new stuff

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oceanic Linguistics.

http://www.jstor.org

University of Hawai'i Press

Tai-Kadai and Austronesian: The Nature of the Historical Relationship Author(s): Graham Thurgood Source: Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Dec., 1994), pp. 345-368Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3623133Accessed: 15-10-2015 08:28 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.107 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:28:38 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3623133

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN: THE NATURE OF THE HISTORICAL

RELATIONSHIP1 GRAHAM THURGOOD

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO

There are three possible ways to account for the Austronesian look-alikes in Tai-Kadai: common inheritance, that is, the two languages families are genetically related; language contact, that is, the forms were borrowed into Tai-Kadai from Austronesian; and, chance, that is, the forms are merely look-alikes and nothing more. The evidence provided by recent reconstructions of various subgroups of Tai-Kadai shows that the Tai-Kadai forms are neither inherited on the one hand nor mere look-alikes on the other. Further, the reconstructions and the subgrouping evidence show that the bulk of the Tai-Kadai borrowing was from an early (pre-)Austronesian source and that the contact occurred in southwestern China and predated the Austronesian movement out onto the islands.

1. INTRODUCTION. Numerous suggestions, some well-founded and some not so well-founded, have been made about the genetic affiliations of the Tai-Kadai (TK) and of the Austronesian (An) language families. In addition to the proposal that TK and An are genetically related, various other affiliations have been proposed for both language families. For instance, at one time or another, proposals have been made linking TK (or, at least, Thai) and An with Chinese. An has also been connected with Austroasiatic (see for example Reid 1993).

An and TK. In a paper that included an excellent sketch of the history of proposed Southeast Asian language relationships, Egerod (1976) notes that Schlegel wrote as early as 1901 that Malay (= Austronesian) was connected with Thai (= Siamese), in effect, connecting Austronesian and Tai-Kadai. At the time, Schlegel wrote (cited in Egerod 1976:53), "When we have first eliminated from the Siamese vocabulary all the Chinese, Sanskrit and other Indian words, we will get as the stock-residue a Malay tongue; for the quantity of Malay words in Siamese is very considerable."

Oceanic Linguistics, Volume 33, no. 2 (December 1994) ? by University of Hawaii Press. All rights reserved.



OCEANIC LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2

However, scholarship drifted away from Schlegel's position, and ten years later, in 1906, Father Schmidt combined Austronesian (= Malayo-Polynesian), not with Thai, but with Austroasiatic (= Mon-Khmer), a grouping that he called "Austric."

In 1916, Conrady took Schmidt's Austric one step further, when he combined Austric with Indo-Chinese (= Sino-Tibetan, plus Thai). This, of course, did have the effect of connecting Austronesian and Tai-Kadai, but hardly in the direct sense that Schlegel had in mind.

Several more recent works have returned to Schlegel's position. Benedict, in his 1942 article "Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A new alignment in South- eastern Asia," argues for a genetic relationship between Austronesian and Tai- Kadai; his 1975 book on Austro-Tai again argues for a genetic relationship, but within the context of membership within a larger macrofamily consisting of An, Tai-Kadai, and Hmong-Mien. Likewise, Egerod sees the relationship as genetic when he notes that, although Wulff did not succeed in connecting Indo- Chinese (= Sino-Tibetan, including Thai) to Malayo-Polynesian, Wulff did

prove "the relationship of Thai to Malayo-Polynesian"(Egerod, 1976:53-55). Egerod continues, "Wulff's Thai-Malayo-Polynesian comparisons stand as

lasting proof of the genetic relationship among these groups." Other scholars, however, have been at pains to emphasize that the proposed

relationship is far from proven. Gedney (1976), in a review of Benedict's evidence concludes that it does not begin to constitute conclusive evidence of the

relationship. Dahl (1977:116), in the course of discussing Benedict's claim of a genetic relationship between An and TK, takes an intermediate position: "It therefore seems to me that quite a few of Benedict's identifications have to be

rejected. But some of the correspondences remain, and must be explained as a due to genetic affinity, if they are not loans" (italics added).

Tai and Chinese. Various other proposals have been made in the literature

connecting Thai, the best known of the Tai-Kadai languages, not with Aus- tronesian, but with Chinese. As early as 1887, Terrien de Lacouperie discussed the Chinese element in Thai, and, without offering any evidence to support his conclusions, he wrote that the similarities between Chinese and Thai were due to "intermingling," by which he presumably meant borrowing and con- vergence due to contact and bilingualism. His account of tonogenesis sounds strikingly modern (cited in Egerod 1976:51): "The language has developed tones originally as a compensation by natural equilibrium to the phonetic losses undergone in the everlasting process of intermingling."

Terrien de Lacouperie's insights seem to have had little affect on subsequent scholarship, and over the next seventy years or so the Thai and Chinese similarities in vocabulary, in typology, and in tones (and, particularly, in tone classes) were looked at, not as a result of contact, but as proof of a genetic relationship. Thus, in 1896, August Conrady connected Thai not just to Chinese, but also to

346



TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

Indochinese. Recast in more modern terms, Conrady connected Tai-Kadai to Sino-Tibetan. Both Wulff (1934) and Maspero (1934) also saw Siamese as genetically related to Chinese, an analysis that was based in part on typological similarities and in part on what many but certainly not all scholars now analyze as borrowings. More recent scholarship shows a slow drift back to Terrien de Lacouperie's position that the similarities between Thai and Chinese are due to contact. Dai Qingsha, for example, takes this position in his 1991 article "On the affiliation of the Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) group: Indications from the nature of the

relationship between Tibeto-Burman and Chinese."2

An and Chinese. Another proposal has been made in the literature connecting An, not with Thai, but with Chinese (or, Sino-Tibetan). Before he died, Wulff was working on a manuscript arguing for a connection between his Indo- Chinese and Malayo-Polynesian (Wulff 1942). In his earlier work, Wulff (1934) had argued that Thai was part of Indo-Chinese; his working manuscript argued for the connection of Indo-Chinese with Austronesian, but he died before he could complete it. More recently Sagart (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993a, 1993b) has made a similar proposal, although with considerably more data supporting his

position.3 Thus, in a sense, scholarship has come full circle. Terrien de Lacouperie's

position that the similarities between Thai and Chinese are the product of historical contacts is now a widely held position. And, scholarship is again grappling with the evidence for and against Schlegel's 1901 claim that Austronesian and Kadai are genetically related.

2. THE NATURE OF AUSTRONESIAN FORMS IN TAI-KADAI. Within the context of Southeast Asian prehistory, it seems relatively clear that there is a historical relationship between the Austronesians and the Tai-Kadai speakers. However, the real commitment is to a historical relationship, not to a genetic relationship. Either a genetic or a contact relationship would be compatible with the available evidence. These positions are juxtaposed to the third possibility-that no relationship whatsoever exists.

