This paper is a response to criticism by Winter in an earlier issue of this journal of Sagart’s discussion of the higher phylogeny of Austronesian. I give examples outside of Austronesian of compound numerals being affected by several apparently irregular changes; argue that the number of changes proposed in my Austronesian model is realistic; explain the order of establishment of disyllabic numerals as depending on two factors, cardinal order and number of competitors; give Austronesian examples showing that the drive to disyllabism does apply to morphologically complex forms; and ascribe the limited similarities between the phylogenies of Blust and Ross to chance. Finally, I claim that the only realistic explanation of the nesting of six related isoglosses is a sequence of innovations.


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 249-254
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.