Visit https://ebookultra.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages 1st

Edition K. David Harrison (Ed.)

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookultra.com/download/lessons-from-
documented-endangered-languages-1st-edition-k-david-
harrison-ed/

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookultra.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download

Bionanotechnology Lessons from Nature 1st Edition David S.

Goodsell

https://ebookultra.com/download/bionanotechnology-lessons-from-
nature-1st-edition-david-s-goodsell/

Encyclopedia of the World s Endangered Languages Routledge

Language Family Series 1st Edition Christopher Moseley

https://ebookultra.com/download/encyclopedia-of-the-world-s-
endangered-languages-routledge-language-family-series-1st-edition-
christopher-moseley/

A Corpus Driven Approach to Language Contact Endangered

Languages in a Comparative Perspective Evangelia Adamou

https://ebookultra.com/download/a-corpus-driven-approach-to-language-
contact-endangered-languages-in-a-comparative-perspective-evangelia-
adamou/

What Matters in Medicine Lessons from a Life in Primary

Care 1st Edition David Loxterkamp

https://ebookultra.com/download/what-matters-in-medicine-lessons-from-
a-life-in-primary-care-1st-edition-david-loxterkamp/
Natural Gas Markets and Lessons Learned 1st Edition E. K.
Cho

https://ebookultra.com/download/natural-gas-markets-and-lessons-
learned-1st-edition-e-k-cho/

Craft Lessons Teaching Writing K 8 2nd Edition Ralph

Fletcher

https://ebookultra.com/download/craft-lessons-teaching-
writing-k-8-2nd-edition-ralph-fletcher/

Understanding Evil Lessons from Bosnia 1st Edition Keith

Doubt

https://ebookultra.com/download/understanding-evil-lessons-from-
bosnia-1st-edition-keith-doubt/

Math Lessons for a Living Education Level K Angela O'Dell

https://ebookultra.com/download/math-lessons-for-a-living-education-
level-k-angela-odell/

Teaching in Eden Lessons from Cedar Point 1st Edition Jr.

https://ebookultra.com/download/teaching-in-eden-lessons-from-cedar-
point-1st-edition-jr/
Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages 1st
Edition K. David Harrison (Ed.) Digital Instant Download
Author(s): K. David Harrison (Ed.), David S. Rood (Ed.), Arienne M. Dwyer
(Ed.)
ISBN(s): 9789027290205, 9027290202
Edition: 1st
File Details: PDF, 24.03 MB
Year: 2008
Language: english
Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages
Typological Studies in Language (TSL)
A companion series to the journal Studies in Language. Volumes in this
series are functionally and typologically oriented, covering specific topics in
language by collecting together data from a wide variety of languages and
language typologies.

General Editor
Michael Noonan
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Assistant Editors
Spike Gildea Suzanne Kemmer
University of Oregon Rice University

Editorial Board
Wallace Chafe Matthew S. Dryer Paul J. Hopper
Santa Barbara Buffalo Pittsburgh
Ronald W. Langacker Doris L. Payne Sandra A. Thompson
San Diego Oregon Santa Barbara
Bernard Comrie John Haiman Andrej A. Kibrik
Leipzig / Santa Barbara St Paul Moscow
Charles N. Li Frans Plank Dan I. Slobin
Santa Barbara Konstanz Berkeley
R.M.W. Dixon Jerrold M. Sadock Edith Moravcsik
Melbourne Chicago Milwaukee
Andrew Pawley Bernd Heine
Canberra Köln

Volume 78
Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages
Edited by K. David Harrison, David S. Rood and Arienne Dwyer
Lessons from Documented
Endangered Languages

Edited by

K. David Harrison
Swarthmore College

David S. Rood
University of Colorado

Arienne Dwyer
University of Kansas

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam / Philadelphia
 TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8

American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of

Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lessons from documented endangered languages / edited by K. David Harrison, David S.

Rood, and Arienne Dwyer.
       p. cm. (Typological Studies in Language, issn 0167-7373 ; v. 78)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Endangered languages. I. Harrison, K. David. II. Rood, David S. III. Dwyer, Arienne M.
P40.5.E53L47    2008
306.44--dc22 2008014319
isbn 978 90 272 2990 8 (Hb; alk. paper)

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:20/08/2008; 8:32 F: TSL78CO.tex / p.1 (v)

Table of contents

A world of many voices: Editors’ introduction 1

K. David Harrison, David S. Rood and Arienne Dwyer

Sri Lanka Malay revisited: Genesis and classification 13

Umberto Ansaldo

Working together: The interface between researchers and the native

people – The Trumai case 43
Aurore Monod Becquelin, Emmanuel de Vienne and Raquel
Guirardello-Damian

Tense, Aspect and Mood in Awetí verb paradigms: Analytic and synthetic forms 67
Sebastian Drude

Tonogenesis in Southeastern Monguor 111

Arienne Dwyer

Language, ritual and historical reconstruction: Towards a linguistic,

ethnographical and archaeological account of Upper Xingu Society 129
Carlos Fausto, Bruna Franchetto and Michael Heckenberger

Endangered Caucasian languages in Georgia: Linguistic parameters

of language endangerment 159
Jost Gippert

Contact, attrition and shift in two Chaco languages: The cases

of Tapiete and Vilela 195
Lucía A. Golluscio and Hebe González

Tofa language change and terminal generation speakers 243

K. David Harrison and Gregory D. S. Anderson

Hočank’s challenge to morphological theory 271

Johannes Helmbrecht and Christian Lehmann

A preliminary study of same-turn self-repair initiation in Wichita conversation 317

Armik Mirzayan
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:20/08/2008; 8:32 F: TSL78CO.tex / p.2 (vi)

 Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages

Multimedia analysis in documentation projects: Kinship, interrogatives and

reciprocals in
Akhoe Haiom 355
Thomas Widlok, Christian Rapold and Gertie Hoymann

Index 371
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.1 (1)

A world of many voices

Editors’ introduction

K. David Harrison, David S. Rood and Arienne Dwyer

The papers in this volume – spanning locales as diverse as Amazonia, Native North
America, Siberia, and Sri Lanka – represent part of an unprecedented and still
growing effort to advance, coordinate and disseminate the scientific documenta-
tion of endangered languages on a scale not previously attempted.
As the pace of language extinction increases, linguists and native communi-
ties – each with their own motives and methods – are accelerating their efforts to
speak, remember, hear, teach, learn, record, analyze and archive as much as possi-
ble of our common human heritage that is linguistic diversity. At the same time,
new technologies have made the rapid collection, analysis and storage of massive
amounts of multimedia data both affordable and feasible in a way that they were
not just a few short years ago. Many languages will now assuredly outlive, at least
in an archival sense, both their last speakers and their last documenters. These
data will be available to unknown and perhaps unimagined users (including the
descendants of the last speakers) as far into the future as technology, funding, and
human cooperation permits.
The DoBeS program (Dokumentation bedrohter Sprachen, The Documen-
tation of Endangered Languages), begun in 2000 by the Volkswagen Foundation
set key benchmarks for documentation standards, future funding initiatives, and
archival design. The digital repository at the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen is
to date the most capacious centralized archive specifically designed to house en-
dangered language data. Though the Volkswagen Foundation has a long history of
funding basic research in all fields of science and humanities, this project repre-
sented a new and bold direction. In 2000, as the first twelve funded “pilot phase”
projects began, it could not have been foreseen how the DoBeS project would
inspire and influence other major funding initiatives, such as those by the Hans
Rausing Endangered Languages Project (HRELP) at the School of Oriental and
African Studies, or the Documentation of Endangered Languages Program (DEL)
funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.2 (2)

 K. David Harrison, David S. Rood and Arienne Dwyer

Figure 1. Endangered Languages covered in this volume

Thanks to funding initiatives like these, the type of meticulous research that
used to be called “field work” and is now increasingly called “language documenta-
tion” or “documentary linguistics” has risen dramatically over the past five years in
prominence, importance and prestige, both within linguistics and in the public do-
main. Field linguists and their allies cannot help but feel delighted and vindicated
by this turn of events. For many years, especially in North American universities,
theoretical linguistics completely dominated the landscape, to the extent that peo-
ple who collected the data on which theories must of necessity be based felt they
received significantly less respect for their work and had less chance of landing an
academic job than did their more theoretically-oriented colleagues. This has now
begun to change, thanks in part to the funding trend begun by DoBeS.
Participants in the DoBeS pilot phase in 2000–2001 attempted something the
field of linguistics as a whole had not yet accomplished: Agree on a set of minimum
standards for annotation, tagging, transcription, digital data formats, centralized
archiving, intellectual property protection, data ethics and access. It was a broad
ambit, and it is too early to tell what lasting effect decisions made by consortium
members may have had. Our modest efforts certainly got the discussion going and
served as a model for subsequent documentation and funding initiatives. DoBeS
also set new goals for multi-disciplinarity – DoBeS proposals were expected to
include not only linguists but also scholars from allied disciplines such as ethno-
musicology, speech science, ethnography, and history. Many of the funded projects
did succeed in fostering new such collaborations across the disciplines.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.3 (3)

A world of many voices 

But the advances for linguistics proper were also significant. In many cases,
the languages being documented – such as Trumai, Vilela and Wichita – were not
only endangered or moribund, but were previously only marginally documented
or very poorly understood by outsiders. In some cases the remaining speakers were
growing old to the point that documentary work was rapidly becoming unfeasible.
The window of opportunity for documentation is thus narrower than the actual
lifetime of a language, and is now rapidly closing for many languages represented
in this volume.
Authors of papers in this volume – all funded via the DoBeS initiative – were
asked to do more than simply unveil newly collected data from previously poorly-
known and endangered languages. They were asked to consider challenges posed
by these languages to current linguistic theories or models. Beyond that, they were
asked to address social and ethical issues involved in the process of documenting,
and how these might in turn affect the involved communities (whether of speak-
ers, rememberers or scientists). Some authors took a more data-driven approach,
organizing highly complex linguistic facts – paradigms, affixes, vowel patterns –
and pointing out the theoretically challenging aspects of what they had amassed.
Others dwelt more on the social and human dimensions, discussing particular
problems of nostalgia and modernity, memory and forgetting, obsolescence and
ethics, while viewing language as not merely data on a page but a living creation
in the minds and mouths of its speakers.
We may well be witnessing a paradigm shift towards a new empiricism and
holism in linguistics, and a shift in public awareness of language endangerment
and its consequences. The new empiricism is driven by the lasting multimedia re-
sources created by language documentation projects. These resources, designed to
capture the nature of linguistic systems, also serve as major culture studies re-
sources. Never before have extensive text collections been directly accessible to
researchers worldwide. Interoperability of these resources – the means by which
scholars from outside the original project can access primary data – is a nec-
essary component in all aspects of digital data and will change expectations for
evidence in linguistics in the coming decades. In just the past five years, a vibrant
discussion has emerged among linguists about best practices, data standards, the
ethics of participatory documentation, archiving technologies, data longevity, and
capacity-building in indigenous communities.
At the same time, a broader public of educators, students, politicians, activists,
and indigenous communities have been engaged in a dialogue about the value of
languages, cultures and human diversity in the face of encroaching globalization.
That these concerns resonate deeply with our own linguistic research is evidenced
by a sharp increase in the number of journalists, communities, foundations and
scientists newly interested in language endangerment. For all those interested com-
munities, we present the papers in this volume as a preliminary report from the
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.4 (4)

 K. David Harrison, David S. Rood and Arienne Dwyer

frontlines. We hope to have made a modest contribution to greater scientific and

humanitarian understanding of the world’s vanishing tongues, of those who speak
them, and those who listen.

Untangling human history

What can endangered languages tell us about patterns of contact and mixing of
peoples that took place in human prehistory? Umberto Ansaldo’s paper (Chap-
ter 1) invites us to examine Sri Lankan Malay (abbreviated here as SLM; ISO 639-3
SCI), a creole that arose out of a multilingual contact environment and that still
awaits a precise categorization. As Ansaldo’s paper clearly illustrates, field linguis-
tics holds great potential to enhance the results of disciplines such as anthropolog-
ical genetics, geography and history and to help untangle knotty problems of early
human migration and settlement.
After a description of the five communities where SLM is spoken today (in
four of which it is now endangered) the author turns to a technical analysis of
grammatical phenomena. He carefully sifts through patterns of nominal marking
in field data he collected from SLM, looking at phenomena such as animacy, dative
subjects, and case syncretism, and considering the most likely adstrate sources for
each of these. Prior analyses of SLM as a “classical” creole, with Tamil as the pri-
mary superstrate language, are based mostly on incomplete or even completely
absent historical evidence, and must be revisited. Ansaldo suggests that SLM is
best considered a mixed language, the product of a unique process of long-term,
gradual restructuring under multilingual contact. SLM seems to show potentially
equal influence of both Tamil and the majority Sinhala adstrates, and a significant
degree of typological convergence with general South Asian patterns. Endangered
varieties of SLM may indeed prove – pending further needed documentation by
Ansaldo and others – to be an excellent test case for models of typological conver-
gence and the dynamics of language contact.

Contested cultures

How can linguists working on endangered languages bridge the gap between their
own research goals and the often very different cultural world views of the com-
munity they are working in? Chapter 2, by Aurore Monod Becquelin, Emmanuel
de Vienne, and Raquel Guirardello-Damian explores this quandary. The lead au-
thor began her work in Brazil 30 years ago, and was subsequently joined by her
co-authors. She has observed how the Trumais have become connected to and
aware of other peoples, participating in the formation of a regional, Brazilian, and
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.5 (5)

A world of many voices 

global indigenous identity. This participation is fraught with inter-ethnic rivalries

and contested indigenous notions of authenticity. It has led, the authors argue, to
a process of reflexivization and folklorization driven by a consumerist demand for
“pure Indian” culture and, subsequently, to a transformation of the indigenous
Trumai view of their own culture through Western eyes.
What constitutes adequate documentation, it turns out, is very much in the
eye and ear of the beholder. Trumais and outsiders exhibit markedly different
ways of listening to recorded narratives and treating archival objects. For the Tru-
mais, as the authors point out, it is not the object (e.g., a recording) itself that
matters – as there exists no presumption of its permanence – but the communica-
tive interaction behind it, and the subsequent reciprocal relationships fostered by
its continued circulation. Can any culture, they wonder, escape being irrevocably
transformed “when passing through the sieve of the collecting process”? Docu-
mentation entails constructions of knowledge (as opposed to mere information
or data) and its possession by speakers and researchers. Each participant in this
process faces the potential impossibility of meeting the other’s expectations while
remaining true to his or her own principles.
A first step towards an adequate documentation as researchers is to admit our
often limited understanding of indigenous economies of knowledge and rules of
social transmission. As for the agenda of preserving culture, the authors voice an
important caution: “When we record a form of knowledge that is alive and in con-
stant transformation, we run a high risk of turning it into a rigid format, no longer
able to mutate and evolve (the knowledge becomes frozen in the form in which it
appears in the audio or video recording produced). This affects the way people
relate to the knowledge in question. It also affects its accessibility and its transmis-
sion to future generations.” These important observations, with the vivid examples
cited from Trumai culture, will speak to many of the most vexing problems faced
by documentary field linguists.

Morphological complexity

Continuing the theme of Amazonian languages, Sebastian Drude (Chapter 3) de-

scribes the pronominal and TAM (Tense-Aspect-Mood) systems of a previously
undocumented Brazilian Tupian language, while also illustrating and demon-
strating the advantages of Integrational Linguistics, a new model of description
developed mainly by Hans-Heinrich Lieb. The language, Awetí, utilizes both split-
ergative and split-intransitive case marking, and both aspect and modality cat-
egories, but not tense; the categories that seem to correspond to tense, such as
“future,” fit better into the system as sub-categories of modal “factuality.” The
model, basically a word-and-paradigm schema, allows for the separate description
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.6 (6)

 K. David Harrison, David S. Rood and Arienne Dwyer

of function and structure. Whether a category is marked as an affix or by means

of a particle or auxiliary verb, we can see the uniformity of the meaning system
behind the variety of marker types. The ultimate definitions of morphemes, then,
are lists of categorical features which each one amalgamates, and parsing words
becomes a matter of mechanically checking the surface form against the list of fea-
tures. Drude estimates that each transitive verb paradigm contains approximately
1,000 forms with up to 1,400 meanings (because of morphological syncretism), all
parsable using the two or three dozen categories he has described. This study suc-
cessfully applies a descriptive model developed for other kinds of languages to an
endangered language, describes a somewhat different kind of split case-marking
system than has been reported in other Tupian languages, and argues cogently for
a TAM system without tense.

Emergent tone systems

To what extent can the prosody of a language undergo change due to contact? Ari-
enne Dwyer (Chapter 4) presents an intriguing case for a previously non-tonal
language that now appears to be in the early stages of acquiring contrastive tone.
In contact with Northwestern Chinese, the Mongolic language under investiga-
tion, Southeastern Monguor, has developed systematic prosodic contrasts in cases
of homophony. Although one other Mongolic language of the region is known to
adapt tonal features of Chinese loans, Southeastern Monguor applies tonal distinc-
tions to native Mongolic lexemes, where such distinctions in Mongolic languages
are otherwise unknown – including in other dialects of Monguor. This analysis
uses acoustic data from homophonous pairs in carrier utterances to assess emer-
gent pitch patterns. It then traces the historical development of each of these
lexemes (including one of Greek origin) to posit causes for the contrastive and
non-contrastive pitch patterns. Syllable simplification and other diachronic pro-
cesses has resulted in a small but growing number of homophones, giving rise to
the contrasts that appear to indicate incipient tonongenesis. The language’s sys-
tematic use of a final high pitch in non-constrastive syllables suggests an ongoing
development towards a two-tone (High-Low) system, realized as rising and falling
pitches, respectively. In order to avoid potential homophony, such cases will likely
increase over time. If this leads to the emergence of a full-fledged tone system,
it will make SE Monguor unique among documented Mongolic languages. The
phonetic data, including pitch tracks, in this article also illustrate the kind of theo-
retical advances that can be made when speakers of a rare language can be recorded
under ideal laboratory conditions.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.7 (7)

A world of many voices 

Shamans’ chants and linguistic archeology

How deeply into human prehistory does the study of language and culture al-
low us to delve? And in what ways can endangered language research help solve
archaeological and ethnographic conundrums? Carlos Fausto, Bruna Franchetto
and Michael Heckenberger (Chapter 5) present an interdisciplinary essay on the
ritual-political system among contemporary Upper Xingu peoples of Amazonia.
They use field data from ethnography, linguistics and archeology to reconstruct
patterns of cultural contact from the 9th century to the present. They argue that
the Upper Xingu ritual polity, which is predominantly ethnic Arawakan, emerged
out of a process of ‘relational interweaving’. This process stands in sharp contrast
to the ‘familiarizing predation’ type of cultural assimilation found among many
Carib, Tupian, Jivaroan, and other Amazonian peoples.
Specific layers of language, in this case ritual chant and song, contain rich
residual evidence that awaits discovery. For example, when Kuikuru shamans
chant and sing, they employ a mixed language containing elements of the an-
cient Waura language alongside contemporary Kuikuru. An unsolved puzzle here
is why ritual singing and chanting would result in a unique form of linguistic hy-
bridization, while everyday languages were maintained as distinct. This research
shows a very promising model for interdisciplinary collaborations in Amazonia
and beyond, and the central role language documentation can play.

Assessing endangerment

Turning to three languages of the Caucasus, Jost Gippert (Chapter 6) discusses

the various manifestations of language contact in speech communities where in-
advertent and constant code-mixing seems to be the norm. Since the dominant
contact languages in question, Russian and Georgian, differ greatly in structure
both from each other and from the small language groups examined here, many
puzzles about contact effects on the grammar and discourse present themselves.
Marshalling an impressive range of new field data that covers genres ranging from
composed poetry to informal recorded dialogue, the author argues cogently for
a holistic approach to endangered speech data. Based on his careful transcrip-
tion and analysis of recordings, he shows many examples of how language contact
manifests itself (both synchronically and diachronically) in loans, shift, and sim-
plification. Finally, the author suggests that code-switching itself – taken together
with other demographic and social factors – can serve as a key diagnostic of the
degree of language endangerment, in part because of the way in which different
dominant languages can leave different traces – interferences of certain types – in
minority languages.
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.8 (8)

 K. David Harrison, David S. Rood and Arienne Dwyer

The floodgates of memory

What happens when a speech community is reduced to just two speakers who
seldom use their language? To what extent can linguists, in the process of docu-
menting, help such last speakers open the floodgates of memory to recall sounds,
verbal forms and stories that they may not have heard or spoken in nearly half
a century? Lucía Golluscio and Hebe González (Chapter 7) explore some dy-
namic processes of forgetting and remembering now taking place in two nearly
extinct languages of Argentina: Taipete and Vilela. The authors present a large
body of newly-collected and analyzed data – much of which may indeed be the
last material collected from native speakers on these languages – to demonstrate
the complex kinds of borrowing, attrition and restructuring that can take place in
the grammars of obsolescent languages.
In Taipete we see a strong tendency to nativize Spanish loanwords with respect
to syllable structure, nasal harmony and stress. Somewhat surprisingly, Taipete
seems highly resistant to Spanish influence at the level of its morphology, even
though pervasive contacts effects are observed in the phonology and syntax. Vilela,
now nearly extinct, presents an interesting case of a speech community gradually
becoming ‘invisible.’ Actively suppressed, the language now has just two elderly
speakers; one additional speaker has since passed away. The authors present a mov-
ing and very personal account of these two speakers struggling to recall bits and
pieces of their ancestral language. Surprising progress is seen during the period of
fieldwork described in this paper, thanks in part to some innovative techniques of
“memory floodgating” applied by the researchers.