However, within the work on historical linguistics, there has been a tendency for scholars to choose between a genetic relationship and no relationship at all, largely ignoring the possibility of a contact relationship. Some such as Benedict (1942, 1975) assert that compelling evidence for a genetic relationship has already been presented. Certainly, Egerod also takes this position, when he states that "Wulff's Thai-Malayo-Polynesian comparisons stand as lasting proof of the genetic relationship among these groups" (1976:53-55).4 Others, in contrast, have implied that the "evidence" is nothing more than the type of chance similarity displayed in the oft-cited, facetious comparison between English and Siamese: fay' 'fire', sirj2 'thing', and rim1 'edge'.

347




The truth, however, seems to lie somewhere between these extremes. On the one hand, compelling evidence for a genetic relationship certainly has not been presented yet, but on the other hand the quality and quantity of the putative cognates excludes the possibility that all we are talking about is chance similarity. Nonetheless, the "look-alikes" cannot simply be dismissed as chance similarities. A plethora of disclaimers aside, it seems incontrovertible that there is a significant number of Austronesian words in various Kadai languages, and they require some sort of historical explanation.

Usually this modest but significant group of Austronesian forms is put forth as evidence of a genetic relationship between Austronesian and Tai-Kadai, but it takes more than forms alone to establish a genetic link. Forms alone could also come from contact, as with the French forms in English. Thus, when we examine the data, it becomes clear that the real question is what kind of historical relationship is involved? Are the similarities evidence of a genetic relationship? Or evidence of contact? And, how do we tell?

3. THE TAI-KADAI DATABASE. Although Schlegel's proposal that Tai- Kadai and Austronesian are genetically related was made almost a century ago, it is only within the last decade or so that we have reached a point where we can evaluate the hypothesis. Unlike earlier investigators who had to base their conclusions on fairly limited and often inaccurate data, within the last decade or so the emergence of a huge volume of reliable data has provided a base for reasonably accurate and detailed reconstructions.

With the exception of Gelao, at least a preliminary reconstruction exists for the major subgroups of Kadai: Tai (Proto-Tai [PT]: Li, Gedney, Sarawit, Strecker, and so on), Kam-Sui (Proto-Kam-Sui [PKS]: Li 1965, Oshika 1979, Thurgood 1988a, and so forth), Hlai (Li: Matisoff 1988, Thurgood 1991, and so forth), and even some basic work on Gelao (Edmondson and Thurgood 1992). In addition, there is some outstanding work on Be (Hashimoto 1980, Hansell 1988, Zhang et al. 1985, and L.-Thongkum 1992) and Lakkja (Solnit 1988, n.d.; Mao, Meng, & Zheng 1982; Haudricourt 1967), as well as some as yet largely unassimilated but available material on Laha and Laqa. So, although our understanding of Proto-Tai exceeds our understanding of the other branches considerably, nonetheless there have been significant advances in our knowledge of Kadai languages, laying the foundations for an evaluation of the Austronesian forms in Tai-Kadai.

In turn, the detailed reconstructions of the subgroups have typically resulted in rather straightforward correspondence rules for the reconstructions of tones. The presence of rules of tonal correspondence has, in turn, given analysts a valuable tool for recognizing borrowed forms. With the appearance of reconstructions of proto-Kam-Sui and proto-Tai, enough is now known about the reconstruction of various major subgroups of Tai-Kadai for us to do an

348




instructive rough-and-ready examination of at least some of the better-known

putative cognates.

4. THE DATABASE. No attempt was made to examine all the correspondences for each and every Tai-Kadai word ever said to have an Austronesian counterpart. Although the quality of the individual proposed cognates varies considerably, hundreds of cognates have been proposed in the literature. Thus, the time involved in such an undertaking would be prohibitive. Instead, it was assumed that a hypothesis stands or falls on the basis of its strongest evidence: the proliferation of weak evidence does not make a weak argument any less weak.

The bulk of the data is thus a compilation of two lists of forms put forth as

support for the genetic hypothesis. The initial list consisted of the 19 basic comparisons offered by Wulff (1934) (listed in Egerod (1976, roots eventually included in Benedict 1975) and the set of cognates that Reid (1984-1985) compiled from his review of Benedict's work on Austro-Tai (1975).

Membership in the sample was not, however, artificially limited to these lists. Occasionally roots were added that popped up during the writing of the paper. Other roots were added because they behaved in the same way as roots already under discussion or because they helped illustrate some point under discussion. On the other hand, roots that, for whatever reason, show nothing- pro or con-have often simply been left out.

Finally, the database has a noticeable Kam-Sui bias, largely because Kam- Sui is the subgroup in which the irregularities of the Austronesian loans are the most obvious.

5. INHERITED OR BORROWED? Although it is not always obvious which forms in Tai-Kadai are meant to correspond to which words in Austro- nesian, when it is obvious, reconstruction reveals problems in the Tai-Kadai correspondences:

Certain words display not just minor but marked irregularities in their correspondence patterns within one or more subgroups of Tai-Kadai. At the very least, the marked character of the irregularities prevents these forms from being used as the bases for building an argument for a genetic relationship.

Certain forms display unique correspondence patterns. Of course, it is impossible to establish regular correspondences on the basis of forms with unique correspondence patterns! Further, it is impossible to build a case for a genetic relationship on the basis of forms with unique correspondence patterns.

349




Borrowings are not, of course, the only source of unique correspondence patterns. But, if proposed cognates have unique, unparalleled correspondences with any great frequency, this leads to the suspicion that what we are dealing with is borrowings, not a genetic relationship.

Certain words on the lists-particularly the older lists-are now recog- nized as borrowings.

And, certain forms display more than one type of problem.

Nonetheless, what is the problem? Irregularities and unique correspondences occur in the reconstructions of all language families, unless somebody is hid- ing something. The problem lies not in the existence of marked irregularities and unique correspondences but in their extreme pervasiveness: Once the sets with serious problems are removed, the database virtually disappears. On the other hand, if these forms were borrowed, not inherited, this is precisely what we expect to find.

It is only the Tai-Kadai forms that are being critically examined here. And, even within the Kadai side of the equation, only part of the data is being examined. The Austronesian forms are included only for the sake of comparison. The Austronesian (= An)5 forms included in the charts are from various levels and from various sources, but are Blust's, unless otherwise stated. The presentation of the An forms is somewhat hodgepodge, and if the argument hinged in any crucial way on the An data, it would be necessary to be more careful with the presentation. However, it is the TK data, not the An data, that is crucial.

5.1 ROOTS WITH UNIQUE (OR IRREGULAR) CORRESPONDENCES.

5.1.1 'moon' et al. At the very least, the Proto-Kam-Sui, the Proto-Tai, and the Austronesian forms given below are historically related. Despite looking quite different, the Proto-Kam-Sui and the Proto-Tai forms correspond quite regularly to each other, and without doubt the PKS and PT forms reflect the same etyma. In addition, not only do the PT forms remind one of the Austro- nesian forms, but at one time or another in the literature, three of the four etyma have been related to disyllabic Austronesian forms ('moon; month', 'flower', 'louse'). The only PKS form without an Austronesian pedigree is 'to weed'.

