[An-lang] Critically Examining the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary: A Call for Verification

[Yuko Kitada]

Dear colleagues,

I had planned to send this later, but as it directly relates to concerns about the continued dominance of Blust’s legacy in our field, I am sending it now. Please forgive the repeated lengthy emails.

Following the recent discussion on Blust’s legacy, I’d like to address concerns about the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary (ACD, https://www.trussel2.com/ACD/). While Blust’s work is a monumental contribution to Austronesian linguistics, blind acceptance risks stagnating our field. Please note that this is a concrete action toward the philosophical question of whether we should critically examine Blust’s achievements. To believe that the ACD is correct simply because Blust created it is akin to religious faith. Unlike Indo-European’s Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (Pokorny, 1959–1969), which lacks modern peer-reviewed backing, or Sino-Tibetan’s STEDT, with its partially unverified web entries, Austronesian benefits from recent peer-reviewed works like Austronesian Etymologies I, II, III (Oceanic Linguistics, 1980, 1983/84, 1986). Should we cite the ACD directly without scrutiny, or trace entries to these published sources to ensure the rigor historical linguistics demands?

The ACD, a lexicon built on careful analysis, not just a dictionary, presumably draws on Blust’s published works, but the lack of specific citations for each entry makes its basis unclear. The pursuit of convenience in web-based updates, especially on the MPI site (https://acd.clld.org/)<https://acd.clld.org/>, has outpaced verification, as changes from unpublished materials lack peer review. If ACD entries diverge from Austronesian Etymologies, the dictionary’s credibility could require a full reevaluation, rendering it potentially unusable for rigorous historical linguistics. Unlike Indo-European or Sino-Tibetan, where peer-reviewed sources anchor reconstructions, Austronesian risks lagging in addressing fundamental questions of data verifiability, especially when Blust’s seemingly exclusive tendency is perpetuated by his followers.

I propose verifying ACD entries against Austronesian Etymologies to address these gaps, though as a grammar specialist, I leave this task to historical linguists working on lexical items. What are your thoughts? Especially, Prof. Ross and Prof. Adelaar, I’d appreciate your insights as senior researchers.

Best regards,
Yuko Kitada
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/an-lang/attachments/20250922/cdd90b8f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
An-lang mailing list
An-lang at anu.edu.au
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/an-lang