Moribund yet living

The contribution to this volume by David Harrison and Gregory Anderson (Chap-
ter 8) addresses directly an issue of the documentation undertaking itself: What
kind of data are available and should be collected from a moribund language? They
argue that some of the changes seen in the language of younger semi-speakers
are simply normal evolutionary developments, and those changes should be de-
scribed and discussed separately from the kind that result from the process of
replacing this language with another. They illustrate their point with data from
Tofa, a Siberian Turkic language, contrasting descriptions of the language from
two generations ago with data they have just collected. One of several changes they
consider “normal,” in that it eliminates marked forms in favor of unmarked ones
and has parallels in other Turkic languages, is the simplification of the morphol-
ogy of the first person plural imperative. The simplification of the modal auxiliary
system likewise has parallels in vigorous languages in the family.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.9 (9)

A world of many voices 

Other contact-induced changes include the use of Russian-like relative clause

constructions, while a third type of change is harder to characterize. The youngest
speakers have largely simplified the phonetics of the vowel system by eliminating
front rounded vowels, yet they still treat the words with historically front stem
vowels as front for vowel harmony purposes. They have thus increased the ab-
stractness of the vowel harmony rules by eliminating the phonetic conditioning
for them – clearly an increase in the complexity of the inflectional system. The les-
son we learn from this study, then, is that even moribund languages are still living
languages, and continue to undergo change even in the terminal generation. Data
from their younger speakers are thus just as significant for the study of linguistics
as are data from older ones.

Challenges to linguistic theory

Why do language theoreticians need to study endangered languages in depth?

When Johannes Helmbrecht and Christian Lehmann (Chapter 9) attempted to
make sense of the morphological template for Hočank (Winnebago) verbs, they
discovered that the language obliged them to rethink the categories used in
morphological theory. This spurred them to develop a new typology of affixes,
“tak[ing] into consideration the results of historical linguistics as well as gram-
maticalization theory.” Most of the paper is devoted to a detailed description of
the Hočank verbal template, making use of the classification established at the
beginning of the paper. Although the evolution of these unusual morphological
patterns is clear from both internal reconstruction and comparative studies (in-
flectional prefixes become entrapped between preverbal elements and verb roots
when the particle-verb complex lexifies), the synchronic pattern contradicts many
typological claims about the structure of words. This kind of work with previously
under-documented languages makes two contributions to the field: a theoretical
clarification for general linguistics, and detailed structural information for those
who study this and related languages.

Conversational strategies

Since the overall purpose of the DoBeS project is to archive and disseminate
endangered-language data, the project on Wichita incorporated the archiving of
collections which contain now-extinct forms. Chapter 10 demonstrates what can
be learned from such re-processing of data from an earlier era. Armik Mirzayan
asks how speakers of this polysynthetic language signal that they are stopping their
speech and starting over again – technically called “same turn self-repair.” Taking
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.10 (10)

 K. David Harrison, David S. Rood and Arienne Dwyer

a 1966 recording and enhancing it with modern technological tools, then applying
conversation analysis to the result gives us the basis for an extremely detailed study
of the interaction between language structure and the way speakers correct them-
selves when they perceive themselves making mistakes while talking. He shows
that, in his words, “Repair, taking place for whatever interactional pressures at
hand, intrusively cuts off the morphologically complex word-in-progress. Subse-
quently the strict ordering of bound morphemes, along with morphophonemic
fusion of the sounds, constrains how the repair is completed.” To some extent,
Wichita speakers use the same devices as do speakers of other kinds of languages,
but Mirzayan conclusively demonstrates that “despite some of the cross-linguistic
generalizations that we see in the types of self-repair initiation, and in their phono-
logical function, it seems that at the level of morphosyntax there are language
specific constraints that may arise as a result of structural forces from within the
language itself. These drive the nature of the outcome of repair initiation.”

Kinship in context

The paper by Thomas Widlok, Christian Rapold and Gertie Hoymann (Chapter
11) demonstrates the importance of two of the DoBeS documentation principles:
interdisciplinarity and multimodal documentation. Linguistic documentation can
be enriched by employing a team of people from different disciplines, and video
records enhance audio, photographic, and text documentation to provide a more
holistic picture of a language and its speakers. The authors apply both anthropo-
logical and linguistic analyses to elucidate the problem of kinship identification.
The video clarifies how participants identify and address each other, and offers a
possible clue as to why particular question words are used; anthropological analy-
sis determines how a relationship is established and elucidates the relation between
cultural practices and language patterning; linguistic analyses of interrogatives
and reciprocals show how the language allows the speaker to explain complex
phenomena. This disciplinary interaction also illustrates the spiral nature of doc-
umentation work: provisional analysis is essential at the beginning stages of the
documentation activity, and allows the initial annotation of the data, but a thor-
ough understanding of the phenomena is only possible with a repeated, elaborated
study of the annotated recordings.

Acknowledgements

The editors wish to thank many people who made this volume possible. Our
‘shadow editor,’ Robbie Hart devoted many hours to formatting and proofread-
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:18/08/2008; 12:24 F: TSL7801.tex / p.11 (11)

A world of many voices 

ing the papers. At John Benjamins, Kees Vaes and Michael Noonan guided us
through the submission and review process. Nineteen anonymous reviewers gen-
erously lent their expertise and constructive criticism to improve the final product.
Gregory Anderson, Lisa Lim and Sergio Meira provided editorial assistance to au-
thors. Ulrike Mosel and Peter Wittenberg, both serving on the DoBeS steering
committee, offered expert advice and institutional support. Vera Szöllösi-Brenig,
the DoBeS program officer at Volkswagen Stiftung, offered encouragement and
administered the generous support granted to all the projects featured in this
volume. The Volkswagen Stiftung, under the leadership of Secretary-General Wil-
helm Krull, along with its Humanities and Social Sciences Division, directed by
Axel Horstman, should be lauded for a willingness to see resources directed not
only to scholars, but to community-based collaborative projects that can benefit
native speakers.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.1 (13)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited

Genesis and classification

Umberto Ansaldo
Universiteit van Amsterdam

This paper presents a fresh take on the origins and nature of Sri Lanka Malay
(SLM), based on fieldwork data collected in 2003–2005 in Kirinda, in the south-
east of Sri Lanka. It departs from previous studies of SLM in that it is based on
substantial recordings of spoken data in natural settings as well as coverage of
oral and written history. Work on SLM so far has offered significant insights
into the nature of these varieties; due to limited data available, however, some
aspects have failed to emerge which are important for our current understanding
of SLM. In particular, I aim to show the value of first-hand historical research
and natural linguistic data in order to achieve plausible accounts of genesis and
accurate classifications of SLM varieties. Based on the combination of these
approaches, this paper argues that SLM is the result of trilingual admixture, in
which a typological shift from Malay to Lankan grammar occurs.

Foreword

This paper consists of two parts. Part I critically revisits two fundamental assump-
tions of historical nature made in previous literature which have not been ques-
tioned so far, namely (1) intermarriage and (2) creolization in the evolution of Sri
Lanka Malay varieties (SLM). Based on careful historical analysis, I claim that the
views entertained on SLM so far are biased towards Tamil influence at the expense
of Sinhala. Part II presents data from the case system of SLM, showing the inter-
play of Sinhala and Tamil in the restructuring process. Finally, I suggest that SLM
varieties can best be classified, based on historical as well as structural analysis, as
mixed languages with a dual adstrate (Sinhala and Tamil) and a typical Pidgin-
Malay-derived (PMD) lexifier (cf. Adelaar & Prentice 1996). Restructured Malay
varieties of Sri Lanka are precious for our understanding of contact dynamics as
they are among the few contact varieties which have evolved in an environment
in which no Standard European acrolect is present. In this case, Malay varieties
(cf. below) can be considered as lexifiers, while the main adstrates are Sinhala
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.2 (14)

 Umberto Ansaldo

and Lankan Tamil, which, though genetically belonging to different families, Indo-
European and Dravidian respectively, have been in contact over a long period of
time and show clear typological convergence (Masica 1976; Emeneau 1980).

Part I. Historical foundations

. Introduction

Two related assumptions entertained so far in the literature need to be addressed

in order to do justice to the history and the nature of SLM varieties: the ‘Tamil
bias’ and the ‘creole classification’ idea. Before moving to a critique of these ideas,
a sociohistorical background of SLM communities is necessary.

. SLM speech communities

Sri Lanka Malay (SLM) varieties, so far generally viewed as ‘creoles’ (see e.g. Smith,
Paauw and Hussainmiya 2004), are currently endangered as they are no longer
fluently spoken by the younger generation, with one exception, the community
in Kirinda. With the dominant languages Sinhala and Tamil already in conflict,
due to political and ethnic struggle, a minority such as the SLM tends to converge
towards the dominant linguistic groups in order not to be disadvantaged, which
results in the younger generations abandoning their vernacular.

Table 1. SLM varieteies at present

Community Characteristics Vitality

Colombo Middle-upper class; often bi- or trilingual Endangered: no SLM in

(Tamil/Sinhala); standardizing in Malay; younger generation
restricted usage of SLM; English fairly fluent
Slave Island Lower class; most Tamil influenced; bi- or Endangered; use of
(Colombo) trilingual; no English SLM discouraged
Kandy (and Similar to Colombo community; weaker Endangered
Hill Country) standardization forces
Hambantota Traditionally heavy Sinhalese-speaking area; Mildly endangered
low-middle class, often trilingual; limited
English
Kirinda Lower class; good trilingual competence in Fully vital: mother
middle-younger generations; English limited to tongue even in present
a few individuals generation
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.3 (15)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

Figure 1. Neneksireh1
On the left, the late Abbas Siti Damani, at 75, fondly addressed by all the community,
including us, as Nenek ‘grandmother’, in her daily ritual of preparing sireh ‘betelnut’ with
her Sinhalese neighbour. January 2004, Kirinda, Sri Lanka.

Kirinda is a small fishing village that lies 30 kilometers east of Hambantota

in the southeast of Sri Lanka (photos 1–6). The community of Kirinda is an ideal
setting in which to study SLM as it has remained relatively sheltered from the mod-
ernization and globalization that has taken place over the past decade in Sri Lanka
and which has led to looser community ties within the SLM communities and
progressive loss of the vernacular.
Table 1 provides an overview of the SLM speech communities today based on
current fieldwork (2003–2005).

. Images by Lisa Lim: All images are of the community of Kirinda, south-eastern Sri Lanka,
taken in December 2003 and January 2004. Much of the village, the fisheries harbour and all the
villagers’ boats were destroyed by the tsunami of 26 December 2004, and some 100 people were
reported dead. A year on, reconstruction of infrastructure continues, albeit slowly – new houses
are still being built, a dredger is stranded 200 metres inland, the harbour repair building is itself
in need of repair, and the harbour itself has been silted up so that fishermen have to lift their
boats over the sandbank to get in or out of the harbour or moor them outside the harbour.
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.4 (16)

 Umberto Ansaldo

Figure 2. Rafaidin
Vital generations of Kirinda Java: Umberto Ansaldo with R.M. Nahar, 36, and M.T.M.
Rihan, 27, acting as translator, in consultation with J.M. Rafaidin, 77, and two of his grand-
children, one of whom, during one of the elicitation sessions, after an item was being
repeatedly clarified, chimed in with the word-for-word gloss obviously wondering why the
visitors were so slow to pick up the language. January 2004, Kirinda, Sri Lanka.

While the descendants of Malays that inhabit the village of Kirinda are clas-
sified as part of the ethnic group generally known as Sri Lanka Malays, I refer to
their language as ‘Java’ for two reasons: partly in acknowledgment of the fact that
this is how the speakers themselves refer to it; and partly because I want to stress
the fact that, though from a historical point of view colloquial Malay varieties can
be regarded as the ancestors of SLM, as can be seen in the lexical domain, there is
much structural material in SLM varieties that bears no resemblance to any Malay-
based contact language (Smith et al. 2004); SLM varieties are clearly no dialects of
Malay in the traditional, historical sense (Adelaar & Prentice 1996).
In discussing the origins of SLM speakers, it is important to bear in mind the
following points:
i. The origins of the SLM speech communities are very heterogeneous, covering
an area from Northern Malaysia to the easternmost provinces of Indone-
sia (Hussainmiya 1987, 1990). Their ethnic and linguistic backgrounds are,
likewise, extremely diverse. Under the Dutch, political exiles (as well as con-
victs) were deported to Sri Lanka from different corners of the Indonesian
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.5 (17)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

Figure 3. Fish
On a typical morning at the fishery harbour, two young fishermen sort the bounty of
their night’s work. The main source of livelihood of this small village of Kirinda is fish-
ing. Poverty, however, means that there are no refrigeration facilities at the harbour, and
fishermen have no choice but to sell quickly at the relatively low price they are offered by
restaurant suppliers for their catch. December 2003, Kirinda, Sri Lanka.

archipelago and beyond, e.g. Java, Borneo, the Moluccas and Goa, among
other places. Typically, the nobility would be deported together with their fam-
ilies, and, though contact between these groups was discouraged by the Dutch,
intermarriage between the different royal families did indeed take place (cf.
Hussainmiya 1987). The largest group of people attributed a Malay origin
came as soldiers also from disparate places such as Bali, Java, Riau, Ambon
and peninsular Malaysia so that “almost all the major ethnic groups from the
region of the Eastern archipelago were represented” (Hussainmiya 1987: 48).
The soldiers could also be accompanied by their wives; how common this was
during Dutch rule is unclear, however we do know that under the British this
practice was encouraged.
ii. As we can see from the above, the social extraction of the ancestors of the
SLM people was of a very varied nature, from exiled princes to slaves and
soldiers. It has been suggested that at least two different communities could
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.6 (18)

 Umberto Ansaldo

be distinguished: (a) a rather sophisticated diaspora of noblemen, and (b) a

‘Malay’ garrison, what would become the Ceylon Rifle Regiment under the
British (Ricklefs 1974). A third group of convicts may also be identified but
little seems to be known about them. It is important to note that, as far as the
first two groups are concerned, contacts between the groups were indeed quite
frequent, due among other reasons to the practice of employing noblemen as
officers of the troops (Hussainmiya 1987, 1990).
iii. There seems to be a tension between the following two claims, both to be
found in Hussainmiya (1987, 1990): (a) intermarriage between individuals
of Indonesian/ Malay descent and (Tamil) Moors was common; (b) Malay/
Indonesian deportation often consisted of entire family nuclei, not single indi-
viduals as described in point (i). Claim (a) is Hussainmiya’s own assumption,
based on the observation that the two ethnic groups shared the Muslim faith
and were therefore naturally in contact (more on this in Section 2.1). Claim (b)
is actually supported in historical records (Schweitzer 1931) though numerical
percentages are not available:

The wives, which in part are Amboinese [Eastern Indonesian/Malays], in part

Singulayans [Sinhalese], and Malabarians [Tamil], say nothing against this
[practice of gambling], but when the man games away their little property,
they must nourish him and his children as well as they can through the month
and await his better fortune at gaming. (Raven-Hart 1953: 69)

As already noted in (i), the practice of moving whole families, rather than
solely male individuals, was quite widespread. Despite this heterogeneous
composition, Ricklefs (1974) gives us an image of a rather sophisticated Malay
diaspora in Sri Lanka during colonial rule, a close-knit community, where
contacts between the different Malay/Indonesian ethnicities, as well as the dif-
ferent social extractions, were maintained through the ranks of the army as
well as through common religious practice.
iv. The claim of intimate relationship between Tamil Moors and SLMs has led
to the perception that SLM communities would be linguistically more influ-
enced by Tamil than Sinhala (e.g. Smith et al. 2004). I question this perception
in the absence of clear historical evidence; in addition, considering the fact
that Sinhalese people have always been a significant numerical majority in the
country, Sinhala must have had at least as much influence in the evolution of
SLM as Tamil. No evidence of social segregation between SLM communities
and Sinhalese has been presented so far to my knowledge; I address this issue
more thoroughly in Section 2 below.

In Section 1.2, I discuss the importance of the points outlined above.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.7 (19)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

. The linguistic base of SLM

Following from the above, in terms of linguistic input to SLM, we would expect
many different languages such as Javanese, Ambonese, Riau Indonesian, Malay
(colloquial and high), etc. to be involved in the early days of the ‘Malay’ dias-
pora in Sri Lanka. Clearly, a type of Malay-based contact variety, such as Bazaar
Malay2 – the de facto lingua franca of the trade route stretching from Southern
China to Northwest India from at least the 15th century, based on Low Malay
and Low Javanese (typically with borrowed elements from Hokkien, Southern
Min) – would have been the language of interethnic communication (Hussain-
miya 1990: 47; Ansaldo 2005a, forthcoming). Adelaar & Prentice (1996: 674) speak
of ‘Pidgin Malay derived’ (PMD) varieties to refer to the various Malay-based
contact languages of the region. Smith et al. (2004) speak of ‘Vehicular Malay’
as a cover term for a generic colloquial Malay variety of interethnic communica-
tion. Hussainmiya (1987: 154, 1990) suggests that Batavian Malay, a Malay-based
lingua franca, or Jakarta Malay Creole may be good candidates for a common lan-
guage in the early days of the diaspora, though Low Malay and Bazaar Malay would
also have been present. According to Grijns (1991) however, the establishment of
Jakarta Malay is unlikely until the 3rd quarter of the 19th century, while Malay-
based lingua franca would have already been in existence. Adelaar (1991) finds
evidence of Moluccan material in SLM and suggests that Eastern Malay dialects
(very likely much more widespread across the Indonesian world at that time, Hans
den Besten p.c. June 2005) may be involved in the evolution of SLM.
In the history of the SLM speech communities, these colloquial Malay varieties
of the PMD type, would have been in contact with two adstrates: Lankan Tamil,
spoken by, among others, traders and plantation workers and colloquial Sinhala,
the dominant language of the population of Sri Lanka.

. Revisiting basic assumptions

. The ‘Tamil bias’

Being in the fortunate position of collecting first-hand data and documenting oral
history from members of various SLM communities across the island, I here have
the opportunity to address some issues that have mistakenly become accepted
wisdom when discussing SLM, but are hardly supported by the historical and

. However, the issue of whether Bazaar Malay itself may be captured as a single variety or
whether it may be better conceived as a cover term for various regional pidgins makes any
comparison with a specific list of structural features problematic (cf. Holm 1988).
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.8 (20)

 Umberto Ansaldo

linguistic data.3 Due perhaps to the limited data available until recently, there
seems to be a general agreement that SLM is a product of creolization. This is a
result of the accepted assumption that Tamil Moors would have constituted the
dominant group of interaction for the SLM communities. The most specific claim
regarding the creolization of SLM is that it developed as a result of intermarriage
between Malay men and (Tamil) Moor women (e.g. Bakker 2000; Smith et al.
2004); this view is based primarily on the historical observations of Hussainmiya
(1987, 1990) regarding the records of marriage under the Dutch (tombos4 ) which,
according to him, show several cases of intermarriage between SLM and Tamil
Moors. It is important to verify the validity of this claim for two reasons:
i. the specific history of the SLM communities: in recording oral history from
the older generations, I found much disagreement with the ‘Tamil bias’ view;
ii. implications for our understanding of the evolution of contact varieties: in
the current view, a contradictory claim exists, namely that SLM is the product
of predominantly Tamil and Malay admixture, which would result in a mixed
language, (cf. Bakker 2000), while it is classified as a ‘creole’ (Smith et al. 2004).

The construction of the ‘Tamil bias’ is summarized below:

i. The first occurrence of a claim about Malay-Moor intermarriage occurs in
Hussainmiya (1987): “a number of ” these marriages are reported, next to
Malay-Ambonese/ Malabarese/ Sinhalese unions recorded in the Dutch tom-
bos. The same work however suggests that SLM may be influenced by Sinhala,
Tamil or both.
ii. Hussainmiya (1990) suggests religious affinity between Moors and Malays and
relates episodes of religious exchange to suggest frequent exchanges between
the two communities.
iii. Bakker (2000) develops an account of Sri Lanka Creole Portuguese as originat-
ing from the admixture of Portuguese and Tamil. He then extends this genesis
scenario to SLM without providing historical data.5

. Photos 1, 2, 5 and 6 show different settings of data recording, from natural conversation to
elicitation sessions.
. Tombo or thombas (from Sinhala thombuwa meaning ‘register’ or ‘record’) are the histori-
cal records of Sri Lanka. Following the indigenous practice of land records, the Portuguese kept
records of their possession until the Dutch conquest of Sri Lanka, during which the Portuguese
records were largely destroyed. The Dutch resumed the practice of keeping registers, distinguish-
ing between Land Tombo (registry of land) and Head Tombo (registry of landholders).
. Sri Lanka Portuguese (SLP) is a ‘creole’ developed from the Eastern port of Batticalhoa
which was spoken along the whole Eastern coast of Sri Lanka. This variety, like SLM, displays
strong influence from Lankan typology and may well show stronger influence from Tamil than
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.9 (21)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

iv. Smith (2003) investigates the influence of Tamil and Sinhala in the Accusative
marker of SLM. His conclusions are: “we can only argue for lack of Sinhala
evidence, rather than positive Tamil influence”.
v. Smith et al (2004) appear to be in between claiming influence from Tamil and
claiming general ‘Lankan’ influence.
vi. Heine and Kuteva (2005) treat SLM as Tamil-Malay creole.

