Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
In an article entitled Dempwolff's *R (Lg. 29.359–366), I referred (362 f.) to a difference between Dempwolff and myself in the interpretation of the Ngaju-Dayak material which he assigns to a posited ‘alte Sprachschicht’. What was there characterized as a difference in interpretation can now be shown to involve a fundamental procedure in the application of the comparative method. For this reason it appears worth while to specify the procedure.
1 Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen [= Beihefte] 19.52 fn. 1.
2 Versuch einer Grammatik der Dajakschen Sprache; Dajaksch-deutsches Wōrterbuch (both Amsterdam). In citations from these works, e c j replace ä tj dj respectively.
3 Versuch 2.
4 For the meaning of *(h) see Dyen, The Proto-Malayo-Polynesian laryngeals 30 (Baltimore, 1953).
5 For example the one in his article Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts, PAPS 96.456–7.
6 The nonappearance of a reflex of *k in the Ngaju-Dayak word is taken to be an instance of loss by analogic change.
7 Versuch 13.
8 Beihefte 19.51. It is irrelevant that Dempwolff reaches the conclusion of statistical superiority, in effect, by adding the items with ambiguous reflexes to those with ‘regular’ reflexes.