This paper responds to recent criticism by Teng and Ross of a critique by Sagart of Ross’s claim, based on Teng’s grammar of Puyuma, that Puyuma has escaped the mechanism reinterpreting nominalization into verbs and should, therefore, be considered a primary branch of Austronesian. While acknowledging that Teng and Ross have presented an interpretation of the ‘do N times’ verbs that removes a part of the ground for the UVP *-en suffix being reflected in Puyuma, this paper details points in Sagart’s original paper that Teng and Ross have avoided in their response regarding Tsouic lexical innovations and fossilized *-en in two Puyuma verbs. It documents the existence of interspeaker differences in Puyuma sentences containing <in>, and argues that <in> in those and other sentences is a perfective marker of finite verbs under competition from la, a marker of new situations with perfective interpretations. Finally, it confirms the conclusion in Sagart’s paper that Puyuma has not escaped the reinterpretation of nominalizations into voicemarked verbs.


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 481-492
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.