Hajek and Bowden (Oceanic Linguistics 41:222-224) report on the unusual ejective series in Waimoa, an Austronesian language of East Timor. I argue that, while phonetically odd, it is not a phonological oddity to find ejectives in an Austronesian language, especially not one in the Timor region. A possible historical pathway for the genesis of the ejectives is proposed, and some questions arc raised about the acoustic nature of ejectives and about their phonological representation. Hajek and Bowden (2002) report the "typologically unusual" ejectives of Waimoa. While not disputing the facts in this language (I have only spent a total of about four hours in what was then East Timor), I would like to raise some questions about the unusualness. Why do we suppose that ejectives are phonologically unusual in Austronesian languages? It is true that ejectives are vanishingly rare segments to find reported in the phonetic inventory of an Austronesian language. But is their appearance phonologically unexpected? I would argue that it is not. There are three salient points to my argument: (I) what is the nature of these ejectives, (2) where do these ejectives "fit" in the phonological system of the language, and (3) are there analogues of "ejectives" in other Austronesian languages? I examine these points in the following sections, and conclude that, phonologically speaking, the appearance of ejectives in Waimoa is neither unexpected nor an oddity. "Ejectives." What are the ejectives in Waimoa? An ejective is a voiceless stop that, during the oral closure, exhibits a closed glottis followed by raising the larynx, which serves to increase air pressure in the oral cavity, so that at the time of release of the oral closure there is some extra ... what? There must, logically, be more turbulence following an ejective than a "normal" stop, just as there is more turbulence following an aspirated stop than following an unaspirated stop. But how do we perceive the difference between the turbulence that accompanies an ejective and the turbulence that accompanies aspiration? Aspiration we can understand, running as it does on the VOT parameter, but ejectives are a different beast. I don't dispute their existence, and their distinctive qualities (the ones I have heard have been in Wakashan languages, and they were most memorable), but they seem to be more of a coarticulation than a distinct series. Are any languages reported with, for instance, a consonant like [kp '], which in my hypothesis would involve triple coarticulation, and so be disallowed? Phonotactics. Where, judging from the notes in Hajek and Bowden, do these ejectives appear? On the initial segment of putative verbs: the forms that they cite with ejectives are mainly verbal, and they note that they do not occur in clusters, where other consonants (all other consonants?) are able to appear. In other languages of the area, consonantal clusters are restricted to initial position (see, for instance, the excellent description of Tetum in van Klinken 1999, where she describes the initial k that is the only consonant permitted in clusters [and then only initially] as an extrametrical consonant). Now, given a *k> ? sound change, not uncommon in the area,(1) we would then have a series of clusters with glottal stops as their first elements. A glottal stop may be readily realized in the environment #__C if C is a sonorant, but not so readily if C is a stop. In just this environment we would almost expect the laryngeal gesture to be realized in effect as a coarticulation of the C. k-C[right arrow]?-C[right arrow]?C[right arrow][C.sup.?]orC' It is not clear to me just what the difference is, phonetically, between [C.sup.?] and C'; I know that, definitionally, there is a greater oral air pressure in the case of the C', but I am not yet aware what this means phonetically (this is fertile ground for future reporting). Most importantly, I do not believe that [C. …