From the above, we can see that in the beginning there was only a suggestion of
a stronger Tamil influence. By 2005, however, this idea had evolved into a truism.
As Hussainmiya (1987) is the only work to directly, though briefly, address this
issue, it is important to verify the claim in a precise manner. My investigation
of the Dutch tombos referred to in that work, for the period 1678–1919, in the
National Archives at The Hague (microfilm copies of the Colombo archives) and
the National Archives of Sri Lanka in Colombo yielded the following results:
i. The records for the period up to 1796 are damaged by water, making parts
of the entries illegible. The most revealing information for identification here
are the signatures of the parties. There is, however, hardly any information
of ethnic group, which makes it difficult to identify Malay/Indonesian and
Moors given that both groups share the practice of adopting Arabic names. In
a particularly interesting section in the tombos dedicated to mixed marriages
(cf. Hussainmiya 1987), only five of 238 entries clearly refer to individuals of
Javanese origin: of these, two records refer to Javanese-Moor marriage, one to
a Javanese-Javanese marriage, and the remaining two are unclear.
ii. The following period until 1919, albeit under British rule and therefore less
interesting for our claim, shows a more structured archiving system where
indication of race is given. Where legible, this reveals still a majority of Western
marriages, a growing number of marriages between Eurasians and Burghers
(locally born of Dutch/Western heritage), and between Burghers. There are
two clear entries involving Malays, one married to a Eurasian (between 1867–
1897), and one to a Burgher (1885–1897). From 1897 onwards, race is clearly
specified; of 196 entries only one is Malay.

While necessarily brief, the report above of the contents of the tombos shows that
there is hardly any reason to comment on the nature of intermarriage of the Malays
in general, and less even to make specific claims about the origins of the parties.

Sinhala, though no evidence in favour of this is presented (Bakker 2000). A historical expla-
nation might be found if we consider that the area of Batticalhoa has typically been Tamil
dominated; but it would be mistaken to assume that whatever holds for the history of SLP may
be extended to the history of SLM, given the different socio-historical and geographical settings
in which they evolve.
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.10 (22)

 Umberto Ansaldo

While sharing a common religion may have played a role in individual marriages
between SLM and Tamil Moors,6 there is no historical evidence to lend support
to a claim of diffuse intermarriage between these two communities, especially of
such a magnitude that could conceivably lead to restructuring of the vernacular,
and it is therefore safest to discount Hussainmiya’s suggestions.
In addition to the historical record, clear evidence against a predominant
Tamil influence in the development of the SLM community comes from oral
history recorded in three different SLM communities: in Kirinda, Colombo and
Kandy, of approximately 50 families interviewed in total, only two revealed ge-
nealogies including Moor-Malay intermarriage. Most families report that mar-
rying outside the SLM community was considered taboo and only allowed in
extreme cases. It is only in the present generations that marriage outside the com-
munity start being allowed. Moreover, the Moors appear to have had very low
status in the eye of the SLM communities and their low status may be seen as a
counteracting force to the hypothetical appeal of religious affinity. From a soci-
olinguistic point of view, compared to Sinhala the Tamil language would have had
low prestige, being representative of a group with low social status. Finally, in at
least one community – Kirinda – intermarriage with Sinhalese is well attested in
the history of several families.
An example that we need to revisit of implausible linguistic arguments devel-
oped precisely on the ‘Tamil bias’ is found in Bakker (2000, 2003), which subse-
quently led to the Tamil-Malay creole claim in Heine and Kuteva (2005). Bakker
argues for rapid typological convergence and admixture with Sinhala and Tamil
as a very recent development; he assumes that creolization may account for earlier
stages of SLM’s history and needs thus to postulate the evolutionary path from
a Malay-Tamil jargon to contemporary SLM. However, no evidence of an early
jargon exists, nor is there any socio-historical evidence to postulate catastrophic
events leading to rapid changes. On the contrary, as shown in Part II, the type
of restructuring observed in the nominal domain of SLM is a typical instance of
a complex system that requires gradual evolution over time (Dahl 2004) and re-
veals dual adstrate influence. An admixture of both Sinhala and Tamil features has
also been suggested in recent work by Slomanson (2004, 2006) on the VP in SLM,
based on data from informants of the Colombo variety.

. Religious and cultural exchanges certainly also led to some linguistic influence from Tamil
on SLM.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.11 (23)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

. SLM is not a Creole

Having established that there is no substantial evidence for constructing Tamil as

a prevalent adstrate in the formation of SLM (cf. Smith and Paauw 2006), let us
turn to the claim of creolization in the genesis of SLM. As argued for example
in Ansaldo and Matthews (2001), it is not always feasible to make a categori-
cal distinction between Creoles and mixed languages, given that hybridization of
structure is a matter of degree in high-contact environments (see also Mufwene
2001; Ansaldo, Matthews & Lim 2007). For the sake of argument, however, I will
treat the possibility of applying established views of creolization to SLM.
I. Creolization as a sociohistorical process. If we view creolization as a predom-
inantly sociohistorical concept of disenfranchised vernaculars developed in
European plantation environments (e.g. Mufwene 2000, 2001), we clearly en-
counter problems of historical accuracy and social nature. SLM varieties are
not products of such conditions, as clearly illustrated in the historical sec-
tion at the outset: the relationship between Sinhala/ Tamil and Malay cannot
be compared to a superstrate-substrate situation. The following points clash
with such a view of creolization: (a) The Malay variety of predominant use
would have been a ‘low’ variety such as Bazaar Malay, devoid of prestige. A
contact Malay variety would have not been a target language but the de facto
lingua franca of the community. There is no evidence to suggest that a form of
High Malay may have been the target; although such a variety was available,
it had a clearly defined social rationale (the language of religion and litera-
ture) and speakers of Malay varieties would have been accustomed to a form
of diglossia of this type. (b) Sinhala/Tamil would have been adstrates present
from the start, stable but external to the SLM speech community; there is no
substantial evidence to suggest intermarriage as the driving force behind the
restructuring process and therefore nativization, if at all viable (cf. Mufwene
1999), is not a valid argument.

Only a very superficial and partial interpretation of this view, namely that of
disenfranchised vernacular, would allow one to refer to SLM as a creole variety.

II. Creolization as relexification. SLM grammar is difficult to account for within

current views of relexification (cf. Lefebvre 2001): its lexicon is mixed yet
derived predominantly from numerous varieties of the Malay/ Indonesian re-
gion; syntactic patterns show significant adstrate influence, but we also find
Malay features, as for example in aspects of its verbal morphology (cf. Ade-
laar 1991; Slomanson 2004, 2006). In this sense the mixture of SLM grammar
appears as ‘modular,’ i.e. combining subsets of grammatical systems derived
from all of its input languages (Aboh & Ansaldo 2007). More importantly,
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.12 (24)

 Umberto Ansaldo

as noted in Bakker (2003), the situation in SLM is the reverse of the typical
relexification scenario, in combining ‘new grammar’ with ‘old lexicon.’
III. Creolization as exceptional development. To the extent that this will be shown
to be a viable account (for strong reasons against this, see DeGraff 2005;
Ansaldo & Matthews 2007), SLM is surely not a young grammar in the sense
of McWhorter (2004), as it presents us with complex nominal and verbal
morphology that – without further elaborating the still somewhat subjective
notion of complexity – does not appear young in McWhorter’s sense and does
not look ‘simple’ when compared to its putative lexifier, if we allow for one
(Ansaldo & Nordhoff to appear 2008). If we were to identify any ‘typical’ cre-
ole features along the lines of McWhorter’s (1998) prototype, the most likely
explanation for them would still be in terms of PMD features (cf. Adelaar
1991; Adelaar & Prentice 1996).

I limit myself to these three conceptual frameworks as I believe they are, at this
stage, the more substantial ones within theories of creolization and the only ones
that can be positively tested. As pointed out by Don Winford (p.c. 2005), one
might still want to view SLM as a ‘special’ case of Second Language Acquisition
(SLA) and thus link it to creolization as restricted SLA. I seriously doubt this to
be the case: there is no historical evidence of restricted input in the formation of
SLM. Nor is there evidence of a stage of early grammar that could have been mate-
rial for reanalysis in attempting to acquire a target language. Surely the Malays did
not create SLM by trying to acquire Tamil or Sinhala, because if that were the case
we would not have a predominantly Malay lexicon. Nor would there have been any
plausible reason for Tamils/ Sinhalese to restructure their own varieties in trying to
acquire SLM; they were, after all, speakers of a larger and – in the case of Sinhala –
socially more prestigious language in which the SLM speakers would have been
quite competent. Thus, what we do have is language acquisition in an informal
context with high degree of bi/multilingualism; there is no evidence nor reason
to postulate a break in transmission, an imperfect acquisition process or any other
construct typical of creole ideology. As has been pointed out many times, informal
acquisition in multilingual contexts is really quite ‘normal’ and common around
the globe and there is no need to construct exceptional scenarios to account for re-
structuring in such settings (e.g. Baker 1996; Mufwene 2001; DeGraff 2001, 2004,
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.13 (25)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

2005; Ansaldo forthcoming). The question of how to classify SLM – assuming we

really need to – is addressed in the conclusions.7

Part II. The Data

. Introduction to case in Kirinda Java and its adstrates8

The data presented in this paper were collected during fieldwork in Kirinda, Sri
Lanka, in December 2003 and January 2004 and amount to roughly 12 hours of
recording (Ansaldo & Lim 2005).9 All the data unless otherwise stated are first-
hand data from elicitation sessions and spontaneous speech.10
Typical accounts of nominal marking in SLM usually recognize at least the fol-
lowing cases: Nominative, Accusative-Dative, Genitive, Locative, Associative and
Instrumental (e.g. Hussainmiya 1987; Smith 2003; Smith et al. 2004 as the most
comprehensive). In what follows, I rely exclusively on my data for analysis and
address previous observations only where relevant. A full discussion of the possi-
ble variation in nominal marking across SLM varieties is beyond the scope of this
paper.11
Table 2 lists the nominal markers of Kirinda Java (KJ) using semantic roles
as a point of departure in order to capture the functional nature of the markers
as clearly as possible. Table 3 outlines the semantic functions of case in Sinhala
and Tamil.

. I argue elsewhere that classification is primarily a socio-political exercise, particularly so in

the case of contact languages, that may not be very revealing from the point of view of contact
language formation (Ansaldo & Matthews 2007; Ansaldo forthcoming).
. Tamil data available in the literature are typically derived from Indian Tamil varieties, not
Sri Lankan Tamil (SLT). In this sense any Tamil data presented should be taken with the utmost
care as variation in Tamil varieties is high and SLT shows clear divergence from Indian Tamil
(Wijeratne 2005).
. This fieldwork was partly supported by the National University of Singapore’s Academic
Research Grant (R-103-000-020-112) for the project ‘Contact Languages of Southeast Asia. The
role of Malay’.
. Until now, three sets of data had been available on SLM. The first, on which various papers
by Smith and colleagues are based (for an overview see Smith et al. 2004), consists of a one-hour
recording of one speaker from Kirinda from the 1970s (Ian Smith p.c. 2005). The second consists
of a dozen very short narratives collected by Bichsel-Stettler in the 1980s, amounting perhaps
to half an hour of recording, in the central areas of the country and Colombo (Bichsel-Stettler
1989). The third is a short conversation transcribed by Adelaar on Slave Island (Colombo) in
the 1990s (Adelaar 1991, p.c. 2005).
. See Ansaldo (2005a) for a fuller account.
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.14 (26)

 Umberto Ansaldo

Table 2. Case in Kirinda Java12

Markers Semantic role Traditional case terminology

Ø Agent Nominative
-ya] Patient Accusative
-na]/ -da] Experiencer, also Goal Dative
-pe Possessor Possessive
-ka Location Locative
-ri] Instrument/ also Source Instrumental
-le Association Comitative

Table 3. Functions of case in Sinhala/ Tamil (Gair & Paolillo 1997; Schiffman 1999; Asher
& Annamalai 2002; Karunatillake 2004)

Sinhala Tamil

Nominative (direct case) Agent (+Animate) Nominative Agent

Accusative (optional) Human/ animate Accusative Definite specific Goal of Vtrans
Definite Goal of Vtrans
Dative Experiencer Dative Experiencer
Goal of Vintr Goal of Vintr
Beneficiary Beneficiary
Possessor Possessor
Genitive-Locative Temporary possession Locative Temporary possession
Location Location
Path
Instrumental-Ablative Instrument Ablative Source
Source
Vocative (+Animate) Addressee Associative- Associate
Instrumental Instrument

Comparing Tables 2 and 3, we can make the following observations:

i. Prototypical Agents in KJ (Nominative in SLM) are unmarked, as in the ad-
strates Sinhala and Tamil.
ii. Accusative marking partially follows the adstrate typology. The KJ definite ob-
ject marker (ACC, cf. ex. (1)–(2) below) shares the feature [+definiteness] with
Tamil, and is optional as in Sinhala.
iii. Experiencers and Goals in KJ are marked identically; they fully correspond to
Dative case in the adstrates. Lack of volition or control, just as in Sinhala (and

. With the possible exception of the Comitative marker, all the SLM case markers can be
lexically related to PMD varieties. Etymological analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, but
see Adelaar (1991) and Ansaldo (2005a) for more on this aspect.]
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.15 (27)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

less so in Tamil, Sebastian Nordhoff p.c. August 2005), is the key semantic
feature here.
iv. KJ shares the Instrumental-Ablative syncretism with Sinhala.

These features are elaborated on and illustrated in the following subsections.

. Accusative

While previous studies report a conflation of ACC and Dative (DAT) case markers
in SLM (e.g. Hussaimiya 1987; Smith et al. 2004), the KJ corpus shows a clearly dis-
tinct ACC marker. In (1), we can see the Agent as zero-marked and the Accusative
marker -ya] in a typical collocation as the direct argument of a transitive verb; the
latter is also seen in (2).
(1) ikka]-ya] go er-maaka]
fish-acc I dur-eat
‘I eat the fish’
(2) te-ya] er-miinu]
tea-acc dur-drink
‘I drink the tea’

The DAT marker -na]13 /-da], much more versatile and complex in its functional
domains, is seen in (3) to (5) and is discussed thoroughly in Section 3.2:
(3) master-na] peena mau
teacher-dat pen want
‘Teacher wants a/the pen’
(4) go-da] Mr. Jalaldeen-ya] kutumun
I-dat Mr. J-acc see
‘I see Mr. Jalaldeen’
(5) Sir aanak-pada-ya] ruuma-na] e-luppa
teacher child-pl-acc house-dat pst-send
‘The teacher sent the children home’

The fact that conflation of ACC and DAT is not found in KJ could suggest local
variation between SLM varieties. However, given that one of the previously ex-
isting data sets is from the same community (see fn. 10), this cannot be a fully
satisfactory explanation. In this case, one could then perhaps argue for increased
convergence to the adstrates over the past three decades, leading to case split (see
Blake 1994; Ansaldo 2005b). However in our Kirinda corpus, this feature is found
in speakers of the oldest generation, as well as in all other generations, therefore the

. Can be shortened to -na in fast speech.

 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.16 (28)

 Umberto Ansaldo

time lapse in between the recordings cannot be seen as responsible for the emer-
gence of it. Finally, no catastrophic events have marked the last three decades of
the community (until the tsunami of December 26, 2004) and therefore no radical
change in the language should be expected in such a short time. All this consid-
ered, the most likely explanation, considering the fact that Accusative marking is
optional, is that it simply might not have emerged in the short recording obtained
in Kirinda in the 1970s.14
In using different markers for Accusative and Dative, KJ is in fact consistent
with Lankan typology: in both adstrates such a distinction is present. As can be
seen from examples (6) and (7) below, the marker -ya] appears clearly as a definite
object marker of direct objects:
(6) pohong-ya] potong
tree-acc cut
‘(I) cut the tree’
(7) kaki-ya] ambel
leg-acc move
‘Move your leg(s) away!’

If the marker -ya] is absent, as in (3) above, there is the possibility of an indefinite
reading. In other words, ACC marks definiteness but is not obligatory. As already
noted in Smith (2003), there is a resemblance with the function of the Accusative
case in Tamil, illustrated in (8) and (9) (from Annamalai & Steever 1998: 107):
(8) naan avan-ai.p ppaar-tt-een (Tamil)
I-nom that.man-acc see-pst-1s
‘I saw him’
(9) naan anta.p pustakatt-ai vaa]k-in-een (Tamil)
I-nom that book-acc buy-pst-1s
‘I bought that book’

In Tamil, Accusative case is obligatory for a human direct object as in (8). In non-
human direct objects, Accusative case indicates definiteness as in (9). In Sinhala
too, Accusative indicates definiteness but it is only used with animate objects as in
(10), while inanimate nouns lack case. e.g.:
(10) mem6 miniha-(w6) dækka (Sinhala)
I man(-acc) saw
‘I saw the man’

Moreover, as indicated in (10) and (31)–(32) below, even with animate nouns, it
is highly optional (Gair & Paolillo 1997). Accusative case marking in SLM thus

. Slomanson 2006 suggests a similar conclusion, see also fn. 9

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.17 (29)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

reflects features from both Sinhala and Tamil: it marks definiteness and its use
is optional. The extent to which ACC may reveal higher frequency of usage with
Animate Nouns in KJ is still under investigation at the moment. Note that in most
languages ACC relates to features of animacy and definiteness (Blake 1994: 120).

. Dative

The DAT marker in KJ is a typical instance of South Asian Dative case (see e.g.
Verma & Mohanan 1990; Shibatani & Pardeshi 2001; Bhaskarao & Subarao 2004)
in which the following functions conflate: Experiencer (see (3)–(5) above), Goal,
Beneficiary, Possession and Patient (in some contexts) as illustrated below:

i. Goal:
(11) Rihan market-na] er-pi Faizal sama
R. market-dat dur-go F. with
‘Rihan goes to the market with Faizal’
(12) dia maala]-le sumigit-na] e-pi
3s night-com mosque-dat pst-go
‘He even went to the mosque at night’
(13) Sir anak-pada-ya] ruuma-na] e-luppa
teacher child-pl-acc house-dat pst-send
‘The teacher sent the children home’

ii. Beneficiary:
(14) ini buk go-ri] lu-da]
this book I-instr you-dat
‘This book is from me to you’
(15) ini foto lora]-na]
This foto 2pl-dat
‘This photo is for you’

iii. Possession, in a syntactic construction with ‘have’:

(16) ni aanak-na] baek buku-ya] attu aada
This student-dat good book-acc one have
‘This student has a good book’

iv. Patient:
(17) go aanak-panna saaya]
I child-pl:dat love
‘I love (the) children’
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.18 (30)

 Umberto Ansaldo

This type of usage shows parallelism with Sinhala, where modal verbs with NOM
subjects take objects marked for DAT (Gair & Paolillo 1997: 35), e.g.:
(18) mam6 ee wagee minissunz6 hariy6z6 kæm6tii (Sinhala)
I that kind man-pl-dat really like-assn
‘I really like that kind of person’

The DAT marker appears in two alternations (attested in the data collected as well
as from elicited information): the form da] is used for first and second pronouns
singular exclusively, while for all the other pronouns na] must be used, as illus-
trated in the paradigm in (19).15 This suggests a distinction that may be captured
along the line of the Animacy Hierarchy where first and second person pronouns
are assigned highest animacy and therefore differential marking (Silverstein 1976).
(19) Goda] I-dat
Luda] You(s)-dat
Diana] S/he-dat
Kita]na] We-dat
Lora]na] You(pl)-dat
Dera]na] They-dat
When we compare the pronominal paradigm above with the adstrates Sinhala and
Tamil, we do not find an identical correspondence to the distinction between 1st
and 2nd pronouns and the rest. Table 4 illustrates the dative pronoun paradigms
for Tamil and Sinhala.

