A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
 | This article should specify the language of its non-English content, using {{lang}}, {{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and {{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's multilingual support templates may also be used. (October 2021) |
| Proto-Austronesian | |
|---|---|
| |
| Reconstruction of | Austronesian |
| Region | Formosa (main island of Taiwan) |
| Era | c. 4000 BCE – c. 3500 BCE |
| Lower-order reconstructions | |
Proto-Austronesian (commonly abbreviated as PAN or PAn) is a proto-language. It is the reconstructed ancestor of the Austronesian languages, one of the world's major language families. Proto-Austronesian is assumed to have begun to diversify c. 4000 BCE – c. 3500 BCE in Taiwan.[1]
Lower-level reconstructions have also been made, and include Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, Proto-Oceanic, and Proto-Polynesian. Recently, linguists such as Malcolm Ross and Andrew Pawley have built large lexicons for Proto-Oceanic and Proto-Polynesian.
Phonology
Proto-Austronesian is reconstructed by constructing sets of correspondences among consonants in the various Austronesian languages, according to the comparative method. Although in theory the result should be unambiguous, in practice given the large number of languages there are numerous disagreements, with various scholars differing significantly on the number and nature of the phonemes in Proto-Austronesian. In the past, some disagreements concerned whether certain correspondence sets were real or represent sporadic developments in particular languages. For the currently remaining disagreements, however, scholars generally accept the validity of the correspondence sets but disagree on the extent to which the distinctions in these sets can be projected back to proto-Austronesian or represent innovations in particular sets of daughter languages.
Blust's reconstruction
Below are Proto-Austronesian phonemes reconstructed by Robert Blust, a professor of linguistics at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.[2] A total of 25 Proto-Austronesian consonants, 4 vowels, and 4 diphthongs were reconstructed. However, Blust acknowledges that some of the reconstructed consonants are still controversial and debated.
The symbols below are frequently used in reconstructed Proto-Austronesian words.
- *C: voiceless alveolar affricate
- *c: voiceless palatal affricate
- *q: uvular
- *z: voiced palatal affricate
- *D: voiced retroflex stop
- *j: palatalized voiced velar stop
- *S: voiceless alveolar fricative
- *N: palatalized alveolar lateral
- *r: alveolar trill
- *R: uvular trill
| Labial | Alveolar | Palatal | Retroflex | Velar | Uvular | Glottal | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unvoiced stop | p /p/ | t /t/ | k /k/ | q /q/ | ||||||||||
| Voiced stop | b /b/ | d /d/ | D /ɖ/ | g /ɡ/; j /ɡʲ/ | ||||||||||
| Nasal | m /m/ | n /n/ | ñ /ɲ/ | ŋ /ŋ/ | ||||||||||
| Fricative | S /s/ | s /ç/ | h /h/ | |||||||||||
| Affricate | C /t͡s/ | c /c͡ç/, z /ɟ͡ʝ/ | ||||||||||||
| Lateral | l /l/ | N /ʎ/ | ||||||||||||
| Trill | r /r/ | R /ʀ/ | ||||||||||||
| Approximant | w /w/ | y /j/ | ||||||||||||
*D only appears in final position, *z/*c/*ñ only in initial and medial position, while *j is restricted to medial and final position.
The Proto-Austronesian vowels are a, i, u, and ə.
| Height | Front | Central | Back | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Close | i /i/ | u /u/ | |||||
| Mid | ə /ə/ | ||||||
| Open | a /a/ |
The diphthongs, which are diachronic sources of individual vowels, are:
- *-ay
- *-aw
- *-uy
- *-iw
Wolff's reconstruction
In 2010, John Wolff published his Proto-Austronesian reconstruction in Proto-Austronesian phonology with glossary.[3] Wolff reconstructs a total of 19 consonants, 4 vowels (*i, *u, *a, *e, where *e = /ə/), 4 diphthongs (*ay, *aw, *iw, *uy), and syllabic stress.
| Labial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Uvular | Glottal | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unvoiced stop | p /p/ | t /t/ | c /c/ | k /k/ | q /q/ | |||||||
| Voiced stop/fricative | b /b/ | d /d/ | j /ɟ/ | g /ɡ/ | ɣ /ʁ/ | |||||||
| Nasal | m /m/ | n /n/ | ŋ /ŋ/ | |||||||||
| Voiceless fricative | s /s/ | h /h/ | ||||||||||
| Lateral | l /l/ | ɬ /ʎ/[4] | ||||||||||
| Approximant | w ?pojem= | y /j/ | ||||||||||
The following table shows how Wolff's Proto-Austronesian phonemic system differs from Blust's system.
