Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T21:16:41.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An overlooked feature of Malay historical phonology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Robert Blust
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Malay is one of the best-studied of all Austronesian languages, both synchronically and diachronically. We would not therefore expect a study of Malay historical phonology to uncover much that is new. In this paper, however, I will suggest that a basic change has been overlooked in past work on the language.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 284 - 299
Copyright
Copyright School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blake, Frank R. 1925. A grammar of the Tagalog language; the chief native idiom of the Philippine Islands. (American Oriental Series, vol. 1.) New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1914. Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. (Studies in Language and Literature, vol. 3, nos. 24.) Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 1970. Proto-Austronesian addenda, Oceanic Linguistics, IX, 2, 10462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 1974. The Proto-Austronesian word for two: a second look. (Papers of the First International Conference on Comparative Austronesian Linguistics, 1974: Proto-Austronesian and Western Austronesian.) (= Oceanic Linguistics, XIII, 12, 12361.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 1977. The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austronesian subgrouping: a preliminary report, University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics, IX, 2, 115.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 1978. Eastern Malayo-Polynesian: a subgrouping argument, in (ed.) S. A., Wurm and Lois, Carrington, Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings. Fascicle 1: Western Austronesian. (Pacific LinguisticsC61.) Canberra: Australian National University, 181234.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 1981. Review of Nothofer, The reconstruction of Proto-Malayo-Javanic. {BKI 137, 4: 45669.)Google Scholar
Blust, Robert A. Forthcoming. The linguistic value of the Wallace Line. (To appear in BKI.)Google Scholar
Brandstetter, Renward. 1916. An introduction to Indonesian linguistics. Translated by C. 0. Blagden. (Royal Asiatic Society Monograph, 15.) London.Google Scholar
Carro, Andres. 1956. Iloko-English dictionary. Translated, augmented and revised by Morice Vanoverbergh. Manila.Google Scholar
Casparis, J. G. de. 1956. Selected inscriptions from the 7th to the 9th century A.D (Prasasti Indonesia, 2.) Bandung: Masa Baru.Google Scholar
Charles, Mathew. 1974. Problems in the reconstruction of Protophilippine phonology and the subgrouping of the Philippine languages. (Papers of the First International Conference on Comparative Austronesian Linguistics, 1974: Proto-Austronesian and Western Austronesian.) (= Oceanic Linguistics, XIII, 12, 457509.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coolsma, S. 1930. Soendaneesch-Hollandsch woordenboek. (2nd ed.) Leiden: Sijthoff.Google Scholar
Dempwolff, Otto. 19245. Die L-, R- und D-Laute in austronesischen Sprachen, Zeitschrift fr Eingeborenen-Sprachen, XV, 1950, 11638, 22338, 273319.Google Scholar
Dempwolff, Otto. 19348. Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes. (ZES, Beihefte 15, 17, 19.) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1947. The Tagalog reflexes of Malayo-Polynesian D, Language, XXIII, 22738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1953. The Proto-Malayo-Polynesian laryngeals. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1975. A reconstructional confirmation: the Proto-Austronesian word for two, Oceanic Linguistics, XIV, 1, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkins, Richard E. 1968. Manobo-English dictionary. (Oceanic Linguistics, Special Publication, no. 3.) Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Ferrell, Raleigh: 1978, Paiwan dictionary. (MS.)Google Scholar
Gonda, Jan. 1973. Sanskrit in Indonesia. (2nd ed.) New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.Google Scholar
Nothofer, Bernd. 1975. The reconstruction of Proto-Malayo-Javanic. (VKI 73.) 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Pamoentjak, M. Thaib. 1935. Kamoes Bahasa MinangkabauBahasa Melajoe-Riau. Batavia: Balai Poestaka.Google Scholar
Panganiban, Jose Villa. 1966. Talahuluganang Pilipino-Ingles. Manila: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Pigeaud, Th. 1938. Javaans-Nederlands handwoordenboek. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar
Poerwadarminta, W. J. S. 1976. Kamus umum bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul, and Fe T, Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stresemann, Erwin. 1927. Die Laiderscheinungen in den ambonischen Sprachen. (ZES, Beiheft 10.) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Warneck, Job. 1977. 1906. Toba Batak-Detdsches Wrterbuch. (Revised edition, R. Roolvink.) 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R. J. 1959. A Malay-English dictionary (romanised). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Winstedt, Richard O. 1927. Malay grammar. (2nd ed., revised.) Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U. 1972. A dictionary of Cebuano Visayan. (Philippine Journal of Linguistics, Special Monograph, no. 4.) Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Zorc, R. David Paul. 1971. Proto-Philippine finderlist. (MS.)Google Scholar
Zorc, R. David Paul. 1977. The Bisayan dialects of the Philippines: subgrouping and reconstruction. (Pacific Linguistics C44.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar