Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Nathan W. Hill

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
correspondences; the Tibetan cognates divide into four categories according to their 6. Old Chinese *9

Table 11 correspondences; the Tibetan cognates divide into four categories according to their 6. Old Chinese *9

Related Figures (57)

Table 1: The correspondence of Old Chinese -a- to Tibetan -e-
Table 1: The correspondence of Old Chinese -a- to Tibetan -e-
Table 2: The correspondence of Old Chinese -aj- to Tibetan -a-
Table 2: The correspondence of Old Chinese -aj- to Tibetan -a-
Table 3 (cont.): Correspondences to Old Chinese *i in Tibetan and Burmese
Table 3 (cont.): Correspondences to Old Chinese *i in Tibetan and Burmese
Table 3 (cont.): Correspondences to Old Chinese *i in Tibetan and Burmese 5. Old Chinese *e
Table 3 (cont.): Correspondences to Old Chinese *i in Tibetan and Burmese 5. Old Chinese *e
Table 4 (cont.): Correspondences to Old Chinese *e in Tibetan and Burmese
Table 4 (cont.): Correspondences to Old Chinese *e in Tibetan and Burmese
Table 6 (cont.): The correspondence of Old Chinese *a to -a- in Tibetan and Burmese
Table 6 (cont.): The correspondence of Old Chinese *a to -a- in Tibetan and Burmese
Table 6 (cont.): The correspondence of Old Chinese *s to -a- in Tibetan and Burmese
Table 6 (cont.): The correspondence of Old Chinese *s to -a- in Tibetan and Burmese
Table 7: The correspondence of Old Chinese *a to -o- in Tibetan and -a- in Burmese These irregularities are best treated within the context of Tibetan historical
Table 7: The correspondence of Old Chinese *a to -o- in Tibetan and -a- in Burmese These irregularities are best treated within the context of Tibetan historical
Table 8: Correspondences of Old Chinese -9 with labial codas in Tibetan and Burmese Schuessler’s approach, a Chinese merger of originally distinct *uP and *oP and a
Table 8: Correspondences of Old Chinese -9 with labial codas in Tibetan and Burmese Schuessler’s approach, a Chinese merger of originally distinct *uP and *oP and a
with dental codas and labial initials in Tibetan and Burmese
with dental codas and labial initials in Tibetan and Burmese
the possibility should thus be kept in mind that cases of *-om in Old Chinese should
the possibility should thus be kept in mind that cases of *-om in Old Chinese should
Table 12: The correspondence of Old Chinese -9- with Tibetan -e-
Table 12: The correspondence of Old Chinese -9- with Tibetan -e-
Table 14: Old Chinese correspondences to Tibetan -ah ~ Gong gives the Written Tibetan verb Vsal (pres. gsel, past, bsal, fut. bsal, imp. sol) “cleanse, clear”, but the Written Tibetan derive via the change sts- > s- from an Old Tibetan verb with the root is Vstsal, as examples such sdig-pa thams-cad bstsald “clear away all sins” (IOL Tib J 751, f. 40v, I. 1) and bar-chad thams-cad yons-su bstsalte “completely clear away all hindrances” (PT 16, f. 291, 1. 2) clearly reveal. The comparison of Chinese s- to Tibetan sts- weighs against the validity of this comparison. Ignoring differences of voicing or prefixes Chinese TS- normally corresponds to Tibetan TS- (e.g. #54, 55, 68, 69, 154, 182, 185, 191, 275, 280, 314, 321). If we consequently dismiss the comparison of Chinese 34 sejX<*[s]‘or? (0478] / 0594g) “wash” and Tibetan Vstsal “cleanse, clear” (#100) the only hurdle in the way of a regular change *aj > e in Tibetan is the comparison of Chinese 48 kjijX < *kaj? (0547a) “few; how many” with Tibetan Agah “some” (#97). To contextualize consideration of fgah “some” (#97) it is necessary to look at OL oo unwn: AN tantad AL TuhAtakK ak ia wWanaen! LAL Tahla 1A
Table 14: Old Chinese correspondences to Tibetan -ah ~ Gong gives the Written Tibetan verb Vsal (pres. gsel, past, bsal, fut. bsal, imp. sol) “cleanse, clear”, but the Written Tibetan derive via the change sts- > s- from an Old Tibetan verb with the root is Vstsal, as examples such sdig-pa thams-cad bstsald “clear away all sins” (IOL Tib J 751, f. 40v, I. 1) and bar-chad thams-cad yons-su bstsalte “completely clear away all hindrances” (PT 16, f. 291, 1. 2) clearly reveal. The comparison of Chinese s- to Tibetan sts- weighs against the validity of this comparison. Ignoring differences of voicing or prefixes Chinese TS- normally corresponds to Tibetan TS- (e.g. #54, 55, 68, 69, 154, 182, 185, 191, 275, 280, 314, 321). If we consequently dismiss the comparison of Chinese 34 sejX<*[s]‘or? (0478] / 0594g) “wash” and Tibetan Vstsal “cleanse, clear” (#100) the only hurdle in the way of a regular change *aj > e in Tibetan is the comparison of Chinese 48 kjijX < *kaj? (0547a) “few; how many” with Tibetan Agah “some” (#97). To contextualize consideration of fgah “some” (#97) it is necessary to look at OL oo unwn: AN tantad AL TuhAtakK ak ia wWanaen! LAL Tahla 1A