Table 4. Dative pronouns in Tamil/ Sinhala16

Tamil Sinhala
1st sing. enakku 1st sing. maz6
2nd sing. onakku 2nd sing. oyaaz6
3rd sing. (m.) avanukku 3rd sing. (anim./inan.) eyaaz6/ eek6z6
1st pl. (incl./excl.) nampaTukku/e]kaTukku 1st pl. apiz6
2nd pl. o]kaTukku 2nd pl. oyaalaaz6
3rd pl. (m/f) ava]kaTukku 3rd pl. (anim./inan.) eyaalaze/ eewaze

. The lexical roots of the pronouns reveal PMD origins, most clearly in the Hokkien (Sinitic)
forms for 1st and 2nd person singular, go and lu. As some speakers, in particular those of higher
education/ economic standing, perceive these to be ‘rude’ or ‘vulgar’, variation between go and
se may occur in varieties of SLM. Se is the preferred variant in Colombo while in Kirinda go is
predominant.
. There is variation in notation conventions among different authors: here I try to preserve
coherence with the choices made to represent SLM sounds as well as IPA symbols. In the glossing
of examples from other authors, I respect their original analysis.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.19 (31)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

Given that most of the lexical material is derived from PMD varieties (see
fn. 12, 15), it is not surprising not to find structural resemblances between the
paradigms. As already shown in Table 3 for case distinctions in general, it is the
parallel at the semantic level that is significant here (see also Section 3.4). Unlike
Tamil, the Sinhala system has a natural gender in which the main distinction is be-
tween Animate and Inanimate. Inanimate nouns can take four cases: Nominative,
Dative, Genitive/Locative, and Instrumental/Ablative, while Animate nouns have
two additional cases, Accusative and Vocative (Gair & Paolillo 1997). The animacy
effect noted in the SLM pronouns could have developed under influence of a more
pervasive animacy feature found in Sinhala, the L2 of many SLM speakers. This
can be reconciled with a modular view of grammars in contact, in which transfer
of semantic features without corresponding syntactic categories constitutes one of
the mechanisms of contact-induced transfer (see Aboh & Ansaldo 2007 and the
discussion in Section 3.4).

. Other cases

In KJ, as in other SLM varieties, -pe is a possessive marker, seen in (20) and (21).
(20) goppe tumman go-ya] e-toolak
I:poss friend I-acc pst-push
‘My friend pushed me’
(21) goppe nama Rihan
1sg:poss name Rihan
‘My name is Rihan’

The marker -le marks Comitative case as in (22); it should be noted that, as in
South Asian typology, this can also mark emphasis as in (23) and (12) above,
among other functions.
(22) ikka]-le go er-maaka]
fish-com I dur-eat
‘I also eat fish (among other things)’
(23) baaru mostor-le ikka] me-peega] tara17
new method-com fish catch neg-have’
‘We do not have new methods to catch fish’

. The prefix me- is originally the agentive marker in Malay; these forms are lexicalized in
SLM as the prefix is no longer productive.
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.20 (32)

 Umberto Ansaldo

Locative -ka (24) can be also used in possessive-like function as in (25):18 such a
conflation of existence and possession is not uncommon in languages of South,
East Asia and beyond (Lyons 1967; Masica 1991). In (26) we see both Possessive
and Locative case in the same sentence.
(24) go ikka] peega] er-pi bot-ka
I fish catch dur-go boat-loc
‘I go fishing in the boat’
(25) nembak oora]-ka aada snapan bae
hunt man-loc have rifle good
‘The hunter has a good rifle’
(26) goppe bot-ka ikka]-jo er-peegang
I:poss boat-loc fish-only dur-catch
‘I only go fishing in my boat’

A single occurrence of marker -ri] indicates Instrumental case, as in (27). In (28)

however, where -ri] marks both ‘market’ and ‘fish’, we observe what appears to be
a case of ablative-instrumental syncretism.
(27) dia ikka]-ya] er-birsi-ki] baaru piisu-ri]
he fish-acc dur-clean-caus new knife-inst
‘He cleans the fish with a new knife’
(28) maahin, market-ri] ais tra baaru ikka]-ri] billi baawa
Son market-inst ice neg new fish-inst buy bring
‘Son, buy me some fresh fish from the market’
[Lit. Son, from the market bring me some not frozen, new fish]

If we also consider the use of the pronominal form kita]ri] meaning ‘from us’
and the expression gori] luda] ‘from me to you’, we see that Instrumental case
can encode ablative case (or provenance), as in its first occurrence in (28). The
same syncretism between Ablative and Instrumental is found in Sinhala inanimate
nouns (cf. Gair & Paolillo 1997: 17; Gair 1998: 66), in (29).
(29) aan2uwe] eek6z6 aadaar6 den6wa
government-inst that-dat support-pl give-pres
‘The government gives support for that’ (Sinhala)

This feature of syncretism can be found in a number of Indo-European languages

(Blake 1994: 175), but crucially it is absent from Tamil where two different suffixes
mark Instrumental and Ablative case on nouns (see Asher 1982).

. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, this appears to be at variance with dative-
possessor coding strategies in Tamil.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.21 (33)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

. Basic case-alignment in KJ and its adstrates

For most speakers of KJ, the absence of the Dative marker is not acceptable in
most syntactic environments, particularly when in the function of Experiencer as
opposed to Goal (or Beneficiary):
(30) ?go minum mau
I drink want
This is particularly relevant since there is variation in the frequency in which other
case markers are used. Where context does not require overt specification, speakers
freely omit markers and only resort to them for disambiguation purposes, as with
the ACC marker in (31) compared to (32).
(31) Sudara jaari]-ya] e-buua] ikka] e-peega]
brother net-acc pst-throw fish pst-catch
‘Brother threw the net and caught (some) fish’
(32) Sudara jaari] e-buua] ikka] e-peega]
brother net pst-throw fish pst-catch
‘Brother threw the net and caught (some) fish’

In terms of frequency and distribution, the most consistent marking found in the
NP in KJ relates to what we could call the Agentive-Experiencer/Goal opposition,
i.e. zero-marking which appears to be reserved for prototypical Agents (e.g. (1),
and the DAT marker which covers first arguments in non-agentive roles (e.g. (3)–
(5), as well as a range of Goal roles (e.g. (11)–(17). It is clear that this marker in
KJ shows significant typological convergence with the Sinhala/ Tamil Dative case.
Dative Subjects in Tamil appear to be grammatically constrained to occurrence
with stative verbs (Schiffman 1999: 64):
(33) adu enakku teriyum (Tamil, Schiffman 1999: 100)
that I.dat know
‘I know that’
(34) enakku kaappi vee]um (Tamil, Lindholm 1978)
I.dat coffee want
‘I want some coffee’

In Sinhala, Dative marking can be used to distinguish between volitional Agents

(marked by Nominative, cf. (35)), and other less volitional entities (marked by
Dative, cf. (36)):
(35) miniha duw6n6wa (Sinhala, Gair & Paolillo 1997: 32)
man-nom run-pres
‘The man runs’
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.22 (34)

 Umberto Ansaldo

(36) minihaz6 diwen6wa (Sinhala, Gair & Paolillo 1997: 33)

man-dat run-invol-pres
‘The man runs (involuntarily)’

A distinction between Nominative and Dative as found in KJ can be captured in

terms of Control (cf. e.g. Dik 1989) and mirrors the notion of ‘Volitional Ac-
tor’ in Sinhala (Gair 1976) as well as the concept of ‘Dative subject’ found in
the Sinhala and Tamil Dative cases (Schiffman 1999). Dative subjects have high
frequency in colloquial Sinhala, but low frequency in Lankan Tamil (Silva 2003;
Sebastian Nordhoff p.c. June 2005). The feature of control as a determining aspect
of case assignment, which results in the prominence of Experiencer roles, or ‘Da-
tive Subjects’ (see Bhaskarao & Subarao 2004), is not only a typical Lankan trait
but extends to the whole South Indian linguistic area (Masica 1976; Shibatani &
Pardeshi 2001).
It should be noted, however, that the conflation of Experiencer, Benefactive,
Goal and Possession is in fact not peculiar nor unique to South Asian languages,
but can be seen as a universal tendency of Dative case marking, as clearly shown in
Blake (1994: 145), who describes Dative as the main non-core case used to mark
complements.

. Agglutinative morphology

A final feature worth noting in the nominal domain of SLM is its agglutinative
morphology, as shown in (37), where Dative and Comitative markers attach to
one another: na] > na + le = nale. Number and Case also combine and appear
frequently fused together: the morpheme panna [= pada+nang], seen earlier in
(17) and here in (38), provides another example of agglutinative tendencies in the
morphology of KJ.
(37) samma aanak-nale laarina] suuka
All child-dat:com run-dat like
‘All children like running’
(38) si]halis-panna aada bissar bot-pada
Singhalese-pl:dat have big boat-pl
‘The Sinhalese have big boats’

These agglutinative tendencies of SLM morphology are interesting from a typo-

logical point of view, considering that PMD varieties are typically isolating, while
both Tamil and Sinhala are agglutinative languages. In this sense, once again SLM
appears closer to a Lankan morphological type than an Austronesian one (Ansaldo
& Nordhoff to appear 2008).
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.23 (35)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

Table 5. Features of nominal domain of KJ and possible sources.

Feature Source
Accusative marker Tamil/ Lankan/ universal
Exp./ Goal/ Ben./ Poss. conflation South Asian/ Universal
Dative subjects Lankan/ South Asian
Animacy effects Sinhala19
Instr./ Abl. syncretism Sinhala
Agglutinative morphology Lankan

. Summary

Table 5 illustrates the salient features of KJ discussed in the previous sections.

As shown by the right-hand column, the grammar of KJ’s nominal system
shows specific Sinhala and more general Lankan (and even South Asian) traits,
as well as universal tendencies. There is no indication of a predominant Tamil
linguistic influence in the nominal domain of KJ.

. Conclusions

. Significance for the genesis of SLM

This study has shown that (i) there is no solid historical evidence for the hypothesis
that SLM evolved from the intermarriage of Tamil Moors and people of Malay
descent: as we have seen in Sections 1 and 2.1 the historical evidence for the claim
of widespread Moor-Malay intermarriage is not there; in parallel with this, (ii)
the claim of SLM being the linguistic product of predominantly Moor Tamil and
Malay admixture is not supported in the data as demonstrated in Section 3.

. Significance for the classification of SLM varieties

Having already dealt with the creole notion on theoretical grounds in Section 2.2,
based on the discussion of case in KJ in Section 3, we can say that SLM varieties
do adhere to the general prototype of mixed languages in combining a dominant
lexical influence from one language – the lexifier, in this case a PMD – with a clear
grammatical input from one (or more) different language(s) – in this case Sin-
hala/Tamil (cf. Bakker & Muysken 1995; Matras & Bakker 2003). It is commonly

. A less stimulating interpretation of this variation could of course be along the lines of case
allomorphy, as pointed out by an anonymous reviewer.
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.24 (36)

 Umberto Ansaldo

acknowledged that a prototypical definition has to be kept flexible, as (a) it is in-

deed only a small set that is defined by such a definition, and only one example,
Michif, may fit as a prototypical example (Matras & Bakker 2003: 2); and (b) the
degree of the grammar-lexicon split is sensitive to social and typological variation
(Matras 2003). I am not interested here in going into the nitty-gritty of finding the
one type of ML to best fit the profile of SLM.20
The key to understanding the evolution of SLM lies in the nature of trilin-
gualism typical of these communities. Trilingualism is achieved by members of the
SLM community due to contact with the larger group of Tamils and the majority of
Sinhalese speakers, not because of social pressure or urge to shift language; Sinhala
and Tamil were adstrates and, if at all there were any linguistic pressure, this would
have come from the colonial varieties, first Dutch, then English. At the same time,
it is not historically plausible to assume that because of colonial rule SLM speak-
ers would have kept themselves hermetically isolated from the adstrates. Historical
sources, as presented in the first part of this paper, are rich in references to the mul-
tiethnic, multilingual environment of colonial Sri Lankan society. Cultural admix-
ture was found, though no overwhelming practice involving one particular speech
community was found to suggest a major, unidirectional influence. Social circum-
stances are of the utmost importance in order to assess the outcome and the speed
of language change; and there is nothing in the evolution of SLM which points to
highly marked circumstances to justify rapid change (cf. Bakker 2000: 616–617).
From a structural point of view, the case system of SLM is an instance of
restructuring due to typological pressure; Sinhala and Tamil features ‘gang-up’
(Ansaldo 2005a) and determine the direction of typological convergence. The
restructuring process that occurs in SLM in general can thus be captured in a mod-
ular view of grammar in which congruence from Malay to Lankan typology takes
place. This is close to the notion of metatypy (Ross 1996, 2001), and also shares
similarities with the idea of Form-Semantics (F-S) mixed languages suggested in
Bakker (2003). These two accounts differ, however, on one, crucial parameter:
while the former implies gradual development in intense contact environments
over a prolonged period of time, the latter allows for abrupt changes. In the case
of KJ, only the former can apply, as the case system of SLM involves reanalysis of
a whole paradigm, something that in any plausible scenario cannot take place in
a short time span (cf. Bakker 2003) but must occur over a long period of time
as befits the evolution of mature systems such as case (Dahl 2004). The picture
that emerges from this study so far is thus one of gradual typological convergence,
and finds support in the framework presented in Thomason and Kaufman (1988)

. Also, the fact that the literature on MLs so far shows almost as many different types as
actual attestations of mixed varieties suggests that we are still far from agreeing on prototypical
traits of MLs.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.25 (37)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

as well as in Ross (2001); in this light, SLM would be an advanced case of re-
structuring in a multilingual setting, a typical product of borrowing under strong
structural pressure, involving distinctive lexical features, constituent-order and
morphological material (see Ansaldo 2005a). From a generic Low Malay/Javanese
variety, which does not feature nominal marking, the evolution of a case system
as the one found in KJ implies significant realignment of the cognitive-functional
principles determining case assignment which can only evolve over time (Dahl
2004: 115). This, I suggest, seems possible only due to widespread, long-lasting
multilingualism, in particular trilingualism, which allows for the type of transfer
observed also in situations of second language acquisition (cf. Siegel 1997, 2004).
Much work remains to be done on the various varieties of SLM and these
conclusions need therefore to be taken as provisional generalizations, not state of
the art knowledge (see Ansaldo & Nordhoff to appear 2008; Ansaldo forthcoming).
The project on the documentation of SLM funded under the DoBeS initiative will
avail us with many times the amount of data that has been somewhat available
to limited extents so far, and will surely lead us to revise, expand and refine our
understanding of these varieties, as well as their contribution to the study of high-
contact varieties, in years to come.

Figure 4.
 TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.26 (38)

 Umberto Ansaldo

Figure 5.
TSL[v.20020404] Prn:17/07/2008; 13:55 F: TSL7802.tex / p.27 (39)

Sri Lanka Malay revisited 

Figure 6.

Figures 4, 5 and 6 show members of the Kirinda Sri Lanka Malay community
(Figures 4 and 6 also include the author).

Acknowledgements

I would first like to acknowledge the Volkswagen Stiftung’s initiative for the Doc-
umentation of Endangered Languages (DoBeS) for their financial, technical and
intellectual engagement and support for The Documentation of Sri Lanka Malay.
Secondly, I am very grateful to members of the Sri Lankan Malay Association
(SLMA) and the Conference of Sri Lanka Malays (COSLAM) in Colombo for their
support in this research. In particular, I want to thank Mr. T.K. Azoor, Mrs. D. Bu-
rah, Mr. T.M.M. Hamin, Mrs. S.S. Peiris and Mr. B.D.K. Saldin in Colombo. In
Hambantota I want to thank Proctor T.S. Doole and Mr. T.M. Farook. I am very
indebted to Principal B. Jalaldeen (photos 5, 6) as well as the whole community of
Kirinda (see photos 1–6) for sharing their invaluable knowledge with me. I am also
indebted to Hans den Besten, Stephen Matthews, Sebastian Nordhoff, Ian Smith
and Don Winford for comments, as well as two anonymous reviewers. Lastly but
most importantly, I want to acknowledge Lisa Lim for her substantial collabo-
ration in the collection and glossing of the data and for the many constructive
discussions on Kirinda Java.
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
à 15, C, Charondas... compagnie.—13 à 20, B, Il n’est rien...
maladies.—414, 11 à 12, C, comme les... secouant.—42 à 45, B,
C’est ce que... naufrage.—416, 20, C, In solis... locis.—21 à 22, B,
La vertu... effects.—418, 7 à 9, C, La solitude... Thales.—22 à 35, B,
Il est temps... office.
420, 31 à 35, B, Ie n’estime... liberalement.—422, 38 à 39, C,
Vsque... alter?—424, 1 à 20, B, Il semble... de vie.—22.—426, 12 à
13, C, et choisir... ire via.—34.—428, 3, C, Tun’, vetule... escas?—35,
B, obuersentur... animo.
430.—Ch. XXXIX (XL dans les éd. ant.).—432, 11 à 12, C, et
me feroit... creance.—22 à 27, B, I’ay veu... qualitez.—27 à 38, C,
Les compagnons... sciat.—434, 10 à 14, C, Vn Roy... ceux-là.—16 à
35, B, Ie sçais... concinnitas.—436, 26 à 27, C, Sur ce subiect...
chose.—28 à 438, 1, B, Et eusse... succedé.—1 à 21, C, I’ay
naturellement... conception.—15 à 19.—21 à 26, B, A bienuienner...
lasches.—26 à 440, 19, Ce sont grands... imprimer.
440.—Ch. XL (XLI dans les éd. ant.).—442, 22 à 29, C, Celui-
là... daret!—26 à 29, B, Or, laissons... leur mort.—30.—444, 21.—
446, 1 à 9, C, Au royaume... maistre.—18 à 448, 36, B, Toute
opinion... concurrerunt.—36 à 40, C, I’ay veu... ardente.
450, 20, B, si nous en deuenons... lasches.—28, B, Aristippus,
Hieronymus et.—29.—452, 20.—22 à 35, B, Toutesfois... la douleur.
—454, 6.—16 à 17, B, Non enim... beati.—25, si grauis... leuis.—27
à 30, B, Si tu ne la... exeamus.—35.—33 à 456, 25, B, de ne nous...
desclouë.—30 à 31, B, Comme le... l’âme.—33.—458, 7 à 11, B,
Outre tant... iumeaux.—12 à 14.—20 à 25, B, Et Cicero...
mollissimus.—41 à 460, 2, B, Quis... contraxit?
460, 4.—10 à 11, C, Vellere... nouam.—16 à 32, B, Il est
ordinaire... cuisses.—462, 10 à 474, 21, C, Q. Maximus... glace.—
462, 10, Q. Maximus... ægritudinem.—32 à 35, B, Caton Consul...
armis esse.—464, 14 à 29, B, La plus commune... la medecine.—11,
B, à m’acquiter.—468, 6 à 8, B, n’y ayant... frangitur.—14 à 15, B,
Elles viennent... fortunæ.—16 à 21, B, In diuitiis... subiects?—21.—
32 à 36, B, I’en faisoy... prudence.
470, 2, B, de monnoye.—8, B, Tout compté... l’acquerir.—11, B,
Pour auoir... pas moins.—16, B, vous n’oseriez l’escorner.—22, B,
(elles sont... bonnes).—27 à 33, B, Selon cette... prudence.—33.—
472, 9 à 12, B, Et est follie... faict.—13, B, de quoy ie n’ay que faire.
—14, B, Non esse... vectigal est.—16, B, Divitiarum... satietas.—20.
—21 à 474, 6, B, Feraulez... cœur.—9 à 16, B, Chascun est...
malheureuse.—30, B, diuersement les hommes.—476, 1 à 4, B,
Opinio est... impares.—6, B, humaine faiblesse.—7.—9 à 11, B, Nul
n’est... feroit-on.—Ch. XLI.—17 à 21, C, La fama... sgombra.—23 à
25, C, c’est la plus... l’encontre.—23, B, Quia... cessat.—478, 34 à
480, 16, C, Semper enim... aux pieds.—478, 42 à 480, 16, B,
Comme les... aux pieds.
480.—Ch. XLII.—18.—20.—22.—23 à 25, B, Hem!...
innumerables.—29 à 31, C, Volucrem... circo.—482, 42.—43, B,
Sapiens... sibi.—484, 3.—8 à 9, B, vn noble... pauure.—11 à 16, B,
En Thrace... essentielle.—21 à 23, C, Scilicet... potat.—25, B, Ille
beatus... felicitas est.—32 à 37, C, et le soing... ab auro.—486, 18 à
24, C, Puellæ... mala.—33.—36 à 39, B, Tout ainsi... rebours.—488,
2 à 3, C, il a beau... et auro.—21 à 24, C, Vt satius... commande.—
29 à 30, C, Pinguis... nocet.
490, 6 à 11, B, Il n’est... fauconniers.—14 à 27, C, Et ie ne
sçay... balafre.—19 à 20, B, De vray... plaist.—35, C, parleurs et.—36
à 39, C, Le Roy... seruiteurs.—492, 3 à 20, C, Les auantages...
tenent.—20, B, Paucos... tenent.—29 à 31, C, Maximum... laudare.—
494, 7.—14 à 28, C, Toutes les... au vice.—496.—Ch. XLIII.—16,
C, qui mangent du turbot.—18.—20, C, tels excez... Prince.—498, 1.
—7.—23 à 500, 17, C, C’estoit vne... esté autres.—498, 21, B, à leur
deuoir et.—24, B, Quicquid... videntur.—25.
500, 5 à 17, B, Platon en... esté autres.—Ch. XLIIII.—502, 42.
—504, 21 à 24, B, Chez Herodote... de suitte.—Ch. XLV.—506, 17
à 32, C, En cette... sauueté.—508.—Ch. XLVI.—19 à 23, C, Il est
autant... des autres.—26.
510, 3 à 5, B, Et Socrates... enfants.—14 à 20, C, Cette
correction... l’endormit.—512, 12 à 514, 8, C, Il y a tant...
confusion.—13 à 18, B, O la courageuse... iouët.—516, 3 à 6, B, Et
en diuerses... cognu.—12, C, Id cinerem... sepultos?—13 à 24, B,
Quel ressentiment... le sçait.—518.—Ch. XLVII.
520, 10 à 17, C, grauissimi... malheur.—11, B, grauissimi...
necessitatis.—13 à 17, B, Voyla pourquoi... malheur.—27 à 29, B,
Raison... choses.—34 à 39, C, Antiochus... soyent.—524, 1 à 5, B,
Alexandre... impérial.—25 à 31, B, En cette... à trait.—528, 23.—24
à 26, B, Nous raisonnons... hazard.—Ch. XLVIII.
530, 9 à 34, B, Les Numides... commande.—35.—532, 14, B,
Platon... santé.—17.—23, B, institution... Cyrus.—28 à 35, B, et pour
l’aduantage... empire.—534, 2, B, la plus part du temps.—5, B, quoy
qu’en... Xenophon.—12 à 15, C, cædebant... decernit.—14 à 15, B,
Leurs battailles... routes.—23 à 27, C, On assene... gladiis.—32 à
536, 31, B, Celle dequoy... inuentions.—32.—33.—538, 4.—9, C, et
bardelles.—11 à 19, C, Ce que i’ay... currentium.—17 à 19, B, Et
Numidæ... currentium.—24 à 544, 9, C, Le Courtisan... son assiette.
—538, 24 à 36, B, Le Courtisan... exercice.
540, 4 à 9, B, Pour verifier... salent.—21 à 35, B, Quelcun de...
transcurrerunt.—542, 7 à 17, B, Bajazet... Herodote.—24 à 36, B, Ie
n’estime... viuoit.—544, 8 à 9, B, pour montrer... son assiette.—Ch.
XLIX.—14.—546, 6 à 8, B, Il n’y a... insensiblement.—30.—548, 2,
C, comme font les Venitiens.—4 à 8, B, Et touchoyent... l’autre?—29,
B, comme i’en ay veu.
550, 23.—28 à 39, C, Ils prenoyent... estois creu.—552.—Ch. L.
—15.—15 à 17, B, Car ie ne... faire veoir.—17 à 554, 1.—5 à 556,
12, B, Entre les... qu’vn autre.—17 à 19, C, Alter... alter.—558, 2 à 7,
B, Conformement... risible.—Ch. LI.—9 à 10, C, C’est vn... pied.—12
à 17, C, et croy... gaigne.—23 à 31, B, Ariston... perorations.
 560, 9 à 15, B, contre l’opinion... dit-il.—15, B, à Rome.—24, B,
bonne institution et.—562, 1 à 2, C, Nec minimo... secetur.—20 à
23, C, Oyez dire... chambriere.—27.—27.—564.—Ch. LII.—23 à 25,
C, Il ne fut... Romains.—Ch. LIII.—566, 11 à 13, C, Dum abest...
tenet.—20 à 28, C, Nam cum... venirent.—35.—Ch. LIIII.—568,
14, B, merueilleux.—23 à 25, C, Les daiz... tauernes.—30 à 37, B, Le
saubriquet... à plat.
570, 5 à 6, B, Le desir... volupté.—21 à 572, 22, C, Il se peut...
prix.—570, 21 à 24, B, il y a ignorance... premiere.—25.—26, B,
simplement.—572, 8 à 22, B, Les païsants... prix.—29.—29.—31.—
574.--Ch. LV.—10.—19 à 576, 30, C, I’ayme... sa boue.—574, 25
à 30, B, les senteurs... parfumees.—576, 7 à 10, B, On lit de... plus
mal.—16 à 27, B, Ie voudrois... soudain.—578.—Ch. LVI.—1 à 13,
C, Ie propose... comme icy.—6 à 10, B, tenant pour... suis nay.—20.
—21, B, sinon... tousiours.—22 à 24, B, C’est l’vnique... cette là.
580, 5, B, et peut... ayder.—7 à 9, B, comme il... pouuoir.—9.—
10 à 15, B, Platon... constance.—26 à 32, C, Si nocturnus... malice.—
28 à 32, B, Et l’assiette... malice.—34 à 584, 6, C, Et me desplaist...
part.—582, 2.—7 à 584, 6, B, Quelle prodigieuse... part.—7.—15 à
590, 11, C, Ny n’est... taire.—584, 15.—17, B, C’estoyent... esbats.
—23 à 33, B, Ce n’est pas... temerité.—33.—586, 10 à 588, 17, B,
L’vn de noz... le nom.—36, B, verbis indisciplinatis.—38.—38 à 590,
5, B, Ie propose... non instruisants.
590, 11.—22.—25.—36, B, et le conuions à l’iniustice.—26, C,
Quæ, nisi... diuis.—33 à 38, C, Au pied... ipse.—33 à 35, B, Au
pied... auarice.—592, 11.—18 à 19, C, Tacito... concipimus.—20.—
31 à 35, B, Les Dieux... prudence.—36, B, comme d’vn iargon, et.—
39, C, ou de nostre contenance.—594, 2.—11 à 16, C, Ny les...
mica.—11 à 12, B, Ny les... meschant.—Ch. LVII.—24.—598, 3 à 5,
C, Si l’espine... Daulphiné.—9 à 14, B, Ouy, en... d’eux-mesmes.—21
à 28, C, Vbi iam... dangereux.—29.

