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

[Yuko Kitada]

Dear Sander, dear colleagues,

Thank you for your thoughtful response, which highlights the strength of our community in navigating these discussions with balance. I deeply appreciate Bob Blust’s monumental work on the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary (ACD), and your point about the community’s critical acumen resonates strongly. Your acknowledgment that some entries need further scrutiny aligns with my call for greater transparency.

While the ACD, in both its original and Alex Smith-edited forms, relies heavily on the personal expertise of Blust and Alex, this alone may not suffice as robust academic evidence. To strengthen its foundation, I propose distinguishing entries based on peer-reviewed sources, such as Austronesian Etymologies (AE1: Oceanic Linguistics 19, 1980; AE2: 22, 1983/84; AE3: 25, 1986), from unpublished additions. Over time, expanding Blust’s published material through new peer-reviewed papers could bring all entries to this standard, though I recognize this would increase Alex’s workload as custodian.

Your clarification that the Wix site reflects Blust’s own voice is helpful, though I remain concerned about potential exclusivity in our broader efforts. Thanks again, Sander, for keeping this conversation constructive.

Warm regards,
Yuko Kitada
________________________________
From: Sander Adelaar <s.adelaar at unimelb.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 2:52 PM
To: Yuko Kitada <yukokitada at outlook.com>; an-lang at anu.edu.au <an-lang at anu.edu.au> <an-lang at anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Critically Examining the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary: A Call for Verification

Dear Colleagues,

It sounds as if I have to give my insights. I do not think the community of Austronesianists is in danger any time soon of becoming trapped in the canonisation of one of their own. We all respect Bob Blust. Many of us are immensely grateful for his scholarship and have good memories of him. Sure, there were certainly times that he should have shown more tolerance to the viewpoints of others, but then again, there were also times that he was able to put scholarly discussions back on track where they were about to derail. Anyway, most of us know these things, and above all, most of us are clever enough to make up our own minds and decide for ourselves how to evaluate it, and that includes what others may make of it. I for myself consult the ACD very often and find it of enormous benefit, even if I often come across solutions that I think need further checking, or are wrong. It was a work in progress, and as such of tremendous value. As for what is happening with the ACD at the moment, we have to recall two things: it was Bob's own decision to pass it on to Alex Smith, and so far we have no reason to doubt that it was a good one, especially since Alex has always been both respectful and critical in handling Bob's material. And for those who do not like the idea of an ACD that has gone through several hands, well, the version of 2020 (the year Bob decided to hand over the ACD to Alex) is still available online and can be used, I guess, with that explicit cut-off date in our reference lists.
As for the WIX material, from what I saw, this was written by Bob himself (in the first person sg.), so technically it is not yet a case of canonisation (even if there may be a few who would be more than happy to develop it into that...).

Anyway, I've said more than enough. Back to work !

Sander





________________________________________
From: An-lang <an-lang-bounces at anu.edu.au> on behalf of Yuko Kitada <yukokitada at outlook.com>
Sent: 22 September 2025 12:20
To: an-lang at anu.edu.au <an-lang at anu.edu.au>
Subject: [An-lang] Critically Examining the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary: A Call for Verification

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/<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/20250922/4caf7321/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
An-lang mailing list
An-lang at anu.edu.au
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/an-lang