PROTO-KAM-SUI PROTO-TAI AN

*fi'a:n2" *?bl/rienl bulan 'moon, month' *nuk8" *?bl/ro:k7 bulak 'flower't *ne2" *?bl/ra:i - 'to weed' *nan2" *ml/ren2 -'louse'

tbulak is the word for flower in Tagalog

350




The PKS correspondence patterns are especially instructive. Within PKS, these four forms display a unique pattern of tonal reflexes: the pattern is restricted to just these four roots-three of which have been equated with Austronesian counterparts.

PKS KAM THEN MAONAN SUI SUI-N* MAK

*fia:n2" fia:n1 njaan' fien2- njen2 njan2 niin2 'moon' *nuk8" nuk9 nuek7 - nuk8 nuk8 - 'flower' *nan2 nan1 nan1 nan2 nan 'louse' *ne2 nee - - ne2 nee2 'to weed'

TONE: ODD ODD EVEN EVEN EVEN EVEN

*Sui dialect referred to in Li (1965) as Ngam Sui

The pattern of tonal reflexes is strikingly aberrant. The pattern is not that of the voiceless or the glottalized nasals, both of which have odd-numbered tonal reflexes. Nor is it the pattern of proto-voiced nasals, which inevitably have even-numbered tonal reflexes. And, not only does the pattern not match any of the patterns for nasal initials, it also does not match the expected pattern of tonal reflexes for any other set of initials. In the display that follows, *n- is used as representative for all the nasals, which pattern in the same way.

PKS KAM THEN MAONAN SUI MAK

FROM ABOVE: 'moon' etc. ODD ODD EVEN EVEN EVEN

VOICELESS: *hn- ODD ODD ODD ODD ODD

GLOTTALIZED: *?n- ODD ODD6 ODD ODD ODD7

VOICED: *n EVEN EVEN EVEN EVEN EVEN

The Tai reflexes of these forms are also of interest. In Li (1977) 'moon,' 'flower,' 'to weed,' and six other forms are reconstructed with an initial *?bl/r, that is, with a glottalized bilabial stop followed by either -1- or -r-. Of these, 'spotted; whitish' has been added to our list because of its Austronesian counterpart.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

bulan *?bl/nenl *i'a:n2" *na:n 'moon; month' bulak *?bl/rok7 *nuk8" - 'flower'

*7bl/ra:il *ne2" 'to weed'

[belang] *?bl/rair5 - 'spotted; whitish'

*?dag5 'stripe' *- *ml/ren2 *nan2" *thanl 'body louse'

351




Several things are noteworthy about these forms. First, of the nine forms reconstructed for Proto-Tai by Li with *?bl/r- initials, four already have Austro- nesian counterparts. A more detailed examination of the remaining five might be instructive. Second, not only are all the Austronesian forms disyllabic, but various researchers have argued that the TK forms were also once disyllabic.

The obvious interpretation, of course, is that the Tai pattern of initial is the reflex of earlier disyllabic forms borrowed from Austronesian (and, of course, possibly from other sources). If, as the work of L.-Thongkum (1993), Kulla- vanijaya (1993), and others seems to suggest, PT and PKS did not have mono- morphemic disyllabic forms,8 the fact that disyllabic borrowings into PT and PKS have unique reflex patterns would make perfect sense.

5.1.2 '(fresh) water'. Other putative cognates also have rather marked irregularities in the Kam-Sui subgroup.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

danum *nl/ram4 *ni'am3 *nam3 '[fresh] water' -t -i -f

PKS MULAM KAM THEN MAONAN SUI MAK

*f' am3 nom4 nam4 nam4 nam3 iam3 nam3 'water' -t -i -f -f -i

In KS, the tones, the initial, and the final for '(fresh) water' all show some sort of irregularity. The particular mix of odd and even numbered tones is not otherwise attested for nasals. And, the only other KS form with this initial pattern is bulan 'moon', already classified above as a borrowing.

5.1.3 'headlouse'. For 'headlouse', the KS forms are highly irregular: Kam ta:ul, Mulam khyol, Sui tul, and Maonan tu1. The tone, the initial, and the final are all irregular.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

kutu *thrau - *sroul 'headlouse' -t -i -f

However, there is another possible source of these irregularities: these forms may have been influenced in one way or another by Chinese toushl ('head' + 'louse'). Nonetheless, even if it were possible to rehabilitate the KS forms, the problem of relating the Tai-Kadai reconstructions to Austronesian *kutu re- mains. The similarity between 'headlouse' and 'head' (5.4 below) is interesting.

352




5.1.4 'eat'. For 'eat', the vowel of the Proto-Tai forms is irregular.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

kaen *kinl -v *ca:nl *khanl 'eat'

However, the real problems with this root will occur when attempts are made to line up the different initials from various subgroups in an attempt to reconstruct Proto-Tai-Kadai.9

5.1.5 'road'. For 'road,' the KS data has a completely irregular set of initials, a set that appears only to occur in loanwords.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

Zalan *xronl **khwanl *ku:nl 'road, path'

As with the root before, the additional, insurmountable problems with these initial correspondences would occur if an attempt were made to reconstruct the etymon for Proto-Tai-Kadai.10

Several of the roots with unique correspondences in Tai-Kadai were cho- sen for discussion precisely because they are so frequently cited in the literature as examples of An/TK cognates.

5.1.6 'eye', 'pond' and 'die'. The first pair of roots to be discussed are those for 'eye' and 'pond, well, pool'.

In Kam-Sui, only two words display this particular initial pattern: 'eye' and

'pond'. However, one of them, the root for 'pond, well; pool' is a borrowing, as Solnit (pers. comm.) suggested to me a number of years ago, pointing out its similarities to forms in Chinese. In fact, the affiliations of 'pond' go beyond Chinese. Certainly, it resembles in obvious ways the Malay word kolam 'a pond, reservoir, tank', listed in Coope (1985) as a Tamil borrowing into Malay and discussed in Asmah (1975:331) in similar terms as deriving from the Tamil word kulam. In any case, if 'pond' is a borrowing, then 'eye' is the only "native" root with this correspondence pattern.

PKS MULAM KAM THEN MAONAN SUI-N MAK

*thla1 lal ta1 ?daa1 nda' nda1 daa1 'eye' **thlaml !am1 tam1 ?dam1 ndam1 ndaml dam1 'well, pond, pool'

Parallel to 'eye' is the root 'die'. In KS, only two examples, 'die' and 'shuttle', attest to this initial, with the reconstruction of 'shuttle' being possible rather than certain.

