Abstract

Abstract:

While a fair amount has been written on semantic change, semantic reconstruction is in some ways the last frontier in historical linguistics. Following principles laid down in past publications starting in 1987, I argue here that Dempwolff's classic reconstruction of "Original Austronesian" *guntiŋ 'scissors' is questionable, based both on records of the history of technology and on evidence that *guntiŋ had another, more plausible meaning by at least Proto-Malayo-Polynesian times (correlated with the Philippine Neolithic starting circa 2,200 BC). In particular, reflexes of this form (which appears as *sala-guntiŋ in some Philippine languages) refer to an X-shaped architectural structure used to support roof beams in traditional house construction. In addition, in languages ranging from the northeast Philippines to the Malay peninsula, it evidently designated a similar structure used to hold a spear in horizontal position prior to being triggered by an animal taking the bait in a *balatik spring-set spear trap used to take wild pigs. Both of these are features of Neolithic technology that was widely shared by Proto-Malayo-Polynesian times, and there is little need to assume that they were borrowed. Scissors, on the other hand, which share the same X shape when opened, were extremely useful in haircutting once obtained, and quickly acquired the name guntiŋ because of their shape. If they arrived from the Middle East, as seems likely, they would probably have first been acquired by Malays, who then passed them on (along with many other loanwords) to languages all over the Indo-Malaysian archipelago and the Philippines to their north.

pdf