Another correspondence has -o- in Chinese and Tibetan but -u- in Burmese (cf. Table 19). Matisoff (2003:222) and Hill (2011a:713-714) reconstruct this correspondence as *ow. This suggestion is however not elegant. In Old Chinese -w occurs only as a simple coda or before velars (i.e. -aw, -awk, -iw, -ew, -ewk, but not *-awt, *-ewn, etc.). Reconstructing *ow for the words in Table 19 would result in pre- Chinese rimes such as *-own that would violate this distribution. If one reconstructs *-own in pre-Chinese one would also want to find reason to reconstruct *-awt, *ewn, etc. For the time being I maintain the reconstruction *-ow but intend it primarily as a formal way of keeping account of the contrasting outcomes.”
Another correspondence has -o- in Chinese and Tibetan but -u- in Burmese (cf. Table 19). Matisoff (2003:222) and Hill (2011a:713-714) reconstruct this correspondence as *ow. This suggestion is however not elegant. In Old Chinese -w occurs only as a simple coda or before velars (i.e. -aw, -awk, -iw, -ew, -ewk, but not *-awt, *-ewn, etc.). Reconstructing *ow for the words in Table 19 would result in pre- Chinese rimes such as *-own that would violate this distribution. If one reconstructs *-own in pre-Chinese one would also want to find reason to reconstruct *-awt, *ewn, etc. For the time being I maintain the reconstruction *-ow but intend it primarily as a formal way of keeping account of the contrasting outcomes.”
Table 20: The correspondence of Chinese -o- to Tibetan -o-
Table 20: The correspondence of Chinese -o- to Tibetan -o-
Table 21 (cont.): The correspondence of Chinese -o- to -u- in Tibetan and Burmese Table 22: The correspondence of Chinese -o- to -a- in Burmese
Table 21 (cont.): The correspondence of Chinese -o- to -u- in Tibetan and Burmese Table 22: The correspondence of Chinese -o- to -a- in Burmese
10. Summary of the main correspondences Assembling the regular correspondences among Chinese, Tibetan and Burmese discussed throughout this paper yields Table 24. This table does not distinguish nasals and stops, and treats -r and -1 as dentals. Although final consonants have not been the focus of this study, because (particularly in Burmese) final consonants condition changes in the nuclear vowels, a presentation of the correspondences which takes account of final consonants is more informative than one which does not. In addition, such a presentation allows lacunae in the available data to become more obvious. For example, one may predict that Chinese *-awk would correspond to Tibetan -ok, and perhaps it does, but the absence of cognates supporting this correspondence is noted with a question mark in Table 24. Assembling the regular correspondences among Chinese, Tibetan and Burmese
10. Summary of the main correspondences Assembling the regular correspondences among Chinese, Tibetan and Burmese discussed throughout this paper yields Table 24. This table does not distinguish nasals and stops, and treats -r and -1 as dentals. Although final consonants have not been the focus of this study, because (particularly in Burmese) final consonants condition changes in the nuclear vowels, a presentation of the correspondences which takes account of final consonants is more informative than one which does not. In addition, such a presentation allows lacunae in the available data to become more obvious. For example, one may predict that Chinese *-awk would correspond to Tibetan -ok, and perhaps it does, but the absence of cognates supporting this correspondence is noted with a question mark in Table 24. Assembling the regular correspondences among Chinese, Tibetan and Burmese
Table 24: Regular correspondences among Chinese, Tibetan, and Burmese
Table 24: Regular correspondences among Chinese, Tibetan, and Burmese
Table 24 (cont.): Regular correspondences among Chinese, Tibetan, and Burmese
Table 24 (cont.): Regular correspondences among Chinese, Tibetan, and Burmese
Table 25: Unexpected instances of -e- in Tibetan Table 26: Unexpected instances of Tibetan -o- (= Table 7)
Table 25: Unexpected instances of -e- in Tibetan Table 26: Unexpected instances of Tibetan -o- (= Table 7)
Table 31: Correspondences of Tibetan -o- in Chinese and Burmese Nonetheless, these generalizations fail to explain the presence of -o- in the three ibetan words presented in Table 26: these three words require further research.