| Blust | *p | *t | *C | *c | *k | *q | *b | *‑D | *d‑ *‑d‑ | *‑d | *z‑ *‑z‑ | *‑j- *‑j | *g‑ | *‑g- *‑g | *R | *m | *n | *N | *ñ | *ŋ | *l | *r | *s | *S | *h | *w | *y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wolff | *p | *t | rejected | *k | *q | *b | *‑d | *d‑ *‑d‑ | *‑j | *j‑ *‑j‑ | *g | rejected | *ɣ | *m | *n | *ɬ | *ŋ | *l | rejected | *c | *s | *h | *w | *y | |||
Historical overview of reconstructions for Proto-Austronesian
According to Malcolm Ross,[5] the following aspects of Blust's system are uncontroversial: the labials (p b m w); the velars k ŋ; y; R; the vowels; and the above four diphthongs. There is some disagreement about the postvelars (q ʔ h) and the velars g j, and about whether there are any more diphthongs; however, in these respects, Ross and Blust are in agreement. The major disagreement concerns the system of coronal consonants. The following discussion is based on Ross (1992).[5]
Otto Dempwolff's reconstruction of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian from the 1930s included:
- Dental t d n l
- Retroflex ṭ ḍ ḷ
- Palatal t' d' n'
- Palatal k' g'
Dyen (1963), including data from the Formosan languages, expanded Dempwolff's set of coronal consonants:
- t split into t and C
- n split into n and L/N
- d' split and renotated as z and Z
- t' split into s1 and s2
- ḷ ṭ ḍ n' k' g' h renotated as r T D ñ c j q
Tsuchida (1976),[6] building on Dyen's system:
- Further split d into D1 D2 D3 D4. He also believed that Dyen's c (Dempwolff's k') could not be reconstructed for Proto-Austronesian (he also split Dyen's w into w W and q into q Q, which were not accepted by later scholars.)
Dahl reduced Tsuchida's consonants into:
- D1 D2 D3 D4 into d3 d2 d1 d3 (with the new d3 reflecting the combination of the old D1 and D4) and combined Dyen's S X x into a single phoneme S. He did accept Dyen's c but did not accept his T D. (He also renotated a number of phonemes in ways that were not generally accepted by later scholars.)
Blust based his system on a combination of Dyen, Tsuchida and Dahl, and attempted to reduce the total number of phonemes. He accepted Dahl's reduction of Dyen's S X x into S but did not accept either Tsuchida's or Dahl's split of Dyen's d; in addition, he reduced Dyen's s1 s2 to a single phoneme s. While accepting Dyen's c, he was hesitant about T and D (more recently, Blust appears to have accepted D but rejected T, and also rejected Z).
Ross likewise attempted to reduce the number of phonemes, but in a different way:
- He accepts Dahl's d1 d2 d3 and also Z (eventually rejected by Blust). He notes that the distinction between d1 and d2 d3 is only reconstructable for the Formosan language groups Amis, Proto-Puyuma and Proto-Paiwan, and only Proto-Paiwan has a three-way distinction among d1 d2 d3; contrarily the distinction between Z and d1 is reconstructable only for Proto-Rukai and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, but not any of the previous three groups. However, he still believes (contra Blust) that the distinction among these phonemes is an inheritance from Proto-Austronesian rather than an innovation in the respective groups.
- He notes that d1 occurs only morpheme-initially, while r occurs only morpheme-non-initially, and as a result combines the two.
- He does not accept the phonemes c z ñ in Proto-Austronesian, and asserts that none of them are "readily reconstructable" outside of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian. Furthermore, while he believes that ñ was a general innovation in Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, c and z "are reflected differently from PMP *s and *d only in a fairly limited area of western Indo-Malaysia and appear to be the results of local developments".
- He also reconstructs the coronals somewhat differently. He believes that C S l d3 were all retroflex (respectively, /tʂ/; /ʂ/ or /ʃ/; /ɭ/ or /ɽ/; /ɖ/), and s and L (Blust's N) were dental /s/ and /l/, as opposed to Blust's reconstruction as dental and palatal, respectively. According to Ross, this is based on their outcomes in the Formosan languages and Javanese; although their outcomes as dental/palatal is geographically more distributed, it occurs only in Malayo-Polynesian, which represent a single clade with respect to the Formosan languages.
Sound changes
As Proto-Austronesian transitioned to Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, Proto-Oceanic, and Proto-Polynesian, the phonemic inventories were continually reduced by merging formerly distinct sounds into one sound. Three mergers were observed in the Proto-Austronesian to Proto-Malayo-Polynesian transition, while nine were observed for the Proto-Oceanic to Proto-Polynesian transition. Thus, Proto-Austronesian has the most elaborate sound system, while Proto-Polynesian has the fewest phonemes. For instance, the Hawaiian language is famous for having only eight consonants, while Māori has only ten consonants. This is a sharp reduction from the 19–25 consonants of the Proto-Austronesian language that was originally spoken on Taiwan or Kinmen.
Blust also observed the following mergers and sound changes between Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian.[2]
| Proto-Austronesian | Proto-Malayo-Polynesian |
|---|---|
| *C/t | *t |
| *N/n | *n |
| *S/h | *h |
| *eS[7] | *ah |
However, according to Wolff (2010:241),[3] Proto-Malayo-Polynesian's development from Proto-Austronesian only included the following three sound changes.
- PAn *ɬ > PMP *ñ, l, n
- PAn *s > PMP *h
- PAn *h > PMP *Ø
Proto-Oceanic merged even more phonemes. This is why modern-day Polynesian languages have some of the most restricted consonant inventories in the world.[2]