353




AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

matay *trail *pjail *nf?a:u2 'die'

*prau5 *pjau - 'shuttle'

On the basis of internal evidence alone, the word 'shuttle' could just as well have been reconstructed with an initial *t-, and it probably would have been

except for facts: first, the initial parallels the correspondence set for 'die', which

apparently needs to be reconstructed with some sort of bilabial cluster, and, second, 'shuttle' is reconstructed with a bilabial cluster by Li for Proto-Tai. If 'shuttle' is reconstructed with an initial *t-, there are no other forms with the same initial pattern.

For 'die' itself, the following Mulam dialectal forms are listed in Wang and

Zheng (1980:9): tai1, pyai1, tail, tail, and tai1. This array makes it necessary to reconstruct a contrast with the medials in such forms as *praml 'head hair'. Thus, if 'eye' is a native root, then its initial must contrast with initials such as *pr-, although it is not as clear what the precise phonetics of the contrast must be. However, if 'eye' is a loan, this initial correspondence disappears entirely, with 'shuttle' being reassigned to *t-.

The problems with 'eye' and 'die' do not stop with their uniqueness in Kam- Sui however. There are also serious problems in Proto-Tai (= PT). In PT, both 'eye' and 'die' are reconstructed by Li with the same initial: *tr-. The only other word reconstructed with this initial, at least in Li (1977), is 'grasshopper'.

AN PTAI SAEK PKS

mata *tral praa *thlal 'eye' maCey *trail praay *pjail 'die'

*trak7 (kha6 nak4) *thrak7 'grasshopper'

This set of initials has serious problems within PTai. Li (1977) reconstructed the initial as *tr-, but this was without knowledge of the pr- initial in the cited Saek (from Gedney) forms. Clearly, Li's *tr- no longer works as the Saek forms would require the change *tr- > *pr-. The obvious solution would be to reconstruct a

*pr-, except that *pr- is needed for another much better attested set of forms. Another relatively serious problem involves the external comparisons of

the PT forms with their PKS counterparts-the PT initial corresponds to three separate PKS initials. Of course, if the forms are borrowings, all these

problems-the problems with PKS, the problems within PT, and the problems between PKS and PT-disappear.

5.1.7 'tooth' and 'fire'. Both of the roots below look like stable roots, but both have unique correspondences. The root *pjwanl has a unique initial pattern, but one would expect such a cluster to be rare.

354




AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

nipen *van2 *pjwanl *panl 'tooth' Sapuy *vei2 *pwail *peil 'fire'

Within Kam-Sui, the final *-ai in the root for 'fire' has an unexpected correspondence (within Kam-Sui), but this could be conditioned by the *pw- initial, as 'fire' is the only word in which a *pw- initial occurs before an *-ai final. However, the unique correspondences make both these roots a weak foundation on which to build a case for genetic relationship.

5.2 APPARENTLY DIFFERENT ROOTS. For all of the following, the root in Austronesian appears to be different from the root in Tai-Kadai.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

bituqen *?dl/raul *?dra:ul *r?a:ul 'star' ikuR *thrjal - 'tail'

[baRaq] *ptit7 'lungs' beri; beRay *hai3 *khja:il *deui1 'give'

Without established correspondence patterns, it is unclear what bases are being used to claim cognacy between such strikingly different forms. How- ever, in some cases, I may have simply failed to locate the appropriate corresponding form.

5.3 BORROWINGS. Some forms have already been identified in the literature as borrowings.

5.3.1 'cage' and 'swim'. Egerod (1976) notes that 'cage' has already been reclassified as a borrowing by Benedict and by others.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

kurung *kreerl - 'cage' languy *hwai3- *plei - 'swim'

Among the three words for 'swim', there is little reason to assume that any of them are related to each other. It would be astounding if the PT and the PKS forms were related to one another; the initial correspondences are otherwise without parallel.

The correlations with An do not seem to fare any better. In fact, the PT form *hwai3 is more likely to be connected with Proto-Chamic *luai, a form

355




that Headley (1976) classifies as a Mon-Khmer loan on the basis of external evidence. On the basis of internal evidence, my own work on Chamic provides support for Headley's observation. The point, of course, is that the Proto-Tai reconstruction matches up better with a Mon-Khmer form than with An languy.

5.3.2 'sour'. This word is completely regular in An. In other words, within Austronesian itself, it shows no signs of being borrowed.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

masam *som3 *khjum3 khjom3 'bitter; sour' esem

Within the various subgroups of TK, the word reconstructs quite regularly. If there are problems, they will come when an attempt is made to reconstruct Proto- TK. Thus, if this form is a borrowing, it is an extremely early borrowing.

5.3.3 '(green) blue'. Throughout Kadai, the 'green (blue)' forms are found [Proto-Tai *xiaul, Proto-Kam-Sui *xjul (irregular initial), Proto-Hlai *khi:ul, Lakkja jau2], but with irregular initial correspondences.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

Sizaw *xiaul **xjul -i *khi:ul 'green [blue]'

Within An, the forms are limited to Western Malayo-Polynesian, suggesting that the word does not reconstruct to PAn and thus also making the An part of the equation suspect.

5.4 FAIRLY REGULAR CORRESPONDENCES IN TAI-KADAI. This

group of roots looks fairly stable within Tai-Kadai. Most likely, the real

questions revolve around how well they correspond to their An counter-

parts, rather than whether the Tai-Kadai evidence alone will show them to be borrowings.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

aNak *?djek - *lik7 -f 'child' laki *hluk8 *la:k8 *1?uak7 'man, person'

*t?hu:k8

Within Tai-Kadai, these two roots often seem inseparable. That is, both the phonetics and the meanings seem to blend at different times in different languages and subgroups.

356




The group of four roots below looks also quite stable in Tai-Kadai. Again, the real questions seem to revolve around how well they match with their An counterparts ('head' may involve some problems).

AN

buta qulu quZan manuk ujung

PTAI

*?bot7 *thrue1 *ftinl *nlok8

*?d31j

PKS

*6u:t7 *kru3 -f *xwinl *mluk8

*cfaIj

PHLAI

*yw?o3 *punl *no:k7

(*naJl)

'blind' 'head' 'rain' 'bird, fowl' 'nose' 'face' 'nose, face'

For these forms, the semantics are interesting. If regular sound correspondences were set up between Austronesian and Tai-Kadai, the semantics are certainly not without parallels. However, without regular correspondences, precisely the same considerations lessen the value of these forms as a basis for estab- lishing a genetic relationship.

5.5 POSSIBLY RELATED

5.5.1 'mother, female'. These forms could, of course, be related or they could be look-alikes.

AN PTAI

(t)-ina *nai2 *kamoi *me6

PKS

*nei4 -f

PHLAI

'mother, female' *m?ai3- 'mother, female'

However, the existence of the Chinese form meimei 'female' suggests various alternate sources for the second set of Tai-Kadai forms, and perhaps for the Austronesian ones.

5.5.2 'hear'. Any attempt to relate these forms would require a great deal more substantiation.

AN PTAI

deigeR

PKS PHLAI

'hear'

5.5.3 'shoulder'. These forms could, of course, be related, but the possibility is quite strong that the similarities are due to borrowing.

AN PTAI PKS

(sal')

PHLAI

qabaRa *?ba5

357

'shoulder'




Two forms quite similar to the Proto-Tai form exist, one in Tibeto-Burman and one in Malay. However, the Malay form bahu is a borrowing from San- skrit. That is, there are several potential borrowing sources for this particular root. The PKS form is simply puzzling.

5.5.4 'fart'. Within Kadai itself, the medial -1- is a problem; the other Kadai forms show no evidence of such a medial.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

qe[n]tut *tlot7 *tut7 *thu:t

The PAn forms show no evidence of such a medial. In any case, the possibility of onomatopoeia cannot be dismissed.

5.5.5 'dark'. The form 'dark' has two reconstructions are the PT level, but no apparent representatives in PKS or in PHlai. If these forms are not borrow-

ings, the variation and the distribution require an explanation.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

kelam *khaml 'dark' *klam5 'dark red'

5.5.6 'fish scales'. The presence of two Thai forms (NOTE: Thai, not Proto- Tai), rather than one, coupled with its apparent absence elsewhere is interest-

ing. This form would look much better without the first variant.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

qun[e]- kip7 *luap8 -f 'scales, fish' Sap kjip7

With only two forms, both different and both in Thai, a protoform has not been reconstructed for PT. There is a minor problem with the final in Proto- Hlai and *klap has been tentatively reconstructed for Proto-Gelao. The *k- looks like the *k- animal prefix, so these forms could be related. However, even if the TK forms can be worked out, it is not all that obvious that the An form is related.

5.5.7 'black'. Again, these roots could be related. The TK forms require a

disyllabic source to account for the variety of initials reconstructed for the various subgroups.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

*?dl/roml *?nam *dfam3

358

'black' qitem




Certainly the An disyllabic form might be related to the Tai-Kadai forms. Of course, a borrowed form would account for the forms just as well.

5.5.8 'arrive, reach'. These forms look somewhat similar and the semantics are certainly close.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

dateng *tfitrij *tarj *da:n3 'arrive, reach'

The proto-Hlai root has an unexpected final, but one that is quite regular within

proto-Hlai.

5.5.9 'come (back)'. While the TK forms are obviously related to one another, it is not as obvious that there is a connection with the An form.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

um-aRi *hmal *hmal 'come (back)' *ma2

5.5.10 Other. It is possible that these forms are related. The possibility of

borrowing clearly exists for all these forms, something at least suggested by their limited distribution in TK.

AN PTAI PKS PHLAI

enem - - *nom1 -i 'six' walu - - *?ou 'eight' telu - - -'three'

However, if they are borrowings, it should be noted that both 'eight' and 'three' look quite unlike the innovations found in the Chamic and the Malay languages of Western Malayo-Polynesian, which would have something like

*dua-lapan 'eight' and *tiga 'three' instead. This implies that, if they are bor-

rowings, the borrowing must have occurred either before An left the mainland or from a non-Chamic, non-Malay donor. (The last, the word for 'three', occurs in the Gelao languages, although not on the chart above.)

5.6 THE ARGUMENT FOR BORROWING. Without doubt, there are numerous minor objections that could be made to many of the analyses given above. Without question, there are errors in the discussion. And, without

question, there are analytical errors that a more skilled linguist would have

caught. Nonetheless, of the three logical possibilities, only one conclusion is consistent with the overall patterning of the data within TK: the An forms are the product of language contact.

359




The claim that the An forms in TK are mere look-alikes has to be dismissed. There are enough forms in TK and An that closely resemble each other for some sort of historical explanation to be required. This conclusion, of course, is not surprising. For almost a hundred years, reputable scholars have recog- nized the existence of An forms in TK.

The only real question is whether these An forms are borrowings or inherited. And, this question receives a relatively unambiguous answer when a detailed, careful examination is made of the behavior of these An forms in TK. Those roots most frequently put forth in the literature as the strongest evidence of a genetic relationship-largely on the basis of their obvious similarity to An forms-often behave just as one expects borrowings to behave. That is, in a great number of cases, these forms have unique TK correspondence patterns, patterns not shared with other TK forms, a feature that is consistent with the thesis that they are borrowings. Other roots have irregular correspondence patterns, a feature that is even stronger evidence they are borrowings. And, finally, some are universally acknowledged to be borrowings.

In addition to the so-called strong evidence, the literature contains numerous other forms put forth as possible cognates-what might be termed weaker evidence. However, aside from numerous questions about whether various forms are even related to their alleged An counterparts, by and large the vast majority of this evidence could be just as readily interpreted as borrowed instead of inherited.

In sum, the genetic hypothesis is only consistent with a part of the data, while the borrowing hypothesis is consistent with all of it.

There is, however, an entirely different type of argument that might raised against the claim that at least some of the An forms in TK are borrowings, an argument not based on linguistic reconstructions and correspondence patterns but instead on a cherished piece of linguistic folk mythology. As the careful reader has already noticed, many of the forms discussed in this paper are what is often termed core or basic vocabulary. It seems to be part of the folk mythology of linguistics that basic vocabulary-numerals, body parts, pronouns, and so on-cannot be borrowed.

While it is probably true that the borrowing of basic vocabulary implies the borrowing of nonbasic vocabulary, it is certainly also true that basic vocabulary gets borrowed. The borrowing of numerals is rampant in Southeast Asia. For instance, Thai has borrowed numerals, Japanese has borrowed numerals, and so on. Old English, for example, borrowed the obviously basic body part skin, as well as the basic terms give and sky from a Scandinavian source, probably the same source Old English borrowed the pronoun 'em from. Finnish, for example, has borrowed diti 'mother' and tytdr 'daughter' from Indo-Euro- pean (Campbell 1993:1). And, more directly to the point, TK has borrowed some basic vocabulary such as bulan 'moon' from An.

360




6. WHEN AND WHERE DID THE CONTACT OCCUR? Although the correspondences involving 'moon' and so forth are unique, the forms are nonetheless quite regular within PKS, within PTai, and between PKS and PTai. That is, these forms reconstruct back at least to common Kam-Sui and back to common Tai, if not much further back.

If the forms in the Tai languages date back to PT and the forms in Kam-Sui date back to PKS, then the borrowing must predate the breakup of common Tai. Since an examination of the geographical distribution of the Tai languages makes it clear that the Proto-Tai languages began to break up somewhere in the Guizhou area (if not sooner and in some place even further to the north). This means that the An contact, which predates the breakup of common Tai, must also have occurred-at the very least-as far north as Guizhou. If this is so, then the TK contact with An must predate the movement of Austronesian speakers out into the islands some 6000 years ago or so.

For even more obvious reasons, the Kam-Sui data requires contact in the Guizhou and Guangxi area and thus contact with An speakers before they went out into the islands. After all, the Kam-Sui speakers are still not found south of Guangxi.

