Proto-Austronesian - What If Hypothesis Becomes Invalid? Impacts and Implications

"The word passion comes from the Latin word passio, which means "suffering" or "being acted upon". It can be traced back to the Proto-Indo-European word peh, which means "to hurt." @London 2024

Siraya 'pun' is developed from 'peh' means 'to hurt'.

Note number

(Note no) used for examples refers to THIS blogpost. 

(https://katyhuiwenhung.blogspot.com/2025/01/becoming-indigenous-observations-over.html)

Etymology and Ethnology go nowhere if no one raise questions

I became curious about indigenous revitalization (language and cultural) about 10 years ago. And the more I observed, better equipped with knowledge and experience, the more proposed analysis I found odd, more claims questionable.

I also noticed - 

No one re-examine over the last one-hundred years since Japanese records. 

No one re-analyze over the last fifty years since Ferrell and Blust's hypothesis and claimed consensus.

Questionable 'Origins of the Formosan Ethnonyms' (Gauss 2023) reinforce my opinion that researching for truths, checking for facts are not always important and welcomed.

In fact - academic angles may sometimes be considered inappropriate.

The goal of revitalizations is for locals to understand, to use, to preserve. Even if it comprises research aims for truth. (An example is Saisiyat paSta'ay where community leaders stressed taking revitalization projects in their own hands. )

See Note 23 -

 Yukan  - explain why Atayal Yukan 勇敢  (Brave) is Japanese and not Chinese? Evidence it's not Chinese?

Explain how Japanese powerfully influenced an indigenous iconic term BEFORE 1895?

Cultural-revitalization rely on Language-revitalization

An example is Songs of paSta'ay - The 16 ritual songs in paSta'ay are related to plants in Saisiyat daily lives. Plant dictionary would have to be constructed before songs are written.

Note 16 - I found plants and ritual words and details from 'the pointed grass for protection' to the 'plants that making the lyrics' (job's tears, formosan palm for example)used for Saisiyat revitalization all on 1930s Japanese records. 

Note 8 Bunun 豆 beans/peas tradition - detailed descriptions including cultivation and harvesting all on 1930s Japanese records. 

Note 12 Short-statured people myth. Pigeon peas is a key vocabulary for this myth. Some use Latin loanwords, Atayal and related 'singut' is Chinese 樹豆.

Intellectual Property Right/ Traditional Knowledge 

95 passes between 2017-2024 

Indigenous committee would have these to explain and clarify though  - whose intellectual property and whose traditional knowledge between these ninety years? A fair question.

For example - See Note 25 

1. Clarify the difference between entry 95 Thao pounding-music tradition and Bunun's detailed on 1930s Japanese record.

2. Explain three Truku weaving entry (in one day - Oct 12 2023 ) differences from Bunun/Tsou's on 1930s Japanese record. 

Formosan language equate Austronesian language?

"Not all shared words between languages are necessarily evidence of a common ancestor; some may be loanwords borrowed from a third language." (wikipedia)

The title of this map 'Formosan Aborigines' in Chinese is 'Austronesian Peoples' (南島民族) (2011 Academia Sinica). 

“Formosan Aborigines” = “Austronesian Peoples”?  

Disputable.

Roger Blench. Brill. 2024 (Most useful information)

“If the Formosanisms are a consequence of lexical diffusion, then by definition they would not be Proto-Austronesian (PAN), but rather a mosaic of loanwords. We would therefore expect a lack of regular sound correspondences, since the words would have spread from one language to another.”

“An aspect of the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary (ACD) by the late Robert Blust which remains underanalysed are what are termed “Formosanisms;” words which were restricted to the island of Taiwan and are not reflected in broader Austronesian.” 

Shared words or Loanwords?

Loanwords are common in any culture. But when a major indigenous word is borrowed that would be an implication worth investigating. Because proto-language suggests ancestry and origin. 

Millet Note 24 - A major traditional crop grown by indigenous existed in Taiwan 4000 years ago - one expects proto indigenous word for millet exist in Taiwan? 

Instead - they appear a made-up list of loanwords?

Rukai's (Pao)  is Latin (Poa)

Puyuma's is Tagalog (Dawa)

Tao’s rai is Chinese 粱

Atayal Saisiyat Tsou's Chinese 粟 or 稷

Paiwan Bunun Amis's could all be Chinese 谷

Tao's word for Pig Note 22 is Hokkien loanword meaning ghost -indigenous spirit.

