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. 345-368
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3623133
Accessed: 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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

TAI-KADAIAND AUSTRONESIAN:
THE NATUREOF THE HISTORICAL
RELATIONSHIP1
GRAHAM THURGOOD
CALIFORNIA
STATE
FRESNO
UNIVERSITY,
Therearethreepossiblewaysto accountfortheAustronesian
look-alikesin
Tai-Kadai:commoninheritance,thatis, the two languagesfamilies are
geneticallyrelated;languagecontact,thatis, theformswereborrowedinto
Tai-KadaifromAustronesian;
and,chance,thatis, the formsare merely
look-alikesandnothingmore.Theevidenceprovidedby recentreconstrucof Tai-KadaishowsthattheTai-Kadaiformsare
tionsof varioussubgroups
neitherinheritedon theone handnormerelook-alikeson theother.Further,
andthe subgrouping
evidenceshowthatthe bulkof the
the reconstructions
sourceandthat
Tai-Kadaiborrowingwas froman early(pre-)Austronesian
the contactoccurredin southwestern
Chinaandpredatedthe Austronesian
movementout 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,proposalshave 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
thatSchlegel wrote as early as 1901 thatMalay (= Austronesian)was connected
with Thai (= Siamese), in effect, connecting Austronesianand 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-residuea 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 rightsreserved.

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

346

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

However, scholarshipdriftedaway from Schlegel's position, and ten years

later,in 1906, FatherSchmidtcombinedAustronesian(= Malayo-Polynesian),
not with Thai, but with Austroasiatic (= Mon-Khmer), a grouping that he
called "Austric."
In 1916, Conradytook 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 Austronesianand Tai-Kadai,but hardly in
the direct sense that Schlegel had in mind.
Several more recent works have returnedto Schlegel's position. Benedict,
in his 1942 article "Thai,Kadai, and Indonesian:A new alignment in SoutheasternAsia," arguesfor a genetic relationshipbetween Austronesianand TaiKadai;his 1975 book on Austro-Tai again argues for a genetic relationship,
but within the context of membershipwithin a largermacrofamilyconsisting
of An, Tai-Kadai,and Hmong-Mien.Likewise, Egerod sees the relationshipas
genetic when he notes that,althoughWulff did not succeed in connectingIndoChinese (= Sino-Tibetan, including Thai) to Malayo-Polynesian, Wulff did
prove "therelationshipof Thai to Malayo-Polynesian"(Egerod,1976:53-55).
Egerod continues, "Wulff's Thai-Malayo-Polynesiancomparisons stand as
lasting proof of the genetic relationshipamong these groups."
Otherscholars,however, have been at pains to emphasizethatthe proposed
relationshipis far from proven. Gedney (1976), in a review of Benedict'sevidence concludes thatit does not begin to constituteconclusive evidence of the
relationship.Dahl (1977:116), in the course of discussing Benedict's claim of
a genetic relationshipbetween An and TK, takes an intermediateposition: "It
thereforeseems to me thatquite a few of Benedict's identificationshave to be
rejected. But some of the correspondencesremain,and must be explainedas a
due to geneticaffinity,if theyare 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 Austronesian,but with Chinese.As early as 1887, Terriende Lacouperiediscussed
the Chinese element in Thai, and, without offering any evidence to support
his conclusions, he wrote thatthe similaritiesbetween Chinese and Thai were
due to "intermingling,"by which he presumablymeant borrowing and convergence 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 undergonein the everlastingprocess of intermingling."
Terriende Lacouperie'sinsightsseem to have had little affect on subsequent
scholarship,andover the next seventyyearsor so the Thai andChinesesimilarities in vocabulary,in typology, and in tones (and, particularly,in tone classes)
were looked at, not as a resultof contact,but as proof of a genetic relationship.
Thus, in 1896, August ConradyconnectedThai notjust to Chinese,but also to

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

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

347

Indochinese. Recast in more modern terms, Conradyconnected Tai-Kadaito

Sino-Tibetan.Both Wulff (1934) and Maspero(1934) also saw Siamese as genetically relatedto Chinese, an analysis that was based in parton typological
similaritiesand in parton whatmany but certainlynot all scholarsnow analyze
as borrowings.More recent scholarshipshows a slow drift back to Terriende
Lacouperie'sposition thatthe similaritiesbetweenThai and Chinese are due to
contact.Dai Qingsha,for example,takesthispositionin his 1991 article"Onthe
affiliationof the Kadai(Zhuang-Dong)group:Indicationsfromthe natureof the
relationshipbetweenTibeto-Burmanand Chinese."2
An and Chinese. Anotherproposal has been made in the literatureconnecting An, not with Thai, but with Chinese (or, Sino-Tibetan).Before he died,
Wulff was workingon a manuscriptarguingfor a connectionbetweenhis IndoChineseandMalayo-Polynesian(Wulff 1942).In his earlierwork,Wulff (1934)
had arguedthatThai was partof Indo-Chinese;his workingmanuscriptargued
for the connection of Indo-Chinesewith Austronesian,but he died before he
could complete it. More recentlySagart(1990, 1991, 1992, 1993a, 1993b) has
made a similarproposal, althoughwith considerablymore data supportinghis
position.3
Thus, in a sense, scholarshiphas come full circle. Terriende 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 AUSTRONESIANFORMS IN TAI-KADAI. Within

the contextof SoutheastAsianprehistory,it seems relativelyclear thatthereis a
historicalrelationshipbetween the Austronesiansand the Tai-Kadaispeakers.
However, the real commitmentis to a historicalrelationship,not to a genetic
relationship. Either a genetic or a contact relationshipwould be compatible
with the available evidence. These positions arejuxtaposedto the thirdpossibility-that no relationshipwhatsoever exists.
However,withinthe work on historicallinguistics,therehas been a tendency
for scholarsto choose betweena genetic relationshipand no relationshipat all,
largelyignoringthe possibilityof a contactrelationship.Some such as Benedict
(1942, 1975) assertthatcompelling evidence for a genetic relationshiphas alreadybeen presented.Certainly,Egerodalso takes this position, when he states
that"Wulff'sThai-Malayo-Polynesian
comparisonsstandas lastingproof of the
these
groups"(1976:53-55).4 Others, in contrast,
genetic relationshipamong
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'.

