1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Volume 26, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

Proto-Austronesian numeral reconstruction typically includes the reconstructions *əsa ‘one’ and *ənəm ‘six’. These lexemes are noteworthy because they contain the only examples of schwa in word-initial position in a Proto-Austronesian reconstruction as presented in the . In this study, both *əsa and *ənəm are critically evaluated with the hypothesis that Proto-Austronesian descended from an ancestor which did not, in fact, contain schwa-initial words and that these examples arose through historical processes that involve the deletion of a word-initial *h which was present in pre-Proto-Austronesian. Evidence from Kra-Dai suggests that this is true for *ənəm ‘six’, where Kra-Dai evidence suggests Proto-Kra-Dai *xənəm ‘six’. In the development of Proto-Austronesian, *x reduced to *h followed by deletion in Proto-Austronesian. Furthermore, it is shown that the putative reconstruction *əsa ‘one’ relies on evidence from an entry in Ferrell’s (1982) Paiwan dictionary, which, under closer inspection, turns out to not be a valid Paiwan word. This, in turn, means that *əsa cannot be reconstructed to Proto-Austronesian due to a lack of Formosan evidence but must instead be a Proto-Malayo-Polynesian innovation. The only well-attested Proto-Austronesian reconstruction for ‘one’ is the doublet pair *isa/*asa.