Kamabit (Tomato) Note19 Most likely through Hokkien traders and not Austronesian origin.

Some interesting loanwords (mentioned HERE)

Amis paper mulberry Hokkien loanword Lok-Ah meaning Deer Tree 鹿仔樹.

Atayal 'Yu' - hot springs as in U'lay (Wulai) Japanese loanword  Yu ゆ 湯

Several indigenous groups borrowed ancient Chinese 鯪鯉 lâ-lí pangolin (syllables are substituted with h,r, etc wherever suited)

Kaxabun-hu-bu etc from Shaman 巫。

hufu Tsou for rain mantle and for Chinese style pavilion - root 'Shelter'.

Bunun 'samu' an ancient Chinese practice borrowed Polynesian 'tapu' meaning taboo. 

Proto-Austronesian hypothesis validation

What validations are needed? 

Examples - Details on Note 1,2,15.

1. First to mention Ferrell (1968) dialectal distinctions between Pazeh and Kaxabu

2. Blust (1999) - relatively clear-cut dialectal distinctions. 

3. Blust (1999) - Pazeh-Kaxabu primary difference in phonology

4. Blust (1999) - Rice and Peanut analysis Pazeh-Kaxabu

5. First noted by Li (1994) Amis bean/pea

All of the above five analysis and claims are questionable, outdated and under-analyzed, in my opinion. 

Contact-Language Validation

Ancient Chinese Ba-Gei 把給 

Ferrell/Blust claimed consensus Puyuma-Rukai Pazeh-Kaxabu Pa-Ka 

The connection of the two 'contact language' need to be fully clarified and explained.

WHY so similar to almost identical in usage and grammatical pattern between the two?

Blust (1999) Rice and Peanut linguistic analysis is flawed. These claims should be reviewed before continued to be used for indigenous language revitalization.

Li (1994) Amis word should be a Latin loanword for pigeon pea. Go back and check Japanese records peas/pulse sections.

PAN (Proto-Austronesian) dictionary - Questions

Note 13,14,15 

1. PAN *Cumay  Formosan black bear 

Is *Cumay* not *Kuma* Japanese for bear? クマ Kuma=bear

Ku/kuro is black 黑 in Japanese. 

If not - how did 'Formosa black bear' come under 'C' ('K'?) root?

2. PAN *qaRem  pangolin, scaly anteater

Is ‘Rem’ 鯉 lí ? 

pangolin in ancient Chinese/Hokkien  is 鯪鯉 lâ-lí which several indigenous Taiwanese borrowed to include in their dictionary. 

If not - how did 'Scaly' come under 'R'? root?

3. PAN *qesep q sip, suck

Is sep  Hokkien ‘stip’?

啜 tsip“甚”、“斟”

4. PAN *Cun Cun C make a booming sound

Is ‘cun cun’ Hokkien ts’ian? 嗆 ts’ian 

(Saisiyat's hip BELLS is  嗆 嗆 ts’ian ts’ian )

''booming sound' for ritual? Shamanship? root?

5. PAN *qesak ripe; cooked; ready to eat  

Is it related to Hokkien 熟 si̍k? Cooked . 

Including Cooked Aborigines 熟番。

Provide Evidence - 

6. PAN beans isn't Latin loanword

7. PAN flour isn't Hokkien loanword

8. PAN quya isn't Hokkien/Chinese loanword

Proto-Austronesian hypothesis if proven invalid 

I am only going to talk about this from what I am personally capable of understanding. Which means, I am not going to make any suggestions nor implications on 'Out-Of-Taiwan' theory for that context is not what I am adequately equipped with. My opinions therefore are from Inside-Taiwan perspectives only.

Dialectal Distinction Analysis

The primary impact would be on Dialectal Distinction Analysis and implication is extensive for -

Dialectal Distinction Analysis is used in Taiwan to divide/identify different indigenous groups. 

Revitalization Cultural/Language

As mentioned earlier - cultural revitalization relies on language revitalization.

Language revitalization relies on Dialectal Distinction Analysis.

All revitalization and analysis rely heavily on 

1. Japanese records ninety years ago.

2. Blust claims thirty years ago.

If the base data and analysis used for revitalization is proven invalid -  the implication understandably is huge.