesis, diphthongization, fusion, fortition, lenition, fronting, and backing. While assimilation, dissimilation, abnormal changes, and unpacking types of sound changes were not found in this study. Some sound changes from PAn to PSm-Te form a concerted change, which occurs not by chance (Bowern, 2015). The examples of the concerted changes can be seen in Table 7, i.e., sound change from /b/→/w/. Based on the types of sound change, the findings of this study support Crowley’s (1997), Anttila’s (2009), and Cser’s (2014) sound change theories. Among the 13 types of sound changes suggested by the three experts, nine were identified in this study. They are all become the characteristics of the types of sound change that occurred from PAn to PSm-Te. The identification of the interrelatedness of phoneme correspondences of PAn to PSm-Te etymons has answered the doubts among linguists and local people’ question whether or not Sambori and Teta isolects as a language descended from PAn. As a Bima language subgrouping member, the findings can also be the linguistics evidence that Sambori is undoubtedly one of the four languages; Bima, Sanggar, Kolo, and Sambori spoken in Bima regency. These qualitative data also confirm the qualitative data found in Budasi and Indriani study (2019). Therefore, this study confirms that the language classification of Sambori is one of 22 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) the languages spoken in Bima Regency. However, to complete the linguistic feature as the evidence of the status of language classification of Sambori among all other languages in Bima Regency, further study about the kinship relationship quantitatively and qualitatively is important to be conducted in the future. V. CONCLUSION This study investigated; a. 1691 (53%) definitive Proto Sambori-Teta (PSm-Te) among 1702 etymons identified in this study. These etymons show retention of PAn etymons. 511 (30.02%). 366 (21%) PAn etymons underwent lexical innovation, that is, they show different forms of etymon PSm- Te reconstructed from the bottom-up analysis., and 816 (41,9%) Psm-Te were not found in PAn.; b. the types of sound change passed by PAn etymon to PSm-Te were nine types of sound change, such as; addition, deletion, metathesis, diphthongization, fusion, fortition, lenition, fronting, and backing. Definitively, a and b can be used as the qualitative linguistic evidence, which states the PSm-Te had been descended from PAn. REFERENCES Adhiti, I. A. (2016). Pengelompokan Genetis Bahasa Kabola, Bahasa Hamap, dan Bahasa Kelon di Pulau Alor, Nusa Tenggara Timur. Jurnal Tutur Cakrawala: Kajian Bahasa - Bahasa Nusantara, 2(1), 49 – 58. Anggayana, I. A., Suparwa, I. N., Dhanawaty, N. M., & Budasi, I. G. (2020). Lipang, Langkuru, Waisika Language Kinship: Lexicostatistics Study in Alor Island. International Journal of Psychosocial, 24(4), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I4/PR201010 Anttila, R. (2009). Historical and comparative linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Co. Arafiq. (2016). Bahasa Sambori: Sebuah kajian morfosintaksis. Linguistika, 26(50), 84 – 91. Bowern, C. (2015). Linguistics: Evolution and language change. Current Biology, 25(1), R41–R43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.053 Budasi, I. G., & Inriani, S. M. (2019). Genetical status of Sambori and Teta Isolects. Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha. Budasi, I Gede, & Sudirman. (2018). Status kekerabatan isolek-isolek di Kabupaten Bima, Pulau Sumbawa NTB: Analisis kuantitatif dan kualitatif. Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha. Bynon, T. (1979). Historical linguistics. Cambridge Univeristy Press. Campbell, L. (2013). Historical linguistics: An introducion (3rd ed.). Ediburg Univeristy Press. Cho, M. (2020). A Review About Family Context and Reconstruction Problems in the Austronesian Languages Family. Jurnal Arbitrer, 7(2), 210. https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.7.2.210-220.2020 Crowley, T. (1997). An introduction to historical linguistics (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Cser, A. (2014). Basic types of sound change. Oxford University Press. Dyen, I. (1975). A lexicalstatistical classification of the Melayu-Polinesian Languages. Waverly Press. Dyen, I. (1978). Linguistic subgrouping and lexicostatistics. Mouton. Hruschka, D. J., Branford, S., Smith, E. D., Wilkins, J., Meade, A., Pagel, M., & Bhattacharya, T. (2015). Detecting regular sound changes in linguistics as events of concerted evolution. Current Biology, 25(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.064 Ino, L. (2013). Protobahasa Modebur, Kaera, dan Teiwa: Bahasa kerabatan non-Austronesia di Pulau Pantar. Universitas Udayana. Keraf, G. (1997). Linguistik bandingan historis. Pustaka Indonesia. Mbete. (1990). Rekonstruksi Protobahasa Bali-Sasak-Sumbawa. Universitas Indonesia. Nothofer, B. (1975). The reconstruction of Proto-Malayo-Javanic (p. 336). Brill. https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.1163/9789004287044 Ratna, N. K. (2019). Metodologi penelitian kajian budaya dan ilmu sosial humaniora pada umumnya. Pustaka Pelajar. Risdianto, F. (2017). A Phonological Analysis on the English Consonants of Sundanese EFL Speakers. Jurnal Arbitrer, 4(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.4.1.27-37.201723 I Gede Budasi/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) Rosadi, A., & Hermanto, L. (2018). Variasi bahasa: Sambori dan masyarakat Mbojo kontemporer. Jurnal Komunikasi Dan Kebudayaan, 5(2), 22–37. Samarin, W. Y. (1967). Field linguistics: A guide to linguistics. Rineharts Winston Inc. Samarin, W. Y. (1988). Ilmu bahasa lapangan. Kanisius. Swadesh, M. (1952). Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic Contacts : With special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96(4), 452–463. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3143802 Syamsuddin, A. R. (1996). Kelompok Bahasa Bima-Sumba: Kajian linguistik historis komparatif. Wurm, S. A., & Wilsom, B. (1975). English finderlist of reconstructions in Austronesian languages. The Australian National University. Yusra, K., Lestari, B. Y., Ahmadi, N., Asyhar, M., & Soemerep, A. Z. (2016). Kedudukan dialektologis Bahasa Sambori dalam masyarakat Bima kontemporer. Linguistik Indonesia, 34(2), 147–161. BIOGRAPHY I Gede Budasi was born in Menyali Village, Sawan District, North Bali on 31 December 1958. After completing his bachelor degree (Drs.) at the FKIP Universitas Udayana in 1984, he was promoted as a lecturer of applied linguistics in the English Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Udayana (Now, FBS Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha) since 1985. His post-graduate diploma degree in applied linguistics was awarded by the Regional English Language Center (RELC) Singapore in 1990. In 1993, he continued his post-graduate study in the M.Ed TESOL Program, University of South Australia, and completed his M. Ed. degree in 1995. In 2007, he completed his Dr. degree in Linguistics at FIB Universitas Gajah Mada Yogyakarta. His dissertation in this faculty was in the area of historical-comparative linguistics. Since his graduation from the university, he was in charge of teaching subjects related to pure linguistics. He has been an active researcher on local languages in Bali, West Nusa Tenggara, and East Nusa Tenggara. He was appointed as the editor in chief of Jurnal Prasi of FBS Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha from 2010 to 2016. Since 2018 he has been invited as a bestari partner for Jurnal Multilingual of Balai Bahasa Palu. Since 2020 he was appointed as a reviewer in the Language and Education Journal of Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha. He got the ten best award of the paper presenter in the 10th KIMLI Conference in Malang in 2010. His main research area of interest is mostly on historical-comparative linguistics. His other current research interests are ethnolinguistics and English for Specific Purposes, and cross-culture understanding. He is one of the Indonesian Linguistic Society and Local Language Association members hosted by FIB Universitas Udayana. He wrote books entitled Fonologi Bahasa Sabu, Phonology of Bima Language, and Reconstruction on Sambori and Teta Isolects Spoken in Bima Regency East Nusa Tenggara. 24