Talk:Proto-Austronesian language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I don't know if this should be renamed proto-Malayo-Polynesian instead of Proto-Austronesian. The reconstructed words are all Proto-AN, I suppose, but not comparing it with Formosan languages is a little weird. After all, the root of AN diversity is in Taiwan.

I think at least this article should be split into Proto-AN and Proto-MP sections, to cover both stages of evolution. - Barra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.238 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Numerals table - Oceanic/polynesian

The latest reorganisation is a little misleading. It suggests that Fijian descends from Proto-Polynesian, which it doesnt. Also the choice of Polynesian languages needs work because Rapanui, Hawaiian and Maori are all in one closely related subgroup - Eastern Polynesian. Together they dont tell you a lot. A better trio would be Tongan, Samoan and Maori since they represent major subgroups better.Kahuroa (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the numerals table order, but the choice of Polynesian languages still needs fixing. For the other tables, the order Māori/Fijian/Hawaiian/Malagasy/Rapanui is bizarre (= East Polynesian/Melanesian/East Polynesian/Borneo/East Polynesian) and needs addressing. Kahuroa (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the order in the pronoun table, nouns will follow. Then I plan to change the selection of Polynesian languages to the reflect the major subgroups better. Kahuroa (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

How sure are we about the phonology?

I don't have access to academic resources other than those available to the general public and the nearest library is about 40 miles away so my only source of information about PAN phonology is a 1993 Encyclopedia Britannica. It has a 'Z' instead of the 'j' we're using here, and says that the phonological value of it is unknown. There are a few other differences, such as EB saying that the 'q' phoneme is a glottal stop, without adding "or uvular". So my question is, how sure are we about the phonological values of the consonants here? Has the studies changed in the last 20 years, so that we know things that we didn't? Or is this page just a majority view presented for the sake of coherence? It wouldn't surprise me if the EB was wrong or outdated considering that it also says PAN was spoken in Indonesia and doesn't seem to be aware of the Austro-Tai hypothesis which was well known even then. —Soap— 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Pawley et al have done a lot of work recently. Kahuroa (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The phonology is from Blust's 2009 book The Austronesian Languages, on page 547 of the "Reconstruction" chapter. A lot of groundbreaking work has been done on Austronesian historical linguistics since 1993, mostly done by Robert Blust, Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross, and Russell Gray. In fact, if you look at the most recent edition of the EB, you can see that Robert Blust has been listed as the article's contributor. Anyhow, Blust claims that some proto-consonants are still debated, while the proto-vowels are widely accepted. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more tidbits: Blust also uses those C, S, R symbols instead of IPA throughout his book. Those phonemes are also used in the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database. The diphthongs are not phonemes, but are diachronic sources of single vowels. Sound changes are from pages 657 and 742, and PMP > POc sound changes are from page 725. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Petitive"

Petitive was used in Blust's 2009 book The Austronesian Languages. Petitive means to petition or ask for something, and is not the same as comitative (which means to do something with a companion). — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted sections

Please post your reasons for deleting sections here on the talk page before actually doing so. I know that the sources are uncited, but they still contain a lot of valuable information. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)