Re: Digest Number 319

--- In cybalist@..., "roger mills" <romilly@...> wrote:

>
> One can be led badly astray by ascribing the "d/n/l/r alternation"

to

> (proto) Austronesian; they are the reflexes in a variety of
> individual languages, so of relatively recent development.

So of?
This "so" is very shorthand. Please explain. Has a generally
recognized terminus post quem been established for the "d/l/n/r"
alternation or is the assumed date faute de mieux?

Torsten