Streams Converging Into an Ocean, 521-563
2006-8-005-021-000082-1
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun
Systems of Proto Austronesian
Malcolm Ross
The Australian National University
Since Blust presented his reconstruction of Proto Austronesian and Proto
Malayo-Polynesian personal pronouns in 1977, more data relevant to their
reconstruction have become available. This paper takes account of relevant
publications since 1977 and sets out a fresh reconstruction of Proto Austronesian
personal pronouns, with supporting data from Formosan languages and interpretive
arguments. Since personal pronoun systems in Formosan languages often
incorporate the case-markers more generally used in noun phrases, and it is
impossible to interpret the histories of the pronouns without taking account of the
case-markers, a reconstruction of Proto Austronesian case-markers is also
presented here. The goal of Blust’s 1977 paper was to show that all Austronesian
languages outside Taiwan are characterized by certain innovations in their personal
pronoun system, thus providing evidence for the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup of
Austronesian. Blust’s findings are confirmed and augmented in the present paper.
Key words: Proto-Austronesian, reconstruction, pronouns, case-markers
1. Introduction
Blust (1977) reconstructs the pronoun system of Proto Austronesian (PAn) as part of
his account of the internal subgrouping of the Austronesian language family. He
describes pronominal innovations that occurred in Proto Malayo-Polynesian (PMP), the
ancestor of all non-Formosan Austronesian languages, and that are reflected in its many
daughter-languages.
In the years since 1977, more data relevant to the reconstruction of PAn pronouns
have become available, and in Ross (2002a) I published a revised reconstruction as part
of a sketch of PAn morphosyntax. This reconstruction builds on the insights in Blust
(1977) and on the work on pronouns in Dahl (1973) and Harvey (1982), as well as on
advances in our understanding of the structure of PAn clauses originating largely in
Starosta et al. (1981). In addition to new descriptions of Formosan languages, I have been
able to draw on two papers on the typology of Formosan pronoun systems, namely Li
(1997a) and Huang et al. (1999).
Malcolm Ross
My 2002 reconstruction was published with almost no supporting data or arguments,
and in the present paper I seek to fill that gap. I dedicate this paper to my friend Paul
Jen-kuei Li, without whose tireless labour and leadership the data for reconstruction
would not be available. Professor Li has himself written about case-markers and
pronouns (Li 1978, 1995, 1997a), as well as providing data in his descriptive works (e.g.
Li 1973, Li and Tsuchida 2001, 2006). Less obviously, but just as significantly, he has
inspired and enabled many younger scholars to describe Formosan languages.
In the course of preparing this paper, I have examined recent accounts of pronoun
paradigms for each Formosan language, paying particular attention to the functions
performed by each pronoun set. To this end, I have preferred to use the fullest
grammatical descriptions that I could find. My data survey is limited to Formosan
languages. The reconstruction of PMP that I have used here was done some twelve years
ago. I paid careful attention to form, but perhaps not as much attention to function as in
my Formosan survey. To update the Malayo-Polynesian survey (for which organised
supporting data have not been published) would be a gargantuan task, as it would entail
looking at all available descriptions of non-Formosan Philippine-type languages.
Blust (1999b) has argued that ten primary subgroups of Austronesian can be
identified: nine in Taiwan (the so-called Formosan languages) and one outside Taiwan
(Malayo-Polynesian). This paper is based on a thorough survey of the first nine
subgroups and a somewhat less reliable examination of the tenth. In an alternative
subgrouping, Sagart (2004) proposes that Austronesian has (ignoring extinct languages)
only three primary subgroups: the Formosan languages Pazeh and Saisiyat are primary
subgroups, and all other Austronesian languages fall into a group which Sagart labels
‘Pituish’. PMP is a fourth-order subgroup of Pituish and is even less significant for PAn
reconstruction than under Blust’s proposal.1
Formosan languages (except Rukai) and a large number of languages in the
Philippines, northern Borneo and northern Sulawesi are of the so-called ‘Philippine type’
(Himmelmann 2002, 2005, Ross 2002a). They have two voices: actor voice and
undergoer voice. The latter is always transitive, and assumes two or three applicative-like
forms which permit various semantic roles to assume subject position (this interpretation
goes back at least to Starosta 1986). The transitivity of the actor voice remains a matter of
controversy: it is morphosyntactically intransitive in some languages but apparently
transitive in others, albeit of lower transitivity than the undergoer voice (Chang 2004,
Liao 2004, Reid and Liao 2004, Ross and Teng 2005). Philippine-type languages
typically have noun-phrase case-markers and case-marked pronoun sets indicating the
1
Reid (1982) suggests Amis as the closest Formosan relative of PMP, implying yet another
Austronesian subgrouping, but I have shown in Ross (2005) that the innovations allegedly
shared by Amis and PMP are either not exclusive or based on incorrect reconstruction.
522
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
grammatical function of the noun phrase or pronoun within the voice construction, and in
many languages there are sets of nominative and genitive clitic pronouns which tend to
occupy second (Wackernagel) position (Billings and Kaufman 2004).
The organisation of this case-marking varies from language to language, and to
describe it with an acceptable degree of faithfulness to the data means that crosslinguistically applicable case labels must needs be based on a listing of the grammatical
functions found across the languages. The grammatical functions found in this analysis
include first the core arguments of the verb:
(1) VSBJ
AGT
PAT
subject of verbal clause
agent argument of undergoer-voice clause
patient argument of actor-voice clause, third core argument of
undergoer-voice clause (e.g. patient when, say, a location or instrument is subject)
Usually, subject case-marking is identical in both verbal and non-verbal clauses. In this
case I recognise a single SBJ grammatical function. However, sometimes more narrowly
defined subject functions appear, and nonverbal clauses introduce functions of their own:
(2) SBJ
AVSBJ
NSBJ
PREDN
subject of verbal and nonverbal clauses
subject of actor-voice verbal clause
subject of nonverbal clause
predicate noun
Certain peripheral arguments in verbal clauses need separate recognition:
(3) LOC
BEN
location argument (‘at my place’, ‘from me’ etc), goal, source
beneficiary argument
Certain grammatical functions arise from information structure:
(4) DISJ
FRFOC
TPC
disjunctive, i.e. one-word answer
focus-fronted argument
fronted topic, often followed by a topic marker
And finally possessor functions occur in noun phrases:
523
Malcolm Ross
(5) PSRA
PSRN
possessor adnominal (‘my’ etc) without a ligature
possessor nominal (‘mine’ etc; in some languages it also occurs
adnominally with a ligature)
On the basis of these functions I define a set of case-marker labels similar to those
used by Huang et al. (1999).
(6)
NEUT
NOM
GEN
PSR
ACC
OBL
LOC
free form with functions including DISJ, TPC, FRFOC and one or more
core grammatical functions (i.e. of SBJ, AGT and PAT)
free or clitic form serving as SBJ or VSBJ
free or clitic form serving as AGT and often as PSRA or occasionally
PSRN
free form serving as PSRA and/or PSRN
free form serving as PAT only
free form serving as PAT and LOC (and sometimes in other peripheral
functions)
free form serving as LOC (and sometimes in other peripheral
functions)
Other abbreviations used in this article are: 1S etc first person singular etc;
common; D definite; EP exclusive plural; IP inclusive plural; P plural; PS personal;
singular; SP specific; V visible.
Conventions used in the tables of data and reconstructions are:
(x)
[x]
(x,y)
[x,y]
(*xxx)
C
S
a form either with or without x occurred.
forms with and without x occur(red).
a form with either x or y occurred.
forms with both x and y occur(red).
a parentheses around a reconstruction indicate uncertainty because
the supporting data are insufficient.
2. Case-markers
Reconstructing the PAn pronoun paradigm presupposes a reconstruction of its
case-marker paradigm, as the pronouns of Philippine-type languages incorporate
case-marking and usually have the same case-marking possibilities as personal lexical
NPs (common NPs often have somewhat different possibilities). Tables 1 and 2 set out
the material for the reconstruction of PAn case-markers. This is not quite raw material. In
524
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
the interests of presentation, where data are available for several related dialects, I have
reconstructed a local protolanguage (Proto Atayal from Atayal and Seediq dialects, Proto
Amis, Proto Puyuma, Proto Rukai and Proto Bunun). The supporting data are in
Appendix A.
Reconstructing the PAn case-marking paradigm is not a simple task, and a glance at
the tables gives some idea of the problems. Formosan case-markers tend to be (C)V
monosyllables, where C- or ∅- indicates the case, -i a personal singular case-marker, -a a
personal singular case-marker, and a vowel other than -i a common case-marker. This
means that -a occurs in both personal plural and common case-markers (see discussion
below). Thanks to diachronic shifts in constellations of grammatical functions, cognate
forms in two Formosan languages quite often mark different cases. There is, for example,
considerable crossover between OBL and LOC. Conversely, it is common for the same case
in two languages to be differently marked. Some NOM forms are ∅-initial, others k-initial.
As a result, cognate forms may appear in adjacent columns rather than underneath one
another in the same column of Table 1 or Table 2, and non-cognate forms may occur in
the same column.
Table 1: Common case-markers
NEUT
NOM
GEN
ACC
OBL
LOC
—
—
—
ni
no[ka]
*na-kuʔ,
*na-kaʔ
*na
—
no
na2
—
—
—
—
—
nua, na
—
—
—
*nu
*[nu]niya
—
na
—
ka
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
*tu
*tiya
—
—
u
no BEN
*ci-kuʔ,
*ci-kaʔ
*c[i,u,a]ʔ
sa
o
ki3
ta3
to3
no, ne3
s[u]a3
na3
tua, ta, tu
(*sa)
*kana3
*ɖa3
—
—
(*i), (*ki)3
tu, ta8
di
ray
*iʔ, *suʔ
—
—
tu ?
de, i
tu
—
—
—
na
—
—
—
*i
i
*i [...-an]
P-Bunun
Kavalan
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
*u
*iya
—
—
ki
∅1
*kuʔ,
*kaʔ
(*aʔ)
sa
ya
ta
ʔe, si, ta4
ʔo
na
s[u]a, si5
a, ka6
a
*ka, *ku, *na
*[i]na
*a
*ku
*kiya
*a, (*ka), (*ca)
∅/[y]a7
PMP
—
*∅-/*k-
*n-
*t-
*s-
Pazeh
Saisiyat
P-Atayal
+SP
-SP
Thao
Faborlang
Siraya
Tsou
+D
±D, +SP, -V
-D, -SP
Kanakanavu
Saaroa
Paiwan
P-Rukai
P- Puyuma
+D
-D
P-Amis
+D ?
—
ta ...[-an],
sa9
*d-, *i
ligature
a
a
—
—
[y]a
o
ki
ci
—
—
a
—
—
*a
(*a ), (*tu)
[y]a
*a,* na
525
Malcolm Ross
1 Subject NPs also occur with ACC markers (Yeh 1991:37).
2 Siraya na apparently marks partitive, but not possessive or agentive.
3
GEN-OBL:
AGT NP is OBL-marked but is coreferential with a GEN agreement marker.
4 ʔe ‘near speaker’, si ‘near hearer’, ta ‘near neither speaker nor hearer’.
5 No semantic distinction known (Tsuchida 1976:37).
6 Radetzky (2003) suggests that ka represents the grammaticisation of a demonstrative as a
definite marker in all its contexts.
7 Kavalan a and ya are in free variation (Lee 1997:17).
8 ta occurs with human referents, tu with non-human (Li and Tsuchida 2006).
9 sa allative.
Table 2: Personal case-markers
NOM
GEN
ACC
OBL
LOC
Saisiyat
∅
ni
hi
ini
kan, kala1
P-Atayal
*iʔ ?
*niʔ ?
*iʔ ?
*∅/*-an
*kiʔ ?
Siraya
ta2
∅
—
-aŋ
—
Paiwan
S
ti
ni
—
cay
—
P
tia
nia
—
c(a)ia
—
P-Rukai
P-Puyuma
P-Amis
*ki
—
—
*-an
—
S
*i
*ni
—
*ka-ni
—
P
*na
*na
—
*ka-na
—
S
*ci
*ni
*ci ...-an
—
(*i ci)
P
((*i ca))
*ca
*na
*ca ...-an
—
Bunun
=[k]at
—
—
=[i]t
—
Kavalan
[y]a ti/∅ ti
ni
[tu] ti3
—
[ta] ti
PMP4
*si
*ni
—
*ka ni, ka-y —
There are no distinct personal case-markers in Pazeh, Favorlang, Tsou,
Kanakanavu or Saaroa
1 Benefactives: the difference between these is not understood.
2 Siraya ta is NOM with both common and personal nouns.
3 Lee (1997) gives [tu] ti. Li and Tsuchida (2006) give the human marker as ta: they do not
specify whether this occurs with personal nouns.
