Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Reconstruction:Proto-Austroasiatic/tNɕaːm. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Reconstruction:Proto-Austroasiatic/tNɕaːm, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Reconstruction:Proto-Austroasiatic/tNɕaːm in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Reconstruction:Proto-Austroasiatic/tNɕaːm you have here. The definition of the word Reconstruction:Proto-Austroasiatic/tNɕaːm will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofReconstruction:Proto-Austroasiatic/tNɕaːm, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
The Pre-Proto-Khmuic form was something like *thaːm, with typical debuccalization of the medial sibilant (reconstructed here as *-ɕ- by Sidwell (2024)). Due to Proto-Khmuic's constraint against *Ch- onsets, medial *-h- was then lost; compare the triplet Khmubiʔ ("full, sated") (loss of debuccazed *-h-) vs. Bahnarphĭ (preservation of debuccazed *-h-) vs. Eastern Brupasâi (preservation of the original sibilant). Bahnaric similarly also shows debuccalization. Pakanic and Vietic, on the other hand, preserved the sibilant but dropped the presyllable. Thus, Vietnamesetám and Khmutaːm, despite being cognates, contain onsets of different origins: Vietnamese /t/ reflected what reconstructed as *-ɕ- here, while Khmu /t/ reflected *t-.
Old Mon was conservative in neither showing debuccalization nor loss of the presyllable.
Shorto, Harry (2006) Sidwell, Paul, Doug Cooper and Christian Bauer, editors, A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary, Canberra: Australian National University. Pacific Linguistics, →ISBN
Sidwell, Paul (2024) “500 Proto Austroasiatic Etyma: Version 1.0”, in Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, volume 17, number 1, pages i–xxxiii