Sino-Tibetan (was: Re: Arabic and IE)

[Martha Ratliff]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------

> You're right, of course.  But I was sure, when I wrote, and still
> am, that I remember someone in those days turning up Austronesian
> etymologies as well.  Can anybody jog my memory on this?
> Scott DeLancey

>Sagart is, of course.  The Chinese words he cites as evidence
>of Chinese being related to Austronesian are presumably, for
>those of us who do not accept his conclusion, not mere
>coincidences but Austronesian borrowings into Old Chinese.
>Am I missing something?  Is the question whether anyone
>BESIDES Laurent Sagart is finding such borrowings?
>I would like to hear if there is.

>AMR

The first thing that comes to mind is the section in Benedict's 1975
_Austro-Thai Language and Culture_ on "Austro-Thai and Chinese") pp.
75-133, which first appeared as an article in Behavior Science Notes.  You
don't have to buy A-T to appreciate (some of the) data here.

Then Sagart gives references to two others who wrote about the Chinese-
Austronesian connection before him:

1)  Conrady, A.  1923.  Neue austrich-indochinesische Parallelen.  Hirth
anniversary volume (Asia Major introductory volume), 23-66.

2)  Wulff, K.  1942.  Ueber das Verhaeltnis des Malayo-Polynesischen zum
Indochinesischen.  Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.
Historisk-filologiske Meddelser XXVII, 2.  Kobenhavn: Ejnar Munksgaard. 157
pp.


I second Sagart's recommendation of his articles to you.  They are careful,
scholarly papers which provide a reasonable interpretation of
correspondence patterns that emerge from the close study of massive amounts
of language data.  I can't see how anyone could fault him on methodological
grounds.  Whether the patterns he reveals are due to inheritance or
contact, he has certainly made a discovery of historical significance.

Martha Ratliff
Wayne State University
martha_ratliff at wayne.edu