<html>
<body>
Hi,<br><br>
I have some questions about "Van der Tuuk's second law", also
called the R-L-D rule. Without access to many of the older
documents I've not been able to answer them on my own, and I'm hoping
someone out there can help.<br><br>
First of all, what has been termed the R-G-H rule (and which I assume is
Van der Tuuk's first law??) was a recognition of the frequent
correspondence of <i>r</i> in Malay, <i>g</i> in Tagalog and <i>h</i> in
Ngaju-Dayak, for example (data from Dyen 1953):<br><br>
Malay
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>Tagalog
<x-tab> </x-tab>Ngaju
Dayak<br>
'abcess'
<x-tab> </x-tab><i>barah
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>bagáq<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>baha<br>
</i>'vein, tendon'<x-tab> </x-tab><i>urat
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>qugát
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>uhat<br>
</i>'stingray' <x-tab> </x-tab><i>pari
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>pá:gi
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>pahi</i>
<br><br>
This correspondence is reconstructed today as *R, e.g. for the above
forms: PAN *baReq, *uRaC and *paRiS.<br><br>
My questions about the R-L-D rule are: (a) <i>r</i>, <i>l</i> and
<i>d</i> in which languages? These same three languages? (b)
Would it be correct to say that the core of Van der Tuuk's examples are
today reconstructed with *j, but that some of his correspondence sets are
today reconstructed with other phonemes, particularly *d and *Z?
I'm a bit curious as to why Conant (1915 "Notes on the phonology of
the Palau language") divided Van der Tuuk's correspondence sets into
G-type and non-G-types, and Lafeber (1922 <i>Vergelijkende klankleer van
het Niasisch</i>) into type A and type B.<br><br>
A bit of the data which Van der Tuuk was working with would be very much
appreciated!<br><br>
Thanks much,<br><br>
David Mead </body>
</html>