© ILAS
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00245.smi
2025-08-05
2026-03-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lali.00245.smi
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00245.smi.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00245.smi&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aldridge, Edith
    2016 Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. Language and Linguistics17(1). 27–62. 10.1177/1606822X15613499
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X15613499 [Google Scholar]
  2. Benedict, Paul K.
    1942 Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A new alignment in Southeastern Asia. American Anthropologist44(4). 576–601. 10.1525/aa.1942.44.4.02a00040
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1942.44.4.02a00040 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blust, Robert
    1994 Blust collection. Kaipuleohone, University of Hawaiʻi Digital Language Archive. Honolulu: Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa. (https://hdl.handle.net/10125/7735). (Accessed2025-04-12.)
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 1995 The position of the Formosan languages: Method and theory in Austronesian comparative linguistics. InLi, Paul Jen-kuei & Tsang, Cheng-hwa & Huang, Ying-kuei & Ho, Dah-an & Tseng, Chiu-yu (eds.), Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, 585–650. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 1999 Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. InZeitoun, Elizabeth & Li, Paul Jen-kuei (eds.), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 31–94. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011 The problem of doubleting in Austronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics50(2). 399–457. 10.1353/ol.2011.0015
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2011.0015 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 The Austronesian languages. 2nd edn.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2017 Regular metathesis in Batanic (Northern Philippines)?. Oceanic Linguistics56(2). 491–504. 10.1353/ol.2017.0022
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2017.0022 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2018 The “mystery aspirates” in Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics57(1). 221–247. 10.1353/ol.2018.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2018.0008 [Google Scholar]
  10. Blust, Robert & Trussel, Stephen & Smith, Alexander D.
    2023 CLDF dataset derived from Blust’s “Austronesian comparative dictionary” (Version 1.2). (Data set.) 10.5281/zenodo.7741197
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7741197 [Google Scholar]
  11. Campbell, Lyle
    2020 Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474463133
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474463133 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang, Anna Hsiou-chuan
    2006 A reference grammar of Paiwan. Canberra: Australian National University. (Doctoral dissertation.) 10.25911/5d778712291bf
     https://doi.org/10.25911/5d778712291bf [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen, Chun-Mei
    2006 A comparative study on Formosan phonology: Paiwan and Budai Rukai. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Yen-ling
    2018 Proto-Ong-Be. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Chrétien, C. Douglas
    1965 The statistical structure of the proto-Austronesian morph. Lingua141. 243–270. 10.1016/0024‑3841(65)90044‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(65)90044-6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dempwolff, Otto
    1937 Vergleichende lautlehre des Austronesischen wortschatzes. Berlin: Reimer.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fan, Wenjia
    2019 A grammar of Lakkja, South China. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrell, Raleigh
    1982 Paiwan dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, Paul Jen-kuei
    2004 Basic vocabulary for Formosan languages and dialects. InLi, Paul Jen-kuei (ed.), Selected papers on Formosan languages, vol.21, 1483–1532. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Long, Yaohong & Zheng, Guoqiao
    1998 The Dong language in Guizhou Province, China. Dallas & Arlington: The Summer Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington. (Translated from Chinese byGeary, D. Norman.)
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Ochiai, Izumi
    2021 A fossilized personal article in Atayal: With a reconstruction of the Proto-Atayalic patronymic system. Journal of Ainu and Indigenous Studies11. 99–120. 10.14943/97164
     https://doi.org/10.14943/97164 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2022 Fossilized infixes in Seediq: Identification through dialect comparison. Journal of Ainu and Indigenous Studies21. 1–29. 10.14943/Jais.2.001
     https://doi.org/10.14943/Jais.2.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ostapirat, Weera
    2000 Proto-Kra. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area23(1). 1–251. 10.32655/LTBA.23.1.01
     https://doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.23.1.01 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2004 Proto-Hlai sound system and lexicons. InLin, Ying-chin & Hsu, Fang-min & Lee, Chun-chih & Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Yang, Hsiu-fang & Ho, Dah-an (eds.), Studies on Sino-Tibetan languages: Papers in honor of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his seventieth birthday, 121–175. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005 Kra-Dai and Austronesian: Notes on phonological correspondences and vocabulary. InSagart, Laurent & Blench, Roger & Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia (eds.), The peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics, 107–131. London: Routledge Curzon. 10.4324/9780203343685_chapter_7
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203343685_chapter_7 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2018 Reconstruction disyllabic Kra-Dai. (Plenary presentation at the28th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS 28), Kaohsiung, 17–19 May 2018.)
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Pittayaporn, Pittayawat
    2009 The phonology of Proto-Tai. Ithaca: Cornell University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ross, Malcolm
    1992 The sound of Proto-Austronesian: An outsider’s view of the Formosan evidence. Oceanic Linguistics31(1). 23–64. 10.2307/3622965
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3622965 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2009 Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. InAdelaar, Alexander & Pawley, Andrew (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2015 Some Proto Austronesian coronals reexamined. InZeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy F. & Wu, Joy J. (eds.), New advances in Formosan linguistics, 1–38. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Sagart, Laurent
    2004 The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai-Kadai. Oceanic Linguistics43(2). 411–444. 10.1353/ol.2005.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2005.0012 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2013 The higher phylogeny of Austronesian: A response to Winter. Oceanic Linguistics52(1). 249–254. 10.1353/ol.2013.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2013.0002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Schmidt, Wilhelm
    1906 Die Mon-Khmer völker: Ein bindeglied zwischen völkern Zentralasiens und Austronesiens. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Smith, Alexander D.
    2022 New evidence for Austro-Tai and observations on vowel correspondences. InAlves, Mark J. & Sidwell, Paul (eds.), Papers from the 30th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2021), 73–95. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2023 Reconstructing non-contrastive stress in Austronesian and the role of the mora in stress shift, gemination and vowel shift. Diachronica40(1). 111–152. 10.1075/dia.20032.smi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20032.smi [Google Scholar]
  36. Thurgood, Graham
    1994 Tai-Kadai and Austronesian: The nature of the historical relationship. Oceanic Linguistics33(2). 345–368. 10.2307/3623133
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3623133 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1999 From ancient Cham to modern dialects: Two thousand years of language contact and change, with an appendix of Chamic reconstructions and loanwords. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Tsuchida, Shigeru
    1976 Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic phonology. Tokyo: Research Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 1982 A comparative vocabulary of Austronesian languages of Sinicized ethnic groups in Taiwan, part I: West Taiwan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Utsumi, Atsuko
    2016 A dialectal study of Talaud: Dialectal classification and a comparative word list. Bulletin of Meisei University. Department of Japanese and Comparative Culture, School of Humanities241. 37–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yamada, Yukihiro
    2002 Itbayat-English dictionary. Osaka: ELPR Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Zorc, David R.
    1982 Where, o where, have the laryngeals gone?. Austronesian laryngeals re-examined. InHalim, Amram & Carrington, Lois & Wurm, S. A. (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, volume 2: Tracking the travellers, 111–144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 1996 The reconstruction and status of Austronesian glottal stop — chimera or chameleon. InNothofer, Bernd (ed.), Reconstruction, classification, description: Festschrift in honor of Isidore Dyen, 41–72. Hamburg: Abera Verlag Meyer & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00245.smi
Loading
Reevaluating two schwa-initial reconstructions in Proto‑ and Pre‑Proto‑Austronesian numerals with some help from Kra‑Dai
Language and Linguistics 26, 673 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00245.smi
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00245.smi
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00245.smi
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): comparative linguistics; Kra-Dai; numerals; phonology; Proto-Austronesian

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error