7. DISCUSSION. A minor benefit of the recognition that a number of the Austronesian forms are borrowings will undoubtedly solve certain problems in the reconstruction of Kadai.,In some cases, it will no longer be necessary to

posit the existence of yet another bilabial cluster in order to account for an otherwise unparalleled correspondence pattern. All sorts of reconstructions can be refined. And, in turn, it should become progressively easier to separate borrowed forms from inherited forms. However, as fascinating as these devel-

opments are to specialists like myself, they are nonetheless of relatively mi- nor importance.

However, the real significance of this data lies in the recognition that the An forms in TK are early borrowings-not inherited forms and not mere look-alikes. What these borrowed An forms argue quite eloquently for is a period of considerable, quite early, intimate contact between the An and the Tai- Kadai speakers.

How early? The evidence suggests very early contact. On the Tai-Kadai side, the borrowing at least predates the breakup of PKS and the breakup of PT and probably dates even further back. This of course suggests that the contact took place before Tai-Kadai speakers entered Thailand. On the An side, the contact occurred before the Austronesians left the mainland.11 That is, the contact was made in the interior of China long before the Tai-Kadai speakers entered Thailand and before the Austronesians left the mainland.

How intimate was the contact? Among the words regularly cited as corre-

sponding between An and Tai-Kadai are both kinship terms and personal pronouns, both indications of an earlier period of intimate contact. In addition,

361




various other elements of basic vocabulary are included in various lists, again indicating a reasonably intimate contact.

What implications do these findings have for Benedict's Austro-Tai hypothesis-the theory that there was an earlier genetic superstock consisting of An, TK, and Hmong-Mien (= Miao-Yao)?12 Certainly, as a purely genetic entity, these findings remove the core of Austro-Tai-there is now no real evidence An and TK are genetically related.

FIGURE 1. TAI-KADAI SUBGROUPINGS AND LOCATIONS

Tai-Kadai I

Gelao - central d

Guiz Guar

Lati - northern \

Hlai (= Li) - Hainan

Laqua, Laha- northern Viel

I I

k western hou & northern

igxi lietnam

tnam

Lakkja - south central

Guangxi

Kam-Sui - southeast Guizhou

adjoining Hunan and

Guangxi

SW Tai

Siamese - Thailand Lao - Laos and NE Thailand White Tai - NW Thailand Black Tai - NW Thailand Shan - northern Burma Ahom - Assam Lii (= Lue) - southern Yunnan

C.Tai

Tho - NE Thailand

Nung - NE Thailand Lungming - SW Guangxi

Be - Hainan

N. Tai

Saek - N. Thailand & Laos

Zhuang - SW China

Buyi - SW China

Yay - northern Vietnam & southern China

(Revision of Benedict 1975)

362




However, from a prehistorian's viewpoint, the appeal of the Austro-Tai hypothesis was in the fact that it accounted for apparent early contact between these language groups. That is, it was not the genetic component per se, but rather the evidence of early, intimate contact that was of interest. Thus, the fundamental insight of those positing a genetic relationship between TK and An were correct in recognizing a historical relationship between TK and An. The error was only in prematurely assessing it as due to inheritance rather than contact.

NOTES

1. This paper came about because Laurie Reid invited me to give a talk at the 1993 Conference on Asia-Mainland/Austronesian Connections held at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. A number of participants gave me valuable feedback: Bob Blust, Laurent Sagart, David Solnit, Lawrence Reid, Paul Benedict, Jim Matisoff, Jim Collins, Uri Tadmor, ZhengZhang Shangfang, Elzbieta Thurgood, and George Grace. In particular I wish to single out David Solnit, Bob Blust, and George Grace for substantively improving the ideas here.

The organizers had invited me fully expecting a paper arguing for a genetic relationship between the Tai-Kadai languages and Austronesian. I shared that expectation; since 1985 or so (Thurgood 1985a,b), I have felt sympathetic toward the notion of a genetic affiliation between Tai-Kadai and Austronesian.

When the first draft was written, my own expectation was that, once the reconstruction of Tai-Kadai was a little better understood, it would be possible to provide definitive evidence for a genetic link between Tai-Kadai and Austro- nesian. Although my work had as its ultimate aim an assessment of link, I thought that it would be several more years before an adequate Tai-Kadia database would be established.

Thus, when I was invited to give the paper, I wrote a first draft talking in general terms about what sort of preliminary work would be required on the reconstruction of Tai-Kadai before a realistic assessment could be made. Upon reread- ing this draft, I realized that I needed to supplement my general comments with a short list of those cognates that had been set forth in the literature as the best evidence for a Tai-Kadai-Austronesian genetic relationship. The initial list, compiled to illustrate the evidence for a genetic relationship, consisted of the 19 basic comparisons offered by Wulff (1934) (listed in Egerod (1976, roots eventually included in Benedict 1975) and the set of cognates that Reid (1984-1985) compiled from his review of Benedict (1975).

However, as I began systematically working my way through the Tai-Kadai forms and reconstructions on my list of "best" cognates, it was almost immedi- ately obvious that the list of Tai-Kadai forms was not a list of prospective cognates. The patterning of these forms made it clear that, from the Tai-Kadai viewpoint, the list was a list of loanwords.

I had been plodding along trying to accumulate enough evidence to establish a genetic relationship and, were it not for the conference, I would have undoubtedly plodded along for several more years. I had taken a wrong tack by mistakenly as- suming that a clear answer would not be possible until more was known about the reconstruction of Tai-Kadai. As a result, I had never before gathered the evidence together in one place and then examined it as a coherent whole.

363




It is both ironic and embarrassing that, for several years, clear evidence that the Austronesian words in Tai-Kadai were loans, not cognates, had been available to me-in my own computer files.

2. My own historical work on the reconstruction of various subgroups of Tai-Kadai, particularly on non-Tai subgroups, has convinced me that the similarities between Tai-Kadai and Chinese are due to contact, rather than common genetic inheritance, a view held by many Southeast Asian specialists.

Although this position is certainly not crucial to the main focus of this paper- the nature of the historical relationship between An and TK, it is important for our understanding of early contact between the TK and the An, and thus to the understanding of the prehistory of Southeast Asia. See Note 3.

3. It is my opinion that Wulff, Sagart, and others are partially right, that is, that there are clear lexical connections between Austronesian and Chinese, but I differ with them on the interpretation of these lexical connections. I believe that these lexical similarities reflect, not a genetic relationship but early contact between the pre- Austronesians and the Chinese (or, the Sino-Tibetans) before the pre-Austro- nesians left the mainland.

Again, although this position is not crucial to the main focus of this paper, it is crucial to our understanding of early contact between these groups and thus the prehistory of Southeast Asia. See Note 2.

4. Egerod lists both a set of Wulff's Thai-Austronesian comparisons and a set of Wulff's Indochinese (= Sino-Tibetan, including Thai) and Malayo-Polynesian comparisons.

