Morphological Evidence for Austric

Abstract

The morphologies of certain Austroasiatic and Austronesian languages, and of the parent languages reconstructed for these two groups, are compared. Striking similarities of form and function are revealed in derivational affixes (including prefixes, infixes, and suffixes), as well as in particles with syntactic functions and in the pronoun systems. Similarities are also revealed in major syntactic features. Among the Austroasiatic languages, those of the Nicobar Islands appear to be most similar to Austronesian. A number of possible explanations for the facts revealed by this comparison are considered. The question is especially perplexing as to why Nicobarese morphology should appear so similar to Austronesian, while its lexicon resembles neither Austronesian nor to a great extent that reconstructed for its own family. The conclusion is reached that while Nicobarese is indeed a conservative Austroasiatic language, especially in its grammar, the deviance of its vocabulary may be due to a substratum-that the original inhabitants of the Nicobars may have spoken languages that were neither Austroasiatic nor Austronesian.