4 Forms reconstructed by Reid (1978).
526
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
In spite of all this, examination of the forms in Tables 1 and 2 suggests patterns. The
distribution of initial consonants is not chance. Most obvious is that GEN markers usually
begin with n-, a long recognised fact. On further examination more patterns emerge.
Organising forms by their initial consonants gives the sets in Table 3. These include most
of the forms in Tables 1 and 2, and some of the residue will be discussed below.
The reflexes of some PAn consonants are complicated, and I have had to make
decisions as to which correspondence set to assign certain forms to. Thus I have inferred
that the s- of Thao sa in Table 3 reflects PAn *d-, but it could also reflect *Z-. The
assignment of the set in the rightmost column to *d- is based on the fact that Puyuma ɖ- in
ɖa only reflects *d-, not *Z-. Some of the other assignments are a little more arbitrary.
The case-marking function of initial consonants is clear from Table 3, and the PAn
forms that are apparently reflected in the data are given at the head of the table. The case
labels of the reconstructions follow fairly obviously from the data, except for the
assignment to NEUT of forms consisting of a vowel only. This assignment is based on two
facts. First, many modern languages have a NEUT vs NOM distinction in pronouns, and it is
likely that this distinction occurred in Proto Austronesian. Second, although only one
modern Formosan language, Amis, maintains this distinction in its case-marking
paradigm, I have assumed that the Amis distinction between *∅- NEUT and *k- NOM
reflects a PAn distinction: this helps explain why both forms occur in the NOM paradigms
of modern languages. Two languages which no longer reflect the NEUT/NOM distinction in
their case-markers retain it in their personal pronouns, and the NEUT pronouns are marked
by reflexes of PAn *i NEUT:PS:S: Pazeh i- and P-Puyuma *i- (see Appendices, §B.1 and
§B.11.)
Several forms are reflected in Tables 1 and 2 but are not included in the analysis in
Table 3. The most important is PAn *si PS:NEUT, which is actually better supported than
PAn *i PS:S:NEUT and *ki PS:S:NOM, reconstructed in Table 3. It is not clear to me what
distinction there was between PAn *si and PAn *i or *ki.
(7) PAn *si PS:NEUT: Saisiyat hi
PMP *si PS:NOM
PS:ACC,
2
Paiwan ti
PS:NOM,
P-Amis *ci
PS:NOM,
There is also evidence that there was a PAn personal plural form *si-a, reflected by
Amis ca and Paiwan tia (the *-a element is also reflected in the Puyuma plurals).
2
The fact that the Saisiyat reflex is ACC is inconsequential, as there has been a merger of NOM and
forms in Saisiyat, followed by loss of NOM forms.
ACC
527
Malcolm Ross
Easily confused with the above is PAn *Ci ‘proper-name marker’. Its reflexes do not
mark case but follow a case-marker and indicate simply that a noun is a proper name.
(8) PAn (or Proto Pituish) *Ci ‘proper-name marker’: Thao θi- (in θiθu
3
NOM/ACC/GEN:3S), Siraya ti, Paiwan ti, Bunun -t ([k]a-t PS:NOM, =[i]-t PSR,
ACC), Kavalan ti
Other forms not reconstructed in Table 3 are shown in (9), (10) and (11).
(9) PAn (or Proto Pituish) *i LOC (Blust 1995): P-Atayal *iʔ, Favorlang i,
P-Puyuma *i, P-Amis *i, P-Bunun *i OBL, PMP *i LOC
Reflexes of PAn*i vary as to whether they precede another case-marker, but there are
enough lan-guages where i occurs without a further case-marker for us to assume that this
was the situation in Proto Austronesian.
(10) PAn *ka OBL: Saisiyat kan, kala BENEFACTIVE, P-Puyuma *ka-na
ka-ni PS:OBL:S, ka-na PS:OBL:P, PMP *ka ni, *ka-y
OBL:+SP,
This PAn *ka was distinct from NOM *ka, and preceded a case-marker—on the data in (10)
this was GEN. PAn *ka was thus a preposition and marked a beneficiary or other
peripheral role.
(11) PAn (or Proto Pituish) *-an LOC: P-Atayal *-an PS:OBL, Siraya -an
P-Amis *-an LOC, PS:ACC, P-Rukai *-anə PS:OBL, Kavalan -an LOC
PS:OBL,
PAn *-an appears to have been a LOC suffix and is considered in §3.2.1.
3
The Paiwan form is ti instead of expected *tsi, and this probably reflects a formal conflation with
Paiwan ti PS:NOM. These are clearly homophonous but distinct morphemes, as Paiwan ti
‘proper-name marker’ does not mark case but precedes a personal noun that is head of a noun
phrase containing one or more attributive items. Such a noun phrase is marked with a common
case-marker (data provided by Anna Hsiou-chuan Chang).
528
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
Table 3: A provisional reconstruction of Proto Austronesian case-markers
PAn
C:? ?
C:? ?
PS:S
PS:P
Pazeh
Saisiyat
C
PS
P-Atayal
C:-SP
C:+SP
PS
Thao
Favorlang
Siraya
Tsou
C
C:+D
C:+D:-V
Kanavu
Saaroa
Paiwan
C
PS:S
PS:P
P-Rukai
C
PS:S
P-Puyuma
C:+D
C:-D
PS:S
P-Amis
C
PS:S
PS:P
P-Bunun
Kavalan
C
PS
PMP
*∅- NEUT
*[y]a
*u
*i
...
...
...
...
*aʔ NOM
...
*iʔ NOM
...
ya NOM
...
...
...
...
a NOM
a NOM
...
...
...
...
...
...
*a NOM
*i NOM
*u NEUT
...
...
...
[y]a NOM
...
...
*∅-/*k- NOM
*k- NOM
*k-a
*k-u
*k-i
...
ki NOM
ka ACC, NOM
...
...
*kaʔ NOM
*kuʔ NOM
...
...
...
...
ʔe NOM
ʔo NOM
...
...
...
...
...
*ka NOM
*ku NOM
*ki NOM
...
...
...
*ku NOM
...
...
*ka NOM
...
...
...
—
*n- GEN
*n-a
*n-u
*n-i
*n-i-a
ni GEN
no GEN, OBL
ni GEN
*naʔ GEN
*na-kaʔ GEN
*na-kuʔ GEN
*niʔ GEN
...
no GEN
na partitive
...
...
na LOC
...
n[u]a GEN
ni GEN
nia GEN
...
...
...
...
...
*ni GEN
*nu GEN
*ni GEN
*na GEN
...
na GEN
...
ni GEN
*n- GEN
*C- ACC
*C-a
*C-u
*C-i
...
...
...
...
*caʔ OBL
*ci-kaʔ OBL
*ci-kuʔ OBL
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
*tu ACC
...
...
*tu ligature
ta ACC, LOC
tu ACC
...
*t- ACC
*s- ? OBL
*s-a
*s-u
—
—
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
tu LOC ?
...
tu LOC
...
...
s[u]a NOM, OBL
...
t[u]a OBL
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
sa allative
...
...
*s- OBL
*d- ? LOC
*d-a
...
—
—
di LOC
ray LOC
...
...
...
...
...
sa NOM, OBL
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
*ɖa OBL
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
*d- LOC
529
Malcolm Ross
The form of the PAn ligature, *a, is self-evident on the basis of the data in Table 1.
Two caveats apply to the reconstructed ‘paradigm’ in Table 3. First, if Sagart’s
subgrouping of Austronesian is correct, then *∅- NEUT, *C- ACC and *s- OBL (?) are
reconstructable only in his Proto Pituish, as they are not reflected in Pazeh or Saisiyat.
Second, no modern language has a system as complex (or as symmetrical) as the
reconstructions in Table 3, and I think it would be wrong to infer that all the
reconstructions in the table existed in Proto Austronesian simply because they are
reflected in modern languages.
Instead, I think it is more likely that what existed in Proto Austronesian was perhaps
not a fixed paradigm like the one reconstructed in Table 3, but a set of determiners,
possibly *a and *u, both ‘common’, and *i ‘personal’ to which were prefixed the
case-marking morphemes *k- NOM, *n- GEN, *C- ACC, and so on (the hyphens in the
reconstructions are intended as a reminder of this). We see such case-marker +
determiner sequences arising cyclically in the histories of Philippine-type languages as a
case-marker suffers attrition of its earlier function, and its form is reanalysed as a caseless
determiner. As a result, what looks like double case-marking arises. P-Atayal *na-kuʔ
GEN:+SP and *ci-kuʔ OBL:+P are cases in point. Each was formed historically from *naGEN or *Ci- ACC plus what was in P-Atayal (and still is in Mayrinax) the specific
nominative form *kuʔ. Saisiyat no-ka GEN (< GEN + ACC/ NOM), Tamalakaw Puyuma
ni-nina GEN:-D:+SP (< GEN + GEN) and Sakizaya Amis nu-niya GEN:+SP (< GEN + GEN) are
outcomes of parallel processes, and I infer that the PAn forms were also case-marker+
determiner sequences.
The observation that the vowel *-i is characteristic of personal case-markers is not
new. The functions of the *-a/*-u distinction among PAn common case-markers are
much less clear, however. In Ross (2002a) I mentioned an unpublished analysis to the
effect that the vowel distinctions encoded a present vs absent distinction, but Blust (2005)
correctly points out that this inference is not well supported by the data. Curiously,
however, he presents an alternative interpretation which is just as problematic.
Examining only n-initial GEN forms, he concludes that *nu was the common GEN marker,
*ni the personal singular GEN marker, and *na the personal plural GEN marker. I agree
with him regarding the functions of *nu and *ni, but the forms in Table 3 are sufficient to
cast doubt on his characterisation of *na. Genitive case-markers of the form na have two
sources in Formosan and Philippine languages. First, PAn *na stood alongside *nu as a
common GEN marker, as indicated by Proto Atayal *naʔ, Siraya na, Paiwan na, Kavalan
na in Table 3 and by similar forms in Philippine languages (Reid 1978). Second, Amis na
marks personal GEN plural, and to this Blust adds Southern Bikol na, also personal GEN
plural. However, the presence in Table 3 of Paiwan nia with the same function suggests
that the protoform was not *na but *ni-a PS:P:GEN, incorporating the same plural marker
530
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
*-a as we encountered above in *si-a PS:P:NOM. The evidence of paradigmaticity is
important here. The well supported reconstruction of the PAn *a C:NOM supports the
reconstruction of *na C:GEN, and the reconstruction of *si-a (and the presence of plural -a
in Paiwan cai-a PS:P:OBL as opposed to cai PS:S:OBL) supports the reconstruction of *ni-a.
The derivation of na from *nia is straightforward: *nia>*ña> na.
On typological grounds, one might expect the *-a/*-u distinction among PAn
common case-markers to encode a ±definite or a ±specific distinction. There is miniscule
evidence for such a distinction in the Atayal (Appendices, §A.1) and Rukai data (§A.2),
but it is too scant to build a case on, and so the puzzle remains.
Starosta (1992) infers that the *-i of personal case-markers was originally the *-i of
definite case-markers. This is possible, but lacks empirical support, as the vowel *-i is
reflected in the common case-markers of only one Formosan language, Pazeh, and this
has lost the common/personal distinction.
Whether *si-a PS:P:NOM and *ni-a PS:P:GEN are reconstructable to PAn depends on
one’s subgrouping assumptions. On the basis of Blust’s subgrouping, they are. On the
basis of Sagart’s, they are not. Sagart (2004) divides his large Pituish subgroup into a
collection of languages which includes Atayal-Seediq, Thao and certain extinct
languages (it corresponds to Blust’s Western Plains group) and an ‘Enemish’ subgroup
which comprises most of Austronesian (Siraya, Tsou, Kanakanavu, Saaroa, Paiwan,
Rukai, Puyuma, Amis, Bunun, Kavalan and Malayo-Polynesian). On the basis of the data
in Table 3, *si-a and *ni-a are reconstructable to Proto Enemish but not to PAn.
3. Personal pronouns
3.1 Introduction
Table 4 brings together the PAn personal pronouns reconstructed below in §3.2 and
§3.3. Forms whose reconstruction is not firmly supported by the data are shown in
parentheses. Reconstructions of first and second person pronouns are presented in §3.2
and of third person pronouns in §3.3 (no 3P pronouns are reconstructable). First and
second persons and the third person are treated separately because their histories are
rather different.
531
Malcolm Ross
Table 4: A preliminary reconstruction of Proto Austronesian personal pronouns
1S
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
NEUT
i-aku
iSu[qu]
s-ia
ita
i-ami
i-mu[qu], i-amu
NOM1
aku
Su[qu]
ia
(i)ta
ami
mu[qu], (amu)
NOM2
=ku,
=Su
(-ya)
=(i)ta
=mi[a],
=mu
iSu[qu]-n
...
ita-ən
i-ami-n
=[S]aku
=[S]ami
ACC
i-ak-ən
i-mu[qu]-n
GEN1
=[a]ku
=Su
(-ya)
=(i)ta
=mi[a]
=mu
GEN2
(=)m-aku
(=)m-iSu
...
(=)m-ita
((=)m-ami)
(=)m-amu
GEN3
n-aku
n-iSu
n-ia
ni-ta
ni-am
ni-mu
n-ami
n-amu
It is immediately obvious that too many sets of pronouns are reconstructed in Table
4. There are two NOM sets and three GEN sets, and this seems a little implausible. I return
to this matter in §3.6.
The raw material for the reconstructions is set out in Appendix B. It consists of
pronominal paradigms for PMP and from all Formosan languages, and includes the
reconstructions for local protolanguages that are used in the body of the paper. In the
tables in §3.2 and §3.3 only the supporting data immediately relevant to the
reconstruction are given. Pronoun forms that do not directly reflect a reconstructed form
are omitted. The proportion of the data in Appendix B that is omitted from the tables is
strikingly high, and §3.4 discusses why this should be.
3.2 Reconstructing first and second person Proto Austronesian pronouns
The data on which the reconstructions of first and second person pronouns in Table
4 are based are laid out in Table 5.
There is no strong basis for reconstructing PAn *(=)m-ami GEN2:1EP as it is reflected
only in Malayo-Polynesian languages. However, if an m-initial form occurred in PAn,
this is the form we would expect it to have. Wulai Atayal, Paran Seediq and Siraya =mian
looks like an m-initial 1EP form, but it appears to be innovatory, perhaps a metathesis of
PAn *ni-am GEN3:1EP under analogical pressure from m-initial *(=)maku GEN2:1S.
532
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
Table 5: Towards a reconstruction of first and second person
Proto Austronesian pronouns
1S
2S
1IP
1EP
2P
PAn
NEUT
*i-aku
*iSu[qu]
*ita
*i-ami
*i-mu[qu], *i-amu
Pazeh
NEUT
y-aku
i-siw
i-ta
y-ami
i-mu
Saisiyat
NOM
ya[k]o
...
ʔitaʔ
yami
...
P-Atayal
NEUT
(*i-aku)
*isuʔ
*itaʔ
(*i-ami)
(*i-amu)
Thao
NOM1
yaku
ihu
ita
yami-n
...
Siraya
NEUT
ĭau
...
...
...
...
P-Bunun
NEUT
*ðaku
*suʔu
*ita
*ðami
*mu[ʔu]
PMP
NEUT
*i-aku
...
...
...
...
PAn
NOM1
*aku
*Su[qu]
(*i)ta
*ami
*mu[qu], (*amu)
Pazeh
NOM
aku
siw
ta
ami
mu
Saisiyat
NOM
...
...
...
moyo
NEUT
aʔo
ʃoʔo
Tsou
suu
...
...
muu
P-Rukai
NEUT
*aku
...
...
...
...
P-Amis
NEUT
*aku
*isu
*ita1
*ami
*amu
PMP
NOM1
*aku
...
...
...
...
PAn
NOM2
*=ku,
*=Su
*=(i)ta
*=mi[a],
*=mu
*=[S]ami
*=[S]aku
P-Atayal
NOM
*=[ca]ku
*=suʔ
*=taʔ
(*=cami)
(*=cimu)
Thao
NOM2
wak
—
—
—
—
Siraya
NOM
=koh
...
...
...
...
Tsou
NOM
-ʔo/-ʔu
-su
-to
-mza
-mu
Kanavu
NOM
=ku
...
...
...
...
Saaroa
NOM
=aku
=u
=ita
...
=mu
P-Rukai
NOM
*ku
*su
*ta
...
*=mu
P-Puyuma
NOM
*=ku
*=(y)u
*=ta
*=mi
*=mu
P-Bunun
NOM2
*=[s]a-k
*=a-s
*=[a-]ta
*=[s]a-m
*=a-mu
Kavalan
NOM
=iku
=su
=ita
=imi
=imu
PMP
NOM2
*=aku
...
*=ta
...
...
PAn
ACC
*i-ak-ən
*iSu[qu]-n
*ita-ən
*i-am-ən
*i-mu[qu]-n
Saisiyat
ACC
yak-in
ʔi-ʃoʔo-n
...
...
...
Thao
ACC
yak-in
ihu-n
ita-n
[y]amin
...
Paiwan
NOM
=[a]ken
=[e]sun
=[i]cen
=[a]men
=[e]mun
P-Bunun
ACC
*ðak-un
*suʔu-n
*it-un
*ðam-un
*muʔu-n
PMP
PSR
*[y]akən
...
*[y]atən
*[y]amən
...
533
Malcolm Ross
PAn
GEN1
*=[a]ku
*=Su
*=(i)ta
*=mi[a]
*=mu
Pazeh
GEN1
—
—
ta-
—
—
P-Atayal
GEN
*=ku,
*=suʔ
*=taʔ
...
...
Thao
GEN2
-[a]k, -[i]k
—
—
—
—
Siraya
GEN
=au
=uhu
=ǐtta
...
...
Tsou
GEN
-ʔo/-ʔu
-su
-to
-mza
-mu
Kanavu
GEN1
=aku
=su
=ta
=mia
=mu
Saaroa
GEN
=ku
=u
=ta
...
=mu
Paiwan
GEN
ku=
su=
ca=
nia=3
nu=3
P-Rukai
PSR
P-Puyuma
PSR1
*=su
*=u
...
*=ta
(*=ta)
*ta=
...
(*=mi)
*mi=
*=mu
(*=mu)
*mu=
GEN
...
...
*ku=
P-Amis
GEN1
=aku
=isu
=ita
—
=amu
P-Bunun
GEN
*=ku
*=su[ʔu]2
*=ta
...
*=mu[ʔu]2
Kavalan
GEN
-ku
-su
-ta
...
...
PMP
GEN1
*=ku
*=mu
*=ta
*=mi
...
PAn
GEN2
*(=)m-aku
*(=)m-iSu
*(=)m-ita
(*(=)m-ami)
*(=)m-amu
Saisiyat
PSR1
...
...
m-itaʔ
...
...
P-Atayal
GEN
*=m-aku
...
...
...
(*=m-amu)
Thao
GEN1
...
m-ihu
m-ita
...
...
Siraya
GEN
=mau
=moɣo
=mita
=mian
=momi
Kanavu
GEN1
=maku
=musu
=mita
...
...
P-Rukai
NEUT
...
*musu
*mita
...
*mumu
P-Amis
GEN2
m-aku
m-isu
m-ita
...
...
P-Bunun
PSR
...
...
*=mita
...
...
PMP
GEN2
...
...
—
*=mami
...
PAn
GEN3
*n-aku
*n-iSu
*ni-ta
*ni-am
*n-ami
*ni-mu
*n-amu
Pazeh
GEN2
n-aki
ni-siw
ni-ta
ni-am
ni-mu
Saisiyat
PSR1
...
ni-ʃoʔ
...
ni-yaʔom
ni-mo-n4
P-Atayal
GEN
...
...
...
*=ni-am
(*=n-amu)
...
Thao
GEN1
nak
...
...
nam
Kanavu
GEN2
=naku
=nsu
=nta
=nmia
P-Rukai
PSR
...
...
...
*=na[m]i
*nimu
NEUT
*naku
...
...
*na[m]i
*nimu
P-Puyuma
PSR2
...
...
...
*niam=
...
P-Amis
GEN2
(n-aku)
(n-isu)
...
niam
n-amu
P-Bunun
PSR
*=nak
...
*=nita
*=nam
*=nuʔu
534
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
Kavalan
PMP
GEN
GEN2
...
*=n(a)ku
...
*=nihu
1 Sakizaya Amis has kita
NEUT:1IP
...
—
-niaq
*=nami
-numi
...
where Nataoran and Central Amis have ita. There is a
reasonable possibility that Sakizaya kita is copied from kita NOM:1IP, where k- reflects the NOM
case-marker and is an innovation limited to Amis.
2 P-Bunun *=su[ʔu] and *=mu[ʔu] suggest at first sight the reconstruction of PAn *Su[qu] and
PAn *mu[qu]. However, P-Bunun *=ðami GEN:1EP clearly reflects PAn *=i-ami NEUT:1EP, and
it is possible that the P-Bunun *=suʔu and *=mu[ʔu] also reflect the transfer of forms from the
NEUT
paradigm.
3 Paiwan nia=
GEN:1EP
and nu=
GEN:2P
appear to reflect PAn *=mia and *=mu with an
unexplained *m-> n- substitution.
4 -n of ni-mo-n PSR1:2P copied from ʔini-mo-n ACC:2P.
3.2.1 Should Proto Austronesian oblique or locative pronouns be reconstructed?
It is tempting also to reconstruct a PAn oblique/locative personal pronoun set. In
Formosan languages these sets, shown in Table 6, take two forms. In Saisiyat and Proto
Puyuma, they consist of kan plus a pronominal base, but the pronominal bases in the two
languages do not do not correspond with one another. In Saisiyat the base is the NOM form,
except for 1S, where it is the PSR. In Proto Puyuma the base is the one to which i- PS:S is
prefixed to form NEUT pronouns: this base was itself originally copied from a GEN form in
*n-. From this difference between the two languages we may infer that the kan- pronouns
were innovated independently in each language. The PAn oblique marker *ka,
reconstructed in §2, presumably occurred with personal noun phrases, and these included
NEUT and/or GEN pronouns. This construction was the starting point for the innovations in
Saisiyat and Proto Puyuma.
In Pazeh, Proto Atayal, Siraya, Kanakanavu, Proto Rukai, Proto Amis, Proto Bunun
and Kavalan, oblique/locative pronouns are formed with reflexes of the PAn suffix *-an.
Here, too, we are confronted by a reconstructive problem, as the bases to which the reflex
of *-an is attached vary from language to language and do not correspond with one
another. In Proto Atayal the bases resemble the NOM enclitics. In Pazeh and Proto Bunun,
the base is the NEUT form, reflecting the PAn NEUT form. In the other languages the base is
either the NEUT or the NOM form, but this has undergone innovation relative to PAn.
Again, the obvious inference is that the *-an construction occurred in PAn, but
morphologised pronouns with *-an did not. The *-an construction consisted of a noun
suffixed with *-an and preceded by a locative preposition. The noun was apparently
either common or personal, including personal pronouns. The construction survives with
common nouns in Amis and Kavalan (see Table 1). The identity of the preposition is not
535
Malcolm Ross
recoverable (Pazeh reflects *di, Proto Amis and Proto Bunun *i). Proto Amis and
Kavalan reflect a prefix *Ca- on the pronoun, apparently PAn *Ca ACC (see Table 3).
Table 6: Oblique/locative personal pronouns in Formosan languages
1S
2S
1IP
1EP
2P
Saisiyat
LOC
kan-man
kan-ʃoʔ
kan-ʔitaʔ
kan-yami
kan-moyo
P-Puyuma
OBL
*kan-(iŋ)ku
*kan-nu
*kan-ta
*ka-niam
*kan-mu
Pazeh
LOC
yaku-[n]an
i-siw-an
i-ta-an
y-ami-[n]an
i-mu-[n]an
P-Atayal
OBL
*ke-nan
*su-nan
*ita-[na]n
(*ca)mi-nan
(*ca)mu-nan
Siraya
OBL
ǐau-an
ǐmhu-an
ǐmǐtta-n
ǐmian-an
ǐmumi-an
Kanavu
GEN -OBL
ʔiku-an
kasu-an
kita-nan
kimi-an
P-Rukai
OBL
1
*naku-a[nə]
*su-a[nə],
2
*mita-a[nə]
*na[m]i-a[nə]
*musu-a[nə]2
P-Amis
OBL
*[i]t-aku-an
*[i]t-isu-an
kamu-an
1
*mu-a[nə],
*[ni]mu-a[nə]
*[i]t-ita-an,
*[i]t-aman
*[i]t-amu-an
*ðami-an
*muʔu-an
ta-ma-imi-an
ta-ma-imu-an
*[i]kita-an
P-Bunun
LOC
*ðaku-an
*suʔu-an
Kavalan
LOC
ta-ma-iku-an
ta-ma-isu-an ta-ma-ita-an
*ita-an
1 Base is the n-initial GEN form.
2 Base is the m-initial GEN form.
3.3 Reconstructing third-person Proto Austronesian pronouns
Third-person personal pronouns have a rather different history from non-thirdperson. It is clear from forms occurring in Pazeh, Tsou, Amis, Bunun and Kavalan, and
from the non-correspndence with one another of third-person forms in general, that
third-person personal pronouns in Formosan languages either are derived from or still are
demonstrative pronouns. The reconstruction of demonstratives demands a paper to itself,
and I shall not undertake it here.
The few third-person forms that appear to be cognate are shown in Table 7. Sorting
them out is tricky, because forms that appear superficially to be cognate in fact are not.
