Talk:Proto-Austronesian language
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proto-Austronesian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Language of the Ta-Pe'n-K'eng culture[edit]
Has not the Proto-Austronesians been identified with the Ta-Pe'n-K'eng culture on Taiwan? I have not managed to find the name of this culture anywhere on Wikipedia. To make sure that I have spelled it correctly I have used the same spelling as the British archaelogist Ted Oaks.
2013-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Section on Oceanic->Polynesian? Please?[edit]
Anyone with more knowledge and access to the sources want to add a section on Proto-Oceanic to Proto-Polynesian? There are evidently only 13 or so consonants in Proto-Polynesian, i.e. m n ŋ; p t k; f s h; w r l q, and Proto-Oceanic language lists 23 consonants, so this is a big reduction.
Also there seem to be some problems with the description of "Proto-Malayo-Polynesian to Proto-Oceanic" on this page in that it doesn't seem to agree with the phonological system listed on Proto-Oceanic language.
On the page [www2.hawaii.edu/~yotsuka/course/345-ANF04.doc] is a description of sound changes from "Proto-Central-Pacific", which appears not much different from Proto-Oceanic:
| Proto-Central-Pacific | Proto-Polynesian |
|---|---|
| *mb/p | *p |
| *ŋg/k/ŋgw/kw | *k |
| *nd/t/d/j | *t |
| *n/ñ | *n |
| *ŋ/ŋw | *ŋ |
| *l/r/dr | *l/r |
| *y | *Ø |
| *v | *f |
| *c | *h |
| *k | *‘/k |
The page also says:
PCP *v probably was a voiced bilabial fricative [β]. PCP *c probably was a voiced interdental fricative [ð].
Given the system in Proto-Oceanic language, I can hazard the following guesses as to how to express the above in that system:
| Proto-Oceanic | Proto-Polynesian |
|---|---|
| *mb/p | *p |
| *ŋg/k/mbw/pw | *k |
| *nd/t/d/j (is "d" actually POc c? is "j" actually POc nj? this makes phonetic sense.) | *t |
| *n/ɲ | *n |
| *ŋ/mw | *ŋ |
| *l/r/nr | *l/r |
| *y | *Ø |
| *v (which phoneme is this? is this POc w? if so, where does PP w come from?) | *f |
| *c (which phoneme is this? maybe POc ʀ?) | *h |
| *k | *‘/k |
But obviously we need to look at the sources, not just hazard guesses. Help?
Benwing (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think Proto-Oceanic /p/ mostly or entirely becomes /f/ in proto-Polynesian. I don't know where the proto-Polynesian /p/ comes from. I don't have a proof for that either, I'm just looking at word lists which show things like pandan > fara (Tahitian) and pati > ha (Hawaiian, with the f > h being a later change). Papine for "woman" appears on a few proto-Oceanic wordlists [1]. Aloha is from "qaro qopa" according to [2]. That site in general might be useful here, but it doesnt seem to immediately provide a clear answer as to where /p/ comes from. —Soap— 01:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, from some more searching it appears that the following is correct, but still some help needed:
| Proto-Oceanic | Proto-Polynesian |
|---|---|
| *mb, p (fortis) | *p |
| *p (lenis) | *f |
| *ŋg, mbw, pw, k (lenis??) | *k |
| *q, k (fortis??) | *‘ |
| *s (fortis) | *s |
| *s (lenis) | *h |
| *t, nd, c, nj | *t |
| *m | *m |
| *n, ɲ | *n |
| *ŋ, mw | *ŋ |
| *l, r, nr (how exactly does this develop more specifically?) | *l, r |
| *y, ʀ | *Ø |
Benwing (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- The information on Proto-Oceanic sound changes in this article is from Robert Blust's 2009 book The Austronesian languages. Since this is a more recent publication, it might not agree with earlier reconstructions done by other scholars. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm late to this discussion but I'd suspect that the "lenis" and "fortis" labels for /k/ are swapped in the table just above. Firstly because if /mb/ and fortis /p/ behaved alike, /ŋg/ and fortis /k/ should likewise behave alike; secondly because /k/ is a "stronger" outcome than /ʔ/. 4pq1injbok (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
A Proto-Austronesian phonological concordance?[edit]
Austronesian historical phonology is confusing because of the many competing schemes. A concordance would be extremely helpful and useful, even if it would result in an extremely sprawling table. The table could be split along the lines of Formosan languages#Sound changes, I suppose. Anyway, the table would ideally include all the major phonemes postulated for Proto-Austronesian, splitting or leaving those separately for which there are important/notable disagreements whether they constitute a single phoneme or several different ones (and adding important combinations such as the diphthongs), listing the symbols and conjectured phonetic values in IPA advanced by the various scholars, and the outcomes in various languages (and proto-languages), so that there are correspondence sets that allow the reader to see on exactly what evidence