1. Introduction

Before a language was written, before a history was noted, that time should have had language although in oral. Because language which in written tradition was not born from nothingness, but had been steady in oral language before transforming into written language when the stationary was found.

Even Kridalaksana assumed that it was not impossible if the language which was existed had not different complexity with the recent language. Although Kridalaksana did not explain the reason, but it strengthened how language history had a long journey.

2. What is Proto-language?

Rohaedi said that Proto-language was more considered correctly as an assumption language or language which was in the past assumed that its form was exactly like that.

“Proto-language is almost never used. It is called as an assumption language, is a language which its form in the past is assumed exactly like that”. (Rohaedi, 2007: 100)

Blust said that in Comparative of Linguistic History (a knowledge that studied a past history of languages), a Proto-language had definition:

“A proto-language is a hypothetical ancestor of some languages which is inferred in relationship, which is concluded or reconstructed based on systematic differences from those related languages”.

Here, Blust gave opinion that Proto-language could be constructed or produced by seeing the systematic differences from the recent languages, which was assumed related. It meant that this language was an assumption language which was produced based on (relationship) assumption as well.

3. Characteristics of Proto-language

From what the experts said above, it could be concluded that proto-language at least had five characteristics, they were:

a. An assumption language

In fact, the real form from mother language could not be examined because only an oral data which could not be got anymore. The researchers were not at their wits end, by examining the languages that which were related recently, they could conclude an assumption language that was assumed as a mother language of any languages in that relation.

b. Not a written language

Proto-language was conditioned not as a written language, and that condition was natural. A language which had had written tradition could not be said as proto-language anymore, because it had had history thus could be analyzed based on that discovery, not based on the differences of recent languages systematic.

c. (Not impossible) very complex

The complexity of proto-language was not an impossible thing because the recent language came into a written tradition that could be estimated that it had passed a complex level as an oral language.

d. Almost never been used because it was an assumption language from the recent language

The characteristic of “almost never been used” for proto-language was reasonable because proto-language only could be got through a research on written language that had been Old language.

e. A reconstruction from linguistic (Comparative History Linguistic expert)

The reconstruction was done based on the recent languages, after there was a conclusion that the languages which were become basic to make that reconstruction were related.

Should be remembered that the aims of this proto-language reconstruction were first to infer the relation between the recent languages; and second to do the opposite reconstruction or top-down reconstruction on those related languages.

4. Written Language

Next, Kridalaksana explained that to do reconstruction based on related languages which were separated was only one of the ways to find proto-language. Another way to do that reconstruction was based on written materials. An oral language, for Kridalaksana, was very important in reconstruction Proto Malay Language.

5. Reconstruction of Mother Malay Language: a Problem 

Malay language came from Polynesia Malay Language and now called Austronesia Language family. Polynesia Malay Languages were divided into East Polynesia Malay and West Polynesia Malay, and next they were called Indonesia Language. Rohaedi stated that Brandes had proved, in the past, West Polynesia Languages came from one mother. Together with East Polynesia Malay Language, West Polynesia Malay Language became Polynesia Malay Language family (now is called Austronesia Language).

__________

Dyen version of Malayic Languages that formed Proto-Malayic

(1)	Malay
	Minangkabau
	Kerinci
	Middle Malay
(2)	Selako
	Iban
(3)	Sundanese
	Maloh
	Rejang
(4)	Achinese
	Cham
	Jarai

Quoted from Nothofer (1998)

__________

In the research above, Adelaar stated that he had done phoneme, word structure, lexicon, and affix reconstruction. Beside that, he did a hypothesis on the changing that happened from Proto Polynesia Malay (PPM) to Proto Malayic (PM) as well.

6. Blust Two Steps:

What Adelaar did was following Blust`s advice. In one of his writings, Blust mentioned that there were two steps that could be done in doing reconstruction on Proto Malay Language: (1) determining the languages that had relationship; (2) making a systematic comparative between those languages. Still according to Blust, the decision of whichever languages that were taken still caused problem; it was the dissociation of morphology and phonology processes needed complex explanations.

7. Collins

Meanwhile, the second reconstruction was attempted by Collins (1986). Kridalaksana explained that Collins did not tell explicitly that his effort was for reconstructing Proto Malay Language. What Collins did only explained that some phonemes in Malay dialect were descends of Proto Austronesia phoneme (top-down reconstruction). Collins examined the phonemes in Malay Language regional dialect.

8. Kridalaksana`s Critical  

A sharp critical came from Kridalaksana toward what Adelaar and Collins had done. The research of these experts was felt that had forgotten one important thing which did not allow leaving in doing Proto-language reconstruction. Although only an assumption language, Proto-language should consider the Old Malay Language that ever existed, and proved that it was used on the inscriptions and other old inheritances. For Kridalaksana, reconstruction on Proto-language could not rely on “one period” dialects only, like what those experts did, but also had to use old language that had been used. Nevertheless, the merit of those experts was not useless because their research result could be used for making a comparison between Malay regional dialects.

9. Adelaar: Some Examples

In order to our understanding was more comprehensive about Proto Malayic Language reconstruction that had been done by Adelaar, here were some examples that could be mentioned:

Phonology: vocal

*a	> MB, BH, IBN a MIN a/o/e, SWI a/-o, JKT a/-è
*@ kedua dari akhir	> MB. SWI, IBN, JKT @. MIN, BH a
*@ silabe akhir	> MB, BH, SWI, IBN a, MIN a/o/e, JKT @
*i	> BH, IBN i, MB i/e, MIN i/iẽ/e, SWI i/ie, JKT i/é/è
*u	> BH, IBN u MB u/o, MIN u/uẽ/uy/o, SWI u/ uẽ/o

Read:

First line	:	phoneme *a in Proto Malayic descends phoneme a in Melayu Baku, Banjar Hulu, and Iban; descends phoneme a/o/e in Minangkabau; descends phoneme a/-o in Serawai; and descends phoneme a/-è in Jakarta.
Second line	:	phoneme *@ the second from the last in Proto Malayic descends phoneme @ in Melayu Baku, Serawai, Iban, Jakarta; and descends phoneme a in Minangkabau and Banjar Hulu.
Third line	:	phoneme *@ the last syllable in Proto Malayic descends phoneme a in Melayu Baku, Banjar Hulu, Serawai, and Iban; descends phoneme a/o/e in Minangkabau; and descends phoneme @ in Jakarta.
Fourth line	:	phoneme *i in Proto Malayic descends phoneme i in Banjar Hulu and Iban; descends phoneme i/e in Melayu Baku; descends phoneme i/iẽ/e  in Minangkabau; descends phoneme i/ie in Serawai; and descends   phoneme i/é/è in Jakarta.
Fifth line	:	phoneme *u in Proto Malayic descends phoneme u in Banjar Hulu   and Iban; descends phoneme u/o in Melayu Baku; descends phoneme u/uẽ/uy/o in Minangkabau; and descends phoneme u/uẽ/o in Serawai.

(Adelaar, 1994: 53)

Lexicon: time, compass

*pagi (morning)	:	reconstructed from all isolects except Banjar Hulu that uses ba/isuk/an
*timur (east)	:	reconstructed from Melayu Baku, Banjar Hulu, Serawai, Iban, and timue in Minangkabau. Serawai possibly borrows this term; may be another isolects borrow from Melayu Baku.   Meanwhile, Proto Polynesia Malay (PPM) has *hatimur form.   This word is descendant from PPM, and still reflected at least on Melayu Baku.

(Adelaar, 1994: 173 and 176)

10. Conclusion

The form of Malay Language before the 16^th century had not been untouchable. Meanwhile, the researchers were inclined to ignore the written language forms that were really used at the past. Although it had been done, it was still limited on language form that was used on the old scripts. Based on the Malay scripts finding that were generally came from the 16^th century and after it.

In an Austronesia study that had been tried the Proto-language reconstruction based on recent dialect, is by Adelaar (1985) and Collins (1986).

(TL/ter/15/12-07) 

References:

• Adelaar, K. A. “More on Proto-Malayic” in Reconstruction and Mother Malay Branches (Arrangers: Mohd. Thani Ahmad & Zaini Mohamed Zain). Kuala Lumpur: Library and Language Council, Malaysia Education Ministry.
• Adelaar, K. Alexander. 1994. Bahasa Melayik Purba Rekonstruksi dan Sebagian dari Leksikon dan Morfologi. Jakarta: RUL.
• Blust, Robert. 1988. “Malay Historical Linguistics: A Progress Report” in Reconstruction and Mother Malay Branches (Arrangers: Mohd. Thani Ahmad & Zaini Mohamed Zain). Kuala Lumpur: Library and Language Council, Malaysia Education Ministry.
• Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1988. “Masalah Metodologi dalam Rekonstruksi Bahasa Melayu Purba” in Reconstruction and Mother Malay Branches (Arrangers: Mohd. Thani Ahmad & Zaini Mohamed Zain). Kuala Lumpur: Library and Language Council, Malaysia Education Ministry.
• Nothofer, Bernd. 1988. “A Discussion of Two Austronesian Subgroups: Proto-Malay and Proto-Malayic” in Reconstruction and Mother Malay Branches (Arrangers: Mohd. Thani Ahmad & Zaini Mohamed Zain). Kuala Lumpur: Library and Language Council, Malaysia Education Ministry.
• Rohaedi, Ajat. 2007. “Bahasa Melayu: Jejak Sejarah” (in Malay society, culture, and their changes; editor: Heddy Shri Ahimsa-Putra). Yogyakarta: Balai Kajian and Pengembangan Budaya Melayu associated with Adicita Karya Nusa.

Enclosures:

Dyen version of Javanese-Sumatra Languages Group (Java-Sumatra-Hesion):

1. Malayic Hesion

a. Malayic Subfamily

- Malay
- Minangkabau
- Kerinci

b. Madurese
c. Achinese
d. Lampungic Subfamily
e. Lampung
f. Kroe

2. Sundanese
3. Javanese

Quoted from Nothofer (1988)

---

Insert your comment here :