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

*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.

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.

The following table shows how Wolff's Proto-Austronesian phonemic system differs from Blust's system.

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 [Proto-Malayo-Polynesian] *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.

Word order

Proto-Austronesian is a verb-initial language (including VSO and VOS word orders), as most Formosan languages, all Philippine languages, some Bornean languages, all Austronesian dialects of Madagascar, and all Polynesian languages are verb-initial.^[2] However, most Austronesian (many of which are Oceanic) languages of Indonesia, New Guinea, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, and Micronesia are SVO, or verb-medial, languages. SOV, or verb-final, word order is considered to be typologically unusual for Austronesian languages, and is only found in various Austronesian languages of New Guinea and to a more limited extent, the Solomon Islands. This is because SOV word order is very common in the non-Austronesian Papuan languages.

Voice system

The Austronesian languages of Taiwan, Borneo, Madagascar and the Philippines are also well known for their unusual morphosyntactic alignment, which is known as the symmetrical voice (also known as the Austronesian alignment). This alignment was also present in the Proto-Austronesian language. Unlike Proto-Austronesian, however, Proto-Oceanic syntax does not make use of the focus morphology present in Austronesian-aligned languages such as the Philippine languages. In the Polynesian languages, verbal morphology is relatively simple, while the main unit in a sentence is the phrase rather than the word.

Below is a table of John Wolff's Proto-Austronesian voice system from Blust (2009:433).^[2] Wolff's "four-voice" system was derived from evidence in various Formosan and Philippine languages.

However, Ross (2009)^[10] notes that what may be the most divergent languages, Tsou, Rukai, and Puyuma, are not addressed by this reconstruction, which therefore cannot claim to be alignment system of the protolanguage of the entire family. He calls the unit to which this reconstruction applies Nuclear Austronesian.

Interrogatives and case markers

The following table compares Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian question words.

Currently, the most complete reconstruction of the Proto-Austronesian case marker system is offered by Malcolm Ross.^[2] The reconstructed case markers are as follows:

Important Proto-Austronesian grammatical words include the ligature *na and locative *i.^[2]

Affixes

Below are some Proto-Austronesian affixes (including prefixes, infixes, and suffixes) reconstructed by Robert Blust. For instance, *pa- was used for non-stative (i.e., dynamic) causatives, while *pa-ka was used for stative causatives (Blust 2009:282). Blust also noted a p/m pairing phenomenon in which many affixes have both p- and m- forms. This system is especially elaborate in the Thao language of Taiwan.^[2]

A verbal prefix *paRi- is also reconstructed (albeit at the lower level of PEMPTooltip Proto-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian), for “reciprocal or collective action”;^[14] it is particularly developed in Oceanic languages.^[15]

Reduplication

CV (consonant + vowel) reduplication is very common among the Austronesian languages. In Proto-Austronesian, Ca-reduplicated (consonant + /a/) numbers were used to count humans, while the non-reduplicated sets were used to count non-human and inanimate objects. CV-reduplication was also used to nominalize verbs in Proto-Austronesian. In Ilocano, CV-reduplication is used to pluralize nouns.

Reduplication patterns include (Blust 2009):

• Full reduplication
• Full reduplication plus affixation
• Full reduplication minus the coda
• Full reduplication minus the last vowel
• Full reduplication with vocalic or consonantal change, or both
• Full reduplication with consecutive identical syllables
• Prefixal foot reduplication/leftward reduplication
• Suffixal foot reduplication/rightward reduplication
• CVC-reduplication
• CV-reduplication (marks durative aspect, collectivity, or intensity in Bunun; future in Tagalog)
• CV-reduplication plus affixation
• Ca-reduplication (used to derive human-counting numerals and deverbal instrumental nouns in Thao and Puyuma)
• Extensions of fixed segmentism
• Reduplicative infixes
• Suffixal syllable reduplication

Other less common patterns are (Blust 2009):

• Vacuous reduplication (occurs in Paamese)
• Full reduplication minus the initial (occurs in Anejom of southern Vanuatu)
• Full reduplication plus an initial glide (occurs in Kosraean)
• Partial reduplication minus initial glottal stop (occurs in Rennellese)
• True CV-reduplication (occurs in Pangasinan)
• Rightward trisyllabic reduplication (occurs in the Manam language)
• Double reduplication (occurs in Woleaian)
• Triplication (only in the Thao language)
• Serial reduplication (only in the Thao language)

Pronouns

The Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian personal pronouns below were reconstructed by Robert Blust.^[2]

In 2006, Malcolm Ross also proposed seven different pronominal categories for persons. The categories are listed below, with the Proto-Austronesian first person singular ("I") given as examples.^[16]

1. Neutral (e.g., PAN *i-aku)
2. Nominative 1 (e.g., PAN *aku)
3. Nominative 2 (e.g., PAN *=ku, *[S]aku)
4. Accusative (e.g., PAN *i-ak-ən)
5. Genitive 1 (e.g., PAN *=[a]ku)
6. Genitive 2 (e.g., PAN *(=)m-aku)
7. Genitive 3 (e.g., PAN *n-aku)

The following is from Ross' 2002 proposal of the Proto-Austronesian pronominal system, which contains five categories, including the free (i.e., independent or unattached), free polite, and three genitive categories.^[2]