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

348

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

The truth, however, seems to lie somewhere between these extremes. On

the one hand,compelling evidence for a genetic relationshipcertainlyhas not
been presentedyet, but on the other handthe quality and quantityof the putative cognates excludes the possibility that all we are talking about is chance
similarity.Nonetheless,the "look-alikes"cannotsimply be dismissedas chance
similarities.A plethoraof disclaimersaside, it seems incontrovertiblethatthere
is a significantnumberof Austronesianwords in variousKadailanguages, and
they requiresome sort of historical explanation.
Usually this modest but significantgroupof Austronesianforms 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 fromcontact,as with the Frenchforms in English.Thus, when
we examine the data, it becomes clear that the real question is what kind of
historical relationshipis involved? Are the similaritiesevidence of a genetic
relationship?Or evidence of contact?And, how do we tell?

3. THE TAI-KADAI DATABASE. Although Schlegel's proposalthat TaiKadai and Austronesian are genetically related was made almost a century
ago, it is only within the last decade or so that we have reacheda point where
we can evaluate the hypothesis. Unlike earlier investigatorswho had to base
their conclusions on fairly limited and often inaccuratedata, within the last
decade or so the emergence of a huge volume of reliable data has provided a
base for reasonablyaccurateand detailed reconstructions.
With the exception of Gelao, at least a preliminaryreconstructionexists 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 outstandingwork on Be (Hashimoto 1980,
Hansell 1988, Zhang et al. 1985, and L.-Thongkum1992) and Lakkja(Solnit
1988, n.d.; Mao, Meng, & Zheng 1982; Haudricourt1967), as well as some
as yet largely unassimilatedbut available materialon Laha and Laqa. So, although our understandingof Proto-Taiexceeds our understandingof the other
branches considerably, nonetheless there have been significant advances in
our knowledge of Kadai languages, laying the foundationsfor an evaluation
of the Austronesianforms in Tai-Kadai.
In turn,the detailedreconstructionsof the subgroupshave typicallyresulted
in ratherstraightforward
correspondencerules for the reconstructionsof tones.
The presence of rules of tonal correspondencehas, in turn, given analysts a
valuable tool for recognizing borrowedforms. With the appearanceof reconstructionsof proto-Kam-Suiand proto-Tai,enough is now known about the
reconstruction of various major subgroups of Tai-Kadai for us to do an

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

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

349

instructiverough-and-readyexaminationof at least some of the better-known

putative cognates.

4. THE DATABASE. No attemptwas made to examine all the correspondences for each and every Tai-Kadaiword ever said to have an Austronesian
counterpart.Although the quality of the individualproposed cognates varies
considerably,hundredsof cognates have been proposedin the literature.Thus,
the time involved in such an undertakingwould be prohibitive.Instead,it was
assumedthata hypothesis standsor falls on the basis of its strongestevidence:
the proliferationof weak evidence does not make a weak argumentany less
weak.
The bulk of the data is thus a compilationof 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 thatReid (1984-1985)
compiled from his review of Benedict's work on Austro-Tai(1975).
Membershipin the samplewas not, however,artificiallylimitedto 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 otherhand,roots that,for whateverreason,show nothingpro or con-have often simply been left out.
Finally, the databasehas a noticeable Kam-Sui bias, largely because KamSui is the subgroupin which the irregularitiesof the Austronesianloans are
the most obvious.

5. INHERITED OR BORROWED? Although it is not always obvious

which forms in Tai-Kadaiare meant to correspondto which words in Austronesian, when it is obvious, reconstructionreveals problems in the Tai-Kadai
correspondences:
Certainwordsdisplaynotjust minorbutmarkedirregularitiesin theircorrespondencepatternswithinone or more subgroupsof Tai-Kadai.At the very
least, the markedcharacterof the irregularitiespreventsthese forms from
being used as the bases for buildingan argumentfor a genetic relationship.
Certain forms display unique correspondencepatterns. Of course, it is
impossible to establish regular correspondences on the basis of forms
with unique correspondencepatterns!Further,it is impossible to build a
case for a genetic relationshipon the basis of forms with unique correspondence patterns.

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

350

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

Borrowings are not, of course, the only source of unique correspondence

patterns.But, if proposed cognates have unique, unparalleledcorrespondences 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 recognized as borrowings.
And, certain forms display more than one type of problem.
Nonetheless, what is the problem?Irregularitiesand unique correspondences
occur in the reconstructionsof all language families, unless somebody is hiding something. The problem lies not in the existence of markedirregularities
and unique correspondencesbut in theirextremepervasiveness:Once the sets
with serious problems are removed, the databasevirtuallydisappears.On the
other hand, if these forms were borrowed,not inherited,this is precisely what
we expect to find.
It is only the Tai-Kadaiforms that are being criticallyexaminedhere. And,
even withinthe Kadaiside of the equation,only partof the datais being examined. The Austronesianforms areincludedonly for the sake of comparison.The
Austronesian(= An)5 forms includedin the chartsare from variouslevels and
from varioussources,but are Blust's, unless otherwisestated.The presentation
of the An forms is somewhathodgepodge,and if the argumenthinged in any
crucial way on the An data, it would be necessaryto be more carefulwith the
presentation.However,it is the TK data,not the An data,thatis 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 Austronesianforms given below are historically related. Despite looking
quite different, the Proto-Kam-Suiand the Proto-Taiforms correspondquite
regularly to each other, and without doubt the PKS and PT forms reflect the
same etyma. In addition,not only do the PT forms remindone of the Austronesian 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"
*nuk8"
*ne2"
*nan2"

bulan
bulak
-'louse'

*?bl/rienl
*?bl/ro:k7
*?bl/ra:i
*ml/ren2

'moon, month'
'flower't
'to weed'

tbulakis the word for flower in Tagalog

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

351

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

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
Austronesiancounterparts.
PKS

