Abstract
The argument for a Philippine subgroup of Austronesian languages that has been presented by Blust is further strengthened through the addition of 320 new etymologies, amounting to an increase of about 25% over the earlier dataset. While the earlier publication aimed at comprehensiveness, this one adopts a more restrictive approach that virtually eliminates the likelihood of cognate distributions being the result of borrowing. The emphasis is thus on the quality of individual comparisons, rather than on the impact of an argument based, at least in part, on quantity. In addition, it clearly describes the foundations of the theory being defended, and provides an explicit discussion of method that lays bare certain misconceptions about the nature of historical linguistics held by some critics of the earlier proposal.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
