ABSTRACT
In several articles (Sagart 1990, 1993, 1994) I have argued from sound correspondences, shared vocabulary and shared morphology that Chinese and AN are genetically related within a macrophylum which I called ‘Sino-Austronesian’. The accuracy of the Chinese and AN material used in the comparisons has not been faulted, and neither have the sound correspondences underlying the comparisons. Criticism has concentrated on three points: first, paucity of comparisons involving basic vocabulary; second, the position of TB outside Sino-Austronesian; third, sound correspondences that leave out non-final syllables of AN words. I present here an updated and improved argument which answers these issues.