KAM

THEN

MAONAN SUI

SUI-N* MAK

*fia:n2" fia:n1

njaan' fien2-

njan2 niin2 'moon'

nuk9
nan1

nuek7
nan1
nee

nan2

njen2

*nuk8"
*nan2
*ne2

nuk8
nan

nuk8

ne2

nee2

TONE:

ODD

ODD

EVEN

EVEN

EVEN

EVEN

'flower'
'louse'
'to weed'

*Suidialect referredto in Li (1965) as Ngam Sui

The patternof tonal reflexes is strikingly aberrant.The patternis not that of

the voiceless or the glottalized nasals, both of which have odd-numbered
tonal reflexes. Nor is it the patternof proto-voiced nasals, which inevitably
have even-numberedtonal reflexes. And, not only does the patternnot match
any of the patternsfor 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 representativefor all the nasals, which patternin the same way.
PKS

KAM

THEN

MAONAN SUI

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

MAK

The Tai reflexes of these forms are also of interest. In Li (1977) 'moon,'
'flower,' 'to weed,' and six otherforms are reconstructedwith an initial *?bl/r,
thatis, with a glottalizedbilabialstopfollowed by either-1-or -r-. Of these, 'spotted; whitish' has been addedto our list becauseof its Austronesiancounterpart.
AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

bulan

*?bl/nenl

*i'a:n2"

*na:n

bulak

*?bl/rok7

*nuk8"

[belang]

*7bl/ra:il
*?bl/rair5

*ne2"
-

*-

*?dag5
*ml/ren2

*nan2"

'moon; month'

'flower'
'to weed'
'spotted; whitish'

*thanl

'stripe'
'body louse'

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

352

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

Several things are noteworthyaboutthese forms. First,of the nine forms reconstructedfor Proto-Taiby Li with *?bl/r-initials, four alreadyhave Austronesian counterparts.A more detailedexaminationof the remainingfive might
be instructive.Second, not only are all the Austronesianforms disyllabic, but
various researchershave arguedthat the TK forms were also once disyllabic.
The obvious interpretation,of course, is that the Tai patternof initial is the
reflex of earlierdisyllabic forms borrowedfrom Austronesian(and, of course,
possibly from other sources). If, as the work of L.-Thongkum(1993), Kullavanijaya(1993), andothers seems to suggest, PT andPKS did not have monomorphemicdisyllabic forms,8the fact that disyllabic borrowingsinto PT and
PKS have unique reflex patternswould make perfect sense.
5.1.2 '(fresh) water'. Otherputativecognates also have rathermarkedirregularities in the Kam-Sui subgroup.
AN

PTAI

danum

*nl/ram4

PKS

PHLAI

*ni'am3

*nam3

'[fresh] water'

-t -i -f

MULAMKAM

THEN MAONAN

*f' am3

nom4

nam4

-t -i -f

-f

PKS

nam4

nam3

SUI

iam3

MAK

nam3 'water'

-i

In KS, the tones, the initial, and the final for '(fresh)water' all show some sort
of irregularity.The particularmix of odd and even numberedtones is not otherwise attested for nasals. And, the only other KS form with this initial pattern is bulan 'moon', alreadyclassified 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 anotherpossible source of these irregularities:these forms

may have been influencedin one way or anotherby Chinese toushl ('head' +
'louse'). Nonetheless, even if it were possible to rehabilitatethe KS forms, the
problem of relating the Tai-Kadaireconstructionsto Austronesian *kutu remains. The similaritybetween 'headlouse'and 'head' (5.4 below) is interesting.

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

353

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

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

AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

kaen

*kinl -v

*ca:nl

*khanl

'eat'

However, the real problems with this root will occur when attemptsare made
to line up the differentinitials from various subgroupsin an attemptto reconstruct Proto-Tai-Kadai.9
5.1.5 'road'. For 'road,' the KS data has a completely irregularset of initials,
a set that appearsonly to occur in loanwords.
AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

Zalan

*xronl

**khwanl

*ku:nl

'road, path'

As with the root before, the additional,insurmountableproblems with these

initial correspondenceswould occur if an attemptwere made to reconstruct
the etymon for Proto-Tai-Kadai.10
Several of the roots with unique correspondencesin Tai-Kadai were chosen for discussion precisely because they are so frequentlycited in the literature as examples of An/TK cognates.
5.1.6 'eye', 'pond' and 'die'. The firstpair of roots to be discussed are those
for 'eye' and 'pond, well, pool'.
In Kam-Sui,only two words display this particularinitial 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 numberof 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 correspondencepattern.
PKS

MULAMKAM THEN MAONANSUI-N MAK

*thla1 lal
**thlaml !am1

nda1 daa1 'eye'

ta1 ?daa1 nda'
tam1 ?dam1 ndam1 ndaml dam1 'well, pond, pool'

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

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

354

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

PHLAI

AN

PTAI

PKS

matay

*trail

*pjail

*nf?a:u2

'die'

*pjau

'shuttle'

*prau5

On the basis of internalevidence alone, the word 'shuttle' could just as well
have been reconstructedwith an initial *t-, and it probablywould have been
except for facts:first,the initialparallelsthe correspondenceset for 'die', which
apparentlyneeds to be reconstructedwith some sort of bilabial cluster, and,
second, 'shuttle' is reconstructedwith a bilabialcluster by Li for Proto-Tai.If
'shuttle' is reconstructedwith an initial *t-, there are no other forms with the
same initial pattern.
For 'die' itself, the following Mulamdialectalforms are listed in Wang and
Zheng (1980:9): tai1,pyai1, tail, tail, and tai1.This arraymakes it necessary
to reconstructa contrastwith the medials in such forms as *praml 'head hair'.
Thus, if 'eye' is a native root, then its initial must contrastwith 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 correspondencedisappears
entirely, with 'shuttle' being reassigned to *t-.
The problemswith 'eye' and 'die' do not stop with theiruniquenessin KamSui however. Thereare also seriousproblemsin Proto-Tai(= PT). In PT, both
'eye' and 'die' are reconstructedby Li with the same initial: *tr-. The only
otherword reconstructedwith this initial,at least in Li (1977), is 'grasshopper'.
AN

PTAI

SAEK

PKS

mata
maCey

*tral
*trail
*trak7

praa
praay
(kha6nak4)

*thlal
*pjail
*thrak7

'eye'
'die'
'grasshopper'

This set of initialshas seriousproblemswithinPTai.Li (1977) reconstructedthe

initialas *tr-,but this was withoutknowledgeof the pr- initialin the cited Saek
(fromGedney)forms.Clearly,Li's *tr-no longerworksas the Saekformswould
requirethe change *tr- > *pr-.The obvious solution would be to reconstructa
*pr-,except that *pr-is neededfor anothermuch betterattestedset of forms.
Another relatively serious problem involves the external comparisons of
the PT forms with their PKS counterparts-the PT initial corresponds to
three separatePKS 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.

