 So I'm glad that Mark did his presentation just before me because it makes it page the way. And the question is that I don't have to delve so much into. Now, this paper has seven sections. And I'll name the sections as I move from one to the next. And there is an appendix at the end on pages 10 and 11. So we'll look at that in time. So like Mark's paper, our paper, the bills in mind, is a hypothesis on the origin of all Chinese pharyngealization because we don't think that pharyngealization was always there. So as Mark showed, as Mark said, we reconstruct two sets of pharyngealized consonants. As you can see at the top of page 2 in that chart. And it should now be obvious to you that the inventories of pharyngealized and non-pharyngealized consonants are parallel and in our case they are phonemic. So Mark also showed what the reasons are for reconstructing pharyngeal. So I won't go into that. One thing that's worth mentioning is that Norman 1994 regarded pharyngealization not exactly as a characteristic of initial consonants, but as a characteristic of entire syllables. And we think that it is not the case. So we took the liberty of modifying Norman's theory a bit by saying that pharyngealization was a feature of the initial consonant of the main syllables. And the reason we did that is because type A and type B words, rhyme apparently freely in the O's. And if the vowels were pharyngealized, we would not expect them to rhyme. So we pushed pharyngealization left towards the beginning of the words, presumably in the onset. That's why we have these two series. Now as we observe on pages 73 and 74 of our book, this is typologically unusual, as Mark said. I'm very glad that he showed that it's not so unusual as it seems at first hand. But the point is that here we think of typologically unusual features not as impossible characteristics, but as characteristics which, when they arise, do not last long and stable. They are transient. They tend to disintegrate fast. So the evidence we have for reconstructing pharyngeals dates back to really to the end of the old Chinese period or to the beginning of Han times. So the evidence for pharyngealization can be put at that time. And we have no evidence at all on what pharyngealization, sorry, what type A and type B should be at earlier on. Let's now move to section 2, where we outline a hypothetical model of how such a contrast may have arisen. Our proposal is spelled out in table 2 at the top of page 3. Table 2 has two columns. Type A on the left, type B on the right. And it's in three stages. The last stage is the old Chinese stage. The third stage is the old Chinese stage that we reconstruct. And stage 2 and stage 1 are earlier stages. So for type B, it's very simple. There's no distinction between, there's no difference between the three stages. The consonants remain the same all along. So the varying, of course, are the changes. There's no non-pharyngealized consonants we assume were non-pharyngealized at every stage. In type A, however, it's a bit different. The terminal stage where the pharyngeal consonants arise, we take back to an earlier stage in which you did not have a, pharyngealization was represented by an independent segment, a pharyngeal segment. The pharyngeal fricative, which is the ion of Arabic. So clusters, the difference at stage 2, the difference between type A and type B is that type A words begin in clusters of plain consonants plus a pharyngeal fricative. And that, in turn, goes back to an even earlier stage, stage 1, where type A consists of a plain consonant followed by a vowel, followed by the pharyngeal fricative, followed by a second copy of the same vowel. And then a possible code. So basically we suppose that the type stage A forms lose the first vowel, then the cluster is formed and at stage 3 the pharyngeal consonant influences the initial. And they do a sparyngealized consonants which may not last for very long. Now with this reconstruction in mind let us move out of Chinese into Sino-Tibetan and into the branch of Sino-Tibetan known as Cukicin, including the language Lushai. The Cukicin languages do not have a pharyngealization contrast but they have another contrast which bisects the entire inventory, the entire lexicon and that's a vowel length contrast. Some words have long vowels, others have short vowels. And there is a proposal by Stavostin in his dissertation in 1989 who claims that there exists a correlation between Lushai long vowels, words with long vowels and Chinese type A words and Lushai short vowels and all Chinese type B words. When you have cognates between Lushai and all Chinese they tend to conform to these two correlations. Now with the hypothetical model that I have presented in table two in mind let us look at figure one at the bottom of page three. Figure one has two branches and the root at the top the root is the ancestor of Lushai and all Chinese are assumed to be proto-Synotypetan. So the right branch that which goes into all Chinese is basically the same development shown in table two that we just saw. Now how does one go into Lushai very simply by losing the pharyngeal consonant