Page:An introduction to Indonesian linguistics, being four essays.djvu/360

 348 by apocope. That would, however, be the only case of apocope in a WB in Pampanga ; and accordingly every representative of IE scholarship will regard this explanation as unacceptable, because it leaves the case standing as an isolated phenomenon. — In reality, Original IN tunu was changed by meta- thesis (an extremely common phenomenon in IN, as we saw in § 236) into tuun, which was then contracted to tun.

IV. Too httle consideration is given to the meaning of words. Conant ibid., p. 392) adduces yet another instance of apocope: sut as compared with the Bisaya suta. But according to Bergaiio sut means “humillarse, rendirse yendo a la presencia de aquel a quien se humilla” ; while suta, according to Encarnacion, signifies: “descubrirse, hacerse patente, publico” . The meanings of sut and suta are therefore very divergent, so that it is impossible to connect these two words together.

V. But there is, above all, yet another thing which makes it appear as if the phonetic evolution of the IN languages were less subject to the rule of law than is the case with the IE ones. And that is a certain practice, widely spread in IN research, and not exactly wrong per se, but defective and apt to give rise to confusion. It is this: many lexicographers are in the habit of adding etymologies to their key- words; but in doing so they omit to indicate whether the words adduced for comparison from other languages are to be considered identical with the particular key-word in conformity with some phonetic law, or are merely in some way or other related to it. Example: in the “Kawi-Balineesch-Nederlandsch Glossarium”, p. 313, we find: “Panas; Malay, Sundanese, Madurese idem, Bimanese pana, Malagasy fana, ‘ warmth’ ”. Here the words panas, pana, and fana coincide with one another, in perfect conformity with phonetic law. — But on p. 302 we find:. “Pakan; Sundanese hakan, Madurese kakan, Malay makan, ‘to eat’ ”. Here the words do not coincide according to phonetic law, for in no case does, e.g., an Old Jav. p correspond with a Sund. h; we have here several variant formations from the WB kan, which in its monosyllabic