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

355

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

nipen
Sapuy

*van2
*vei2

*pjwanl
*pwail

*panl
*peil

'tooth'
'fire'

Within Kam-Sui, the final *-ai in the root for 'fire' has an unexpected correspondence(withinKam-Sui),but this could be conditionedby the *pw- initial,
as 'fire' is the only word in which a *pw- initial occurs before an *-ai final.
However,the uniquecorrespondencesmake 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 Austronesianappearsto be differentfrom the root in Tai-Kadai.
AN

PTAI

bituqen
ikuR
[baRaq]

PKS

PHLAI

*?dl/raul

*?dra:ul

*r?a:ul

*thrjal
*ptit7

beri; beRay *hai3

*khja:il

'star'
'tail'
'lungs'

*deui1

'give'

Without established correspondence patterns, it is unclear what bases are

being used to claim cognacy between such strikingly different forms. However, in some cases, I may have simply failed to locate the appropriate
corresponding form.
5.3 BORROWINGS. Some forms have alreadybeen identifiedin the literature as borrowings.
5.3.1 'cage' and 'swim'. Egerod (1976) notes that 'cage' has already been
reclassified as a borrowingby Benedict and by others.
AN

PTAI

PKS

kurung

*kreerl

languy

*hwai3-

*plei

PHLAI
-

'cage'

'swim'

Among the three words for 'swim', there is little reason to assume that any
of them arerelatedto each other.It would be astoundingif the PT and the PKS
forms were related to one another;the initial correspondencesare otherwise
without parallel.
The correlations with An do not seem to fare any better. In fact, the PT
form *hwai3is more likely to be connected with Proto-Chamic*luai, a form

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

356

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

that Headley(1976) classifiesas a Mon-Khmerloan on the basis of externalevidence. On the basis of internalevidence, my own work on Chamic provides
supportfor Headley'sobservation.The point,of course,is thatthe Proto-Taireconstructionmatches up betterwith a Mon-Khmerform than with An languy.
5.3.2 'sour'. This word is completely regularin An. In other words, within
Austronesianitself, it shows no signs of being borrowed.
AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

masam
esem

*som3

*khjum3

khjom3

'bitter;sour'

Within the various subgroupsof TK, the word reconstructsquite regularly.If

thereareproblems,they will come when an attemptis madeto reconstructProtoTK. Thus, if this form is a borrowing,it is an extremelyearly borrowing.
5.3.3 '(green) blue'. ThroughoutKadai, the 'green (blue)' forms are found
[Proto-Tai*xiaul, Proto-Kam-Sui*xjul (irregularinitial), Proto-Hlai*khi:ul,
Lakkjajau2], but with irregularinitial correspondences.
AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

Sizaw

*xiaul

**xjul -i

*khi:ul

'green [blue]'

Within An, the forms are limited to WesternMalayo-Polynesian,suggesting

that the word does not reconstructto PAn and thus also makingthe An partof
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 counterparts, ratherthan whetherthe Tai-Kadaievidence alone will show them to be
borrowings.
AN

PTAI

aNak
laki

*?djek
*hluk8

PKS
*la:k8

PHLAI
*lik7 -f
*1?uak7

'child'
'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.

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

357

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

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

PTAI

PKS

buta
qulu
quZan
manuk
ujung

*?bot7
*thrue1

*6u:t7

*ftinl

*nlok8

PHLAI

*kru3 -f
*xwinl
*mluk8

*yw?o3
*punl
*no:k7

*cfaIj

(*naJl)

*?d31j

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

For these forms, the semanticsare interesting.If regularsoundcorrespondences

were set up between Austronesianand Tai-Kadai,the semantics are certainly
not without parallels. However, without regular correspondences,precisely
the same considerationslessen the value of these forms as a basis for establishing 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

PKS

(t)-ina
*kamoi

*nai2
*me6

*nei4 -f

PHLAI
'mother, female'

*m?ai3-

'mother, female'

However, the existence of the Chinese form meimei 'female' suggests various
alternatesources for the second set of Tai-Kadaiforms, and perhapsfor the
Austronesianones.
5.5.2 'hear'. Any attemptto relate these forms would require a great deal
more substantiation.
AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI
'hear'

deigeR

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

PTAI

PKS

qabaRa

*?ba5

(sal')

PHLAI

'shoulder'

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

358

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

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 borrowingfrom Sanskrit. That is, there are several potentialborrowingsources for this particular
root. The PKS form is simply puzzling.
5.5.4 'fart'. Within Kadaiitself, 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 onomatopoeiacannot be dismissed.
5.5.5 'dark'. The form 'dark'has two reconstructionsare the PT level, but
no apparentrepresentativesin PKS or in PHlai. If these forms are not borrowings, the variationand the distributionrequirean explanation.
PKS

PHLAI

AN

PTAI

kelam

*khaml

'dark'

*klam5

'darkred'

5.5.6 'fish scales'. The presence of two Thai forms (NOTE:Thai, not ProtoTai), ratherthan one, coupled with its apparentabsence elsewhere is interesting. This form would look much betterwithout the first variant.
AN

PTAI

qun[e]Sap

kip7
kjip7

PKS

PHLAI
*luap8 -f

'scales, fish'

With only two forms, both different and both in Thai, a protoform has not
been reconstructedfor PT. There is a minor problem with the final in ProtoHlai and *klap has been tentatively reconstructedfor Proto-Gelao. The *klooks 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 reconstructedfor the
various subgroups.
AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

qitem

*?dl/roml

*?nam

*dfam3

'black'