Table 31: Correspondences of Tibetan -o- in Chinese and Burmese Nonetheless, these generalizations fail to explain the presence of -o- in the three ibetan words presented in Table 26: these three words require further research.
Table 32: An unambiguous -*o- in Chinese corresponding to -u- in Tibetan
Table 32: An unambiguous -*o- in Chinese corresponding to -u- in Tibetan
Table 33: Chinese -*a- corresponding to Tibetan -i- The two cases when Chinese -u- corresponds to Tibetan -a- can also be dismissex (§7, Table 17).
Table 33: Chinese -*a- corresponding to Tibetan -i- The two cases when Chinese -u- corresponds to Tibetan -a- can also be dismissex (§7, Table 17).
Table 34 (=Table 17): Correspondence of Chinese u to Tibetan a The two cases when Chinese -o- corresponds to Burmese -a- can also be dismissed (§8, Table 22).
Table 34 (=Table 17): Correspondence of Chinese u to Tibetan a The two cases when Chinese -o- corresponds to Burmese -a- can also be dismissed (§8, Table 22).
Table 35 (= Table 22): The correspondence of Chinese -o- to -a- in Burmese In four cases, the cognate sets that Gong proposed present unique vowel orrespondences not yet mentioned in this paper. In these words the codas also present
Table 35 (= Table 22): The correspondence of Chinese -o- to -a- in Burmese In four cases, the cognate sets that Gong proposed present unique vowel orrespondences not yet mentioned in this paper. In these words the codas also present
13. Conclusions The six vowel hypothesis of Old Chinese casts a new light on Tibeto-Burman etymological comparisons. Some proposals look more secure (e.g. those in Table 18 for which all three languages retain the original value *-o-); other proposals that formerly appeared secure are doubtful (e.g. those in Table 26 and Table 32). The reconstruction of Tibeto-Burman on the basis of a six vowel version of Old Chinese yields a proto-language which also has six vowels, the same six as Old Chinese. The vowel of Old Chinese almost always reflects the etymological vowel. However, three Tibeto-Burman rimes are missing in Old Chinese, i.e. *ow, *aw, and *uw; Chinese merges *ow and “aw with *o and also merges *uw with *u. =x 4 og i? an a de a &k . rauit ome sh,
13. Conclusions The six vowel hypothesis of Old Chinese casts a new light on Tibeto-Burman etymological comparisons. Some proposals look more secure (e.g. those in Table 18 for which all three languages retain the original value *-o-); other proposals that formerly appeared secure are doubtful (e.g. those in Table 26 and Table 32). The reconstruction of Tibeto-Burman on the basis of a six vowel version of Old Chinese yields a proto-language which also has six vowels, the same six as Old Chinese. The vowel of Old Chinese almost always reflects the etymological vowel. However, three Tibeto-Burman rimes are missing in Old Chinese, i.e. *ow, *aw, and *uw; Chinese merges *ow and “aw with *o and also merges *uw with *u. =x 4 og i? an a de a &k . rauit ome sh,
"! Gong’s comparison 103 involves only Burmese and Tangut cognates and thus falls outside’ the scope of this investigation.
"! Gong’s comparison 103 involves only Burmese and Tangut cognates and thus falls outside’ the scope of this investigation.
Related topics:
Historical LinguisticsOld ChineseBurmese languageOld Tibetan Language
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved