Question to Polynesian expert

[Roderick G Orlina]

Well, I'm quite pleased that such a simple question could arouse such a
commotion by what seemed to me a forum through which educated people could
voice their opinions.  See, all too often we are reluctant to accept
alternative theories, either because we feel that we have "sufficient"
evidence to cite, because our reputations are built upon years of study in
a specific field, or our egos are too big to be challenged.  Maybe people
purposely answer questions incorrectly to illicit intelligent answers.  I
was having quite a ball reading such staunch criticism of my opinion,
simply because it reminds me that I, in my endeavor to build my own
list of accomplishments, have to break that glass wall in my attempt to
enter the field of "Austronesian" linguistics; that certain people just
couldn't have migrated to a certain area (by sea;  pretty tough, wouldn't
you say), or a word (though they sound exactly the same way and carry
similar meanings, albeit in another timeframe) couldn't be related to
another, all because it is "established" that so-and-so published a paper
on it.

How come it is possible to attribute to the Greeks or Romans such
incredible conquests and travels, while "scholars" are reluctant to
acknowledge that perhaps the Egyptians sailed to more places than what was
on the stretch of the Nile River. I contacted one scholar about Javanese
contacts in Luzon island: he said that it was rather unlikely.  For a
civilization to have constructed such monuments as Borobudur to not have
done such a commonplace thing as sailed a few leagues up north is also
ridiculous (also given the fact that Java is so wanting in natural gold
resources, while Luzon has far from exhausted its mines).

Why can't a simple word like tatoo, (which is probably a more antiquated
practice than that of countin on fingers and toes), not be spread across
the Pacific like rice at a wedding?  Sometimes etymologies have to be
challenged, not just accepted.

Rod Orlina

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Ross Clark wrote:

> > Date sent:      Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:26:53 -0500 (EST)
> > From:           Roderick G Orlina <rorlina at ic.sunysb.edu>
> > To:             Ross Clark <DRC at antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>
> > Copies to:      AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS <AN-LANG at anu.edu.au>
> > Subject:        Re: Question to Polynesian expert
>
> > Well, did he have any Malay shiphands on board the ship?
> >
> > Rod Orlina
>
> I don't believe so, but it would be easy enough to check, if one
> thought there was any point. The Cook voyages are extremely well
> documented.
>
> I'm puzzled at this reluctance to accept a quite straightforward
> etymology. The word does not appear in English before Cook's
> narrative; Cook is quite clear that he is introducing a native
> Polynesian word for this novel practice; and the word thereupon
> becomes established in English (the OED has at least four citations
> from other writers before 1800). Where's the problem?
>
> Ross Clark