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

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

359

Certainlythe An disyllabic form might be relatedto the Tai-Kadaiforms. Of

course, a borrowedform would account for the forms just as well.
5.5.8 'arrive, reach'. These forms look somewhatsimilar and the semantics
are certainly close.
AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

dateng

*tfitrij

*tarj

*da:n3

'arrive,reach'

The proto-Hlairoot has an unexpectedfinal,but one thatis quiteregularwithin

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

um-aRi

*hmal
*ma2

*hmal

PHLAI
'come (back)'

5.5.10 Other. It is possible that these forms are related. The possibility of
borrowingclearly exists for all these forms, something at least suggested by
their limited distributionin TK.
AN

PTAI

PKS

PHLAI

enem
walu
telu

*nom1 -i
*?ou

'six'
'eight'

-'three'

However, if they are borrowings, it should be noted that both 'eight' and
'three' look quite unlike the innovationsfound in the Chamic and the Malay
languages of WesternMalayo-Polynesian,which would have something like
*dua-lapan'eight' and *tiga 'three' instead.This implies that, if they are borrowings, the borrowingmust have occurredeitherbefore An left the mainland
or from a non-Chamic,non-Malaydonor. (The last, the word for 'three', occurs in the Gelao languages, althoughnot on the chart above.)
5.6 THE ARGUMENT FOR BORROWING. Without doubt, there are
numerous minor objections thatcould 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 patterningof the data within TK: the An forms are
the product of language contact.

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

360

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

The claim thatthe An forms in TK are mere look-alikeshas to be dismissed.

There are enough forms in TK and An that closely resemble each other for
some sort of historicalexplanationto be required.This conclusion, of course,
is not surprising.For almost a hundredyears, reputablescholars have recognized 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 unambiguousanswer when a
detailed, careful examination is made of the behavior of these An forms in
TK. Those roots most frequently put forth in the literatureas 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 numberof cases, these forms have unique TK correspondencepatterns,patternsnot sharedwith other TK forms, a featurethat
is consistent with the thesis thatthey are borrowings.Otherroots have irregular correspondencepatterns,a featurethat is even strongerevidence they are
borrowings. And, finally, some are universally acknowledged to be borrowings.
In additionto the so-called strong evidence, the literaturecontains numerous other forms put forth as possible cognates-what might be termedweaker
evidence. However, aside from numerous questions about whether various
forms are even relatedto their alleged An counterparts,by and large the vast
majorityof this evidence could be just as readily interpretedas borrowedinstead of inherited.
In sum, the genetic hypothesis is only consistent with a part of the data,
while the borrowinghypothesis is consistent with all of it.
There is, however, an entirely differenttype of argumentthat might raised
against the claim that at least some of the An forms in TK are borrowings,an
argumentnot based on linguistic reconstructionsand correspondencepatterns
but instead on a cherishedpiece of linguistic folk mythology. As the careful
readerhas alreadynoticed, many of the forms discussed in this paperare what
is often termed core or basic vocabulary.It seems to be part of the folk mythology of linguistics thatbasic vocabulary-numerals, body parts,pronouns,
and so on-cannot be borrowed.
While it is probablytrue thatthe borrowingof basic vocabularyimplies the
borrowingof nonbasic vocabulary,it is certainlyalso true that basic vocabulary gets borrowed.The borrowingof numeralsis rampantin SoutheastAsia.
For instance, Thai has borrowednumerals,Japanesehas borrowednumerals,
and so on. Old English, for example, borrowedthe obviously basic body part
skin, as well as the basic termsgive and sky from a Scandinaviansource, probably the same source Old English borrowedthe pronoun 'em from. Finnish,
for example, has borrowedditi 'mother'and tytdr 'daughter'from Indo-European (Campbell 1993:1). And, more directly to the point, TK has borrowed
some basic vocabularysuch as bulan 'moon' from An.

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

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

361

6. WHEN AND WHERE DID THE CONTACT OCCUR? Although the

correspondencesinvolving 'moon' and so forthare unique,the forms are nonetheless quite regular within PKS, within PTai, and between PKS and PTai.
That is, these forms reconstructback at least to common Kam-Sui and back
to common Tai, if not much furtherback.
If the forms in the Tai languagesdate back to PT and the forms in Kam-Sui
date back to PKS, then the borrowingmust predatethe breakupof common
Tai. Since an examinationof the geographicaldistributionof the Tai languages
makes it clear that the Proto-Tailanguages began to break up somewhere in
the Guizhou area (if not sooner and in some place even furtherto the north).
This means that the An contact, which predatesthe breakupof common Tai,
must also have occurred-at the very least-as far northas Guizhou. If this is
so, then the TK contact with An must predatethe movement of Austronesian
speakersout into the islands some 6000 years ago or so.
For even more obvious reasons, the Kam-Sui data requirescontact in the
Guizhouand Guangxiareaand thus contactwith An speakersbefore they went
out into the islands. After all, the Kam-Sui speakersare still not found south
of Guangxi.
7. DISCUSSION. A minor benefit of the recognition that a numberof the
Austronesianforms are borrowings will undoubtedlysolve certainproblems
in the reconstructionof Kadai.,Insome cases, it will no longer be necessaryto
posit the existence of yet anotherbilabial cluster in order to account for an
otherwise unparalleledcorrespondencepattern.All sorts of reconstructions
can be refined.And, in turn,it should become progressivelyeasier to separate
borrowedforms from inheritedforms. However, as fascinatingas these developments are to specialists like myself, they are nonetheless of relatively minor 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. Whatthese borrowedAn forms arguequite eloquentlyfor is a period of considerable,quite early, intimatecontactbetween the An and the TaiKadai speakers.
How early? The evidence suggests very early contact. On the Tai-Kadai
side, the borrowing at least predatesthe breakupof PKS and the breakupof
PT and probablydates even furtherback. This of course suggests thatthe contact took place before Tai-Kadaispeakersentered Thailand.On the An side,
the contact occurredbefore the Austronesiansleft the mainland.11That is, the
contact was made in the interiorof China long before the Tai-Kadaispeakers
entered Thailandand before the Austronesiansleft the mainland.
How intimate was the contact? Among the words regularlycited as corresponding between An and Tai-Kadaiare both kinshipterms and personalpronouns, both indications of an earlier period of intimate contact. In addition,

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

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

362

various other elements of basic vocabularyare includedin variouslists, again

indicating a reasonablyintimate 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)?12Certainly,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

Gelao - centraldk western

Guizhou & northern
Guarigxi
Lati - northern\ lietnam

Hlai (= Li) - Hainan

Laqua,Laha- northernVieltnam

I
Lakkja- south central
Guangxi

Kam-Sui- southeastGuizhou
adjoiningHunanand
Guangxi

Be - Hainan

N. Tai

SW Tai
Siamese - Thailand
Lao - Laos and NE Thailand
White Tai - NW Thailand
Black Tai - NW Thailand
Shan - northernBurma
Ahom - Assam
Lii (= Lue) - southernYunnan

C.Tai
Tho - NE Thailand
Nung - NE Thailand
Lungming- SW Guangxi

Saek - N. Thailand& Laos

Zhuang- SW China
Buyi - SW China
Yay - northernVietnam
& southernChina

(Revision of Benedict 1975)

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

363

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

However, from a prehistorian'sviewpoint, the appealof the Austro-Taihypothesiswas in the fact thatit accountedfor apparentearlycontactbetweenthese
languagegroups.Thatis, it was not the geneticcomponentper se, but ratherthe
evidence of early, intimatecontact that was of interest.Thus, the fundamental
insightof those positinga geneticrelationshipbetweenTK andAn were correct
in recognizinga historicalrelationshipbetweenTK and An. The errorwas only
in prematurelyassessing it as due to inheritanceratherthancontact.

NOTES
1. This paper came about because LaurieReid invited me to give a talk at the 1993
Connectionsheld at the University of
Conferenceon Asia-Mainland/Austronesian
Hawai'i at Manoa. A number of participants gave me valuable feedback: Bob
Blust, LaurentSagart,David Solnit, LawrenceReid, Paul Benedict, Jim Matisoff,
Jim Collins, Uri Tadmor,ZhengZhangShangfang,ElzbietaThurgood,and George
Grace.In particularI wish to single out David Solnit, Bob Blust, and George Grace
for substantivelyimproving the ideas here.
The organizershad invited me fully expecting a paperarguingfor a genetic relationshipbetween the Tai-Kadailanguagesand Austronesian.I sharedthat expectation; since 1985 or so (Thurgood 1985a,b), I have felt sympathetic toward the
notion of a genetic affiliationbetween Tai-Kadaiand 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 Austronesian. Although my work had as its ultimateaim an assessment of link, I thought
that it would be several more years before an adequateTai-Kadiadatabase would
be established.
Thus, when I was invited to give the paper,I wrote a first drafttalking in general terms about what sort of preliminarywork would be requiredon the reconstructionof Tai-Kadaibefore a realistic assessment could be made. Upon rereading this draft,I realized that I needed to supplementmy general comments with a
short list of those cognates that had been set forth in the literatureas the best evidence for a Tai-Kadai-Austronesiangenetic relationship.The initial list, compiled
to illustratethe evidence for a genetic relationship,consisted of the 19 basic comparisonsoffered by Wulff (1934) (listed in Egerod (1976, roots eventuallyincluded
in Benedict 1975) and the set of cognatesthatReid (1984-1985) compiled from his
review of Benedict (1975).
However, as I began systematically working my way throughthe Tai-Kadai
forms and reconstructionson my list of "best"cognates, it was almost immediately obvious that the list of Tai-Kadaiforms was not a list of prospective cognates. The patterningof these forms made it clear that, from the Tai-Kadaiviewpoint, the list was a list of loanwords.
I had been plodding along trying to accumulateenough evidence to establish a
genetic relationshipand, were it not for the conference, I would have undoubtedly
plodded along for several more years. I had taken a wrong tack by mistakenly assuming that a clear answer would not be possible until more was known about the
reconstructionof Tai-Kadai.As a result, I had never before gatheredthe evidence
together in one place and then examined it as a coherent whole.

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

364

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

It is both ironic and embarrassingthat, for several years, clear evidence that
the Austronesian words in Tai-Kadai were loans, not cognates, had been available to me-in my own computerfiles.
2. My own historical work on the reconstructionof various subgroupsof Tai-Kadai,
particularlyon non-Taisubgroups,has convinced me that the similaritiesbetween
Tai-Kadai and Chinese are due to contact, ratherthan common genetic inheritance, a view held by many SoutheastAsian specialists.
Although this position is certainlynot crucialto the main focus of this paperthe natureof the historicalrelationshipbetween An and TK, it is importantfor our
understandingof early contact between the TK and the An, and thus to the understandingof the prehistoryof SoutheastAsia. See Note 3.
3. It is my opinion that Wulff, Sagart,and others are partiallyright, that is, that there
are clear lexical connections between Austronesianand Chinese, but I differ with
them on the interpretationof these lexical connections. I believe that these lexical
similarities reflect, not a genetic relationshipbut early contact between the preAustronesians and the Chinese (or, the Sino-Tibetans) before the pre-Austronesians left the mainland.
Again, althoughthis position is not crucial to the main focus of this paper,it is
crucial to our understandingof early contact between these groups and thus the
prehistoryof SoutheastAsia. 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 irregularitiesin 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 unaspiratedstops with or
without a glide, after imploded stops, and after preglottalizednasals, 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 bimorphemicdisyllabic forms, often consisting of a classifying prefix plus a main root.
9. The suggestiondoes exist in the literaturethatsome of these problemscan be solved
by the reconstructionof 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 referredto as pre-Austronesians?
12. Later Benedict also included Japanese, but the Japanese would most likely
be connected with An, ratherthan with Austro-Taias a whole.

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

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

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

365

Bellwood, Peter. 1992. Southeast Asia before history. In The Cambridge History
of SoutheastAsia, vol. 1, FromEarly Timesto c. 1800, ed. by Nicholas Tarling,pp.
55-136. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Benedict, Paul K. 1942. Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian:A new alignmentin Southeastern Asia. AmericanAnthropologist44:756 -601.
. 1975. Austro-Thai:Languageand culture,with a glossary of roots. New Haven: HRAF Press.
. 1992. Japanese/Austro-Tai.Linguistica Extranea, Studia 20. Ann Arbor:
Karoma.
Blust, Robert. 1980. Austronesianetymologies. Oceanic Linguistics 19:1-181.
1983-1984. Austronesianetymologies II. Oceanic Linguistics 22:29 -149.
1986. Austronesianetymologies III. Oceanic Linguistics 25.1-123.
1989. Austronesianetymologies IV. Oceanic Linguistics 28:111 -180.
Brown, J. Marvin. 1985. Vowel length in Thai. In FromAncient Thai to moderndialects, ed. by J. Marvin Brown, pp. 50-67. Bangkok:White Lotus.
Campbell,Lyle. 1993. Handout:Languagerelatedness.Class notes, LSA SummerInstitute, 1993.
Chamberlain,James R. 1975. A new look at the history and classification of the Tai
languages. In Studiesin Tailinguistics in honorof WilliamJ. Gedney,ed. by Jimmy
G. Harrisand James R. Chamberlain,pp. 49-66. Bangkok:Office of State Universities, CentralInstituteof English Language.
Conrady,August. 1896. Eine indochinesische causativ-denominativ-Bildungund ihr
Zusammenhangmit den Tonaccenten.Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.
. 1916. Eine merkwtirdigeBeziehung. Aufsatze E. Kuhn. Miinchen.
Coope, A. E. 1985. Macmillan's Malay-English English-Malay dictionary, student
edition. Kuala Lumpur.
2d rev. ed. ScandinavianInstitute of
Dahl, Otto Christian. 1977. Proto-Austronesian,
Asian Studies MonographSeries, no. 15. Lund:Curzon Press.
Dai Qingsha. 1991. On the affiliationof the Kadai (Zhuang-Dong)group: Indications
from the natureof the relationshipbetween Tibeto-Burmanand Chinese. Kadai:
Discussions in Kadai and SE Asian Linguistics 3:51-63.
Edmondson,JeroldA., and David B. Solnit, eds. 1988. ComparativeKadai: Linguistic
studies beyondTai. Publications in Linguistics, no. 86. Arlington, Texas: University of Texas at Arlington.
Edmondson,JeroldA., and GrahamThurgood.1992. Gelao reconstructionand its place
in Kadai. Paper presented at the Twenty-fifthInternationalConference on SinoTibetan Languages and Linguistics, University of California,Berkeley.
Egerod, S0ren C. 1976. Benedict's Austro-Thaihypothesis:pro & con. Computational
Analysesof Asian and AfricanLanguages6:51-60.
Fu Zhennan. 1983. The "Cun"speech on the west coast of Hainanisland. MinzuYuwen
4:68-71.
. 1990. A dialect island of Li-Nat6u hua. MinzuYuwen4:14-18.
Gedney,William J. 1976. On the Thai [= Tai] evidence for Austro-Tai.Computational
Analysesof Asian and African Languages6:65-82.
.1989. On the Thai [= Tai] evidence for Austro-Tai.In Selectedpapers on ComparativeTaiStudies,ed. by RobertJ. Bickner,John Hartmann,ThomasJohn Hudak,
and PatcharinPeyasantiwong,pp. 117-164. Ann Arbor,Michigan:MichiganPapers
on South and Southeast Asia.
. 1992. On the Thai [= Tai] evidence for Austro-Tai.Talk given at the Twentyfifth InternationalConference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.

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

366

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

Hansell, Mark. 1988. The relationof Be to Tai: The evidence from tones and initials.
In ComparativeKadai: LinguisticstudiesbeyondTai, ed. by Jerold A. Edmondson
and David B. Solnit, pp. 239-289. Publicationsin Linguistics, no. 86. Arlington,
Texas: Universityof Texas at Arlington.
Hashimoto,Mantaro.1980. TheBe language:A classifiedlexiconof its Limkowdialect.
Asian and African Lexicon 11. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and
Culturesof Asian and Africa.
Haudricourt,Andre-Georges. 1965. Le vocabulaireBe de F M. Savina (presentepar
A.G. Haudricourt).Bulletin de l'Ecole d'Extreme-Orient57.
. 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 Studiesin Tai linguistics in
honorof WilliamJ. Gedney,ed. by Jimmy G. Harrisand James R. Chamberlain,
pp. 252-258. Bangkok: Office of State Universities, CentralInstitute of English
Language.
. 1976. General overview. ComputationalAnalysesof Asian and African Languages 6:87-91.
. 1984. Hainandaojizhong yuyan de shengdiao. MinzuYuwen4:17-25.
He Jiashan. 1983. A briefdescriptionof Gelao. Chinese Minority People's Language,
Basic Description Series. Beijing.
Headley, Robert K. 1976. Some sources of Chamic vocabulary.In AustroasiaticStudies, 1, ed. by Philip N. Jenner,LaurenceC. Thompson, and Stanley Starosta, pp.
453-476. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publicationno. 13. Honolulu:University of
Hawaii Press.
Kullavanijaya,Pranee. 1993. Notes on disyllabic words in some Tai languages. Paper
presentedat the Conference on Asia-Mainland/AustronesianConnections held at
the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. 10 pp.
Lee, ErnestWilson. 1966. Proto-Chamicphonologic word and vocabulary.Ph.D. dissertation, IndianaUniversity.University Microfilms 67-3690.
Li Fang-kuei. 1965. The Tai and Kam-Sui languages. Lingua 14:148-79.
1977.A handbookof comparativeTai.Honolulu:The UniversityPressof Hawaii.
1983. Proto-Tai*kh- and *x-. MinzuYuwen6:7-9.
L.-Thongkum, Therapan. 1992. A preliminaryreconstructionof Proto-Lakkja(Cha
ShanYao). Mon-KhmerStudies20:57-89.
.1993. The lexicalization and conceptualizationof 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 Language, Basic Description Series. Beijing.
Maspero,Henri. 1934. La langue chinoise. In Conferencede l'Institutede Linguistede
l'Universitede Paris, anne 1933. Paris.
Matisoff, James A. 1988. Proto-Hlai initials and tones: A first approximation. In
Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyondTai, 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-Makand NorthernTai languages. In Papers
in South-EastAsian linguistics, no. 6, Taistudiesin honourof WilliamJ. Gedney,ed.
by T. W. Gething and Nguyen Dang Liem, pp. 125-141. Pacific LinguisticsSeries
A-52. Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity.