the proposed reconstructions are based. There could be columns like Dempwolff, Dyen, Tsuchida, Dahl, Ross (1992), Blust (2009), Wolff (2010), and for various Formosan languages or uncontroversial proto-stages (if there is no uncontroversial reconstruction – or no reconstruction at all, of course – for any subgroup/major branch, the reflexes of individual languages would have to be listed, or at least one notable representative for each group), and at least for PMP (since its phonology seems to be largely uncontroversial) if not for individual languages or proto-languages which might provide historically crucial evidence, such as Javanese (ideally, we would have prominent single languages such as Malay or proto-languages such as Proto-Malayic, but that would overwhelm an already overcrowded table only further – even Proto-Oceanic and Proto-Polynesian would probably have to be left off). No idea whether this is feasible, but it would be ideal. That said, why is Proto-Malayo-Polynesian language empty? All the discussion about the reconstruction of PMP phonology and the further development into Proto-Oceanic (and Proto-Polynesian, although that topic could be moved further to Proto-Oceanic language) could be moved there. And considering the complexity of the subject of Austronesian historical phonology, perhaps it would be a good idea to split Proto-Austronesian phonology off into its own separate article and leave only a summary here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: If you have time, maybe you can help a bit.
- By the way, I've also noticed that the Austronesian tree used in Wiktionary contains a number of controversial nodes (see, for example, here); expert input would be valuable there too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Florian Blaschke: That's a tough job, but will certainly help to bring some structure into the unreadable subsection "Other reconstructions". Basically, Ross (1992) could serve as a start, since Blust's and Wolff's reconstructions haven't changed that much since then. Inclusion of Dyen and Tsuchida is hardcore, because they took the neogrammarian principle to the extreme and posited one proto-sound for each correspondent set, even if there is just one representative etymon, and most sober comparatists would treat this as an irregularity that requires a better explanation than blowing up the phonological system of the proto-language. Dyen's PAN was more complex than Ubykh. I'll put it on my to-do list. –Austronesier (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: I know, it's a huge undertaking, but look what you can do. Maybe better leave Dyen and Tsuchida out for the start, then; they can always be included later, but if their schemes would likely overwhelm the reader anyway (let's imagine a curious linguistics student as the target group, perhaps?), that's not an urgent desideratum. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Florian Blaschke: That's a tough job, but will certainly help to bring some structure into the unreadable subsection "Other reconstructions". Basically, Ross (1992) could serve as a start, since Blust's and Wolff's reconstructions haven't changed that much since then. Inclusion of Dyen and Tsuchida is hardcore, because they took the neogrammarian principle to the extreme and posited one proto-sound for each correspondent set, even if there is just one representative etymon, and most sober comparatists would treat this as an irregularity that requires a better explanation than blowing up the phonological system of the proto-language. Dyen's PAN was more complex than Ubykh. I'll put it on my to-do list. –Austronesier (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Masjawad99: Are you interested in this challenging task? It will be rewarding beyond WP: reading your way through the necessary lit essentially equals what you can learn in one full term in historical-comparative AN linguistics. :D –Austronesier (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: I will try, but as of now I'm not that familiar with many of the schemes other than those of Blust and Ross, so I don't know how much time it will take ahaha. Masjawad99💬 22:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Time depth?[edit]
How far back are we talking here? Was Proto-Austronesian spoken around 2,000 years ago? 4,000? 10,000? Some ballpark-ish indication of the time depth would be welcome. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Eirikr: Thanks, that's a good suggestion. I have added an estimated date based on Robert Blust in the lede. –Austronesier (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
*x?[edit]
In § Historical overview of reconstructions for Proto-Austronesian, what does "Dyen's S X x" mean?
In § Interrogatives and case markers, what does the *x in *pijax mean? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)