The Higher Phylogeny of Austronesian: a Response to Winter

This paper is a response to criticism by Winter (2010) of Sagart (2004). The author gives examples of compound numerals being affected by several apparently irregular changes outside of Austronesian; argues that the number of changes supposed in his Austronesian model is realistic; presents new evidence of Formosan numerals explainable only on the basis of the PAn forms he posited; explains the order of establishment of disyllabic numerals as depending on two factors: cardinal order and number of competitors; gives Austronesian examples showing that the drive to disyllabism does apply to morphologically complex forms; ascribes the limited similarities between the phylogenies of Blust and Ross to chance. Finally, the author claims that the only realistic explanation to the nesting of six related isoglosses is a sequence of innovations.