The problem is similar to that encountered in regard to PAn *si PS:S:NOM and *Ci
‘proper-name marker’ in (7) and (8) above. Two PAn base forms are reflected, namely
*Cia and *sia, and these are shown against their reflexes in the table. PAn *Cia is, quite
simply, a base, and perhaps a demonstrative base, as the Pazeh reflex, sia, is a member of
a three-member demonstrative set distinguishing CLOSE, DISTANT and INVISIBLE: sia is the
INVISIBLE member. Note that *ni PS:GEN is preposed to reflexes of *Cia, whereas it
replaces the first syllable of *sia. This implies that the first syllable, *si, is PAn *si PS:
536
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
NEUT,
an inference which receives support from PMP reconstructions where we find (i)
both *sia and *ia as NOM forms (and enclitic *=ya), implying that the base was *ia and
that *sia< *si+ *ia; (ii) plural *sida and enclitic *=da, implying that the plural base was
*da and that *sida< *si+ *da.
The conclusion to which the previous paragraph leads is that we have weak evidence
for
(12) PAn (or Proto Pituish) *s-ia
*n-ia GEN:3S
NEUT:3S,
(*ia
NOM:3S),
(*=ya
NOM:3S/ GEN:3S),
Pazeh and Saisiyat 3P forms reflect a plural marker *-a following the case-marker, a
form which I discussed in §2. However, Saisiyat and P-Atayal *-la- also apparently mark
the plural, but remain otherwise unconnected with other data. The PMP plural base *da
has no known Formosan cognate.4
Table 7: Towards a reconstruction of Proto Austronesian
third-person personal pronouns
3S
3P
PAn base
NEUT
NOM1
NOM2
GEN1
GEN2
Pazeh
*Cia
i-sia
sia
—
—
ni-sia
Saisiyat
*Cia
hi-sia, ʔi-sia sia
—
—
ni-sia
P-Atayal
*sia
*hiyaʔ
—
—
—
*=niya, *=na
PMP
*sia
—
*sia, *ia
*=ya
*=ya
*=nia
Pazeh
*Cia
y-a-sia
a-sia
—
—
n-a-sia
Saisiyat
*Cia
hi-la-sia
la-sia
—
—
n-a-sia
P-Atayal
*sia
*re-hiyaʔ
—
—
—
(*=laha)
PMP
*sida
—
*sida
*=da
*=da
(*=nida)
3.4 Why modern forms often do not reflect Proto Austronesian forms
There are a number of reasons why modern forms do not directly reflect PAn forms.
It is perhaps typical of pronoun paradigms the world over that forms are often altered or
replaced on the basis of analogies which render the contrasts between case-forms more
transparent (i.e. regular) or which do the same for differences among persons. A fairly
4
After these observations on *-a and *-la- were written, I discovered that Elizabeth Zeitoun has
argued for the reconstructability of these markers in various public presentations since 2001. The
most extensive written account is Zeitoun (2006), the scope of which is wider than my brief
notes here.
537
Malcolm Ross
common outcome of analogical pressure is that a set of pronouns with a particular
case-marking function is reanalysed as a set of bases for the formation of a further
pronoun set. For example, the non-third-person NEUT forms in now extinct Siraya were
ĭau 1S, ĭ-mhu 2S, ĭ-mĭtta 1IP, ĭ-mian 1EP, ĭ-mumi 1IP. The first of these, ĭau, directly
reflected PAn *iaku NEUT:1S (see Table 4), but the others reflected the Siraya m-initial
GEN forms =muhu, =mĭtta, =mian, =mumi with preposed i-. The GEN forms, reflecting
PAn GEN *miSu 2S, *mita 1IP, *mian 1EP, *mamu 2P, had thus been reanalysed as
pronominal bases for the innovatory NEUT forms (and for PSR forms in ā-: see Appendices,
§B.13). The i- probably reflected PAn *i PS:S, although it no longer functioned as a
case-marker in the Siraya manuscripts. The innovatory NEUT forms functioned in turn as
bases for the Siraya OBL forms ĭau-an, ĭmhu-an, ĭmĭtta-n, ĭmian-an, ĭmumi-an.
Another case in point is Paiwan in (13), which reflects a replacement of all PAn
forms except the PAn GEN enclitics. The first major change that must have occurred in
Paiwan is that reflexes of the PAn ACC forms in Table 4 became the NEUT set, becoming
enclitic nominatives in Paiwan (NOM in 13). New forms for the other cases were then
constructed with case-markers. The PAn person marker *si (cf 8) came to mark the NEUT
set, the GEN personal case-marker *ni the PSR set. I am not sure of the origin of the OBL set.
(13)
NEUT
NOM
GEN
PSR
OBL
1S
2S
1IP
1EP
2P
ti-aken
=(a)ken
ku=
ni-aken
canu-aken
ti-sun
=(e)sun
su=
ni-sun
canu-sun
ti-cen
=(i)cen
ca=
n-icen
canu-icen
ti-amen
=(a)men
nia=
ni-amen
canu-amen
ti-mun
=(e)mun
nu=
ni-mun
canu-mun
An examination of the data in Appendix B shows a number of cases in which a new
NEUT or NOM set has been formed by preposing a case-marker to an existing pronoun set.
A transparent instance appears in Amis (B.12), where the old NOM set has become the
NEUT set, and a new NOM set has been created by preposing the NOM common case-marker
to the new NEUT set. Roughly parallel processes have occurred in Bunun (B.13) and
Kavalan (B.14). In Proto Puyuma a new NEUT set was created by preposing *i to the GEN
clitics (B.11).
There is also a tendency for core and possessor forms to become clitics (and then
affixes). Thus PMP GEN enclitics in *n- are derived from an earlier free set formed with
the PAn case-maker *ni GEN:PS:S.
A change which affects GEN clitics in their AGT function has been noted by Starosta
et al. (1982) and Wolff (1996). The processes which they reconstruct differ a little, but
their essence is that a PAn agent GEN enclitic was attached to the first item of the
538
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
clause—either a verb or an auxiliary. When the enclitic was attached to an auxiliary, it
accordingly preceded the verb. In various Formosan and Philippine languages the
auxiliary has been lost, leaving the GEN clitic as proclitic to the following verb. Among
Formosan languages, this has occurred in Paiwan (see third row of 13), in Puyuma
(Appendices, B.11) and apparently in Pazeh, where just ta- GEN:1IP survives.
A number of changes of the kinds described above have occurred in the Rukai
dialects, but here the processes are complicated by the fact that the ergative-like
alignment of other Formosan languages has been replaced by an accusative alignment.
Tracking the history of Rukai pronouns requires a paper to itself.
3.5 Did PAn have polite pronoun forms?
In (14) Blust’s (1977) nominative forms and my neutral forms from Table 4 are
compared.
(14)
1S
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
3P
Blust’s nominative *i-aku *i-Su, *si-ia *i-kita *i-kami *i-kamu *si-iDa
*i-ka-Su
Ross’ neutral
*i-aku *iSu[qu] *s-ia *ita *i-ami *i-mu[qu], …
*i-amu
Apart for minor formal differences, the two sets differ only in Blust’s reconstruction of
forms with *k-. He reconstructs *i-ka-Su 2S as a polite alternant to *i-Su 2S. He also
reconstructs plural forms with *k- where I have no *k-. On the other hand, he reconstructs
no *k-less plural forms. That these are in fact reconstructable is shown clearly in Table 5.
The question is: are the forms with *k- reconstructable for PAn?
The relevant data are set out in Table 8. The level to which the forms with *k- are
reconstructable again depends on one’s subgrouping assumptions. On Sagart’s (2004)
assumptions, they are re-constructable to Proto Enemish but not to PAn. I will not enter
into the subgrouping controversy here. What matters is that the contrast between *k-less
forms and forms with *k-, shown in (15), is reconstructable, be it PAn or somewhat later.
(15)
k-less: NEUT
with*k-: NEUT
2S
1IP
1EP
2P
*iSu[qu]
*i-ka-Su
*ita
*i-kita
*i-ami
*i-kami
*i-mu[qu], *i-amu
*i-kamu
539
Malcolm Ross
Harvey (1982) also reconstructs this contrast, but declines to attribute it to politeness
on the grounds that such a contrast subsists in no modern language. The fact that the
contrast does not occur in 1S, 3S or 3P, however, is circumstantial evidence that this is a
politeness contrast and that Blust’s ‘first politeness shift’, which introduced *kaSu, also
introduced the other forms with *k- in (15).
Table 8: Reconstructing first and second person pronouns with *k2S
1IP
1EP
2P
PAn (?)
NEUT
*i-ka-Su
*i-k-ita
*i-k-ami
*i-k-amu
Kanavu
NEUT
ii-kasu
ii-kita
ii-kimi
ii-kamu
PMP
NEUT
*ikahu
*i-kita
*i-kami
*i-kamu
NOM1
*ikahu
*kita
*kami
*kamu
PAn (?)
NEUT
*=ka-Su
*=k-ita
*i-k-ami
*i-k-amu
Siraya
NEUT
=kow1
=kǐtta
=kame
=kamu
Kanavu
NEUT
=kasu
=kita
=kimi
=kamu
PMP
NOM1
*=ka(hu)
*=ta
*=kami
*=kamu
1 The expected form is *=kahu, so =kow reflects loss of -h-.
3.6 Too many pronoun sets?
I observed above that the data require us to reconstruct implausibly many PAn
pronoun sets: two NOM sets and three GEN sets. Why should this be? The most likely
explanation is that some forms in the modern languages reflect developments which took
place at various times after the break-up of PAn.
If Sagart’s subgrouping is correct, then the NOM enclitics are reconstructable only to
Proto Pituish, as they are not reflected in Pazeh or Saisiyat. This may mean that the
encliticisation of NOM forms had not occurred in PAn and occurred only after the ancestor
of the Pituish subgroup had separated from the ancestors of Pazeh or Saisiyat. Indeed,
NOM encliticisation may have occurred independently in different languages, as we find
the *k- forms encliticised in Siraya and Kanakanavu (Table 8) and *k-less forms in other
languages (Table 5). Encliticisation of GEN forms did occur in PAn, however, and one
consequence of NOM encliticisation was that there were now two sets of enclitics, NOM
and GEN (Table 4) which were very similar in form.
Probably ambiguities arose in certain contexts, and speakers would naturally seek
means of disambiguation. This seems to have been achieved by the use of two other GEN
sets: m-initial and n-initial. Of the two, it seems probable that the m-initial set was earlier,
as it is reconstructable to PAn (*=m-ita is reflected in Saisiyat) and we cannot readily
540
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
identify the *m- element. On the face of it, the n-initial set is also reconstructable to PAn,
but we can identify the *n- element as the case-marker *ni PS:GEN (Table 3), which had a
separate identity in PAn. It marked a GEN personal noun phrase, and we may infer that
this personal noun phrase could also be an unmarked pronoun. On this inference, PAn *ni
aku GEN + 1S, for example, was a phrase, not a word, and PAn *n-aku was an elided form
of the phrase which was independently grammaticised in various daughter-languages.
That later grammaticisations occurred is evidenced by Paiwan, where the forms ni-aken
PSR:1S and so on (shown in 13) must have arisen after the erstwhile ACC form in *-ən
became the Paiwan base form. The fact that the pairs of alternants *ni-am/*n-ami GEN:
1EP and *ni-mu/*n-amu GEN:1EP are reconstructable is quite possibly an artefact of
different and independent grammaticisations of PAn*ni ami and*ni amu.
It is noteworthy that there are more reflexes of PAn *m-aku GEN:1S, *m-iSu GEN:2S
and *m-ita GEN:1IP in Table 5 than there are of *m-ami GEN:1EP and *m-amu GEN:2P, yet
the distribution of n-initial reflexes is the other way round. It is possible either that
*m-ami and *m-amu were reduced to *mi and *mu by haplology or that forms with a
sequence of two *m- onsets were avoided in favour of analytical forms with *ni.
The upshot of this section is that Table 4 may indeed include too many PAn pronoun
sets, and that the rows marked NOM2 and GEN3 should perhaps be removed from it, as the
enclitic NOM and *n-initial GEN sets may be artefacts of later developments in various
daughter-languages.
3.7 Proto Malayo-Polynesian innovations
The PAn pronominal system shown in Table 4 evolved into the PMP system in
Table 9. Changes include what Blust (1977) calls the second politeness shift, a set of
innovations that defines the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup. Its elements (in terms of the
reconstructions made here) are listed in (16).
(16) a. The PAn plain neutral *i-Su 2S is lost, and PMP *ikahu, reflex of PAn
polite *i-ka-Su, becomes the default neutral 2S pronoun.
b. PMP *=mu GEN:2S reflects the PAn clitic *=mu 2P, and the PAn clitic
*=Su 2S is lost (although the long clitic *=nihu, reflex of PAn *(=)ni-Su,
continues).
c. PMP has new additional 2P forms, neutral *[i]ka-ihu and *kamu-ihu and
genitive *=ihu, *=nihu, *=mu-ihu which incorporate *-ihu, apparently
reflecting PAn neutral *i-Su 2S.
