Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Rejoinder: Occam and the Proto-Austronesian "Diphthongs"

Rejoinder: Occam and the Proto-Austronesian "Diphthongs" Rejoinder OCCAM AND THE PROTO-AUSTRONESIAN "DIPHTHONGS" ADRIAN CLYNES universiti brunei darussalam In Clynes 1997, I presented arguments against the reconstruction of the sequences *-aw, *-ay, *-iw, *-uy as phonological diphthongs in PAN. Blust's (1998) response con²rms the fundamental weaknesses of the contrary view. In this reply, I con²ne myself to making two points: (1) Blust's extended "defense of Dempwolff" at best fails to address the real issue, and (2) his proposed diphthong analysis has no explanatory power--in fact, it opens a can of worms. Among its many problematic features is the very title of Blust's rejoinder, "In defense of Dempwolff." This "defense" is unsatisfactory in two ways: ²rst, it avoids the issue, and second, it blames Clynes for a mistake that is Blust's own. I have in fact no argument with Dempwolff's prephonemic reconstructions. True, at one point (Clynes 1997:350), I cite the following passage by Blust: (1) "`Apart from the consonants and vowels [emphasis added in Clynes 1997 --AC], researchers from Dempwolff onward have reconstructed a set of diphthongs. . . .' (Blust 1990:235­236)" My purpose in citing (1) was twofold. First, to show that practitioners in the 1990s such as Blust still accepted the existence of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oceanic Linguistics University of Hawai'I Press

Rejoinder: Occam and the Proto-Austronesian "Diphthongs"

Oceanic Linguistics , Volume 38 (2) – Dec 1, 1999

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/rejoinder-occam-and-the-proto-austronesian-diphthongs-Z4gDboPFnW
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © by University of Hawai'i Press
ISSN
1527-9421
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Rejoinder OCCAM AND THE PROTO-AUSTRONESIAN "DIPHTHONGS" ADRIAN CLYNES universiti brunei darussalam In Clynes 1997, I presented arguments against the reconstruction of the sequences *-aw, *-ay, *-iw, *-uy as phonological diphthongs in PAN. Blust's (1998) response con²rms the fundamental weaknesses of the contrary view. In this reply, I con²ne myself to making two points: (1) Blust's extended "defense of Dempwolff" at best fails to address the real issue, and (2) his proposed diphthong analysis has no explanatory power--in fact, it opens a can of worms. Among its many problematic features is the very title of Blust's rejoinder, "In defense of Dempwolff." This "defense" is unsatisfactory in two ways: ²rst, it avoids the issue, and second, it blames Clynes for a mistake that is Blust's own. I have in fact no argument with Dempwolff's prephonemic reconstructions. True, at one point (Clynes 1997:350), I cite the following passage by Blust: (1) "`Apart from the consonants and vowels [emphasis added in Clynes 1997 --AC], researchers from Dempwolff onward have reconstructed a set of diphthongs. . . .' (Blust 1990:235­236)" My purpose in citing (1) was twofold. First, to show that practitioners in the 1990s such as Blust still accepted the existence of

Journal

Oceanic LinguisticsUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Dec 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.