Comment on blust “the resurrection of proto-philippines”

Malcolm Ross*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    5 Citations (Scopus)


    As Blust critiques the rejection of Proto-Philippines (PPH) in Ross (2005), l address that paper briefly first. Accepting that all Austronesian languages outside Taiwan belong to a single branch of Austronesian that has no members in Taiwan, in 2005 it was a reasonable geography-based inference that Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) might have come into being in the Batanes Islands and, if so, that the Batanic languages were a first-order offshoot of MP. This was Ross's (2005) "History 1." The alternative hypothesis, "History 2," was that the Batanic languages were clearly MP but not a first-order offshoot and reached their current location at a later stage. The paper reached no firm conclusion but commented, as Blust notes, that "there is a greater likelihood that History 1 is correct," because the Batanic languages appear very conservative. However, "the evidence for this conclusion is circumstantial, and does not have the same status as subgrouping evidence based on shared innovations."
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)366-373
    Number of pages8
    JournalOceanic Linguistics
    Issue number1-2
    Publication statusPublished - 2020


    Dive into the research topics of 'Comment on blust “the resurrection of proto-philippines”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this