LIVRE SECOND.
 600.—Ch. I.—18.—19 à 602, 9, C, Il y a... vray.—8, B, et
distinctement... à piece.—37 à 39, C, Nonne... possit.—604, 5 à 6,
B, Nous flottons... constamment.—9 à 12, B, (Empedocles... mourir).
—30.—38.—606, 11 à 18, B, Quand nous... despit.—24 à 608, 4, C,
Cette variation... Logique.—606, 24 à 29, B, Cette variation...
simple.—36, B, chaste, luxurieux.—38, B, sçauant... prodigue.—608,
20 à 36, C, Quand estant... courage.—20 à 26, B, Quand estant...
proficiscatur.—28 à 29, B, Toute incomparable... taches.—34 à 36, B,
Et l’exces... courage.
610, 4.—8, B, cui viuendi... prouisa est.—25 à 32, B, Ny ne
trouue... publiques.—34, C, chaque moment.—36, B, Magnam...
agere.—612, C, Hac duce... venit.—Ch. II.—29 à 614, 3, C, La
confusion... incognus.—612, 45 à 614, 3, B, Comme Socrates...
incognus.—10 à 16, C, et estonne... de soy.—15 à 16, B, Le pire... de
soy.—20 à 22, C, Tu sapientium... Lyæo.—31 à 34, B, Et commit...
vin!—36 à 616, 21, C, Nec facilis... ensemble.—1 à 21, B, Ie n’eusse
pas... ensemble.—26 à 27, C, Hoc quoque... ferunt.—28.—30 à 31,
C, Narratur... virtus.—38.—38 à 39, C, Et escrit-on... affaires.—618,
10 à 620, 30, B, Vn homme... bouteilles.
620, 33.—622, 2 à 3, B, Les autres... prix.—5 à 624, 5, C, Ie ne
puis... Arcesilaüs.—622, 8 à 624, 5, B, Ma constitution... Arcesilaüs.
—24 à 27, C, Sudores... videmus.—29 à 32, B, comme vn... fadeze.
—33 à 34.—36, B, qui feignent... poste.—626, 4 à 11, Laissons...
pilez.—26, B, mot d’Antisthenez.—32, C, et dignes de luy.—628, 16 à
20, C, et s’en respond... celeste.—16 à 20, B, Platon... celeste.—Ch.
III.—24.—31.
630, 10 à 11, B, Et à Philippus... mourir?—12 à 16, C, Nous
pouuons... Romains.—632, 2 à 5.—3 à 21, B, C’est foiblesse... de
vie.—22.—27 à 29, B, que nous ne sommes... contre nous.—36, B,
d’espreuue.—634, 22, B, Hic, rogo... mori?—28.—32 à 37, B,
Platon... craintiue.—46, B, Il n’en vaudroit de rien mieux.—49 à 51,
C, Debet... accidere.—636, 32 à 33, C, Sperat... minax.—638, 9.—
13 à 22, C, A la iournée... locauit.—13 à 19, B, A la iournée...
superstes fuit.—24.—25.—25 à 26, B, Seneque... l’ame.—28 à 42, B,
Damocritus... les siens.
640, 28, B, par l’vne... playes.—30, B, sur eux.—35 à 642, 1, B,
L’histoire... conscience.—17 à 650, 2, C, Lucius Aruntius...
testament.—642, 18 à 644, 16, B, Granius Siluanus... le feu.—35 à
646, 43, B, Vibius Virius... Consul.—49 à 648, 28, B, Astapa...
iugements.
650, 7 à 10, B, Par où... iugement.—16 à 25, B, En certain...
partie.—25 à 26.—652, 30 à 31, C, La douleur... incitations.—654.—
Ch. III.—1.—7.—656, 5 à 6, C, vers laquelle... complexion; et.—9 à
14, C, Ie n’en... d’autruy.—20.—36.—658.—Ch. V.—1 à 2.—7.—11 à
15, C, Comme il... esperance.
660, 2.—13 à 15, C, Quippe... dedisse.—24 à 26, C, Et ie puis...
desseins.—662, 1 à 4, il auoit... innocence.—6 à 7, B, Et celuy...
souffrir.—17 à 24, C, Que ne diroit... gehenne.—19 à 21, B, Etiam...
gehenné.—22.—25, B, dit-on.—26 à 664, 5, B, bien
inhumainement... instructiue.—Ch. VI.—11.—666, 2.—16, C, Jus
hoc... habebat.—25 à 33, B, Combien... crainte.—38.—38.—668, 9 à
13, C, Voicy que... ailleurs.—39.
670, 18 à 19, C, Perchè... mente.—25 à 26, C, Come... desto.—
40.—672, 3 à 7, C, vi morbi... fatigat.—14, C, Viuit... suæ.—20 à 31,
C, Ie n’imagine... misere.—674, 10, C, Semianimésque... retractant.
—13 à 22, C, et ont des... dolorem.—23.—42, C, et arrosée.—676,
13.—15, C, Vt tandem... mei.—20.—38 à 682, 26, B, Et ne me
doibt... sa bouche.