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

TAI-KADAI AND AUSTRONESIAN

367

Ouyang, Jueya and Fu Zhennan. 1988. On the issues of the genetic classification of
Cun speech in HainanIsland. MinzuYuwen1:8-17.
Ouyang, Jueya and Zheng Yiqing. 1983. Surveyof the Li (=Hlai) languages.Beijing.
Reid, Lawrence A. 1984-85. Benedict's Austro-Tai Hypothesis-An evaluation.
Asian Perspectives26:19-34.
. 1993. Morphologicalevidence for Austric.Paperpresentedat the Conference
on Asia-Mainland/AustronesianConnections held at the University of Hawai'i at
Manoa.
Sagart, Laurent. 1990. Chinese and Austronesianare genetically related. Paper presented at the 22nd InternationalConference on Sino-TibetanLinguistics, Arlington, Texas.
. 1991. ChineseandAustronesian:Evidencefor a geneticrelationship.Paperpresented at the Sixth InternationalConference on AustronesianLinguistics, Honolulu.
. 1992. Chinese tones from Austronesian final syllables. In SoutheastAsian
LinguisticsSocietyI, ed. by MarthaRatliff and Eric Schiller, pp. 259-271. Tempe:
Arizona State University SoutheastAsian Studies PublicationProgram.
. 1993a. Old ChineseandProto-Austronesian.
Paperpresentedto the Conference
of Asia-Mainland/Austronesian
Connections,Universityof Hawai'i at Manoa.
. 1993b. Austronesianfinal consonantsand the origin of Chinese tones. In Tonality in Austronesianlanguages,ed. by JerryEdmondsonand Ken Gregerson,pp.
47-59. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication no. 24. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
SiamesegrammarT'oungPao 2:76-87.
Schlegel, Gustav.1901. Review of Frankfurter's
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 ComparativeKadai: Linguistic studies beyondTai, ed. by JeroldA. Edmondsonand David B. Solnit, pp. 219238. Publications in Linguistics, no. 86. Arlington,Texas: University of Texas at
Arlington.
. n.d. Lakkia notes. ms.
Thompson,LaurenceC. 1976. Proto-Viet-Muongphonology.AustroasiaticStudies2, ed.
by Philip N. Jenner,LaurenceC. Thompson,and Stanley Starosta,pp. 1113-1204.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Tarling, Nicholas, ed. 1992. The CambridgeHistory of SoutheastAsia, vol. 1, From
Early Timesto c. 1800. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Terriende Lacouperie,AlbertEtienneJean Baptiste. 1887. Thelanguagesof China before the Chinese.London: Nutt.
Thurgood, Graham. 1985a. Benedict's work: Past and present. In Linguistics of the
Sino-Tibetanarea: The state of the art. Paperspresentedto Paul K. Benedicton the
occasion of his 71st birthday,ed. by GrahamThurgood,James A. Matisoff, and
David Bradley, pp. 1-15. Pacific Linguistics C-87. Canberra:AustralianNational
University.
. 1985b. Proto-Kam-Suiclustersand the Austro-Taihypothesis.Paperpresented
at the First InternationalAustro-TaiConference, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
1988a. Notes on the reconstructionof Kam-Sui. In ComparativeKadai: Linguistic studies beyondTai, ed. by Jerold A. Edmondson and David B. Solnit, pp.
179-218. Publicationsin Linguistics,no. 86. Arlington,Texas:Universityof Texas
at Arlington.
. 1988b. k- prefixes in Kam-Sui and Kadai: Some notes. Languagesand history in East Asia: Festschriftfor TatsuoNishida on the occasion of his 60th birth-

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

368

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 33, NO. 2

day, ed. by Paul K. Eguchi, YukioFujimoto,Nobuyoshi Fukuhara,MasuraHashimoto, Koichi Miyamoto, Atsuchi Iwamoto, Tatsuo Kondo, Masaoki Miyamoto,
Osamu Sakiyama, Akihiro Sato, David Sell, Norio Shibata, Ken-ichiro Shirai,
MashiroShogaito,ShiroYabu,andKazuhikoYoshida,pp. 229-235. Kyoto:Shokado.
. 1991. Proto-Hlai(Li): A look at the initials, tones, and finals. Kadai: Discussions in Kadai and SE Asian Linguistics3:1-49.
.1992. The aberrancyof the Jiamaodialect of Hlai: Speculationon its origins
and history.In SoutheastAsian LinguisticsSocietyI, ed. by MarthaRatliff and Eric
Schiller, pp. 417-433. Tempe:Arizona State University Southeast Asian Studies
Publication Program.
. 1993. Phan Rang Cham and Utsat:Tonogeneticthemes and variants.Tonality
in Austronesianlanguages, ed. by JerryEdmondson and Ken Gregerson,pp. 91106. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publicationno. 24. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.
Wang Jun and Zheng Guoqiao. 1980. A briefdescriptionof the Mulao (=Mulam) language. Chinese Minority People's Language, Basic Description Series. Beijing.
Wulff, K. 1934. Chinesisch und Tai. Danske Videnskabernesselskab, Hist.-filol.
Meddeleser 20.3.
. 1942. Uber das verhaltnisdes malayo-polynesischenzum indochinesischen.
Danske Videnskabernes
selskab,Hist.-filol. Meddeleser27.2.
ZhangYuangsheng,Ma Jialin,WenMingying,andWei Xinglang. 1985. HainanaLingao
hua [The languageof Lingao, Hainan].Nanning:GuangxiNationalitiesPress.

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