The relevant forms are bolded in Table 9.
541
Malcolm Ross
Table 9: A very tentative reconstruction of Proto Malayo-Polynesian
pronominal forms
NEUT
1S
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
i-aku
ikahu
siya
i-kita, ita i-kami
2P
i-kamu
3P
i-ka-ihu,
—
kamu-ihu
NOM1
aku
(i)kahu
iya
kita, i-ta kami
kamu
ka-ihu
sida
NOM2
=(h)aku
=ka(hu)
=∅,
=ta
=kami
=kamu
=ka-ihu,
=da
GEN1
=ku
=mu
=ya
=ta
=mi
—
GEN2
=n(a)ku
=nihu
=niya
—
=mami,
—
=nihu
=nida
PSR
[y]akən
imu, ihu
—
[y]atən
—
ihu, inihu,
—
=ya
=kamu-ihu
=ihu,
=da
-mu-ihu
=nami
[y]amən
imu-ihu
The reconstructions presented here not only confirm that Blust was right in positing
his PMP innovations, but that PMP underwent further innovations in its pronoun
paradigms.
(17) a. The PMP NEUT and NOM forms *ikahu 2S, *[i]kita 1IP, *[i]kami 1EP, and
*[i]kamu 2P all reflect the polite PAn NEUT forms *[i]ka-Su, *[i]k-ita,
*[i-]k-ami and *[i-]k-amu, whilst the plain PAn NEUT forms *[i-]Su, *ita,
*i-ami and *i-amu are lost (this is a widening of Blust’s 16a).
b. The PMP 3P forms have no Formosan cognates, and appear to be a PMP
innovation.
c. The distinct (and incomplete) PMP NOM clitic set was created by
cliticising free forms, leaving the old short clitic set to serve only as short
genitives in PMP. This innovation evidently postdates the second
politeness shift, as the 2S clitic form is *=kahu (< PAn polite *ka-Su, not
plain *Su).
d. PAn *m- clitics have disappeared, except for *=mami 1EP, and have
otherwise been replaced by PAn *n-, whose members are now clitics.
e. PAn ACC forms became PMP PSR forms.
f. PAn oblique forms in *-an are lost.
542
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
4 Conclusions
The PAn reconstructions in Table 4 are very similar to those in Ross (2002b:36).
Differences resulting from a re-examination of the data are minor. It is no longer clear to
me whether polite forms in *k- are reconstructable to PAn (§3.5). I no longer reconstruct
3P forms (§3.3). For 1EP I have added the alternant *=nimu GEN:1EP and *=ni-mu GEN:2P
forms for reasons that are obvious from Table 5, but these forms are probably not
reconstructable to PAn (§3.6). I have added ACC forms (these were only mentioned in the
text in 2002). The OBL forms are harder to reconstruct, as the locative/oblique marker
*-an has continued to be productive in various Formosan languages, and has continued to
generate fresh oblique forms (§3.2.1).
A small detail is the reconstruction of the alternant second-person forms *-Suqu 2S
and *-muqu 2P (the latter reflected only in Bunun and therefore very doubtful). These
perhaps represent lengthenings of the basic form for vocative emphasis.
In 2002 I reconstructed only one set of monosyllabic enclitics, which served as both
NOM and GEN (as Starosta et al. 1981 point out). I show them as two sets in Table 4, but
recognise that the NOM set probably did not yet occur in PAn (§3.6).
Both the 2002 reconstruction and the version presented in Table 4 differ
substantially from previous reconstructions, because they take the full range of available
data and attempt a reconstruction based on paradigmaticity as well as form.
Dahl (1973) reconstructs a free set (corresponding to my free NOM set, and
incorporating the *∅-/*k- alternation which I have attributed to politeness) and a clitic set
(corresponding to my monosyllabic enclitics).
Blust (1977) reconstructs only two sets, a nominative and a genitive, and points to
the existence of what he takes to be a possessive nominal (PSRN) set: it corresponds in
form to my accusative set. His nominative set corresponds to my neutral set. His genitive
set corresponds to none of my sets. He posits two genitive variants, one with *i- and one
with *ni- (e.g. *i-ku, *ni-ku GEN:1S). The arguments for these are too complex to rehearse
here, but they are based almost entirely on Malayo-Polynesian data and represent
developments that have occurred in Malayo-Polynesian languages and therefore postdate
PAn. There is certainly no Formosan evidence for the *i- set, as Harvey (1982:75) points
out. The *ni- set is suggestive of post-PAn developments like those described briefly in
§3.6. It must be said, however, that Blust states explicitly that he is not about a fullscale
reconstruction of the the PAn pronoun paradigm. Instead he is concerned to show how
case-marking shaped early Austronesian pronoun sets and particularly how a study of
pronouns shows that all Austronesian languages outside Taiwan belong to a single
subgroup, Malayo-Polynesian. These ends he achieves brilliantly, and the findings of this
paper support his conclusions (§3.7).
543
Malcolm Ross
Harvey (1982:74–84) provides a critique of earlier reconstructions, and many of his
comments are supported by the work reported here. For PAn he reconstructs three sets of
pronouns. His nominative set has alternate forms which correspond to my neutral and
nominative sets and incorporate the *∅-/*k- alternation. His genitive set also has two
variants, one corresponding to my monosyllabic clitics, the other to Blust’s *ni- set (and
the comment on these above also applies here). His oblique set corresponds to my
accusative set. He also recognises the existence of reflexes of my genitive *m- set but
does not reconstruct it, apparently because of inadequacies in the data available to him.
One perhaps significant aspect of the data examined in this paper is that, other than
the first politeness shift shared by Siraya, Kanakanavu, and PMP, the data appear to
display no shared innovations across pairs of Formosan languages, whether previously
recognised or not. Blust (1999a) groups Kavalan, Amis and Siraya together, but there is
no evidence of shared innovations here (Amis has, like Paiwan, undergone massive
restructuring of its pronoun paradigm). Tsuchida (1976) groups Tsou, Kanakanavu and
Saaroa together, but again there are no shared pronominal innovations, and the same is
true of Saisiyat and Pazeh, subgrouped by Blust. There are a number of innovations,
noted at various points in the paper, which are coterminous with Sagart’s (2004) Pituish
subgroup. However, to qualify as ‘Pituish’, a feature needs only not to be reflected in
Pazeh and Saisiyat, and some such feats may indeed be older but have been lost in these
two languages. Two possible innovations, the plural marker *-a and the first politeness
shift, introducing forms with *k-, are reflected only in Enemish languages, but not in all
of them.
544
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
Appendices
A. Lower-order case-marker reconstructions
This appendix provides supporting data and, in some cases, arguments for
lower-order reconstructions of case-markers.
A.1 Proto Atayal (Huang 1993, 1995, 2006, Li 1995, Rau 1992, Tsukida 2005)
Mayrinax Atayal makes a ±SP distinction which I attribute to P-Atayal, as it is
needed to account for forms in the other dialects. The latter have lost this distinction (but
Wulai and Plngawan keep some contrasting forms) and also the personal case-markers.
Li (1995:30) presents Mayrinax/Wulai comparisons, but without reconstructions.
COMMON
P-Atayal
NOM
GEN
Mayrinax Atayal
LOC
-SP
+SP
-SP
+SP
-SP
*kuʔ,
*aʔ
*na-kuʔ,
*naʔ
*ci-kuʔ
*c(i,u)ʔ,
*ci-kaʔ
*caʔ
*kaʔ
Plngawan Atayal
OBL
+SP
*na-kaʔ
kuʔ
aʔ
kaʔ
—
nkuʔ
naʔ
nakaʔ
Wulai Atayal
quʔ
—
nquʔ
Teruku Seediq
ka
—
—
naʔ
naʔ
na
ckuʔ
cikaʔ
squʔ
—
cuʔ
ciʔ
*iʔ
iʔ
—
sa
(suʔ)1
—
—
1 Li (1995) has suʔ and saʔ where Rau (1992) and Huang (1993) have only sa.
PERSONAL
NOM
GEN
OBL
P-Atayal
(*iʔ)
(*niʔ)
(*iʔ)
(*kiʔ), (*∅/*-an)
Mayrinax Atayal
iʔ
niʔ
iʔ
kiʔ
—
—
—
∅/-an1
Plngawan Atayal
—
niʔ
Teruku Seediq
—
—
LOC
1 ∅ after a vowel; -an after a consonant.
A.2 Rukai (Li 1997b, Li 1997a, Löbner 1985, Wang 2003, Zeitoun 1995)
The Rukai dialects form three groups, Budai–Labuan–Tanan, Maga–Tona, and
Mantauran. The first two have noun-phrase markers. All Rukai dialects have accusative
alignment, and this has evidently led to shifts in the functions of case-markers.
545
Malcolm Ross
COMMON
PERSONAL
NOM
OBL
NOM
OBL
P-Rukai
*ka, *ku, (*na)
(*sa), (*-anə), *ki
*-anə
…
PBLT
*ka, *ku
*ka, *ku, (*sa)
*ku
*ki
Budai
ku, ka
ka, ku
ku, ka
ki
Labuan
ko
ko
ko
ki
Tanan
ka
ka, sa
ko
ki
PMT 1
*na -D?, *ku +D?
(*-anə)
*ki
*-anə
Maga
na
-anɨ
ki
-a(na), -a(nɨ)
Tona1
na -D, ko +D
na, ko
ki
-anə
1. Tona ko is used with what Löbner (1985) calls pragmatic-definite noun phrases, na with
semantic-definites and with indefinites (Wang 2003).
A.3 Proto Puyuma (Stacy Fang-ching Teng, pers. comm., Tsuchida 1980)
Data are available for only two of the perhaps five dialects of Puyuma. Tamalakaw
Puyuma has a three-way opposition between definite, indefinite specific and indefinite
nonspecific. Nanwang Puyuma has an opposition between definite and indefinite
common case-markers, which correspond respectively to the Tamalakaw specific and
nonspecific forms. The Tamalakaw definites appear to be innovatory, as they have no
known cognates elsewhere.
Nanwang has lost GEN forms, the functions of which have been taken over by the
obliques. Tamalakaw has just one dedicated common GEN form, [ni]nina GEN:-D:+SP, not
shown in the table. This appears to be a recent innovation, a combination of ni GEN:PS and
nina GEN/OBL:+D, itself an innovation. The Tamalakaw personal GEN ni, however, is
clearly a retention, and also occurs in the personal oblique ka-ni. Nanwang ka-na OBL:PS:P
apparently reflects an otherwise lost Proto Puyuma *na GEN:PS:P.
COMMON
NOM
P-Puyuma
—
*[i]na +D
*a -D
GEN/OBL
Nanwang
—
[i]na +D
Tamalakaw
ni +D
[i]na -D:+SP
LOC
—
*kana +D
*ɖa -D
*i
a -D
—
kana +D
a -D:-SP
nina +D
kana -D:+SP1
ɖa -D
ʐa -D:-SP
i
1 Tamalakaw kana OBL:-D:+SP does not appear to be used as GEN.
546
i
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
PERSONAL
SINGULAR
PLURAL
NOM
GEN
OBL
NOM
GEN
OBL
P-Puyuma
*i
*ni
*ka-ni
*na
(*na)
*ka-na
Nanwang
i
—
kan
na
—
kana
Tamalakaw
i
ni
kani
na
ni
kani
A.4 Proto Amis (Chen 1987, Tsukida 1993, Wu 1995)
COMMON
NEUT
NOM
GEN
ACC
P-Amis
*u
*ku
*nu
*tu
*i […-an]
+D?
*kiya
*iya
*[nu]niya
*tiya
—
u
ku
nu
tu
i
+D
kiya
iya
[nu]niya
tiya
—
Sakizaya
LOC
Central
u
ku
nu
tu
i
Nataoran
u
ku
nu
tu
i […-an]
PERSONAL
SINGULAR
NOM
P-Amis
*ci
Sakizaya, Central ci
1
Nataoran
ci
PLURAL
GEN
ACC
LOC
NOM
GEN ACC
*ni
*ci …-an
(*i ci)
*ca
*na *ca …-an
ni
ci …-an
—
ca
na
ca …-an
ni
—
i ci
…
…
…
1 Chen (1987:127) does not list personal plurals.
A.5 Proto Bunun (Jeng 1969, 1977, Wu 1969, Yeh 1999)
The data available for Bunun dialects are in some respects unsatisfactory, as the
notes below indicate. Personal case-markers were not found in Jeng’s (1977) Takbanuað
data. Yeh (1999) reports that there is no common/personal distinction in Isbukun.