SECOND VOLUME
 10.—Liv. II, Ch. VII.—12, 10 à 11.—12.—16.—25, B, non
plus... mesmes.—28.—14, 12 à 14, C, Et qui... militaire.—20, B,
Neque enim... sunt.—16, 11.—18.—Ch. VIII.—17.—21, B, vostre
mari.
20, B, vostre fils.—24 à 36, B, Ioint cette... prendre.—22, 7, B, et
ne les... de moy.—17.—24, B, Comme... pour sortir.—27, B, nous
mesler d’.—24, 22 à 23, C, Ie le hay... personne.—23.—27.—36 à 37,
B, (de vray... d’auarice).—26, 11 à 29, C, I’accuse... opiniastres.—
18, B, Leonor.—32, B, nullum... habet.—40 à 42, Ie me maryai...
Aristote.—42 à 28, 7, B, Platon... importune.—10 à 19, C, d’autant...
dix ans.—11, B, par l’accouplage des femmes.—15 à 22, B,
Muleasses... Venerien.—37.
30, 1, C, à l’imitation... qualibre.—28.—32, 32, B, comme
nostre... miliers.—34, 5, C, vrais epouuantails de cheneuiere.—6 à
38, 20, C, Quand ie... auantageusement.—34, 13, B, le plus...
France.—31 à 36, 14, B, Ce seroit... effect.—31 à 34, B, Le vieil
Caton... à nous.—38, 2 à 20, B, Au cas que... auantageusement.
40, 7.—9 à 17, C, O mon amy... que ce soit.—9 à 13, O mon
amy... priuation.—34 à 42, 8, C, Pourtant... belles.—19 à 46, 6, B,
En general... laissez.—26.—48, 3, B, autour de.—15 à 20, B, Ie
croy... premiers pas.—20.—32 à 34, B, Platon... Minos.—35 à 50, 5,
B, Heliodorus... façon.
50, 33 à 37, C, Pareil... manger.—52, 22, C, Et ie ne... que moy.
—22, B, beaucoup.—24 à 31, B, A cettuy-ci... que moy.—33.—34 à
35, B, Car selon... ouurage.—39.—54.—Ch. IX.—25 à 26, B, Tite
Liue... gerebant.—27 à 31, C, ou se couuroient... rarement.—56, 2,
B, ou autrement.—7 à 15, C, et comme... victoire.—24 à 28, C, Et
craignoit... gauche.—24 à 25, B, Et craignoit... garder.—36, B,
L’Empereur... armée.—40, B, arma... dicunt.—58, 3 à 5, C, iusques
à... haste.—7 à 9, B, Le ieune... cuit.—17.—32 à 36, C, Flexilis...
armos.
 60.—Ch. X.—15.—16.—17 à 62, 12.—31.—64, 2, C, Has meus...
equus.—5 à 12, C, Si ie m’y... reiterées.—7 à 8, B, et contention...
ferme.—9, B, Ma veue... dissipe.—20.—34, B, anciens.—34.—39, C,
et aduoue.—66, 13, C, Et le cinquiesme... parfaict.—19, B, à toute
heure... à luy.—28, C, O seclum... infacetum!—30, C, cestuy-ci...
Gentil-homme.—31, B, et preference.—32 à 34, B, fait beaucoup...
compagnon.—68, 10.—26, C, ils montent... iambes.—26.—29.—31 à
35, C, Et les dames... ordinaire.
70, 1.—14.—22, B, et dependance.—22.—31, C, selon moy.—31,
B, en particulier.—72, 2, C, il nous... pousse.—4.—7.—15, B, ou
éloquent.—28, B, à qui il... portera.—31, que nous... corda [manque
dans 88].—36 à 74, 6, B, La licence... dressent.—10.—29, B,
ambitieuse.—35.—76, 21 à 25.—28.—30 à 34, B, ou plus entendu...
fantasies.—78, 8.
80, 7.—16, B, ou au moins... sorte.—20.—22.—84.—Ch. XI.—
86, 12 à 16, B, quoy que die... iamais des coqs.—23, B, et en ses
mœurs.—25 à 27, B, et ij qui... retinent.—34, B, multum... lacessita.
—88, 19, B, et imperfections.
90, 8.—14, B, Sic abijt... gauderet.—23, C, et d’vne... virile.—26,
C, Deliberata... ferocior.—26.—32 à 43, B, La philosophie... à sa vie.
—92, 10 à 13, B, A ce tressaillir... aduenir.—16 à 17, B, Aristippus...
fit-il.—94, 22 à 23, C, Haud ignarus... possit.—27 à 30, C, I’ay veu...
Au demeurant.—96, 12 à 15, C, Seu Libra... vndæ.—17 à 19, C, La
responce... en horreur.—25 à 43, C, Ie diray... exemple.—26, B, par
là en plusieurs choses.—28 à 43, B, Aristippus... exemple.—98, 1 à
2.—9, C, nec vltra... foueo.—19 à 24, B, Ce sont incontinant.—27 à
29, B, Et les familiers... l’autre.—31 à 33, C, L’innocence... d’art.
100, 9 à 12.—12.—18 à 20.—22 à 25.—25.—29.—31 à 33, B, Il
n’est... peintes.—102.—7.—12 à 31, B, Ces iours... changée.—36 à
104, 17, C, comme Dieu... essentielle.—36 à 104, 2, B, comme
Dieu... diuexarier.—14 à 17, Les Ægyptiens... essentielle.—28, C, en
angoisse.—30, B, Vt homo... occidat.—37 à 38, C, quæstuque...
similis.—45 à 106, 5, C, Apres qu’on... desmembrer.—12, C, nations.
—22 à 37, C, Muta ferrarum... formæ.—42, B, Belluæ... consecratæ.
—108, 1 à 5, C, Crocodilon... venerantur.—10 à 14.—19.—26 à 30,
C, Ie ne crain... bestes.—35 à 110, 3, B, Les Agrigentins... trespas.
110.—Ch. XII.—28, C, non plus... predecesseurs.—112, 12.—
14.—22, C, Nam cupidè... metutum.—25, B, particulier.—28, C,
comme celuy-là.—31, B, nommément... foible.—32.—114, 9.—25.—
116, 39 à 118, 2, C, Voulez vous... Chrestiens.—2 à 7, B, Toutes
autres... verité.—7 à 18, C, Pourtant eut... vicieuses.—23 à 26, B,
Breuis... croire.—34.—36 à 120, 21, B, Sentez si... dire.
120, 31, B, et casuelles.—32 à 122, 2, B, Ie voy cela... incite.—9
à 26, B, Le meilleur... prestre.—30 à 32, C, Non iam... ceruus.—124,
6 à 7, C, Nous sommes... Alemans.—9.—13 à 15, B, Plaisante...
descroire.—17 à 126, 10, B, Ils establissent... peuuent.—10 à 15, C,
L’erreur du... imbecillité.—36 à 128, 2, C, Car ce monde...
intelligibles.—9.
130, 3 à 7.—22 à 25, B, Abbattons... aux hommes.—3 à 132, 2,
B, Car Sainct Augustin... entremise.—34 à 134, 4, B, Ont elles...
accouplage.—41 à 43, B, quæ molitio... fuerunt?—136, 2 à 9, B,
Dirons nous... angustiæ.—10 à 11, B, y deuiner... Anaxagoras?—14 à
17, B, Inter... cogitantem.—19.—34 à 138, 12, B, Quand ie... temps.
—18 à 23, C, Toutesfois... mouuements.—25.—31 à 34, C, Et
mutæ... gliscunt.—34.—38, B, leurs mouuemens... traictent.
140, 1 à 2, C, Non alia... linguæ.—10 à 11, C, E’l silentio...
parole.—12 à 37, C, Quoy des mains... intelligible.—12 à 32, B, Quoy
des mains... d’autre langue.—142, 6.—39.—144, 19 à 31, C, Tum
porro... rerum.—33.—36 à 39, C, Nos anciens... froid.—40.—146,
12, C, Sentit... abuti.—21.—148, 18 à 28, C, Comment ne... rire
encore.—32 à 35, C, Variæque... cantus.
150, 7, C, Indupedita... vinclis.—10 à 11, C, Res quæque...
seruant.—28, B, et de plus riches effects des facultez plus riches.—
30 à 31, B, ou quelque... meilleure.—152, 30 à 33, C, et les
Climacides... en coche?—35 à 36, B, Les femmes... mary.—39 à
154, 15, C, Des armées... tombe.—10 à 15, B, Quand les... tombe.
—18 à 25, B, A quel... seruis.—32 à 41, C, Serpente... ses rets.—43,
B, des colliers.—156, 34 à 35.—158, 36.
160, 28 à 162, 1, C, Nous pouuons... harmonie.—164, 16.—18
à 19, C, qui tient... ordonnée.—21 à 24, C, Si quidem... turrim.—34 à
39, C, comme faisoient... aspreté.—166, 1, B, et siecles.—1 à 3.—
22.—22 à 24, C, et i’ay... traictent.—168, 9.
170, 6, B, desquelles... à nous.—38.—172, 10.—15 à 22, C, Et
reiettent... ictum.—176, 26.—178, 7 à 9, C, Quando... apri?—10, B,
pourtant.—22 à 25, C, Fulgur... mundi.
180, 2 à 7, Quam... tellus.—21 à 22, C, qui ont... Crassus.—25 à
44, C, Qu’on... elephant.—25 à 33, B, Qu’on... à dire.—45, B, vifue.—
43 à 186, 3, C, Nous pleurons... les nostres.—188, 23 à 27, C,
Touchant... mourir.
190.—192, 38 à 40, B, de laquelle... appetit.—41, C, Turpis...
color.—43 à 194, 19, C, et chargent... l’espaule.—6 à 9, B, Et vn
homme... d’oreille.—14 à 19, B, Non seulement... Pline.—23 à 26, B,
Tout ainsi... boule.—31 à 35, B, A multis... aërées.—196, 4 à 8, B,
Quels animaux... bestes?—12, B, Simia... nobis!—13.—17.—20.—25.
—31.—32.—33 à 39, C, Ce n’est... amore.—198, 5.—38.—41 à 200,
4, B, Car en fin... tantost.
200.—14 à 24, C, S’il ne nous... dari.—15.—18 à 24, B, Vt
vinum... dari.—202, 1 à 20, C, A on trouué... sa vie.—11.—13, B, ou
pour... richesse.—15 à 20, B, Il ne nous... à sa vie.—39 à 204, 2, B,
d’autant... peché.—5 à 7, B, Et les Sereines... science.—10 à 11, B,
Cauete... mundi.—11.—14.—20.—22 à 24, C, Les Dieux... essence.—
206, 1 à 9, C, Deus... sapience.—14.—14 à 17, B, Conformément...
surmonte.—19.—34.—28 à 208, 5, B, Re succumbere... Stoïques.—
17.—18, et ceux d’vn cheual [manque à 88].
210, 10, C, à present.—14.—14 à 20, B, Ce qu’on... quelconque.
—25 à 212, 19, C, comme elle... guider.—18 à 19, B, Il nous faut...
guider.—24.—25, B, Segnius... sentiunt.—34.—36.—36 à 38, B,
comme disoit... mali.—214, 7 à 19, B, Si ne la... suiure.—26 à 27, B,
retirer... et de.—30 à 31, B, Leuationes... ponit.—37 à 39, C, Ce
seroit... la noia.—216, 2 à 4, B, et conseil... memoria.—13 à 16, B,
Et cela... volo.—17, B, qui se... ausus.—22, B, Iners... est.—218, 15
à 20, B, Placet?... V. le B.—35 à 220, 7, C, Et Crates... corps.—218,
35 à 36, B, Et Crates... hart.
220, 22, B, par les Espagnols.—222, 14 à 24, B, O cuider...
sagesse.—34 à 224, 1, C, Si elle... Ciceron.—222, 36 à 224, 1, B,
Melius... Ciceron.—3 à 7, C, Nous disons... sienne.—8 à 22, B, et le
fait... omnia.—226, 11.—21 à 29, B, C’est... descouure.—31 à 37, B,
Nous sçauons... vitæ.—39 à 228, 3, B, Et pendant... diffidens.—14,
B, de sagesse.—21.—37 à 40, B, de qui... Xenophanes.
230, 16 à 21, B, Zenon... science.—232, 10 à 234, 20, C,
Pourquoy... croyent.—232, 20 à 21, B, ad quamcumque...
adhærescunt.—24 à 26, B, Hoc... autres.—30 à 33, B, Qu’iray-ie...
ignorons.—234, 1 à 7, B, S’il est... professeur.—23 à 24, B, Rien...
faux.—27, B, et suspension.—236, B, non enim... voluit.—7.—14, B,
en regle et droicture.—17 à 238, 2, B, Si n’est-il... humaines.—11 à
14, C, C’est vne... valons.—12 à 13, C, Dominus... sunt.—24 à 37, B,
quam docti... requiratis.
240, 4 à 5, B, Et pourtant... escrits.—8.—10 à 32, C, Oyez la...
disciplines.—10 à 18, B, Oyez la... nota.—19.—22 à 23, B,
Clytomachus... estoit.—31 à 37, B, Cicero... disciplines.—242, 4 à 9,
B, De quelque... profuerunt.—10.—9 à 31, B, Le conducteur...
d’autruy.—32 à 36, C, comme... autres.—38.—38 à 244, 20, B, Et les
reconciliateurs... matiere.—25 à 30, C, semblable... prouidentiæ.—
26.—29 à 30, B, reuenant... prouidentiæ.—35.—35, B, et trouuent...
sçauoir.—246, 3.—7 à 8, B, Et volontiers... supposé.—15 à 35, C,
Satius... apres.—15 à 20, B, Satius... salutaire.—31.—248, 2.—7 à 9,
B, pourueu... vi.—15.—19 à 39, B, Platon... compte.
250, 5 à 7, B, Non tam... voluisse.—22, B, soubs quelque nom.—
24 à 34, B, Iupiter... songes.—36.—39 à 252, 20, B, Pythagoras...
effect.—21.—42 à 256, 30, B, Thales... inconsiderée.—32.—258, B,
nos morts et sepultures.—7 à 12, C, Quæ procul... iracundias.—9 à
12, B, Formæ... iracundias.—13 à 15, B, non-seulement... misere.—
16 à 25, C, Quid... veneration.—19 à 25, B, Les Ægyptiens...
veneration.
260, 2 à 4, B, Si sont... mondaines.—17.—30, B, Tout... mortel.—
27 à 28, B, et parfaitement... experience.—35 à 36, C, Hector...
equo.—40 à 41, C, Quod... migrant.—262, 4 à 8.—25 à 26, C,
Scilicet... toto.—31 à 32, C, Inter... omnes.—45 à 264, 1, B, s’il...
mortelle.—13 à 20, C, C’est... cognoissance.—29 à 34, B, Comme...
d’or.—33 à 266, 20, C, Sulmone... contente.—1 à 17, B, Les Getes...
malorum.—25.—26 à 37, C, et de vouloir... occidissent.—33 à 35.—36
à 37, B, Quæ fuit... Occidissent.—38 à 268, 12, C, qui ne...
prophete.—266, 39 à 268, 3, B, et ne... peine.—7 à 12, B, Et elle...
prophete.—13 à 14, B, en la... l’embonpoinct.—15 à 25, B, Tantus...
intulit.—34 à 270, 2, B, Infirmum... cela.
270, 32.—38 à 39, C, Terramque... innumerali.—272, 4 à 5, C,
Cum... crescat.—10 à 12, C, Quare... æther.—14 à 19, B, que
Platon... createur.—22 à 23, B, Epicurus... dissemblables.—27 à 29,
B, Et au... Ceres.—31 à 42, C, Et y a... est ainsi.—39 à 41, des
nations... noire.—274, 6 à 8, B, Cela... ignorance.—14.—15 à 18, B,
la neige... Ou si.—23 à 276, 3, C, Et non... vaine.—274, 26 à 27, B,
la mort... moment.—32 à 276, B, Protagoras... vaine.—3.—16 à 22,
C, Prenons... embourbez.—27, B, assurent que.—35 à 36, C, Cette
fantasie... balance.—278, 6.—32 à 36 B, Mirum... similitude.—40.—
41 à 280, 26, C, Et est... corps.
280, 1 à 26, B, Magna... corps.—28 à 292, 14, C, Voyez...
familieres.—280, 40 à 282, 2, B, Quasi... faict.—8, B, quand...
trouue.—9 à 13, B, L’homme... faire.—20 à 37, B, Nous sommes...
bonté.—39 à 284, 6, Les biens... compagnons.—14 à 15, B,
Profecto... camparant.—27 à 286, 11, B, Varro... langue.—13 à 14,
A, (le lyon... espece).—19 à 25, B, D’où... humana.—38 à 39, B,
Tam... natura.—288, 12 à 13, B, pour nous... des leurs.—18 à 22, B,
Les Cauniens... territoire.—24, B, qui la peste.—24 à 25, B, qui vne
sorte... Deos.—27 à 28, B, à chasque... Dieu—31 à 36, B, O sancte...
venerandus.—37 à 39, B, qui loge... auo.—42 à 290, 8, B, Trois à...
mauuais.
290, 11 à 18, B, L’homme... fallitur.—20 à 23, B, Et ne...
temerité.—26 à 27, B, s’enquiert... reglément.—32 à 34, B, et vtile...
receuoit: et.—37 à 292, 14, B, Socrates... familieres.—27 à 294, 10,
C, et ranger... poetique.—292, 27 à 29, B, et ranger... Platon.—35,
B, et fanatiques folies.—34 à 294, 10, B, Ie suis... poetique.—16 à
17, C, (et nostre... iustice).—24 à 29, B, Platon... dire.—296, 7 à 15,
B, Et ce n’est... faillent.—22 à 24, Car... plagas.—27 à 32, B,
Comme... hommes.—298, 5, B, à telle... basse.—8.—8 à 11, B,
Omnia... homo est.
300, 15.—302, 7 à 9, B, La persuasion... Platon.—304, 11 à 21,
C, non de... insinuet se.—11 à 16, B, non de... cognoistre.—38 à 39,
C, Habitum... dicunt.—306, 4 à 6, B, Et apres... Cicero.—8 à 11, B,
Heraclitus... essence.—15 à 16, C, Vt bona... valentis.—18 à 19, C,
Hic... mulcent.—24 à 29, B, Qua facie... ignorées.—39 à 308, 15, B,
Que craignons... Dieux.—30 à 310, 2, B, Et lors... sage.
310, 6.—6 à 9, B, Qui fagoteroit... moderees.—17.—28, B, et les
falsifient.—31, B, pour... enfans.—33 à 312, 17, C, Ie conseillois...
fortuit.—1, B, et a tant dict.—4 à 5, B, Nihil... philosophorum.—8 à
17, B, Mes mœurs... fortuit.—18.—33 à 34, B, Medium... lustrat.—37
à 38, C, Cætera... mouetur.—314, 33 à 35, C, Si in... tenemus?—37.
—41.—316, 12 à 14, C, Nam si... errat.—30 à 33, B, Platon...
temporelles.—36.—318, 3 à 4, C, Gigni... mentem.—10 à 11, C,
Mentem... videmus.—15 à 16, C, Corpoream... laborat.—25 à 27, C,
Vis... veneno.—32, C, accablé.—35 à 38, C, Vis morbi... vndæ.—50 à
320, 2, C, Morbis... cadenti.
320, 4 à 11, B, non plus... premiere.—12.—25 à 28, C, Simul...
decidere.—26 à 28, B, Ce que... decidere.—35 à 40, Non alio...
lumiere?—41 à 44, B, laquelle... d’autres).—322, 2, B,
principalement.—4 à 6, B, non plus... probantium.—11.—13, B,
comme dit Platon.—16 à 25, B, Vn soing... volontiers.—28 à 29, B,
Somnia... ancien.—324, 8 à 9, B, Perdam... reprobabo.—22 à 33, B,
Confessons... persuasione.—37 à 39, B, Laissons... finie.—326, 7.—7
à 32, B, Et luy... en luy.—328, 11, B, des nostres mesmes.—32, C,
iusques au bout.—40 à 330, 5, B, Car... terre.
330, 35 à 332, 8, B, Et, qui... impossible.—17 à 30, C, Il ne...
vaisseau.—22 à 30, B, I’ay veu... vaisseau.—32 à 35,C, Tenez...
scauezza.—334, 6.—9 à 10, B, Et Platon... bestes.—18 à 33, C, On
le... tracent.—28.—30 à 33, B, Et n’y... tracent.—35.—338, 9.—25 à
26, C, Non potest... comprehendendi.—33.
340, 10.—27.—35 à 36, B, Inter... interest.—342, 8.—344, 12 à
20, C, Quoy... supernaturelle.—36 à 40, C, Cleomenes... fantasies.—
346, 1.—7 à 8, C, Ce venerable... iustice.—348, 16 à 18, C, Vn
mesme... aggreable.—20 à 24, C, Il se... l’allegresse.—21.—26.—28
à 350, 16, C, En mes... doigt.—348, 42.
350, 23, B, suiuant... Peripateticiens.—28 à 38, B, Semper...
politique.—38.—38 à 352, 3, C, et la prudence... presomption?—9.—
9 à 14, B, ou bien... queat.—18.—18 à 19, B, n’allant... emprunté.—
19.—20.—20.—22 à 354, 5, B, N’y a... incroyable?—32 à 38, C,
Autant... relinquit.—39.—356, 6 à 9, C, Ainsi... produites.—7.—19.—
20 à 21, B, par le... aixieu.—24 à 25.—34.—37.—358, 17 à 18, C, Il
ne... choses.—39.
360, 5, C, c’estoit... Antipodes.—15.—15 à 368, 19, C, et s’il...
mescompte?—360, 15 à 362, 11, B, et il... Saïs.—16 à 24, B, En
verité... choses.—37, B, l’abstinence... viure.—366, 30 à 35, B, Et
plaga... valentes.—368, 1 à 2, B, icy à la liberté, icy à la seruitude.—
8 à 10, B, disant... infertiles.—18 à 19, B, et qu’en... mescompte?—
27 à 36, C, Quid... vxor?—30 à 34, B, C’est pourquoi d’icelles.—37.
370, 5 à 14, C, Disons... nostres.—11 à 14, B, Cleobis... nostres.
—18, C, Virga... sunt.—23 à 29, C, Si consilium... doubteux.—32 à
34, B, duquel... disputat.—372, 1, B, qui a... douleur.—3, C, de
l’ancien Pythagoras.—6, B, Aristote... n’admirer.—16 à 26, C,
Combien... ce seroit.—30, C, comme est... diuin.—374, 4 à 19, B, Et
chez... parolle.—36, B, et temerité du sort.—376, 20 à 24, C, Il est...
inconstance.—24, B, Nihil... artis est.—378, 10 à 17, B, Ses amis...
des choulx.—17 à 23, C, C’est vn... pacis.—23.—25 à 30, B, On
preschoit... repliqua il.—30 à 33, C, Inde furor... colit.
380, 17, B, Aux foibles esprits.—13, C, Arcesilaus... le fust.—19 à
26, B, Et obscœnas... excessiues.—382, 7, B, Et la plus... obligation.
—8.—10 à 19, B, A peine... suiuy.—384, 8 à 20, B, C’est comme...
sa regle.—25.—386, 23 à 32, B, Pourtant... Landit.—388, 13 à 20,
B, Voyez... l’interprete.—28 à 38, B, Les Cyrenayens... cogitation.
390, 8, C, Via... mentis.—13, B, Et selon... sentiment.—392, 2 à
4, C, An poterunt... reuincent.—20, B, laquelle... consequences.—
394, 14 à 21, B, Qui apprend... tasté.—396, 10, C, Quicquid...
videtur.—15, C, Nec tamen... noli.—21 à 24, B, Timagoras...
l’instrument.—38 à 47, B, Ce conseil... l’impudence.—42 à 398, 4, C,
Au cas... science.—10 à 16, C, Extantésque... raptim.—31 à 41, C,
Quant à... bouche.—42 à 400, 9, B, Et Zenon... à moy.
400.—402, 15, B, Vt despici... possit.—20 à 22, C, Que
Theophrastus... changer.—25 à 27, B, Fit etiam... timore.—42 à 404,
1, B, Ils mentent... à l’enuy.—5, C, Multimodis... vigere.—18 à 31, C,
Ceux qui... dormir?—25 à 31, B, Nous veillons... dormir?—406, 18 à
21, C, Quelque... qualité?—23, Lurida... Arquati.—41 à 408, 1, C, si
nous... bina.—10 à 15, Et vulgo... colore.—28.
410, 2 à 9, C, Ces personnes... desdaignables?—14, C, Vt
cibus... ex se.—24.—28 à 32, B, Pourquoy... friandise.—34.—414, 16
à 22, B, Estimant... grand cas.—26 à 39, C, Epicharmus... autres.—
416, 2 à 5, C, Mutat... cogit.—418, 23.—25, B, Extraordinairement.
—28, B, C’est à... metamorphose.
420.—Ch. XIII.—17 à 25, C, Prouehimur... auec nous.—27, B,
Tot circa... deos.—29 à 35, B, Comment... qu’vn.—422, 11 à 18, C,
Et cette... actions.—18.—18, B, Non tanta... fulgor.—25, B,
D’autant... dessein.—33 à 35, C, Vidimus... morti.—424, 5, C,
Impiger... coacta.—19 à 22, B, Pendant... gens.—22 à 25, C,
Albucilla... Sicile.—26 à 31, B, Et C. Fimbria... transperça.—37, C, Si
Cæsar... croire.—426, 8 à 13, B, Il n’y a rien... cogitation.—33 à 40,
B, L’histoire... auancé.
430.—Ch. XIV.—32.—432.—Ch. XV.—2.—5, B, In æquo...
amittendæ.—9.—14, C, Si nunquam... parens.—28 à 30, B,
Combien... l’Amour?—31, C, Elle est... escorche.—434, 6 à 12, C,
Ceux de... à un autre.—12 à 17, B, I’ay chassé... deuant.—21, C,
Nisi... mea.—26 à 35, C, La rigueur... heri.—26, B, Pourquoy
inuenta... amants.—43.—37 à 436, 20, C, Pourquoy a...
languissante.—10.—14.—23 à 31, C, C’est vn... dommage.—438, 2 à
5, C, Qu’ils... serpunt.—8 à 14, B, Les histoires... d’ailleurs.—14 à 17,
C, Il y a... hayes.—17 à 440, 29, B, Furem... trente ans.
440.—Ch. XVI.—442, 32 à 36, C, Le premier... fleurisse.—40, C,
Gloria... est.—446, 6 à 8, B, Aristote... fuyr.—22 à 448, 5, B, N’y
va... suam.—9, B, Profecto... obscuràtque.—12 à 18, B, C’est le...
longueur.—19, B, Quasi... sit.—28 à 34, B, Vera... particulier.
450, 4.—17 à 22, Qui tient... nostræ.—43 à 46, C, Virtus... auræ.
—452, 5, B, Non... decore.—9 à 13, C, Il faut... d’inconstance.—13 à
16, B, Est-ce... vniuersos.—16, C, quiconque... prise.—17 à 22, B, Nil
tam... laudetur.—22 à 33, C, Null’art... vtile.—33, B, Dedit... iuuarent.
—34 à 454, 4, C, Le marinier... dolos.—5 à 12, B, Paul Æmile...
consentement.—12 à 17, C, Il y a... bellè.—27, B, en particulier.—31
à 36, C, Et qui... asseurez.—456, 2 à 10, C, En celles... extrà.—24,
B, à la... en soy.—27 à 29, B, Et quand... par fois.—458, 1, C,
surnom... Angleterre.—6.—7.—10, C, Nunc... violæ.—22 à 23, C,
Casus... aceruo.—27 à 31, B, Les fortunes... d’exemples.—35, C, Ad
nos... aura.—37 à 460, 1, C, Les Lacedemoniens... memoire.
460, 14, B, Et ce... demeurant.—17, C, Quos... recondit.—30, B,
rectè... est.—38 à 462, 3, C, Si le peuple... l’entreprend.—4 à 14, B,
Et Platon... possunt.—26 à 35, B, Et l’authorité... d’Ægypte.—40, C,
In ferrum... vitæ.—464, 4 à 7, C, vt enim... refus.—6, B, Ny.—17 à
19, B, Toute... conscience.—Ch. XVII.—466, 16, B, Et de qui...
parlent.—26, B, Nec id... fuit.—37.—42.—468, 1, B, On peut...
gloire.—2 à 9, C, Ie suis... n’oublions pas.—20 à 470, 8, B, Il me
semble... Pareillement.
470, 9, B, en gros.—18, B, qui voient... ciel.—34 à 472, 1, B, Ie
me... teint.—5.—18, B, est.—19 à 474, 1, B, Que nous n’auons...
conceut.—6, C, puis qu’on... soy-mesmes.—6 à 12, B,
Specialement... maintenir.—15, C, Cùm... lini.—18, B, saisir ny.—19.
—22, B, et souhaict.—25.—35 à 476, 1, B, Quand... Rabirius.—9 à
11, C, Les Princes... comptes.—11.—12 à 16, B, Mauuais...
sagement.—28, B, sinon... inclination.—30.—34, B, Platon... langage.
—36, C, æquable.—39 à 41, C, Et si... Plutarque.—478, 15 à 17, B,
C’est... esfoiré.—18.—20 à 22, B, Autant... abondant.—24, B, ouï...
Iean.
480, 7 à 14, B, La secte... Nature.—17 à 19, C, Agros...
vigebant.—20, C, vn peu.—24 à 33, B, C. Marius... hault.—38 à 482,
2, C, Ipse... hominum.—2, B, Et Platon... république.—6, B, à vostre.
—7.—11.—17, C, et rondeur.—17, C, et douceur.—20, C, ny le poil
releué.—22.—25, C, entre... moyennement.—31, C, pieça.—32, C,
Minutatim... ætas.—484, B, et ne ly... clerc.—10, C, ny trancher...
vaille.—11 à 13, B, ny equipper... cheuaux.—20, B, pourquoy...
ongles, et.—23, C, Tanti... aurum.—25, B, Extremement oisif... soing.
—33 à 36, B, (vne occasion... inquietude).—41.—41 à 486, 7, B, Qui
est... patience.—10 à 14, B, ou, si i’en... poussif.—32 à 35, C,
I’ayme... apparences.—32 à 488, 11, C, A vn danger... souffrance.—
12, B, Dubia... mala.—14 à 30, C, Aux euenements... reproche.—37
à 490, 10, C, Spem... Queste.
490, 11, B, Capienda... est.—12 à 14, C, Et i’excuse... peut.—14,
B, point.—14, C, voir... faute.—24, C, Turpe... genu.—35, C, Nunc...
tousiours tout.—44 à 492, 8, B, Les marchans... bonitas.—9 à 12, B,
grand... homme. [Le reste de la phrase est modifié en conséquence
par la substitution de la 1e personne à la 3e: mes vengeances, ma
parole, ma foy].—16, C, que de plier... seruice.—22, C, Par là...
manquer.—26.—26 à 28, B, Aristote... d’autruy.—28 à 30, C,
Apollonius... verité.—30 à 37, B, C’est là... impremeditement.—494,
3, si ce n’est... verité.—10 à 12, B, Quo... quis probitatis.—14, C,
Comme... Tibere.—17, C, Qui est... mensonge.—18 à 496, 1, B,
Ceux qui... preiudice.—2 à 4, C, I’aduoüe... ouuert.—4, B, comme ie
suis.—4 à 17, C, sans consideration... l’euenement.—17 à 19, B,
Aristippus... chacun.—26, B, et miserable.—26, B, mot à mot.—28 à
33, B, Mais ce... autheur.—37 à 498, 31, C, Cecy que... dessein.—6,
B, par fois.
500, 2 à 5, C, Ie diray... lettre.—6 à 12, C, Messala... l’âme.—7,
B, Ce qu’on... Trapezonce.—13.—14 à 17, C, Il m’est... continet.—14,
B, trois... parauant.—15 à 17, B, et d’oublier... continet.—26, C, les
mots.—26 à 34, C, Et suis... raison.—34 à 37, B, Ce n’est... reçoy.—
502, 5, C, et profondement.—7, B, long.—17, B, si non...
instruisables.—34 à 37, C, moins... chien.—39, B, et que... vin.—44.
—504, 4.—5, B, Qu’on... non.—31, C, Ne si... choisir.—34 à 37, B, et
le philosophe... mesme.—506, 9 à 11, B, La raison... baston.—17 à
20, C, les miennes... foiblesse.—20, B, Ipsa... lubrica.—508, 12, C,
Nunquam... supersint.—22 à 27, B, Ie fay... plaide.—32 à 35, C’est
vne... opaque.—39, C, du courage.—39, C, corporelle.—40.
510, 5 à 8, B, si ce n’est... le sien.—9, C, et vne... nom.—10.—10
à 21, B, Et puis... plaire.—23, B, n’est-ce... veuë.—512, 7, C,
Nemo... descendere.—10, C, quelle qu’elle... moy.—13, C, elles
sont... miennes.—19 à 23, C, La recommandation... mœurs.—23 à
26, Omnino... tuam.—514, 3 à 10, C, Voire... d’honneur.—10, B,
Mon... non.—11 à 13, C, Et ne... ce soit.—13 à 23, B, Ie me... vertu.
—22, C, ou vne... excellence.—34.—516, C, qu’en... plastre.—518,
B, La moins... sapit.—24 à 32, C, Les vies... temps.—32 à 520, 15,
B, Comme... consideration.
520.—Ch. XVIII.—522, 4, B, Caton.—14.—13 à 15, C, Non
equidem... loquimur.—21, C, Ie iuge... nihilité.—22, B, Ie ne...
rougis.—29.—30.—31, B, Paterna... affectus.—37.—37, B, peut
estre... marché.—40, C, Et laxas... tunicas.—524, 1 à 526, 2, B, Et
quand... seruir.—7, B, et le premier... republique.—27 à 30, C, Seroit-
ce... science?—4 à 11, C, Certaines... prononcée.—Ch. XIX.
 530.—532, 26.—534, 29 à 35, B, Ce langage... attache. [Ce
passage légèrement modifié existe dans l’édition de 1580, après le
mot sang, II, 532, 21].—536.—Ch. XX.—32.—538, 1 à 4, B, Ny la
vertu... Aristippique.—6 à 13, C, Medio... consubstantialité.—13 à 15,
B, La profonde... masche.—19 à 23, B, Le travail... queuë.—23 à 31,
C, Metrodorus... voluptas.—32 à 36, B, Et dit... aigres.—36 à 41, C,
Nature... larmes.—41 à 540, 7, B, Nullum... d’enfondrer.
540, 7 à 15, C, Quand ie... bigarrure.—12, B, (et il y escoutoit de
pres).—20 à 35, C, Il est... diuerses.—35, B, contraires.—35 à 542,
6, B, volutantibus... verité.—6 à 18, C, Qui en... conte.—Ch. XXI.—
544, 1 à 37, B, Quand quelqu’vn... presence.—546, 8 à 550, 10, B,
C’est vne... sa main.
550.—Ch. XXII.—11 à 13, C, Ie n’ay... long temps.—18, B, Et
disent... gruës.—26, B, et ne se... gué.—39 à 552, 4, B, En la...
course.—4 à 17, C, L’inuention... vn pas.—17 à 23, B, I’entends...
vsage.—Ch. XXIII.—554, 32, C, Et... incumbit.—556, 14, C, Nil...
heris.—33 à 40, C, Quid... armis.—558, 12 à 17, C, Les filles...
rumpi.—20 à 26, C, iusques... viriles.—Ch. XXIV.
560, 13.—18 à 20, C, Tot... donnoit.—21 à 39, B, Si en...
immortels.—39 à 41, C, Tous les... estrangers.—562, 6 à 10, B, Il
est... acquis.—Ch. XXV.—564, 13 à 18, B, De tout... race.—566.—
Ch. XXVI.—26.—568, 15.—18, B, Les Atheniens... marine.—19, C,
En Lacedemone... pouce.—Ch. XXVII.—22 à 30, C, et si ay...
extremitez?
570.—11, C, Et lupus... fera est.—26 à 36, C, Et tout...
repentance.—40 à 42, B, Et luy... insensiblement.—572, 3 à 5, C,
C’est vne... d’entreprinse.—7 à 16, B, Ce n’est... les bras.—19.—20 à
31, B, Et cherchons... soy pas.—32.—36 à 580, 12, C’est aussi...
theme.—574, 4, B, Quum in... esset.—7, B, et pour... combat.—34,
B, trois cents... Curiatiens.—576, 37, B, et l’exerçons... sçauoir.—33
à 37, B, vtile... experience.—578, 22, B, Consus.—25 à 30, B,
Escrime... present.—38 à 580, 11, B, Aussi y... conferent point.
 580, 17, B, Doncq.—22 à 582, 34, B, Les premieres... maistres.
—584, 12, B, trois... auoit.—14 à 586, 3, B, Chalcondyle... suitte.—
Ch. XXVIII.—5.—18 à 21, B, Comme on... gaigna.—24, C,
Imponit... honestis.—25 à 28, C, Et Philopœmen... employer.—588,
7 à 9, C, Tu secanda... domos.—22, B, On peut... abecedaire.—24,
C, Diuersos... conueniunt.—40 à 590, 2, B, La nuict... fut vn.
590.—Ch. XXIX.—24 à 26, B, sauf... gros.—592, 19, B, qu’on le
puisse.—594, 23 à 27, C, Vbi... viris.—28 à 596, 24, B, Vn homme...
enseuelis.—34 à 37, C, Et n’estoit... terrestre.—598, 42 à 600, 29,
B, Vn jeune... espaule.
600, 29 à 602, 25, C, Il n’est... patience.—25 à 36, B, Les
Assassins... d’œuure.—604.—Ch. XXX.—33, Vt quum... reuocentur.
—34 à 606, 3, C, Ie vien... femmes.—3 à 14, B, Ce que... apporte.—
Ch. XXXI.—19 à 23, B, La plus part... l’enfance.—608, 3 à 7, C,
Rabie... visage.—12 à 14, C, Gratum... agendis.—22 à 31, C, au
trauers... soif.—40.
610, 19.—30.—28 à 31, C, Car les... proposer.—612, 20.—614,
5 à 618, 27, C, Ceux qui... le moins.—616, 7.—12, B, Omnia...
subsidunt.
620.—Ch. XXXII.—2, B, et à mon... despouilles.—15.—622, 23.
—624, B, L’histoire... miracle.—32 à 40, C, Vn paysan... s’y tua.—40
à 626, 10, B, Epicharis... contre luy?—27, C, (comme...) auant.—31
à 628, 2, C, I’ay cogneu... fermeté.—5, B, ce que... Bodin.—7, B, ou
ne voudroient.—7 à 14, B, Il semble... insupportable!—14.—18 à 21,
B, desquels... se monter.
630.—29.—632.—Ch. XXXIII.—634, 12.—28, C, s’il en faut...
peinture.—636, 10 à 638, 2, B, Me ressouuenant... Cæsar.
640, 2, C, A ce que... sobrieté.—642, 28.—644, 11 à 14, C,
Qualis... ebur.—16.—23 à 646, 13, B, pour en... force.—Ch. XXXIV.
—16, B, Scipion... Xenophon.
 650.—1.—8, C, Rheni... æquat.—10.—13.—652, 3.—19 à 25,
Ocior... secum.—37 à 654, 2, C, Il fit... artus.—7 à 10, C, Si... agris.
—36, C, et disoit-il... entreprises.—656, 20.—21 à 35, B, Suiuant...
militaire.—658, 4.
660, 14 à 18, B, La passion... prenoient.—37.—662.—Ch.
XXXV.—22 à 27, C, La touche... perdus.—27 à 664, 1, B,
cherchent... morts.—1 à 10, C, La vie... la vie.—10 à 12, B, Est-ce...
suis plus?—13 à 30, C, S’il y a... conséquence.—666, 26.—668, 29.
—44.
670, 2.—672, 18.—20.—37.—674, 15.—20, B, excellens...
vsage.

