Question to Polynesian expert

[Robert Blust]

Bring out the drums; here is my last tattoo:

As Ross points out, not only is the etymology quite clearly documented in
the OED, but the alternative offered is really quite far-fetched.  Old and
Modern Javanese /tatu/ has nothing to do with tattooing.  Zoetmulder
(1982) gives OJ /tatu/ `wound, scar', Pigeaud (1938) gives MJ /tatoe/
(Dutch orthography) `wond', and Horne (1974) gives MJ /tatu/ `a wound, a
cut; wounded'.  Wilkinson (1959) gives Malay /tatu/ `wounding; a flesh
wound, esp. in the head or face' as a Javanese form (presumably confined
to Betawi, although he does not state that).  None of these sources
mentions tattooing at all.  You can blow until you are red in the face
saying that tattooing involves wounding the flesh, but that is precisely
the kind of generalized speculative semantics that leads to erroneous
claims about distant genetic relationship.  Austronesian-speaking peoples
do not associate tattooing with wounding --- they associate it with making
designs.  PAN *beCik `tattoo' contains a monosyllabic root *-Cik which is
shared with other forms of different meaning, including /batik/ and terms
for the mottled pattern on snakes's skin, etc.

Neither the Javanese nor the Malays are noted for their tattooing (it may
very well have been practiced under some circumstances, but was very minor
and inconspicuous compared with many Bornean peoples, and with such
Polynesian peoples as the Tahitians, Marquesans and Maoris).  Are we
really to believe that the Dutch took an inconspicuous Javanese word
meaning `wound' and then applied it to a practice that was not at all
characteristic of the Javanese themselves, and then passed it on to the
English in Malaya?  Look at the early drawings of tattooed Polynesians (or
read Moby Dick again) and you will see why the early European navigators
were so struck by the practice in Polynesia, and why they borrowed the
native term for it --- there was simply nothing like it in Europe.

Bob Blust

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, 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
>
>
>