COMMON
PERSONAL
NOM
PSR
GEN-OBL
Proto Bunun
*a, (ka), (*ca)
*itu
(*i), (*ki)
Takituduh
ca
=s/=is1 =s/=is1
Takbanuað
[k]a, ∅
Isbukun
2
a, ∅
[k]i, ∅
2
…
3
Itu
a, mas, a mas, ∅
NOM
PSR, OBL
kat/=at1
=t/=it1
…
…
—
—
547
Malcolm Ross
1 The first item occurs after a vowel; the second after a consonant.
2 Forms with k- are given in phrase structure rules (Jeng 1977:121) but do not occur in examples.
I have found only one example with a NOM (as SBJ with a personal noun in Jeng 1977:88), as
both NOM and OBL are usually deleted. Examples with i are more frequent (e.g. Jeng 1977:74,
75, 205). This interpretation agrees with the notes in Jeng (1969:139). Some texts in Jeng
(1969:80ff) contain case-markers a and i, but often unglossed.
3 Yeh (1999) says that PSR also marks AGT, but there are no examples of this.
B. Pronominal paradigms of Formosan languages
This appendix provides supporting data for lower-order reconstructions of pronouns
and for the reconstructions in the body of the paper.
B.1 Pazeh (Li and Tsuchida 2001:33–37)
1
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
3P
y-ami
i-mu
y-a-sia
y-aku
i-siw
i-sia
i-ta
2
aku
siw
sia
ta
ami
mu
a-sia
3
—
—
—
ta-
—
—
—
ni-am
ni-mu
n-a-sia
NEUT
NOM
1
1S
GEN1
GEN2
4
LOC
naki
ni-siw
ni-sia
ni-ta
yaku-[n]an
i-siw-an
i-sia-an
i-ta-an y-ami-[n]an i-mu-[n]an —
Case-marker functions are NEUT=TPC/NSBJ5/PAT, NOM=VSBJ, GEN=AGT/PSRN,6 LOC=LOC.
1 There are three sets of third-person forms, with the roots mini
INVIS.
CLOSE,
misiw
DISTAL
and sia
The first two are not shown here, as they appear irrelevant to PAn reconstruction.
2 From the data, it seems that NOM forms may be postverbal enclitics, but Li and Tsuchida (2001)
indicate that there is some freedom in where they occur.
3 The prefix ta- is an AGT form in polite requests like ta-kan-i ‘Let’s eat’. It may co-occur with
a long
GEN
form: ta-kan-i nita ki alaw ‘Let’s eat the fish’ (ki
NOM)
(Li and Tsuchida 2001:
36–37). See also Ferrell (1968) and Li (1978:582).
4 Locative forms are optionally preceded by di and mean ‘at my place’ etc.
5 Ferrell’s (1968) text has NEUT also as VSBJ; NOM forms occur less often in that text.
6 Adnominally, PSRN precedes the possessum and is followed by a ligature (Li and Tsuchida
2001:35–36).
B.2 Saisiyat (Tunghe) (Yeh 1991:50-53, Huang et al. 1999, Yeh 2003)
All Saisiyat pronouns are free forms. The PSR2 (PSRN) and BEN (BEN, AGT) sets are
not shown. The PSR2 set consists of ʔan-ROOT-a[ʔa], where ROOT is as in LOC kan-ROOT.
548
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
The BEN set consists of ʔini-ROOT.
1S
2S
3S
NOM
ya[k]o
sia
ACC
yak-in
PSR1
maʔan
LOC
kan-man
ʃoʔo
ʔi-ʃoʔo-n
ni-ʃoʔ
kan-ʃoʔ
1IP
ʔitaʔ
hi-sia, ʔi-sia ʔini-mitaʔ
ni-sia
m-itaʔ
kan-sia
kan-ʔitaʔ
1EP
2P
3P
yami
moyo
la-sia
ʔini-yaʔom
ni-yaʔom
ʔini-mo-n
hi-la-sia
ni-mo-n
n-a-sia
kan-yami
kan-moyo
kan-la-sia
Case-marker functions are NOM=SBJ, ACC=PAT, PSR1= PSRA, LOC= LOC.
B.3 Proto Atayal (Chang 1997, Huang 1989, 1993, 1995, 2006, Pecoraro 1979,
Rau 1992, Tsukida 2005)
1S
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
3P
TPC,1 DISJ,2 PREDN,1 SBJ,3 AGT,3 PAT,4 BEN,5 LOC5
NEUT:
P-Atayal
*(ku(y)iŋ), *isuʔ
*hiyaʔ
*itaʔ
*(i-aku)
Mayrinax
kuiŋ
Plngawan
kuriŋ
isuʔ
isuʔ
hiyaʔ
hiyaʔ
*(cimu),
*rehiyaʔ,
*(i-amu)
*lahaʔ
nhaʔ
cami
cimu
itaʔ
cami
cimu
lahaʔ
Wulai
kuziŋ
i-suʔ
itaʔ
sami
simu
[l]hɣaʔ
Teruku
yaku
isu
hiya
ita
yami
yamu
dehiya
*=[ca]ku
*= suʔ
—
*= taʔ
*(=cami)
*(=cimu)
—
=suʔ
—
=taʔ
=cami
=cimu
—
=min8
=mamu8
NOM:
6
VSBJ
P-Atayal
hiyaʔ
itaʔ
*(cami),
*(i-ami)
7
Mayrinax
=cu
Plngawan
=cu
Wulai
=[sa]kuʔ
Teruku
=ku
=suʔ
—
=taʔ
=suʔ
—
=taʔ
=sami
=simu
—
=su
—
=ta
=nami,8
=namu8
—
=mian
GEN:
6
AGT, PSRA
P-Atayal
*=ku,
*=suʔ
*=[m-a]ku
Mayrinax
=mu
Plngawan
=mu
Wulai
=[ma]kuʔ
*=nia,
*=taʔ
*=na
=suʔ
=suʔ
=suʔ
—
=niʔ
=taʔ
=taʔ
*=n-ami,
*(=m-amu), *(=na-haʔ)
*=ni-am
*(=n-amu)
=niam
=mamu
=min9
=mamu
=nhaʔ
=nahaʔ
—
=taʔ
=mian
=mamu
=nhaʔ
—
=ta
=nami,
=namu
=deha
[ne]namu
ne-dehiya
9
=mu
Teruku
=mu
=su
=mian
PSR:
PSRN9
Teruku
[ne]naku
[ne]nisu ne-hiya
[ne]nita
[ne]nami
549
Malcolm Ross
OBL:PAT, LOC, PSRN
P-Atayal
*ke-nan
*su-nan *hiya-an *ita-[na]n *(ca)mi-nan *(ca)mu-nan *(re)hiya-an
Plngawan
ki-nan
si-nan
hiya-n
ita-n
cami-nan
cimu-nan
laha-n
Wulai
k-nan
su-nan
hiya-n
ita-n
smi-nan
smu-nan
hɣa-n
Teruku
ke-nan
su-nan
hiya-an
te-nan
menani
mu-nan
dehiya-an
1 Preceded by iʔ in Mayrinax, but not preceded by a case-marker in Wulai (Rau 1992:141).
2 In Mayrinax.
3 Preceded by a NOM case-marker.
4 Preceded by Mayrinax iʔ NOM. Not preceded by a case-marker in Teruku.
5 In Mayrinax, BEN preceded by niʔ, LOC by kiʔ.
6 Both sets are optional agreement pronouns in Teruku, but evidently not in Mayrinax or Wulai.
7 Mayrinax SBJ.
8 Copied from the GEN forms.
9 According to Pecoraro (1979:65) and Chang (1997:13-16) this set is used as PSRN. I assume
the addition of ne- (cognate with Mayrinax niʔ—see note 4) to be of post-P-Atayal antiquity,
as the third-person forms to which it is attached are NEUT forms.
B.4 Thao (Blust 2003)
1S
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
yaku
ihu, [y]uhu
θiθu
ita
yamin
maniun θayθuy
NOM2
wak
—
—
—
—
—
GEN1
nak
m-ihu
θiθu
m-ita yamin, nam2
maniun θayθuy
—
—
—
NOM1
GEN2
1
3
ACC
-[a]k, -[i]k —
—
3P
—
—
yakin,
ihu-n, uhu-n2, θiθu-n ita-n, yamin, ami-n,2 maniun θayθuy
nakin4
m-ihu-n3
uta-n2 namin4
Case-marker functions are NOM1=VSBJ, GEN1=AGT/PSRN/PSRA,5 ACC=PAT; 6 NOM2 wak 1S serves
as PAT of imperative and VSBJ of a future actor-voice verb.
1 Although there is a clear contrast between NOM and ACC forms, NOM forms are sometimes used
for PAT where ACC is expected (Li 1978:598, Blust 2003:207).
2 Form from Li (1978).
3 -[i]k may reflect earlier -in
PV+GEN:1S,
and -[a]k earlier -an
LV+GEN:1S
(Li 1978:599, Blust
2003:92-93, 96-97). However, the contrast is blurred in modern Thao, and these affixes also
occur occasionally as AVSBJ.
4 This form is a rare variant which sometimes replaces the first item shown when it occurs as a
benefactive. Blust (2003:208) comments that m-ihu-n
forms.
550
2S
is a combination of
GEN
and
OBL
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
5 Usually a GEN possessor pronoun precedes its possessum noun with an optional ligature, i.e. it
behaves as PSRN. Occasionally it follows (= PSRA).
6 I have not found any indication whether these forms also have LOC function.
B.5 Siraya (Adelaar 1997)
The orthography is Adelaar’s: ĭ represents a short i.
1S
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
3P
NEUT
ĭau
ĭmhu
təni
ĭmĭtta
ĭmian
ĭmumi
neini
NOM
=koh
=kow
—
=kĭtta
=kame
=kamu
—
GEN
=[m]au
=[m]uhu
tĭn
=[m]ĭtta
=[m]ian
=[m]umi
nein
OBL
ĭau-an
ĭmhu-an
tĭni-an
ĭmĭtta-n
ĭmian-an
ĭmumi-an
neini-an
1
Case-marker functions are NEUT=SBJ/TPC, NOM=VSBJ?, GEN=AGT, PSRA, ACC=PAT.
1 m- after a vowel.
B.6 Tsou (Zeitoun 2005)
There are no third-person personal pronouns, as they are replaced by
demonstratives.
NEUT
NOM-GEN
1S
2S
aʔo
suu
aʔati
aʔami
muu
-su/-ko2
-to
-mza
-mu
-ʔo/-ʔu1
1IP
1EP
2P
Case-marker functions are NEUT=VSBJ/PAT3, NOM- GEN=AVSBJ, AGT, 4 PSRA.
1 -ʔo follows -i; -ʔu occurs elsewhere.
2 The difference between -su and -ko is largely dialectal.
3 As subject a free pronoun is optionally preceded by the NOM marker na. As PAT this never
occurs. (Tung 1964 and Tsuchida 1976:98 show these forms with na- affixed in all contexts.)
4 AGT pronouns are agreement markers.
551
Malcolm Ross
B.7 Kanakanavu (Li 1997a, Mei 1982, Tsuchida 1976:38)
NEUT
1S
2S
3S/P
1IP
1EP
ii-ku,
ii-kasu,
—
ii-kita
ii-kimi,
1
ii-kia
ii-mu-kasu
=ku,
NOM
1
=kasu
1
=∅, =ini
3
=kita
1
GEN2
5
OBL
ii-kamu,
ii-kia
ii-mu-kamu1
=kimi,
=kamu
1
=kia
GEN1
2P
=kia
3
=[m]aku =[mu]su
=kiai, =ini2 =[mi]ta =mia
4
=naku
=nsu
=nni
=nta
ʔiku-an
kasu-an
ʔini-an
kita-nan kimi-an
=mu
=nmia
—
kamu-an
Case-marker functions are DISJ, AVSBJ,6 NOM:VSBJ,7 GEN1/GEN2:AGT, PSRA, OBL:8PAT, BEN.
1 The forms ii-kia and =kia are contrastive; ii-mu-kasu and ii-mu-kamu are vocative.
2 =kiai with an IMPF verb, =ini elsewhere (Mei 1982:219). Mei says there is no third-person PSR
form, but cina=ini ‘his mother’ in an example on p211 suggests that there is.
3 Generally -m(V) after a vowel, non-m(V) forms after a consonant, but there are unexplained
exceptions (Mei 1982:210).
4 Li (1997b:354) records n-initial GEN2 forms that are missing from other sources. He does not
know of a functional distinction betwen GEN1 and GEN2.
5 Final -n is deleted except before a following vowel-initial clitic.
6 In marked sentence-initial position, evidently as a topic or focus-fronted, to judge from Mei’s
examples. It seems likely that NEUT forms have other functions not illustrated in the data.
7 No example of a verbless clause witha personal pronoun subject has been found in the data.
8 There are three voices: actor, patient, and location. There is a fourth voice, labelled ‘special’
by Tsuchida (1976:49–51) and ‘object focus 2’ by Mei (1982), with unusual argument
marking: the agent is encoded as OBL (there is no example with a personal pronoun subject).
B.8 Saaroa (Tsuchida 1976:68)
1S
2S
3S/P
1IP
1EP
2P
NEUT
iɬa-ku
iɬa-u
iɬa-isa
iɬa-ɬamu
iɬa-mu
NOM
=aku
=u
∅
iɬa-ta
=ita
=amu
=mu
ACC
—
—
isa=na1 —
—
—
GEN
=ku
=u
=isa
=ɬamu
=mu
=ta
Case-marker functions are NEUT=FOCFR/TPC/DISJ/PAT, NOM=SBJ, ACC=PAT, GEN=AGT, PSRA.
1
552
There is a dedicated ACC (PAT) form only in 3S. Elsewhere na OBL + NEUT is used.
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
B.9 Northern Paiwan (Huang et al. 1999, Anna Hsiou-chuan Chang, pers. comm.)
Data from other dialects are almost identical with Northern Paiwan.
1S
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
3P
NEUT
ti-aken
ti-sun
ti-maju
ti-cen
ti-amen
ti-mun
ti-a-maju
NOM
=[a]ken
=[e]sun
—
=[i]cen
=[a]men
=[e]mun
—
GEN
ku=
su=
—
ca=
nia=
nu=
—
PSR
ni-aken
ni-sun
ni-maju
n-icen
ni-amen
ni-mun
ni-a-maju
OBL
canu-aken canu-sun cai-maju
canu-mun
cai-a-maju
canu-icen canu-amen
Case-marker functions are NEUT=FOCFR/TPC/DISJ, NOM=SBJ, GEN=AGT/PSRA, PSR= PSRN/AGT,1
OBL=PAT/
LOC.
1 Third-person members of this set also occur in AGT function.
B.10 Proto Rukai (Zeitoun 1997, Zeitoun 2003, Wang 2003)
Rukai third-person pronouns are deictics and are omitted here. BLT forms are those
found in the Budai, Labuan and Tanan dialects. In Labuan and Tanan /u/ is orthographic o.
Oblique forms in Budai end in -anə, in Labuan and Tanan in -a. Otherwise there are only
minor differences among these dialects.
1S
2S
1IP
1EP
2P
P-Rukai
*aku, *naku
*musu
*mita
*na[m]i
*mumu, *nimu
BLT
ku-naku
ku-su
ku-ta
ku-nai
ku-numi
Mantauran
i-ɭaə
i-miaʔə
i-mitə, i-ta
i-namə
i-nomə
NEUT:
TPC
P-MT
*k-akə
*musu, *ku-su
*mita, *ki-ta *ki-namə
Maga
kɨk ɨ
musu
miti
knamɨ
mumu
kakə
koso
kita
kinamə
komo
P-Rukai
*naku, *ku
*su, *=musu
*ta, *=mita
*na[m]i
*nimu, *mu=
BLT
naw-, -[n]aku =su
=ta
=nai
=numi
-nomi
Tona
NOM:
*mumu, *ku-mu
SBJ
Mantauran
-ɭao
-moʔo
-[mi]ta
-nai
P-MT
*ku=, *-kə
*su=
*ta=
*namə=, *=namə *mu=
Maga
ku=, =kɨ
so=
ta=
namɨ=, =namɨ
mu=
Tona
ko=
su=
ta=
namə=
mo=
553
Malcolm Ross
PSR:
PSRA
P-Rukai
*=li
*=su
*=ta
*=na[m]i
BLT
=li
=su
=ta
=nai
*nimu, *=mu
=numi
Mantauran
-li
-ʔo
-ta
-nai
-nomi
P-MT
*-li
*-su
*-ta
*-namə
*-mu
Maga
=li
=su
=ta
=namɨ
=mu
Tona
=[i]li
=[i]so
=[i]ta
=[i]namə
=[i]mo
OBL:
PAT, peripheral roles
P-Rukai
*naku-a[nə]
*musu-a[nə], *su-a[nə] *mita-a[nə]
*na[m]i-a[nə]
*[ni]mu-a[nə]
BLT
naku-a[nə]
musu-a[nə]
mita-a[nə]
nai-a[nə]
numi-a[nə]
Mantauran
i-a-ə
i-miaʔ-ə
i-mit-ə
i-nam-ə
i-nom-ə
P-MT
*naku-a
*su-a, *musu-a
*miti-a
*nami-a
*mu-a[nə]
Maga
ŋku-a
su-a
mti-a
nma-a
mu-a
Tona
[na]ko-a
moso-a
miti-a
nami-a
mo-anə
B.11 Proto Puyuma (Stacy Fang-ching Teng, pers. Comm., Tsuchida 1980)
1S
NEUT:
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
3P
*(i-ʐiw),
*i-(n)ta *i-niam
*i-(n)mu *naɖiw
TPC, FRFOC, DISJ
P-Puyuma
*i-(ŋ)ku
*i-[n]u
Tamalakaw
i-ŋku
i-nu
i-ʐiw
i-nta
i-niam
i-nmu
ku-i-ku
yu-yu
ta-y-taw
ta-i-ta
mi-mi
mu-i-mu ∅
*(i-taw)
Nanwang
1
naʐiw
NOM:SBJ
P-Puyuma
*=ku
*=(y)u
*∅
*=ta
*=mi
*=mu
*∅
Tamalakaw
=ku
=u
∅
=ta
=mi
=mu
Nanwang
=ku
=yu
∅
∅
=ta
=mi
=mu
∅
P-Puyuma
*ku=
*nu=
*taw=
*ta=
*mi=
*mu=
*taw=
Tamalakaw
ku=
nu=
taw=
ta=
mi=
mu=
taw=
Nanwang
ku=
nu=
tu=
ta=
mi=
mu=
tu=
*=li
*=u
*=taw
*(=ta)
*(=mi)
*(=mu)
*(ni-naɖiw)
2
GEN:AGT
PSR1:
PSRA
P-Puyuma
Tamalakaw
=li
=u
=taw
=ta
=mi
=mu
ni-naʐiw
Nanwang
=li
=u
=taw
—
—
—
—
3
554
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
PSR2:
4
PSRA
P-Puyuma
*ku=
*nu=
*taw=
*ta=
*niam=
*mu=
*taw=
Tamalakaw
=[ŋ]ku
=[ŋ]nu =ntaw
=nta
=niam
=nmu
=ntaw
Nanwang
ku
nu
ta
niam
mu
tu
GEN-OBL:
tu
AGT, PAT
P-Puyuma
*kan-(iŋ)ku *kan-nu *kan-taw *kan-ta *ka-niam *kan-mu *kan-(an-)taw
Tamalakaw
kan-iŋku
kan-nu
kan-taw
kan-ta
ka-niam
kan-mu
Nanwang
kan-ku
ka-nu
kan-taw
kan-ta
ka-niam
kan-emu kan-taw
kan-an-taw
1 Nanwang NEUT forms seem to represent a restructuring with reduplication of the base in front
of the *i- prefix, e.g. ku-i-ku NEUT:1S< *ku+*i-(ŋ)ku.
2
GEN
acts as an agreement marker in both dialects, as it remains even when there is a
GEN
(Tamalakaw) or OBL (Nanwang) NP actor or possessor.
3 In Nanwang these forms occur with only a very small number of kin terms, and only in the
singular. It is possible that Tamalakaw non-singulars are simply copied from
NEUT)
NOM (3S
from
and did not occur in Proto Puyuma.
4 In Tamalakaw the forms in the
PSR2
set are attached to a case-marker and precede the
possessumnoun. In Nanwang, they either (i) are proclitic to the possessum, forming a NOM NP,
or they are enclitic to the case-marker which precedes the possessum. I infer that in Proto
Puyuma these forms were proclitic to the possessum, but optionally preceded by a
case-marker.
B.12 Amis (Chen 1987:135–136, Fey 1986:381, Tsukida 1993, Wu 1995)
Forms and functions are so similar across dialects that differences are simply noted
below the table.
NEUT
2
GEN2
5
OBL
1
2S
3S
1IP
1EP
2P
3P
aku
isu
c-ira
[k]ita
ami
amu
uhni
k-aku
k-isu
c-ira
k-ita
k-ami
k-amu
k-uhni
3
=aku
=isu
—
=ita
—
=amu
=uhni
4
m-aku,
m-isu,
n-ira
m-ita
niam
n-amu
n-uhni
(n-aku)
(n-isu)
NOM
GEN1
1
1S
[i]t-aku-an [i]t-isu-an [i]c-ira-an [i]t-ita-an, [i]t-aman [i]t-amu-an [i]t-uhnan
[i]kita-an
Case-marker functions are NEUT=PREDN/TPC, NOM=SBJ, GEN1= PSRA/AGT, GEN2=
AGT/PSRA/PSRN, OBL=PAT/LOC.5
1 Third-person forms vary from dialect to dialect and are related to demonstratives.
555
Malcolm Ross
2 In Sakizaya a (clause-initial) predicate NP (PREDN) is formed with u (C:NEUT) + PRON:NEUT,
i.e. u-aku etc. The NEUT set does not occur in the Central data, where the NOM set takes over its
functions.
3 Only Chen (1987:136) analyses this set as enclitics. As they were almost certainly enclitics in
PAn, they were probably enclitics in Proto Amis. They function as PSRA in all three dialects,
and also as AGT in Central Amis. I infer that they had AGT function in Proto Amis, inherited
from PAn.
4
GEN2 forms (exept for n-initial 1S and 2S) are usually preceded by nu C:GEN. The n-initial 1S and
2S forms are only in Nataoran (as optional variants), and are not reconstructable with certainty
to Proto Amis.
5 In the limited data in Tsukida (1993) the Sakizaya OBL forms have only PAT function, but in
Nataoran and Central they are also LOC. In Sakizaya and Nataoran i- apparently obligatorily
precedes them; in Central it is optional. In Sakizaya and Central, -an often becomes -anan.
B.13 Proto Bunun (Jeng 1969, 1977, Wu 1969, Yeh 1999)
Third-person forms are not reconstructed as these vary considerably from dialect to
dialect and appear all to be demonstratives.
1S
NEUT:
1
2S
1IP
1EP
2P
*suʔu
*ita
*ðami
*mu[ʔu]
soʔo
ita
ðami
moʔo
FRFOC, TPC, DISJ, PAT?, AGT
P-Bunun
*ðaku
Takituduh ðako
Takbanuað ðaku
suʔu
ʔitaʔ
ðamiʔ
Isbukun
su
mita
ðami
mu
*ka-ta
*ka-ðam
*ka-mu
NOM1:
ðaku
muʔu
SBJ
P-Bunun
*ka-ðak, (*saikin) *ka-su
Takituduh a-ðak
a-so
a-ta
a-ðam
a-mo
Takbanuað ʔaðak
ʔa-suʔ
ʔa-taʔ
ʔa-ðam
ʔa-muʔ
Isbukun
ka-su
ka-ta
ka-imin
ka-mu
*=a-s
*=[a-]ta
*=[s]a-m
*=a-mu
=[k]a-s
=[k]a-ta
=[k]a-m
=[k]a-mo
NOM2:
saikin
VSBJ
P-Bunun
*=[s]a-k
Takituduh =[k]a-k
Takbanuað =sak
=suʔ
=taʔ
=sam
—
Isbukun
=ik
=as
=ta
=im
=am
*ðak-un
*suʔu-n
*it-un
*ðam-un
*muʔu-n
ACC:
2
PAT
P-Bunun
3
Takituduh ðaku-n
556
soʔu-n, a-so itu-n, ita
ðamu-n, ðami moʔu-n
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
Isbukun
GEN:
4
ma[s]-ðaku
ma-su
ma[s-m]ita
ma[s]-ðami
ma[s]-mu
*=su[ʔu]
*=ta
*=ðami
*=mu[ʔu]
AGT, PAT
P-Bunun
*=ku
Takituduh =ko
=soʔo
=ta
=ðami
=su
=taʔ
=moʔo
Takbanuað =ku
—
=mu
Isbukun
=su
=ta
—
=mu
*=suʔu
*=nita, *=mita *=nam
*=nuʔu, *=mu[ʔu]
=soʔo
=nita, =mita
=nam
=noʔo, =mu
PSR:
5
=ku
PSRA, PSRN
P-Bunun
*=nak
Takituduh3 =nak
Takbanuað nak
suʔu
=mita
=nam
=muʔu
Isbukun
=nak
=su
=mita
=nam
=mu
*ðaku-an
*suʔu-an
*ita-an
*ðami-an
*muʔu-an
suʔu-an
ita-an
ðami-an
ʔi=mita-n
ʔi=ðami-an
muʔu-an
LOC:
6
LOC
P-Bunun
Takituduh ðaku-an
Isbukun
ʔi=ðaku-an
ʔi=su-an
ʔi=mu-an
1 In Takbanuað a NEUT form may apparently be preceded by the OBL marker [k]i if it serves as
AGT or PAT (one AGT example, Jeng 1977:206).