5. Symbols used: *, the form is a reconstruction; **, the form has been analyzed as a loan for various reasons, involving irregularities in the sound correspondences; /, there is variation.

Irregularities: -i, the initial is irregular; -t, the tone is irregular; -v, the vowel is irregular; -f, the vowel and/or the final is irregular.

Other abbreviations: An, Austronesian; PAn, Proto-Austronesian; WMP, Western Malayo-Polynesian; PTai, Proto-Tai; PKS, Proto-Kam-Sui(-Mak); KS, Kam-Sui; PHlai, Proto-Hlai (the Li languages of Hainan).

6. Except with a medial *-w-, in which case the reflex is even. 7. In Mak, there is a split in tone 1 reflexes: after voiceless unaspirated stops with or

without a glide, after imploded stops, and after preglottalized nasals, the reflex is tone 6; elsewhere, the reflex is tone I (fully described in Li 1965).

8. Just as clearly, both PKS and PT had bimorphemic disyllabic forms, often consisting of a classifying prefix plus a main root.

9. The suggestion does exist in the literature that some of these problems can be solved by the reconstruction of disyllabic forms. In part, I would agree. Many of these forms were disyllabic, but they were also borrowed.

10. See preceding note. 11. Perhaps, they should be referred to as pre-Austronesians? 12. Later Benedict also included Japanese, but the Japanese would most likely

be connected with An, rather than with Austro-Tai as a whole.

REFERENCES

Asmah, Hj. Omar. 1975. The nature of Tamil loanwords in Malay. In Essays on Ma- laysian linguistics, ed. by Asmah Hj. Omar, pp. 303-335. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

364




Bellwood, Peter. 1992. Southeast Asia before history. In The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, vol. 1, From Early Times to c. 1800, ed. by Nicholas Tarling, pp. 55-136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Benedict, Paul K. 1942. Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A new alignment in Southeast- ern Asia. American Anthropologist 44:756 -601.

. 1975. Austro-Thai: Language and culture, with a glossary of roots. New Ha- ven: HRAF Press.

. 1992. Japanese/Austro-Tai. Linguistica Extranea, Studia 20. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Blust, Robert. 1980. Austronesian etymologies. Oceanic Linguistics 19:1-181. 1983-1984. Austronesian etymologies II. Oceanic Linguistics 22:29 -149. 1986. Austronesian etymologies III. Oceanic Linguistics 25.1-123. 1989. Austronesian etymologies IV. Oceanic Linguistics 28:111 -180.

Brown, J. Marvin. 1985. Vowel length in Thai. In From Ancient Thai to modern dialects, ed. by J. Marvin Brown, pp. 50-67. Bangkok: White Lotus.

Campbell, Lyle. 1993. Handout: Language relatedness. Class notes, LSA Summer Insti- tute, 1993.

Chamberlain, James R. 1975. A new look at the history and classification of the Tai languages. In Studies in Tai linguistics in honor of William J. Gedney, ed. by Jimmy G. Harris and James R. Chamberlain, pp. 49-66. Bangkok: Office of State Univer- sities, Central Institute of English Language.

Conrady, August. 1896. Eine indochinesische causativ-denominativ-Bildung und ihr Zusammenhang mit den Tonaccenten. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.

. 1916. Eine merkwtirdige Beziehung. Aufsatze E. Kuhn. Miinchen. Coope, A. E. 1985. Macmillan's Malay-English English-Malay dictionary, student

edition. Kuala Lumpur. Dahl, Otto Christian. 1977. Proto-Austronesian, 2d rev. ed. Scandinavian Institute of

Asian Studies Monograph Series, no. 15. Lund: Curzon Press. Dai Qingsha. 1991. On the affiliation of the Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) group: Indications

from the nature of the relationship between Tibeto-Burman and Chinese. Kadai: Discussions in Kadai and SE Asian Linguistics 3:51-63.

Edmondson, Jerold A., and David B. Solnit, eds. 1988. Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai. Publications in Linguistics, no. 86. Arlington, Texas: Univer- sity of Texas at Arlington.

Edmondson, Jerold A., and Graham Thurgood. 1992. Gelao reconstruction and its place in Kadai. Paper presented at the Twenty-fifth International Conference on Sino- Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.

Egerod, S0ren C. 1976. Benedict's Austro-Thai hypothesis: pro & con. Computational Analyses of Asian and African Languages 6:51-60.

Fu Zhennan. 1983. The "Cun" speech on the west coast of Hainan island. Minzu Yuwen 4:68-71.

. 1990. A dialect island of Li-Nat6u hua. Minzu Yuwen 4:14-18. Gedney, William J. 1976. On the Thai [= Tai] evidence for Austro-Tai. Computational

Analyses of Asian and African Languages 6:65-82. .1989. On the Thai [= Tai] evidence for Austro-Tai. In Selected papers on Com-

parative Tai Studies, ed. by Robert J. Bickner, John Hartmann, Thomas John Hudak, and Patcharin Peyasantiwong, pp. 117-164. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia.

. 1992. On the Thai [= Tai] evidence for Austro-Tai. Talk given at the Twenty- fifth International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Uni- versity of California, Berkeley.

365




Hansell, Mark. 1988. The relation of Be to Tai: The evidence from tones and initials. In Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai, ed. by Jerold A. Edmondson and David B. Solnit, pp. 239-289. Publications in Linguistics, no. 86. Arlington, Texas: University of Texas at Arlington.

Hashimoto, Mantaro. 1980. The Be language: A classified lexicon of its Limkow dialect. Asian and African Lexicon 11. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asian and Africa.

Haudricourt, Andre-Georges. 1965. Le vocabulaire Be de F M. Savina (presente par A.G. Haudricourt). Bulletin de l'Ecole d'Extreme-Orient 57.

. 1967. Le langue Lakkia. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 62(1):165-182.

. 1975. A propos du puzzle de W. J. Gedney. In Studies in Tai linguistics in honor of William J. Gedney, ed. by Jimmy G. Harris and James R. Chamberlain, pp. 252-258. Bangkok: Office of State Universities, Central Institute of English Language.

. 1976. General overview. Computational Analyses of Asian and African Lan- guages 6:87-91.

. 1984. Hainandao jizhong yuyan de shengdiao. Minzu Yuwen 4:17-25. He Jiashan. 1983. A brief description of Gelao. Chinese Minority People's Language,

Basic Description Series. Beijing. Headley, Robert K. 1976. Some sources of Chamic vocabulary. In Austroasiatic Stud-

ies, 1, ed. by Philip N. Jenner, Laurence C. Thompson, and Stanley Starosta, pp. 453-476. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication no. 13. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Kullavanijaya, Pranee. 1993. Notes on disyllabic words in some Tai languages. Paper presented at the Conference on Asia-Mainland/Austronesian Connections held at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. 10 pp.

Lee, Ernest Wilson. 1966. Proto-Chamic phonologic word and vocabulary. Ph.D. dis- sertation, Indiana University. University Microfilms 67-3690.

