FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2036284003> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2036284003 endingPage "408" @default.
• W2036284003 startingPage "304" @default.
• W2036284003 abstract "RejoinderOccam and the Proto-Austronesian Diphthongs Adrian Clynes In Clynes 1997, I presented arguments against the reconstruction of the sequences *-aw, *-ay, *-iw, *-uy as phonological diphthongs in PAN. Blust's (1998) response confirms the fundamental weaknesses of the contrary view. In this reply, I confine myself to making two points: (1) Blust's extended defense of Dempwolff at best fails to address the real issue, and (2) his proposed diphthong analysis has no explanatory power-in fact, it opens a can of worms. Among its many problematic features is the very title of Blust's rejoinder, In defense of Dempwolff. This defense is unsatisfactory in two ways: first, it avoids the issue, and second, it blames Clynes for a mistake that is Blust's own. I have in fact no argument with Dempwolff's prephonemic reconstructions. True, at one point (Clynes 1997:350), I cite the following passage by Blust: (1) 'Apart from the consonants and vowels [emphasis added in Clynes 1997 -AC], researchers from Dempwolff onward have reconstructed a set of diphthongs. . . .' (Blust 1990:235-236) My purpose in citing (1) was twofold. First, to show that practitioners in the 1990s such as Blust still accepted the existence of a diphthong class in PAN. Second-as the added emphasis made clear-to show that the Austronesianist conception of a diphthong (or at least that of Blust) differs from the standard view, which is that a diphthong is a type of vowel. Blust's reference to Dempwolff was incidental to my purpose, and could have been omitted. His extended defense is therefore tangential to the real issue. As it emerges from Blust 1998, Blust was incorrect in his 1990 claim that Dempwolff reconstructed a set of diphthongs. This then leads to a second, even more problematic, aspect of his defense: he is in fact defending Dempwolff not from Clynes but from himself-from his own incorrect assertion in (1) above. Yet he (Blust 1998:357) attributes the error to Clynes: (2) In his tables of 'Original Austronesian' sounds, Dempwolff (1934:64, 1937:7) recognized three categories: vowel, consonant, and laryngeal, but-contrary to the assumption made by Clynes [sic! my emphasis- [End Page 404] AC]-no category of diphthongs. Why, then, does the quoted passage [i.e., passage (1) above-AC] maintain that 'researchers from Dempwolff onward have reconstructed a set of diphthongs'? The misattribution of error is puzzling. And since it was Blust who wrote the quoted passage, he is presumably best placed to answer his question. More to the point, as this second citation makes clear, Dempwolff's position on the diphthongs was in total accord with my own view, that no category of diphthongs need be reconstructed. Clearly then, Dempwolff needs no defense, by me or anyone else. No one has ever maintained that *-aw, *-ay, *-iw, or *-uy are phonemes: they are clearly V+C sequences, says Blust (1998:361). That these sequences were not unit phonemes is exactly the point of Clynes 1997, and I am glad that Blust is in agreement. However, is it really true that no one has ever maintained the contrary view? At best, the practice of discussing the reconstructed diphthongs in the same breath as the vowels and consonants, with wordings like that in (1), is misleading and should be abandoned. If the diphthongs are not phonemes, but sequences (presumably of phonemes), what then is the argument about? Much ado about what is phonologically not a category, as Clynes 1997 argued? No, says Blust, for while they are not unit phonemes, these sequences definitely constitute a separate natural class (1998:360). Unfortunately, just what kind of class they constitute is never stated. If one is to argue for the adoption of a novel structure, then one must do the following: (3) a. explain exactly what the proposed structure is; b. explain how the structure has explanatory power; c. show that it has greater explanatory power than alternative explanations. Blust fails to meet all three requirements. On requirement (3a), Blust 1998 does refer to the final glide element as occupying the coda, so perhaps he intends a kind of syllable rhyme unit, one where the feature specification..." @default.
• W2036284003 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2036284003 creator A5086676166 @default.
• W2036284003 date "1999-01-01" @default.
• W2036284003 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2036284003 title "Rejoinder: Occam and the Proto-Austronesian "Diphthongs"" @default.
• W2036284003 cites W2021243716 @default.
• W2036284003 cites W2321706384 @default.
• W2036284003 cites W2330469057 @default.
• W2036284003 cites W2505708611 @default.
• W2036284003 cites W643807573 @default.
• W2036284003 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.1999.0004" @default.
• W2036284003 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2036284003 type Work @default.
• W2036284003 sameAs 2036284003 @default.
• W2036284003 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2036284003 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2036284003 hasAuthorship W2036284003A5086676166 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C200839419 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C23987474 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C2777179996 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C2777688943 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C2779581591 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C76978605 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C107993555 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C111472728 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C138885662 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C144024400 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C17744445 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C185592680 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C199539241 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C200839419 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C23987474 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C2777179996 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C2777212361 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C2777688943 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C2779581591 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C41895202 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C55493867 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C76978605 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C95457728 @default.
• W2036284003 hasConceptScore W2036284003C98184364 @default.
• W2036284003 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2036284003 hasLocation W20362840031 @default.
• W2036284003 hasOpenAccess W2036284003 @default.
• W2036284003 hasPrimaryLocation W20362840031 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W1502826980 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W2009142837 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W2024061232 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W2201870769 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W2566018576 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W2782276967 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W3104405144 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W4213439954 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W4294176288 @default.
• W2036284003 hasRelatedWork W4312138820 @default.
• W2036284003 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W2036284003 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2036284003 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2036284003 magId "2036284003" @default.
• W2036284003 workType "article" @default.