TROISIÈME VOLUME.

10.—Liv. II, Ch. XXXVI.—10, C, Tale... articulis.—21.—24, B,

en quelque... ce soit.—12, 17.—24.—24, B, Que n’estoit...
philosophes.—14, 20, C, Impellens... ruina.—23 à 27, C, et en vne...
l’homme.—32, C, iustice... vaincus.—34.—34 à 16, 14, C, ouy bien...
des hommes.—5, B, et a esté... vices.—15.—15 à 19, C, ce port...
resoluit.—21 à 25, C, et qu’encore... que ce soit.—25 à 28, B, et
qu’encores... priuilege.—30, C, Et il ne... d’Alexandre.—32 à 41, C,
Ce furent... du monde.—18, 13, B, facilement.—16 à 18, B, Car il...
persuasif.—20.—20 à 22, B, qui seule... ensemble.—23 à 26, C, En
cestuy-ci... fortuite.—26 à 20, 15, B, L’ancienneté... Epaminondas.
20, 16 à 20, C, Le plus... action.—20.—25 à 22, 2, B, Et son...
par luy.—Ch. XXXVII.—8, B, ouy a... oster.—30.—30 à 24, 1, B,
Qu’à celuy... vsures.—7 à 20, B, Oyez... maux.—34, B, comme...
employons.—26, 20.—21 à 28, B, Qu’elle condone... semble.—29.—
33, B, capable... mesure.—35.—37.—28, 4 à 9, B, Ne
commandons... vehementior.—12.—13, B, et me... brailler.—19.—19
à 32, B, comme celuy-là... estrangement.—33, B, lors que... ronger.
—34.—36.—38 à 40, C, Laborum... peregi.
30, 8.—28 à 36, C, et comme... ressemblance.—32, 9, C, le
troisiesme... naissance.—14, C, seul iusques... mere.—41, B, asteure.
—41, B, sain.—34, 10.—13 à 19, C, Le dernier... Sainct Michel.—18 à
31, C, Et suyuant... grandes.—35.—40.—36, 2.—6.—6 à 18, C,
I’entends... limite.—18 à 26, B, Comme nous... l’estime.—37.—38,
20 à 24, B, Et les Lybiens... rheume.—30 à 40, 24, C, Et si ne...
estomach.
40, 1 à 24, B, C’est du... estomach.—17 à 19, Vn mauuais...
autrefois.—33.—37.—42, 21 à 23, C, Platon... promesses.—27.—44,
2.—3 à 6, C, Nam... vndas.—8 à 10, C, Vn medecin... de gens.—15 à
18, B, Quoy qu’en... cassam.—20.—24, B, et incognu.—48, 9.—25.—
30.
50, 1 à 7, Æsope... santé.—23.—52, 14.—15.—24.—54, 5 à 25,
B, Comme nous... dissentieuses.—56, 18 à 60, 14, C, Il est bon...
cet art. [Voir aux notes].
60.—62, 2.—4.—40.—64, 15.—33.—37 à 66, 6, C, I’entens...
goust.—14.—16 à 20, B, La plus part... patience.—23 à 27, B, Les
Babyloniens... autrement.—32 à 35, B, Ce qu’Homere... croire.
70, 14 à 23, C, Quand... procuration.—23, B, declarez.—72, 10 à
18, C, L’humeur... oreilles.—13 à 23, B, Si i’estoy... oreilles.—26.—28
à 36, B, Qui a... seruist.—74, 21.—21.—76, 6.—32, B, et plus...
formes.—37.

LIVRE TROISIÈME.