Li Fang-kuei. 1965. The Tai and Kam-Sui languages. Lingua 14:148-79. 1977. A handbook of comparative Tai. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. 1983. Proto-Tai *kh- and *x-. Minzu Yuwen 6:7-9.

L.-Thongkum, Therapan. 1992. A preliminary reconstruction of Proto-Lakkja (Cha Shan Yao). Mon-Khmer Studies 20:57-89.

.1993. The lexicalization and conceptualization of some noun compounds in Tai-Kadai languages. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society (SEALS III), University of Hawai'i, May 7-10. 7 pp.

Mao Zongwu, Meng Zhaoji, and Zheng Zongze. 1982. A brief description of Yao. [Contains two Yao dialects as well as Lakkja]. Chinese Minority People's Lan- guage, Basic Description Series. Beijing.

Maspero, Henri. 1934. La langue chinoise. In Conference de l'Institute de Linguiste de l'Universite de Paris, anne 1933. Paris.

Matisoff, James A. 1988. Proto-Hlai initials and tones: A first approximation. In Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai, ed. by Jerold A. Edmondson and David B. Solnit, pp. 289-321. Publications in Linguistics no. 86. Arlington, Texas: University of Texas at Arlington.

Oshika, Beatrice T. 1979. The Kam-Sui-Mak and Northern Tai languages. In Papers in South-East Asian linguistics, no. 6, Tai studies in honour of William J. Gedney, ed. by T. W. Gething and Nguyen Dang Liem, pp. 125-141. Pacific Linguistics Series A-52. Canberra: Australian National University.

366




Ouyang, Jueya and Fu Zhennan. 1988. On the issues of the genetic classification of Cun speech in Hainan Island. Minzu Yuwen 1:8-17.

Ouyang, Jueya and Zheng Yiqing. 1983. Survey of the Li (=Hlai) languages. Beijing. Reid, Lawrence A. 1984-85. Benedict's Austro-Tai Hypothesis-An evaluation.

Asian Perspectives 26:19-34. . 1993. Morphological evidence for Austric. Paper presented at the Conference

on Asia-Mainland/Austronesian Connections held at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Sagart, Laurent. 1990. Chinese and Austronesian are genetically related. Paper presented at the 22nd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, Arling- ton, Texas.

. 1991. Chinese and Austronesian: Evidence for a genetic relationship. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Hono- lulu.

. 1992. Chinese tones from Austronesian final syllables. In Southeast Asian Linguistics Society I, ed. by Martha Ratliff and Eric Schiller, pp. 259-271. Tempe: Arizona State University Southeast Asian Studies Publication Program.

. 1993a. Old Chinese and Proto-Austronesian. Paper presented to the Conference of Asia-Mainland/Austronesian Connections, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

. 1993b. Austronesian final consonants and the origin of Chinese tones. In To- nality in Austronesian languages, ed. by Jerry Edmondson and Ken Gregerson, pp. 47-59. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication no. 24. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Schlegel, Gustav. 1901. Review of Frankfurter's Siamese grammar T'oung Pao 2:76-87. Solnit, David B. 1992. Review of Paul K. Benedict's Japanese/Austro-Tai. Language

68:188-196. . 1988. The position of Lakkia within Kadai. In Comparative Kadai: Linguis-

tic studies beyond Tai, ed. by Jerold A. Edmondson and David B. Solnit, pp. 219- 238. Publications in Linguistics, no. 86. Arlington, Texas: University of Texas at Arlington.

. n.d. Lakkia notes. ms. Thompson, Laurence C. 1976. Proto-Viet-Muong phonology. Austroasiatic Studies 2, ed.

by Philip N. Jenner, Laurence C. Thompson, and Stanley Starosta, pp. 1113-1204. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Tarling, Nicholas, ed. 1992. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, vol. 1, From Early Times to c. 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Terrien de Lacouperie, Albert Etienne Jean Baptiste. 1887. The languages of China before the Chinese. London: Nutt.

Thurgood, Graham. 1985a. Benedict's work: Past and present. In Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area: The state of the art. Papers presented to Paul K. Benedict on the occasion of his 71st birthday, ed. by Graham Thurgood, James A. Matisoff, and David Bradley, pp. 1-15. Pacific Linguistics C-87. Canberra: Australian National University.

. 1985b. Proto-Kam-Sui clusters and the Austro-Tai hypothesis. Paper presented at the First International Austro-Tai Conference, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

1988a. Notes on the reconstruction of Kam-Sui. In Comparative Kadai: Lin- guistic studies beyond Tai, ed. by Jerold A. Edmondson and David B. Solnit, pp. 179-218. Publications in Linguistics, no. 86. Arlington, Texas: University of Texas at Arlington.

. 1988b. k- prefixes in Kam-Sui and Kadai: Some notes. Languages and history in East Asia: Festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida on the occasion of his 60th birth-

367




day, ed. by Paul K. Eguchi, Yukio Fujimoto, Nobuyoshi Fukuhara, Masura Hashi- moto, Koichi Miyamoto, Atsuchi Iwamoto, Tatsuo Kondo, Masaoki Miyamoto, Osamu Sakiyama, Akihiro Sato, David Sell, Norio Shibata, Ken-ichiro Shirai, Mashiro Shogaito, Shiro Yabu, and Kazuhiko Yoshida, pp. 229-235. Kyoto: Shokado.

. 1991. Proto-Hlai (Li): A look at the initials, tones, and finals. Kadai: Discus- sions in Kadai and SE Asian Linguistics 3:1-49.

.1992. The aberrancy of the Jiamao dialect of Hlai: Speculation on its origins and history. In Southeast Asian Linguistics Society I, ed. by Martha Ratliff and Eric Schiller, pp. 417-433. Tempe: Arizona State University Southeast Asian Studies Publication Program.

. 1993. Phan Rang Cham and Utsat: Tonogenetic themes and variants. Tonality in Austronesian languages, ed. by Jerry Edmondson and Ken Gregerson, pp. 91- 106. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication no. 24. Honolulu: University of Ha- waii Press.

Wang Jun and Zheng Guoqiao. 1980. A brief description of the Mulao (=Mulam) language. Chinese Minority People's Language, Basic Description Series. Beijing.

Wulff, K. 1934. Chinesisch und Tai. Danske Videnskabernes selskab, Hist.-filol. Meddeleser 20.3.

. 1942. Uber das verhaltnis des malayo-polynesischen zum indochinesischen. Danske Videnskabernes selskab, Hist.-filol. Meddeleser 27.2.

Zhang Yuangsheng, Ma Jialin, Wen Mingying, and Wei Xinglang. 1985. Hainana Lingao hua [The language of Lingao, Hainan]. Nanning: Guangxi Nationalities Press.

368



new stuff

Documents

austronesian lookalikes

taikadai forms

austronesian movement

taikadai tk

taikadai borrowing

early preaustronesian

language families

various subgroups of