Kinship terms in Stau

This paper presents a comprehensive synchronic study of Stau kinship terms, offering a detailed analysis of their classifications and characteristics. Stau kinship terms are categorized into vocative and referential/possessive forms. Vocative kinship terms follow the intonation pattern of other vocative phrases, particularly barytonesis, which involves stress and intonation shifting from the second syllable to the first. The paper explores the distinctions within younger sibling relationships, dividing kinship terms into male Ego and female Ego categories based on the sex of the connecting relative. The kinship prefix æ-, commonly found in Qiangic languages, is exclusively used in vocative and referential/possessive kinship terms referring to older kin (both male and female). The study also identifies specific vocative and referential kinship terms that describe dyads of kinship relationships, similar to Tibetic languages like the Amdo dialects spoken in Stau-speaking areas. Stau maintains a sex-based distinction for kinship terms across all generations. Referential/possessive kinship terms in Gen⁻¹ and Gen⁻² differentiate between lineal and collateral relationships, while in vocative terms, only Gen⁻¹ distinguishes between lineal and collateral relatives. Gen⁺¹ consanguineal vocative kinship terms exhibit distinctions for lineal/collateral and matrilateral/patrilateral relationships. However, the matrilateral/patrilateral distinction is neutralized in Gen⁺¹ affinal vocative kinship terms. Gen⁺¹ affinal referential/possessive kinship terms differentiate matrilateral and patrilateral relationships when using a possessive phrase, but not when using the simple base term. Age relative to Ego plays a distinct role in Gen⁰ kinship terms, both vocative and referential/possessive. Sibling terms are differentiated from cousin terms in Gen⁰ referential/possessive terms using the tʰɛv(=ɡə ŋə-rə) ‘is a relative’ copula phrase. Regarding cousin kinship typology, Stau aligns with the Hawaiian type in the vocative and the Eskimo type in the referential. The Hawaiian type serves as the foundational basis due to shared roots in both vocative and referential contexts. For Gen⁺¹ terms, Stau follows the Sudanese system, each consanguineal kin with their own term. Gen⁻¹ terms follow the Eskimo system.