78.—Ch. I.
80, 24, B, et qu’on massacre.—82, 21, B, en ce.—27 à 29, B, Ie
regarde... bon gré.—34, B, Vtatur... potest.—84, 7.—17 à 25, B, Ea
non... necessairement.—88, 4 à 6, B, Vn parler... l’amour.—21 à 24,
B, Et eux... la leur.—33, B, à cette heure.
90, 29, B, Id maximè... maximè.—36, B, speciale, nationale.—37,
B, Veri... vtimur.—92, B, Ex... exercentur.—94, 14 à 16, B, Si la...
trahison.—18.—20, B, par apres.—21, B, vn seruage et.—96, 10 à
26, B, L’esclaue... chiens.—30 à 33, B, Ioint... menees.—98, 7 à 20,
B, Quand le... homicide.—28, B, sed... periurio.—30 à 100, 8, B,
Quand il... iuste.
100, 13 à 102, 31, B, Timoleon... obligation.—104, 3, B, ou ses
complices.—16, B, bien.—18, B, toute.—22, B, et la... innocence.—
31, B, qu’il y... mesmes.—33, B, manente... iuris.—38, B, de son Roy,
ny.—39, B, Non enim... parentes.—106, 19, B, et qu’elle... chacun.—
21, Omnia... apta.—24.—Ch. II.—108, 24 à 29, B, Les autheurs... à
soy.
110, 6 à 8, B, ne penetra... suittes: et.—18 à 21, B, Qui a vn...
mesme.—31 à 34, B, et que ma... homme.—37.—112, 5, B, La
malice... empoisonne.—25, B, et apprinst.—33 à 114, 10, B,
signamment... mode.—20.—20 à 22, B, Tuo tibi... omnia.—27, B, et
ancrez.—116, 17 à 27, B, Nul a... quitte.—118, 2 à 4, B, Et les...
magistrat.—5 à 7, B, La plus... gloire.—15 à 34, B, La grandeur...
viure.
120, 19, B, Nature... vsage.—25.—26, B, à bon marché.—124,
16, B, ou pechez de profession.—17.—21 à 27, B, Ie ne... office.—32,
B, ny d’interruption.—126, 33 à 128, 5, La force... limites.—6.—17.
—18 à 130, 1, B, Ie n’ay... gariement.
130, 11, B, Nec tam... sit.—21, B, Moy... trouue que.—24 à 27,
B, Et trouue... spirituelle.—30.—34.—34 à 132, 32, B, Miserable...
douloureuses.—35.—134, 20 à 24, A voir... accoustumee.—26.—
136.—Ch. III.—5 à 7, B, Voyla... ageret.—16, B, bandee et.—24, B,
Les liures... estude.—27, B, se range... fortifie.—31.—31 à 138, 11,
B, Le mediter... memoyre.—16.—19.—29, B, et toute... commune.
 140, 23.—24.—142, 4 à 10, B, Et le conseil... equitables.—144,
11, B, de Capsula totæ.—146, 7, B, et non... affaires.—148, 16.—
22, B, belles et.—22.—22 à 23, B, nam... habemus.
150, 8 à 15, B, qui ne... vne qui.—22 à 25, B, Neque... aymons.
—152, 6 à 8, B, de la santé... preambulaires.—24.—24 à 29, B, elle
est... deux ans.—156, 3 à 38, B, Elle est... estre.—158, 3, B, le ieu
et le passetemps.—7.—8 à 10, B, non pour... au dela.—Ch. IV.
160, 14.—17.—19 à 26, B, Ny n’allay... Cicero.—34 à 162, 3, B,
A l’aduenture... histoires.—164, 6 à 8, B, Abducendus... est.—19, B,
et si dru... discours.—166, 3 à 12, B, Subrius... subiect.—18.—21 à
27, B, Beaucoup... destiné.—168, 5 à 9, B, Xenophon... teste.—10 à
15, C, Omnes... dolorum.—17 à 26, B, Voire... hommes.
170, 30 à 32, B, et suiuant... d’icelles.—172, 8.—8, B, Cela
c’est... chausse.—3 à 174, 10, B, L’opiniastreté... m’attendrit.—12 à
16, B, c’est vne... iambe.—33 à 176, 5, B, Quintilian... douleur.—11
à 19, B, De bien... mort.—178, 1 à 5, B, Quelles grimaces...
persecute?—Ch. V.—31, B, dit-on.
180, 23.—27.—34 à 40, B, Platon... d’entre eux.—182, 14 à 17,
B, Ie ne... auctori.—30 à 32, B, Sibi arma... tesseras.—41, B, in
fragili... est.—184, 11.—19.—26 à 37, B, Noz maistres... contraire.—
186, 6, Tristèmque... arrogantiam.—8 à 11, B, Ie croy... rire.—12 à
18, B, Ie sçay... sentire.—29 à 188, 9, B, Qui s’obligeroit...
confesser.—18, B, luy.—37 à 190, 4, B, ny à la malice... blanchie.
190, 7, B, encore.—22 à 24, B, Socrates... disent.—31 à 33, B,
On me pourroit... sottise.—192, 8 à 22, B, Car il... vieillesse.—23, B,
ses vertus... moindres.—196, 21.—198, 4 à 26, B, De vray...
fortune.
200, 9 à 11, B, Socrates... repentira.—202, 10.—11, B, c’est
trahison... s’espouser.—20, B, Tel valet... pourtant.—32 à 36, B, Et
iusques... teste.—204, 6.—10.—14, B, Pour fuir... Platon.—206, 4.—
14 à 16, B, considerans... coniugale.—16, B, dis-ie.—208, 3, B, Si
c’est... vefues.
 210, 3, B, Seroit-ce... autresfois?—22.—30 à 212, 2, B, De
quel... volupté.—5.—7, B, Nimirum... extinguitur.—35 à 214, 3, B, Il
me... pied.—5 à 6, B, suyuant... corpora.—14 à 22, B, Les Dieux...
matrice.—27 à 30, B, Et tel... vsage.—33 à 216, 3, B, Que sçait-on...
à cela.—4 à 12, B, Et quoy... yeux.—14 à 22, B, Les
Lacedemoniennes... estat.—30 à 218, 3, B, Inique... cause.—24, B,
Diaboli... Ierosme.
220, 5 à 13, B, Car cette... chasteté.—222, 11.—40.—224, 9, B,
outre... républiques.—19 à 21, B, c’est des... remede.—226, 6.—10
à 12, B, Les femmes... couuertement.—228, 5, B, si cuysant et.—24,
B, d’vn visage sérieux.
230, 2 à 6, B, Il est... l’a tuee.—24 à 35, B, Mais... Mecenas?—
232, 10 à 16, B, Phedon... polices.—234, 23, B, Chacun...
vicissitude.—31 à 36, B, Les aigreurs... en sent.—236, 10 à 15, B, Le
Senat... tres-difficiles.—27.—238, 6.—13, B, et qui... l’incitast?
240, 7, B, Contextus... occupati.—14, B, Pectus... facit.—24, B,
Elles... disent.—242, 15, maniant et.—244, 7 à 11, B, Et auroy...
chantres.—16, B, ie ne... aile.—31 à 33, B, tu te... feinte.—246, 4, B,
A Paris... Montaigne.—11 à 27, B, Imitation... l’air.—248, 20.—21 à
25, B, en vn... beauté.—30, B, qu’on ayt... ensemble.
250, 4.—15 à 17, B, Ceux qui... deuantiere.—34, B, Sommes...
faict?—252, 3 à 11, B, (à cette... sexe.—12.—12 à 15, B, Pour le...
peut.—18 à 21, B, Les Atheniens... ensemble.—22.—23.—28 à 34, B,
En l’empire... empirement.—35, B, à qui... mal-heur?—254, 5, B, Il
en... adorees.—7, B, dangereux... desreglement.—10.—13, B,
Trouues... fasche.—19, B, incertaines.—20, B, Les ordonnances...
point.—256, 35 à 258, 2, B, Et Thrasonidez... paissoit.—21.—31.—
33 à 260, 1, B, Ne semble... songe?
260, 32.—262, 3 à 5, B, Et ont... resnes.—9.—10, B, pages.—19,
B, de soy.—22.—23 à 25, B, C’est à... guerre.—27, B, et à nous aussi
—29 à 31, B, Car, comme... entrer.—264, 1 à 3, B, Platon... tenants.
—3.—14, B, Pati natæ.—17 à 33, B, Il faut... Princesse.—266, 5.—
15.—15 à 21, B, Ieanne... abusee.—24 à 27, B, Platon... seulement.
—268, 5.—13 à 16, B, Et admire... ieunesse.—36 à 272, 4, B, et
d’vne... Suiuons.
270.—272, 10, B, Il n’y... volontaires.—274, 2.—7 à 15, B,
I’ay... difficulté.—17, B, à nos gens.—33, B, L’insuffisance...
meslouable.—276, 2, B, Nullum... est.—19.—23.—31.—40.—41, B,
Pourquoy... chose.—278, 4.—12.—29 à 280, 3, B, En pareil... corps?
280, 4.—7, B, la grace.—10 à 12, B, me remettroit... à soy.—14,
B, et le... santé.—17.—17, B, et la... la vie.—33 à 39, B, Et ce... frais.
—282, 3 à 5, B, En verité... fait.—6.—14, B, ou à la... suiue.—19 à
23, B, Xenophon... informe.—29 à 36, B, Et entre... lissee.—284, 1 à
4, B, Et la... Harmodiens.—9 à 12, B, Et Marguerite... bonnes.—16,
B, Amor... nescit.—20.—30.—31 à 286, 1, B, achetant... à vne.—16
à 20, Platon... nostre.—Ch. VI.—288, 19, B, Comme... succurreret.
—27, B, sinon... toutesfois.
290, 7, B, Quo... est.—18, B, ressoudre et.—24 à 26, B,
Epicurus... sage.—26, B, me.—292, 9 à 32, Si i’en... bœufs.—294,
12 à 16, B, Le conseil... memoire.—24 à 296, 3, B, Et a l’on...
seruice.—10.—17 à 22, B, La iurisdiction... versatur.—29 à 32, B, Et
son... liberaux.—39, B, il faut... respandre.—298, 10 à 12, B, Quo
in... possis?—15.—29 à 300, 18, B, Comment... Princes.
300, 24, B, principalement.—25 à 31, B, Pecuniarum... coffre.—
304, 24 à 31, B, Et la... formarum.—32, B, par rapport.—44, B,
multiplication et.—308, 38, B, et boucliers de bois.
310.—314, 8, B, et iouyr... reserré.—35.—316, 1, B, si barbares.
—4.—12.—24.
320.—Ch. VII.—322, 30 à 34, B, Et ay... aysee.—324, 1 à 18,
B, Mais si... partis.—19 à 25, B, Otanez... commande.—326, 38, B,
s’enialouser.
330.—Ch. VIII.—17.—17 à 20, B, De les condamner... faute.—
22, B, et incorrigibles.—332, 5.—20.—21 à 24, B, Ie me...
inuincibles.—336, 12 à 15, B, Elle n’est... potest.—17.—21.—26 à
338, 12, B, Et pourueu... rabillent.—32, B, par trop.—26 à 33, B, Ce
n’est... dits.—37 à 340, 10, B, Il est... nays.
340, 18.—20.—22 à 24, B, ou sur... contention.—29 à 31, B, Cet
autre... sien.—342, 3, B, Nihil... litteris.—5, B, Nec ad...
differendum.—27, B, sub... latentes.—30.—344, 4 à 10, B, Il m’est...
exercer.—16, B, Le monde... inquisition.—22 à 26, Et tous... l’imite.—
346, 12 à 14, B, Mison... respondit-il.—16 à 19, B, Si ie... alteration.
—24, B, Ce que... sain.—26 à 31, B, Non seulement... exemples.—
32, B, par celuy qui l’inuenta.—33.—34 à 348, 26, B, Nos yeux...
conscience.
350, 20 à 23, B, Comme... amas.—352, 15 à 17, B, Et les...
estuyee.—354, 3, B, Principis... suos.—15 à 19, B, Les
Carthaginois... bon heur.—356, 4.—25, B, et casuelles.—34, B, Et y...
subtils.—36, B, Vt quisque... dicimus.
360, 18, B, Qu’on... moy-mesme.—362, 2 à 20, B, Qu’ils... sots.
—364, 3, B, Le dogme... ailleurs.—5, B, Mais icy.—10 à 16, B, Et
pouuons... institution.—22, B, Mon humeur... principians.—36 à 366,
1, B, L’obstination... l’asne.—8, B, ny moins... Lycurgus.—25, B,
royal... s’esbatant.—368, 10, B, et le deuancer.—31, B, Et
Seneque... potest.
370, 18.—18 à 25, B, Et me... longueur.—28.—374, 1.—5 à 12,
B, I’ose... saoul.—30 à 35, B, et l’autre... antiquité.—376, 4, B, et
certaine... oreilles.—8.—Ch. IX.—378, 37 à 380, 2, B, C’est à... vie.
380, 6, B, et iette... coignee.—20, B, Comme si... mauuaise.—23,
B, la faueur... roydit.—382, 28, B, ie ne pretens... et que.—24, B, au
demeurant.—36, B, Non æstimatione... modus.—384, 2 à 22, B, Les
voyages... richesses.—32 à 34, B, Et les... cacher.—35.—386, 1, B,
et graisles.—3, B, la tourbe... soit.—6 à 10.—12, B, nemo... impelli.—
17 à 20, B, Les inconuenients... inseparables.—42, B, Diogenes...
fait-il.—388, 8 à 11, B, Et accuse... main.—18, B, Elles sont...
aggreables.—24, B, le nom... m’abille.—30 à 33, B, Nous... l’homme.
 390, B, vne fois.—2, B, comme luy.—3.—3 à 5, C, Fructus...
confertur.—9, B, et Platon... abstenir.—24, B, Multi... fecerunt.—31,
B, de cette... larrecin.—392, 2 à 4, La portion... iniure.—12.—12 à
16, B, Que ne... auachir.—23, B, Seruitus... suo.—25, B, et cures...
maison.—31 à 33, B, Vne rene... eschec.—394, 4 à 7, B, Cela...
fascheux.—22 à 27, B, I’en parle... iniustice.—398, 23 à 26, B,
Varro... nature.
400, 15, B, non tam... cupidi.—20 à 402, 22, B, La fin...
inexperimenté.—35 à 39, B, C’est comme... peuples.—42.—43 à
404, 2, B, C’est nostre... dessoubs.—15 à 18, B, (et me...
escheuës).—406, 28 à 32, B, Il semble... craintes.—41 à 408, 3, B,
Et l’vsage... vniuerselles.—34, B, d’accent... visage.—38 à 410, 3, B,
et chose... expectatio.
410, 10, B, Simpliciora... decent.—24 à 33, B, Mon... aage.—
412, 2.—3, B, qui furent... vingts.—4 à 16, B, Moy à... qu’autre.—22.
—414, 15 à 17, B, Et tels... balance.—17.—416, 5 à 7, B, la libre...
condonons.—11, B, par recompense ny.—27 à 418, 2, B, Ie suis...
propositions.—6, B, Hoc... voluntarium.—17.—21, B, à faire...
affection.—23.—23, B, Est prudentis... beneuolentiæ.—30.
420, 6.—9, B, me donnent... rien.—13 à 16, B, Combien...
acheue.—17, B, In me... mihi.—23, B, et en courage... fortune.—25 à
33, B, Eleus... estranger.—34.—36.—36 à 422, 37, B, Ie me...
chacun.—424, 1, B, aussi... Aristote.—7 à 14, B, Cyrus... amys.—29.
—426, 9 à 11, B, Ils disent... longue.—24 à 32, B, Les voleurs... de
peu.—428, 19.—31 à 430, 11, B, Ce que... iugement.
430, 15, B, fantasies et vsances.—24 à 27, Ie voudroy...
Xenophon.—432, 21 à 24, B, Qu’on... œconomique.—30 à 32, B, Il
n’aduiendra... quitte.—434, 4.—5 à 8, Ces interruptions... party.—16
à 22, B, Elle embrasse... occasion.—436, 1, B, Rerum... finium.—7 à
10, B, ou comme... besoing est.—39 à 438, 5, B, Ieune... soixante.
—8 à 11, B, et me... course.
 440, 35 à 442, 6, B, Qui se... femmes.—444, 2 à 12, B,
I’embrasseroy... l’iniure.—16 à 22, B, Ie me... quittée.—29 à 33, B,
Plaisante... præcordia.—37.—446, 1 à 3, B, Si estimons... hideuses.
—6 à 9, B, Pourtant... pourroit.—24.—24 à 30, B, La decrepitude...
compagnie.—448, 16 à 21, B, Il escoule... estat.
450, 4.—24, B, Tant... l’effect.—35.—452, 8 à 25, B, Mon... par
fois.—454, 12 à 16, B, Quand... d’estrangers.—456, 13.—13, B,
extreme.—18 à 25, B, Si cum... vita.—36 à 458, 1, B, La majesté...
pompe.—14, B, Nulla... composuit.—26.—38, B, sans... particuliere.
460, 7, B, Dominus... sunt.—14, B, Sic est... sequamur.—23 à
26, B, Celle à... Porcie.—462, 7, B, Et Xenophon... Aristippique.—14
à 18, B, Antisthenes... nature.—19 à 21, B, Les bons... appetit.—27,
B, vniuerselle.—40, B, et que... foiter.—464, 5 à 10, B, L’homme...
pouuons pas.—19 à 25, B, Mes mœurs... de luy.—466, 9 à 16, B,
Platon... à soy.—25 à 27, B, La liberté... mestier là.—32, B, et faicts...
effects.—36 à 43, B, Ie trouue... exemple.—468, 5.—suyuent...
promesse.
470, 24 à 28, B, I’ay... sembler.—30, B, l’Andria... ceux cy.—31 à
472, 4, B, C’est vn... serré.—5, B, mon style... mesme.—7, B,
disent... exemples.—9, B, et ie la... vers.—12 à 18, B, Le poëte...
Dieux.—24 à 27, B, Nihil... ie dy.—36 à 474, 5, B, Par ce...
discordantes.—9.—29.—476, 7 à 13, B, Est ce... ponimus.—16, B,
Ego... assurgo.—32, B, Laudandis... ruinis.—33, B, Vt palam...
naturæ.—478, 26, B, Bona... semina.—34, B, particulierement.
480.—484.—Ch. X.—15 à 17, B, On se... deux.—486, 21 à 26,
B, In negotiis... dignité.—488, 2, B, et le... enfoncer.—18.—21.
490, 10 à 15, B, La verité... errent.—25 à 28, B, faulce... amitié.
—36, B, Qui ne... esse.—38.—492, 25, B, et me... a moy.—32, B,
Male... Impetus.—494, 5 à 7, B, Non seulement... force.—17.—25,
B, Ses pertes... triomphe.—30, B, et au desordre.—496, 9 à 14, B,
Nam si... point.—11 à 13, B, Sufficit... Cleanthes.—29, B, ce qui...
me manque.—30.—31.—498, 8.—8 à 26, B, La fin... l’issue.
 500, 9, B, C’est... poictrine.—31.—502, 1 à 4, B, Ils adorent...
moy.—5, B, Neque... gero.—10 à 17, B, C’est qu’ils... carpebant.—18
à 504, 23, B, Ie me... contraires.—506, 2, B, auec... appetit.—25 à
29, B, Pareillement... dissociation.—34, B, qui n’est... consolation.—
39, B, Melius... desinent.—508, 18 à 22, B, Zenon... tumeurs.—23.—
25 à 30, B, Et son... que luy.—37 à 510, 8, B, Ceux qui... iuste.
510, 19.—28 à 34, B, Qui n’arreste... consistendi.—43 à 512, 11,
C, Conuenit... droicts.—27, B, Les poëtes... sang.—35, B, De
combien... sortir.—514, 9 à 22, B, Pourtant... raison.—28, B, d’y
tenir ferme.—30, B, Entreprenez... ardamment.—516, 22,
Excinduntur... temperantur.—518, 8, B, Cùm... quietus.—24.
520, 9, B, Neque... efferentem.—14.—31 à 33, B, Alcibiades...
condition.—522, 23 à 26, B, Ceux qui... siecle.—32, Quæ est... peti.
—524, 5, B, Mihi... monde.—10 à 12, B, L’abstinence... espace.—36.
—526.—Ch. XI.—10, B, obscure et obtuse.—33, B, Ils passent...
conséquences.—528, 2.—2 à 13, B, Plaisans... coustume.—30.—32,
B, Ita... committere.
530, 7 à 12, B, et vont... particuliere.—24, B, ou par... narration.
—30 à 32, B, La parole... l’hyperbole.—37, Quasi... turba.—532, 16,
B, Miramur... fallentia.—534, 22, B, ou pour dire... s’engendrent.—
24, B, et sommes... refuter.—35, B, enquestente... resolutiue.—39 à
41, B, Iris... bout.—43, B, Ignorance... science.—538, 2, B,
Videantur... modo.—30, B, au moins.
540, 8, B, Captisque... visa.—14, B, l’experience et.—18 à 24, B,
On recite... iustice.—29 à 33, B, Car en ce... nesciam.—38.—546.—
Ch. XII.—14.—16, B, Il n’a... maisons.—20, B, qui estimons...
releue.—548, 4.—14.—21, B, creances.—22, B, C’est luy... besoigne.
550, 5 à 20, B, Estendant... empoisonnent.—25 à 27, B, Et est...
l’esprit.—30, B, à peu pres.—32, B, Paucis... bonam.—37 à 552, 4,
B, Pusse-ie... Quoy, si.—11 à 19, B, Ce ne sont... agitur.—24 à 26, B,
chaud... estois.—33 à 554, 1, B, Celuy là... resistance.—16, B,
Simplex... versa est.—21, B, non armis... certatur.—556, 24 à 558,
4, B, Qu’est deuenu... piller.—6 à 30, B, L’vsurpation... diuine.—35 à
37, B, Nihil... iuste.
560, 20.—23 à 37, B, I’ayde... lors.—562, 6 à 20, B, En toutes...
à soy.—22, B, comme par... droicteur.—564, 7, B, Potentissimus...
potestate.—8.—16 à 566, 9, B, Comme ie... guerison.—36.—568, 8,
B, alors.—36.
570, 5 à 8, B, Comment... heureuse.—11 à 15, B, D’vne...
suffoquant.—572, 10, B, Exilia... tyro.—14 à 16, B, Parem... frappe.
—18 à 20, B, et prendre... Noel.—27 à 32, B, Ils poiseront... mots.—
574, 2 à 10, B, Il fut... fournir.—19, B, L’vne nous... effraye.—21, B,
Vn quart... particuliers.—29 à 39, B, Si nous... poids.—576, 3, B,
Quo me... hospes.—11 à 17, B, Plus solet... souffre.—19.—20.—20,
B, Que leur... agitable.—30.—36 à 578, 5, B, Il est à... songes.—8 à
580, 3, B, Si ie... Dieux.
580, 3.—4 à 18, B, Vrayement... façon.—34, B, en vne...
enfantine.—582, 1.—10, B, Mille... dedit.—11 à 16, B, Nature...
mort.—35 à 38, B, Ie m’en... autre.—584, 8 à 20, B, Ces
patissages... faire.—22, B, En le... donnoit.—27 à 30, B, Au hazard...
estranger.—31 à 34, B, Nous autres... allegation.—33.—586, 2 à 5,
B, d’escrire... perdre.—8.—15 à 18, B, Accessoirement... l’inscience.
—22.—24, B, et si... iniustice.—27 à 588, 2, B, Ipsi... pied.—2.—4,
B, Mais en... elle-mesme.—8, B, et Platon... nature.—11 à 28, B,
Phryné... beauté.
590, 26 à 592, 6, B, Dirai-ie... conscience.—11.—20, B,
comme... chacun.—28.—34, B, Ce mystere... soupçon.—35.—594,
14 à 19, B, Nous faillons... amplifions.—34.—43, B, Tunc... firmo.—
596, 12.—16, B, en ce temps là.—23.—598, 1, B, comme.—5 à 12,
B, Vt magis... imitation.—15.—Ch. XIII.—25, B, Per... viam.—27, B,
de beaucoup.
600, 9, B, Et y... l’œuf.—16, B, Nature... dissemblable.—28, B, Vt
olim... laboramus.—602, 40, B, Confusum... sectum est.—604, 7, B,
Comme... doctrina.—606, 11 à 14, B, A quoy... suffoquast.—17, B,
ouy... mesme.—19 à 24, B, C’est... demy.—25.—40 à 608, 6, B,
Tout... penultieme.—7 à 18, B, Sottement... prendre.
610, 1 à 4, B, Ingenieux... l’homme.—612, 11, B, Combien...
crime.—18 à 22, B, Et de ce... profitable.—29.—31 à 614, 6, B, En
la... estrené.—24 à 28, B, Qui bien... ordinairement.—616, 11, B,
Sit... arces.—13 à 34, B, En cette... faicte.—35.—618, 19 à 21, B,
D’apprendre... importante.—27.
620, 4 à 6, B, Platon... Xenophon.—10 à 13, B, D’où...
s’enquiert.—16, B, comme... Euthydeme.—26, B, Nihil... præcurrere.
—31.—41.—622, 2.—2 à 7, B, Car le... adioustoit-il.—21 à 26, B, Les
sçauans... cecy.—30.—31, B, Sola... est.—624, 2 à 14, B, Ce qu’on...
mescognoissable.—16.—20, B, Platon... hardiesse.—35.—35.—626,
17 à 20, B, Ie le... silence.—628, 8 à 13, B, Et le... mauuais.—36.—
39 à 41, B, Ie n’ay... heure.
630.—632, 8, B, Nous mettons... moule.—15 à 17, B, Et
comme... sage.—22.—33, B, Et ce... Lybie.—634, 11, B, Et
Seneque... soy.—18 à 21, B, Socrates... l’eau.—22 à 31, B,
Seneque... mollesse.—636, 6, B, aussi.—37, B, comme... heures.—
638, 14 à 16, B, Tout métail... capacité.—34.—39, B, Fascheuse...
iour.
640, 7.—8.—17 à 18, B, Naturâ... interrompue.—642, 16, B, Le
vin... inuincible.—646, 3, B, Est... proprietate.—10 à 18, B, leurs
maladies... nostre.—21.—25.—26.—27 à 29, B, Ie ne... profit.—648,
4, B, Indignare... est.—9 à 16, B, La goutte... l’vtilité.—17.—18, B, et
allongera... misere.—37.
650, 26 à 28, B, La decence... sain.—652, 11.—21 à 26, B,
Mais... salutaires.—33 à 35, B, Et qui... t’appelle.—654, 5 à 9, B, Par
où... inopinement.—13 à 20, B, A faute... passée.—28.—29.—658,
37 à 660, 8, Qu’il... empeschant.
660, 12 à 20, B, Qui craint... diuination.—662, 2, B, Platon...
boire.—11, B, et m’accommode.—22, B, depuis... aage.—36.—37 à
664, 1, B, que Platon... enfants.—3, B, soldat volontaire.—7, B, et
tout vn peuple.—17 à 21, B, Viuere... secousses.—21.—33, B, et mes
yeux.—666, 16.—21.—32 à 668, 8, B, Res... maison.—28, B, Per...
ludit.
670, 8, B, Magna... venter.—672, 1, B, et me nuisent.—3, B,
quoy... courtes.—10 à 16, B, Les anciens... aggreables.—674, 11 à
26, B, A la verité... maturitas.—33.
680, 13 à 17, B, Ils disent... ans.—24.—35.—682, 3 à 10, B,
Voyla... s’escoule.—18.—18 à 25, B, Comme... place.—29, B, Il y...
grace.—36 à 684, 1, B, par la... s’entrefestoyer.—5 à 12, B, Ce
n’est... trouue.—14, B, desdaigneux.—14.—16 à 19, B, Xerxes...
trouuées.—22 à 686, 6, B, Nous n’auons... iustes.—12.—12, B,
Chercheront... femmes.—16 à 19, B, qu’il s’y... mieux.—32 à 688,
14, B, Sages... le plus.—17, B, au deuis.—17 à 20, B, Et Brutus...
securité.—26.—35 à 38, B, suiuant... palatus.
690, 3, B, de chanter, de sonner.—7.—13.—13 à 16, B, Et la...
Rome.—21 à 32, B, Il s’est... abstinence.—32, B, et fouler la glace.—
35 à 38, B, Il s’est... venin.—692, 4 à 8, B, Il est... correcteurs.—12
à 15, B, La grandeur... eminentes.—18.—24 à 29, B,
L’intemperance... exemplaire.—30 à 32, B, pareillement... contractio:
et.—34 à 694, 10, B, Le voir... vertu.—19.—22, B, Stulti... fertur.—
25, B, Aussi... viure.—696, 10.—20, B, passée... future.—48 à 698,
2, B, Et me... acerrimus.—6, B, ains... talons.—12, B, tout bon...
sunt.—16 à 31, B, Elle faict... voluptez.—33, B, Intrandum...
peruidendum.—35 à 700, 2, B, Et ce... nature.
700, 5, B, auec... tousiours.—10 à 13, B, Qui velut... diuina.—15.
—16.—16, B, et tres-principale.—18 à 22, B, L’authorité... motus?—
31.—34 à 702, 4, B, lesquelles... temporelles.—4.—4 à 6, B, Entre...
sousterraines.—6, B, ce grand homme.—14 à 18, B, Ces humeurs...
diuin.—18.—19, B, et basses.—21.—26, B, Diis... imperas.—704, 1 à
4, B, Si auons... cul.—5, B, et humain... ordre.—7.
FASCICULE Db
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com