between the two copies of the vowel. So that gives you in fact a contrast in Lushai between words with short vowels and words with long vowels. Very simple. At first sight it may seem a little cumbersome to reconstruct the two things together pharyngealization and vowel length and of course it gets easy to derive both but the point is that similar contrasts exist elsewhere in East Asia specifically in proto-Austronesian and in proto-Austro-Asianic. Now let me first tell you about the Austronesian contrast and that will be in section four in page four. Now Austronesian is interesting in that there is a strong preference for dicelabic words. There are almost no, you cannot reconstruct almost no monosyllabic words to pro-Austronesian unless they are function words. Content words are not, monosyllabic content words are not reconstructed. There are indeed meaning associated monosyllabals in Austronesian they exist and you can reconstruct them but interestingly they never occur as monosyllabals presumably because there is something against monosyllabals in that language. When they occur it is either reduplicated or preceded by a dummy syllable or preceded by phonetic material that cannot be made sense of. Now these, they never occur as simple CVC words. Austronesianists have recognized these for a long time and they call them roots. You can find collections of roots in the words of Blust and John Wolf for instance. For instance, one root, suck, S-E-K, means crumb, crowd, something like that and incidentally it seems connected with Chinese site. Now you cannot reconstruct the form, it's never a free form. You have suck suck to crumb, crowd in pro-Austronesian. In pro-domaleo-polynesian which is a branch of Austronesian you have hasuck to jam, crumb, crowd sounds like bes-sek, das-sek, das-sek with similar meanings. But you never have suck all by itself. Now these forms in which you have a root, these monosyllabic words where you have a root at the end and material that you cannot recognize at the beginning are probably old compounds in which the first part of the compound has become unrecognizable sort of like crayon and cranberry because of phonetic erosion. And this in fact suggests very strongly that pro-Austronesian was stress-final. And so that's why roots occur only at the end of words. Otherwise they might occur at the beginning of words or in the middle of words. Now in fact there are a couple of languages where roots occur by themselves without any added material without reduplications without dummy syllables and not in compounds. Of these two languages one is in Taiwan, it's Boonun and one is in the Philippines, it's Sebuani. And the form under which these roots occur in these two languages is pretty much the same. You have the CVC structure of the root emerges as CVVC with a glottal stop between the two Vs. And that looks a lot like type A. Chinese type A. At least what we reconstruct as ancestral to Chinese type A at a sign of Tibetan level. For instance in Sebuano I've cited roots suck. In Sebuano the equivalent I mean the monosyllabic. Well John Wolf uses a term for these forms CV, glottal stop, VC he calls them stretched. They are stretched monosyllabals. The vowel has been stretched, has been germinated and the glottal stop has been inserted in the middle. Now you can, let's move moving to page 5 and table 3 at the top of page 5. Here you find examples from Boonun. For instance a word root, monosyllabic root, T-A-Q-Earth which occurs with a non-stretched form at the end of dicinibals like you see in the second column like Western, Middle, Polynesian But in Boonun the root occurs all by itself in stretched form T-A-Q-Earth The other examples are like that. You also have evidence of the same alternation in personal pronouns. Free personal pronouns are stretched and bound personal pronouns are not stretched. Now let's move to section 5 bimoracity in Australiatic. In fact, the exactly, pretty much exactly the same system is found in Australiatic as was observed by Norman Zied in 2002. Zied calls it the bimoradic constraint. Zied was the first to point out the role of bimoracity in this kind of behaviour. According to Zied in Andersen exactly the same system can be reconstructed in two proto-Austroasiatic. Table 4 gives you examples from four Munda languages Gutob, Joan, Gorum and Sora. The way these languages deal with roots, with syllabic roots with CVC roots is that Gutob reduplicates the first CV. Joan puts a dummy syllable, a dummy E in front of it. Gorum geminates the vowel puts a vowel stop in the middle and Sora does the same as Gorum but loses the first vowel just like Stage 2 in Figure 1. So as they point out what these languages do is that they have a constraint against monomoradic freeforms. They don't want monomoradic freeforms. They want a freeform to have at least two moray and there are various ways in which they can achieve that result. Now our proposal is that the old Chinese type A, type B distinction, and in fact even the Provo Sino-Tibetan type A, type B distinction as we reconstructed goes back to a language a language earlier than Provo Sino-Tibetan