2 In Takituduh these forms are
ACC,
in Isbukun
GEN/ACC.
There is no corresponding set in
Takbanuað.
3 Where a second Takituduh form is shown, it is Li’s.
4 In Takituduh GEN enclitics appear to be agreement markers.
5 In Takituduh PSR forms are either PSRA enclitics or are prefixed with [k]i- to form PSRN. In
Takbanuað they appear to be PSRA enclitics (Jeng is not explicit about cliticisation), or are
prefixed with i- to form PSRN. In Isbukun (where they have largely merged with GEN) they are
prefixed with ʔi- to form PSRN.
6 There is no corresponding set in Takbanuað.
557
Malcolm Ross
B.14 Kavalan (Chang 1997:32-34, Chang 2000:84-99, Lee 1997, Li and
Tsuchida 2006, Tsuchida 1993)
1S
2S
3S1
1IP
1EP
2P
3P
NEUT
a-iku
a-isu
ti-yau
a-ita
a-imi
a-imu
qan-iau2
NOM
=iku
=su
—
=ita
=imi
=imu
—
ACC
ti-ma-iku
ti-ma-isu
ti-yau
ti-ma-ita
ti-ma-imi
ti-ma-imu
qan-iau
GEN
-ku
-su
-na
-ta
-niaq
-numi
-na
PSR
za-ku
za-su
za-na
za-ta
za-imi,
za-imu,
za-na
za-niqa4
za-numi4
3
5
LOC
ta-ma-iku-an ta-ma-isu-an ti-yau-an ta-ma-ita-an ta-ma-imi-an ta-ma-imu-an ta-qan-iau-an
Case-marker functions are
NEUT=SBJ/TPC/FRFOC,
6
NOM=VSBJ, ACC=PAT, GEN=AGT, PSR=
PSRA/PSRN, LOC= LOC.
1 Alternant
3S
free forms have the root izip ‘body’ (Tsuchida 1993): a-izipna
NEUT,
ti-ma-izipana ACC, ta-ma-izip-an LOC.
2 qani plural marker, iau ‘that’ (Tsuchida 1993).
3 Optional agreement suffixes (may not occur with non-human referent) (Chang 1997:119-120).
On the suffix/enclitic contrast, see Lee (1997:38-44).
4 Forms from Li and Tsuchida (2006).
5 Li and Tsuchida (2006) have ti- in ACC where Chang has ta- and ta- in LOC where Chang has
ti-.
6 FRFOC example in Lee (1997:48).
558
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
References
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 1997. Grammar notes on Siraya, an extinct Formosan language.
Oceanic Linguistics 36:362-397.
Billings, Loren, and Daniel Kaufman. 2004. Towards a typology of Austronesian
pronominal clisis. Proceedings of the Eleventh Meeting of the Austronesian Formal
Linguistics Association, ed. by Paul Law. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 34. Berlin:
Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Blust, Robert A. 1977. The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austronesian subgrouping:
a preliminary report. University of Hawai‘i Working Papers in Linguistics 9.2:1-15.
Blust, Robert A. 1995. Austronesian comparative dictionary. Computer files. Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i.
Blust, Robert A. 1999a. Notes on Pazeh phonology and morphology. Oceanic Linguistics
38:322-365.
Blust, Robert A. 1999b. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative linguis-tics. Selected Papers from the Eighth International
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul
Jen-kuei Li, 31-94. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Blust, Robert A. 2003. Thao Dictionary. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia
Sinica.
Blust, Robert A. 2005. A note on the history of genitive marking in Austronesian
languages. Oceanic Linguistics 44:215-222.
Chang, Yung-li. 1997. Voice, Case and Agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Hsinchu:
National Tsing Hua University dissertation.
Chang, Yung-li. 2000. Kavalan Reference Grammar. Taipei: Yuanliu. (in Chinese)
Chang, Yung-li. 2004. AF verbs: transitive, intransitive, or both? Studies in Sino-Tibetan
Languages: Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on His Seventieth
Birthday, ed. by Ying-chin Lin, Fang-min Hsu, Chin-chih Lee, Jackson T.-S. Sun,
Hsiu-fang Yang and Dah-an Ho, 95-119. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia
Sinica.
Chen, Teresa M. 1987.Verbal Constructions and Verbal Classification in Nataoran-Amis.
Pacific Linguistics C-85. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Dahl, Otto Christian. 1973. Proto-Austronesian. Oslo: Studentlitteratur.
Ferrell, Raleigh. 1968. The Pazeh-Kahabu language. Bulletin of the Department of
Archaeology and Anthropology, 31/32:73-96. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Fey, Virginia. 1986. Amis Dictionary. Taipei: The Bible Society in the Republic of
China.
Harvey, Mark. 1982. Subgroups in Austronesian. Papers from the Third International
559
Malcolm Ross
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics 2, Tracking the Travellers, ed. by Amran
Halim, Lois Carrington and S.A. Wurm, 47-99. Pacific Linguistics C-75. Canberra:
The Australian National University.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: an update. The History
and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, ed. by Fay Wouk and
Malcolm Ross, 7-16. Pacific Linguistics 518. Canberra: The Australian National
University.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar:
typological characteristics. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar,
ed. by Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110-181. London:
Routledge.
Huang, Lillian, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang and Joy J. Wu. 1999. A
typological overview of pronominal systems of some Formosan languages.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, ed. by
Hsu Wang, Feng-fu Tsau and Chin-fa Lien, 165-198. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, Lillian M. 1989. The pronominal system of Atayal. Studies in English Literature
and Linguistics May 1989:115-133.
Huang, Lillian M. 1993. A Study of Atayal Syntax. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, Lillian M. 1995. A Study of Mayrinax Atayal. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, Lillian M. 2006. Manifestations of participants in Atayal: a cross-dialectal Study.
Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics.
Puerto Princesa, Philippines.
Jeng, Heng-hsiung. 1969. A preliminary report on a Bunun dialect as spoken in Hsinyi,
Nant’ou, Taiwan. Mimeo, National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Jeng, Heng-hsiung. 1977. Topic and Focus in Bunun. Taipei: Institute of History and
Philology, Academia Sinica.
Lee, Amy Peijung. 1997. The Case-marking and Focus Systems in Kavalan. Hsinchu:
National Tsing Hua University thesis.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1973. Rukai Structure. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology,
Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1978. The case-marking systems of the four less-known Formosan
languages. Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics:
Proceedings, ed. by S.A. Wurm and Lois Carrington, 569-615. Pacific Linguistics
C-61. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1995. The case-marking system in Mayrinax, Atayal. Bulletin of the
Institute of History and Philology 66:23-52.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1997a. A syntactic typology of Formosan languages: case markers on
nouns and pronouns. Chinese Languages and Linguistics: Typological Studies of
560
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
Languages in China, ed. by Chiu-yu Tseng, 343-378. Taipei: Institute of History
and Philology, Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1997b. The Tona dialect. The Formosan Languages of Kaohsiung, ed.
by Paul Jen-kuei Li, 119-158. Kaohsiung: Kaohsiung County Government. (in
Chinese)
Li, Paul Jen-kuei, and Shigeru Tsuchida. 2001. Pazih Dictionary. Taipei: Institute of
Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei, and Shigeru Tsuchida. 2006. Kavalan Dictionary. Taipei: Institute of
Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2004. Transitivity and Ergativity in Formosan and Philippine
Languages. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i dissertation.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4:279-326.
Mei, Kuang. 1982. Pronouns and verb inflection in Kakakanavu. Tsing Hua Journal of
Chinese Studies, New Series 14:207-231.
Pecoraro, Ferdinando. 1979. Eléments de grammaire taroko, précédés del la présentation
de la vie et de la culture des taroko. Paris: Association Archipel.
Radetzky, Paula. 2003. Grammaticalization of a definiteness marker in Saaroa.
University of Oregon. Manuscript.
Rau, Der-hwa Victoria, 1992. A grammar of Atayal. Taipei: Crane.
Reid, Lawrence A. 1978. Problems in the reconstruction of Proto-Philippine construction
markers. Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings,
Fascicle 1, ed. by S.A. Wurm and Lois Carrington, 33-66. Pacific Linguistics C-61.
Canberra: The Australian National University.
Reid, Lawrence A. 1982. The demise of Proto-Philippines. Papers from the Third
International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics 2, Tracking the Travellers,
ed. by Amran Halim, Lois Carrington and S.A. Wurm, 201-216. Pacific Linguistics
C-75. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Reid, Lawrence A., and Hsiu-chuan Liao. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of Philippine
languages. Language and Linguistics 5.2:433-490.
Ross, Malcolm. 2002a. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and
voice-marking. The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems,
ed. by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 17-62. Pacific Linguistics 518. Canberra: The
Australian National University.
Ross, Malcolm. 2002b. Takia. The Oceanic Languages, ed. by John Lynch, Malcolm
Ross and Terry Crowley, 216-248. Richmond: Curzon Press.
Ross, Malcolm. 2005. The Batanic languages in relation to the early history of the
Malayo-Polynesian subgroup of Austronesian. Journal of Austronesian Studies
1/2:1-24.
561
Malcolm Ross
Ross, Malcolm, and Stacy Fang-ching Teng. 2005. Formosan languages and linguistic
typology. Language and Linguistics 6.4:739-781.
Sagart, Laurent. 2004. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of
Tai-Kadai. Oceanic Linguistics 43:411-444.
Starosta, Stanley. 1986. Focus as recentralisation. FOCAL I: Papers from the Fourth
International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Paul Geraghty, Lois
Carrington and S.A. Wurm, 73-95. Pacific Linguistics C-93. Canberra: The
Australian National University.
Starosta, Stanley. 1992. The case-marking system of Proto-Formosan. Paper presented at
the Third International Symposium on Language and Linguistics: Pan-Asiatic
Linguistics. Bangkok.
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1981. The evolution of
focus in Austronesian (full paper). Paper presented at the Third International
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Bali.
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The evolution of
focus in Austronesian. Papers from the Third International Conference on
Austronesian Linguistics 2, Tracking the Travellers, ed. by Amran Halim, Lois
Carrington and S.A. Wurm, 145-170. Pacific Linguistics C-75. Canberra: The
Australian National University.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1976. Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic Phonology. Studies of
Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Monograph Series 5. Tokyo: Institute
for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1980. Puyuma-go (Tamarakaohōgen) goi: fu gohōgaisetsu oyobi
tekisuto [Puyuma (Tamalakaw dialect) vocabulary: with grammatical notes and
texts]. Kuroshio no minzoku, bunka, gengo [Ethnology, Cultures and Languages
along the Black Current], ed. by Kuroshio Bunka no Kai [Black Current Cultures
Committee], 183-307. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1993. Short sketch of Kavalan grammar. Manuscript.
Tsukida, Naomi. 1993.A brief sketch of the Sakizaya dialect of Amis. Tokyo University
Linguistic Papers 13:375-413.
Tsukida, Naomi. 2005. Seediq. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed.
by Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 291-325. London: Routledge.
Tung, T’ung-ho. 1964. A Descriptive Study of the Tsou Language. Taipei: Institute of
History and Philology, Academia Sinica.
Wang, May Hsiu-mei. 2003. Morpho-syntactic Manifestations of Participants in Tona
(Rukai). Taipei: National Taiwan University MA thesis.
Wolff, JohnU. 1996. The development of the passive verb with pronominal prefix in
western Austronesian languages. Reconstruction, Classification, Description:
562
Reconstructing the Case-marking and Personal Pronoun Systems of Proto Austronesian
Festschrift in Honor of Isidore Dyen, ed. by Bernd Nothofer, 15-40. Hamburg:
Abera.
Wu, Joy. 1995. Referential choice in Amis narrative: a case study. Research Papers in
Linguistics and Literature 4:211-230.
Wu, Peter. 1969. A descriptive analysis of Bunun language. Georgetown University,
Washington DC. Manuscript.
Yeh, Marie Meili. 1991. Saisyat Structure. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University MA
thesis.
Yeh, Marie Meili. 1999. Bunun reference grammar. Manuscript.
Yeh, Marie Meili. 2003. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Saisiyat Verbs. Taipei:
National Taiwan Normal University dissertation.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 1995. Problèmes de linguistique dans les langues aborigènes de
Taiwan. Université de Paris 7 dissertation.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 1997. The pronominal system of Mantauran (Rukai). Oceanic
Linguistics 36:312-346.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2003. Toward a reconstruction of Proto-Rukai morpho-syntax. Paper
presented at the Tenth Conference of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics
Association. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2005. Tsou. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar,
ed. by Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 259-290. London:
Routledge.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2006. On the notion of plurality in Formosan languages and its
incidence in PAn reconstruction. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Manuscript.
563