Nouns

Proto-Austronesian vocabulary relating to agriculture and other technological innovations include:^[2]

• *pajay: rice plant
• *beRas: husked rice
• *Semay: cooked rice
• *qayam: bird (means "domesticated animal" in PMP)
• *manuk: chicken (PMP *manu-manuk means "bird")
• *babuy: pig
• *qaNuaŋ: carabao
• *kuden: clay cooking pot
• *SadiRi: housepost
• *busuR: bow
• *panaq: flight of an arrow
• *bubu: fish trap
• *tulaNi: bamboo nose flute

Proto-Malayo-Polynesian innovations include:

• *puqun: base of a tree; origin, cause
• *sumpit: blowpipe
• *haRezan: notched log ladder (used to enter pile dwellings)
• *taytay: bamboo suspension bridge (POc *tete "ladder, bridge")
• *kaka: elder same sex sibling
• *huaji: younger same sex sibling
• *ñaRa: brother of a woman
• *betaw: sister of a man

Proto-Malayo-Polynesian also has several words for house:

• *balay (house, building for public use)
• *Rumaq (house, family dwelling)
• *banua (land, village, house, country, sky, heaven) – hence vanua and whenua (as in tangata whenua)
• *lepaw (granary)
• *kamaliR (bachelors' clubhouse)

Colors and directions

Below are colors in reconstructed Proto-Austronesian, Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, Proto-Oceanic, and Proto-Polynesian.^[2][19] The first three have been reconstructed by Robert Blust, while the Proto-Polynesian words given below were reconstructed by Andrew Pawley. Proto-Polynesian displays many innovations not found in the other proto-languages.

The Proto-Austronesians used two types of directions, which are the land-sea axis and the monsoon axis. The cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west developed among the Austronesian languages only after contact with the Europeans. For the land-sea axis, upstream/uphill and inland, as well as downstream/downhill and seaward, are synonym pairs. This has been proposed as evidence that Proto-Austronesians used to live on a mainland, since the sea would be visible from all angles on small islands.^[2]

• *daya: inland (also upstream/uphill)
• *lahud: seaward (also downstream/downhill)
• *SabaRat: west monsoon
• *timuR: east monsoon
• *qamiS: north wind

In Kavalan, Amis, and Tagalog, the reflexes of *timuR mean "south" or "south wind," while in the languages of the southern Philippines and Indonesia it means "east" or "east wind."

In Ilocano, dáya and láud respectively mean "east" and "west," while in Puyuma, ɖaya and ɭauɖ respectively mean "west" and "east."^[20] This is because the Ilocano homeland is the west coast of northern Luzon, while the Puyuma homeland is on the eastern coast of southern Taiwan. Among the Bontok, Kankanaey, and Ifugaw languages of northern Luzon, the reflexes of *daya mean "sky" because they already live in some of the highest elevations in the Philippines (Blust 2009:301).

Also, the Malay reflex of *lahud is laut, which means "sea", used as directions timur laut (means "northeast", timur = "east") and barat laut (means "northwest", barat = "west"). Meanwhile, *daya only performs in barat daya, which means "southwest".

Numerals

Below are reconstructed Proto-Austronesian, Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, Proto-Oceanic, and Proto-Polynesian numbers from the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database.^[21]

Note that *lima 'five', ultimately the root for 'hand', is not found for 'five' in some Formosan languages, such as Pazeh, Saisiat, Luilang, Favorlang and Taokas; numerals cognate with Proto-Malayo-Polynesian 6–10 are found in Amis, Basay, Bunun, Kanakanabu, Kavalan, Paiwan, Puyuma, Saaroa and Tsou. Pazeh, Favorlang, Saisiat and Taokas reflect *RaCep 'five'.

Laurent Sagart suggests that this was the PAn root, replaced by *lima in a lineage that lead to the remaining languages, rather than the reverse, because it seems to be retained in proto-Malayo-Polynesian in the forms 7, 8, 9, which appear to be disyllabic contractions of additive phrases attested from some of the western Formosan languages, especially Pazeh: Pazeh xaseb-uza 'six' (literally 'five-one'); xaseb-i-dusa 'seven' ('five-and-two'), with the bidu cognate with PMP *pitu; xaseb-a-turu 'eight' ('five-and-three'), with the baturu cognate with PMP *walu; xaseb-i-supat 'nine' ('five-and-four'), with the supa (< PAn *Sepat 'four') cognate with PMP *Siwa.^[22]

The Proto-Austronesian language had different sets of numerals for non-humans ("set A") and humans ("set B") (Blust 2009:279). Cardinal numerals for counting humans are derived from the non-human numerals through Ca-reduplication. This bipartite numeral system is found in Thao, Puyuma, Yami, Chamorro, and various other languages (however, Paiwan uses ma- and manə- to derive human numerals). In many Philippine languages such as Tagalog, the two numeral systems are merged (Blust 2009:280–281).

Proto-Austronesian also used *Sika- to derive ordinal numerals (Blust 2009:281).

Verbs

Below are reconstructed Proto-Austronesian, Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, Proto-Oceanic, and Proto-Polynesian verbs from the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database.