that had the same constraint, that had a bimoradic constraint. How do you go from a language that has the bimoradic constraint to old Chinese? Well you do that by making the disyndables monosyllabic and they become monosyllabic by losing their first consonant. So you are left with monosyndables that have no stretching. And then for the type A words the stretched forms, they evolve as such, as stretched forms and there has to be one change which is you have to need you need to change the the global stop between the two vowels into a pharyngeal consonant. And I have no explanation for that it just has to be stipulated possibly one could speculate that the languages to the north of Chinese whichever an ATR versus RTR contrast played a role there the type A, type B distinction being reinterpreted in terms of ATR, RTR. Now this model implies one thing. It implies that Starostin's proposal that there is a correlation between type A, type B in Chinese and vowel length in Cukicin is correct and we have attempted to test that proposal that hypothesis statistically. First we need to set up a null hypothesis that we want to beat the null hypothesis here is that Starostin is wrong there is nothing special there is no particular correlation there does not exist any positive correlation between Cukicin, long vowel and all Chinese type A on the one hand and no particular correlation between Cukicin, short vowel and type B on the other and like Starostin we do not compare all Chinese type word type with Lushai but with Cukicin the entire group and for this we use Kenneth van Beek's 2009 reconstruction of Cukicin there are various benefits in that first the number of forms is more manageable and second single language irregularities tend to be ironed out so in order to do that we scanned the Cukicin material for Chinese comments of course with some knowledge of from what you call evolution both into Chinese and into Cukicin and we had to exclude certain sets of words for instance we didn't want verbs because verbal morphology in Cukicin often affects the length in ways that we do not understand so we left verbs out and worked only from nominals of which van Beek gives a list in addition we excluded open vowel syllables because there is no length contrast in those in van Beek's reconstruction so we left those out we also left out another types of forms that I leave you to look at the handout to find out of course we also excluded words that have both type N and B in Chinese there are many of those like Ru and Na and many others and the same in Cukicin excluded probable loan words like silver and comparisons requiring large semantic shifts like the one I give you at the bottom of page 7 in total we retained 43 comparisons which are listed in the appendix and from these comparisons we built a table table 5 now from the comparisons we have there are 4 possibilities there are 4 situations Chinese type A Cukicin short Chinese type B Cukicin long and these 4 situations are the 4 cells in table 5 now it is possible using statistics to work out the significance of the deviation from the normal hypothesis a measure of the significance of the deviation is the p-value p-value with this type of data it is possible to compute the p-value out of the 4 figures in table 5 using Fisher's exact test and we set the significance level as 0.05 which is the usual significance level in scientific works anything below 0.05 is deemed significant of course more stringent significance level of 0.01 would be even more stringent but we selected the 0.05 level 0.05 a p-value of 0.05 means that the probability of obtaining the numbers under the null hypothesis is 5% so anything below 5% is deemed significant in this case the p-value is 0.032 etc which means that the probability of obtaining these results under the null hypothesis is about 3.2% which is low so at first sight on present evidence there probably exists a positive correlation between Cooke-Kitchen long-short and Chinese type A type B as the established in proposed of course we're well aware that other scholars could have found other coordinates and then if that is the case then it may be necessary in future to modify our list and to recalculate the p-value however notice that the predominance of the Cooke-Kitchen short versus Chinese type B category is very strong and that probably is going to stay now notice that out of these the 43 forms in table 5 there are 11 that do not match expectations they call these mismatches now what is the explanation for these mismatches the preferred explanation in our opinion is that we are not dealing with exact coordinates we are dealing with reflexes of two words which contain the same root one of them being monosyllabic originally monosyllabic and the other being originally dyssyllabic so that would be the explanation for these mismatches and of course the same explanation goes for the variance in both in Cooke-Kitchen and in Chinese for instance in Chinese root enter noop would go back to a dyssyllable noop while na would go back to a monosyllable noop at a pre-Syllabic level so that is about it and I thank you for your attention