| 1 |
Formosan Languages and Linguistic Typology
|
|
|
|
In: Language and Linguistics (2015)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
Clause Constructions in Nanwang Puyuma
|
|
|
|
In: Concentric: Studies in Linguistics ; http://www.eng.ntnu.edu.tw/concentric-linguistics/Issue316.pdf (2015)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Clause Constructions in Nanwang Puyuma
|
|
|
|
In: Concentric: Studies in Linguistics ; http://www.eng.ntnu.edu.tw/concentric-linguistics/Issue316.pdf (2015)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
Is Puyuma a Primary Branch of Austronesian? A Reply to Sagart
|
|
|
|
In: Oceanic Linguistics (2015)
|
|
Abstract:
Ross (2009) proposes the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis, according to which the Formosan languages Puyuma, Rukai, and Tsou are each probably a primary branch of Austronesian and all Austronesian languages other than these three belong to a single, Nuclear Austronesian, branch defined by the nominalization-to-verb innovation originally proposed by Starosta, Pawley, and Reid (1981, 1982) for Proto-Austronesian itself. Sagart (2010) argues that there is evidence that Puyuma has also undergone the nominalization-to-verb innovation and is accordingly not a primary branch of Austronesian. In this short paper we show that Sagart's evidence is based on misanalyses of Puyuma data and that these data do not reflect the nominalization-to-verb innovation. Sagart's argument against the Nuclear Austronesian hypothesis does not stand up to closer scrutiny.
|
|
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/33542
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 5 |
Formosan Languages and Linguistic Typology
|
|
|
|
In: Language and Linguistics (2015)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
Is Puyuma a Primary Branch of Austronesian? A Reply to Sagart
|
|
|
|
In: Oceanic Linguistics (2015)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
