07.3.31.16:39: OH DEER (PART 2)
In part 1, I wrote,
Fortunately the [Tangraphic Sea] analyses of all but two of the nine graphs with the left side of [TT2843] DEER are available
and I cited the sources of the left-hand sides of six of those graphs. Obviously nine minus two does not equal six. Here's the analysis that I left out:
TT2844 煩惱 / 煩わしい VEXING jiew 1.44 <
'head' [top left?] of TT2260 多 MANY rery 2.66 +
all of TT5512 WORRY zhyị 1.67
This implies that the left-hand component of VEXATION was actually two components:
ソ (from MANY) atop
フ＋カ (from WORRY)
defined by Kychanov as TEMPERAMENT (Grinstead 1972: 15)
and by Nishida (1966: 244) as 意志 INTENTION
Now I wonder:
- Does this analysis actually reflect what the inventor of the graph thought?
- Could this stacked component analysis also be applied to the left sides of the other eight graphs sharing a left side with TT2844: i.e.,
TT2841 2842 2843 2845
TT2846 2847 2848 2849
Six of the above graphs have no split left side analysis and the analyses of the other two (TT2841 and TT2847) are unknown.
Until I saw the analysis for TT2844, I had assumed that TT2841-2849 all had a single left-hand component that I had nicknamed 'longhorn' to distinguish it from the similar component with a shorter ノ stroke:
TT2843 DEER ?lhya 1.20 with 'longhorn' on left
TT2816 MUTUAL twụ 1.58 with 'shorthorn' on left
Ever since I read Grinstead's (1972: 53) statement that tangraphy "had no pictures at all", I've avoided the temptation to see objects in tangraphic elements. Although some elements were derived from sinographs of highly stylized pictorial origin, their 'Tangutization' made them doubly stylized and irrecognizable to the Chinese eye. Certainly there is nothing in tangraphy that looks like actual objects. No one would mistake tangraphy for hieroglyphics (which is, of course, far from 'picture writing' - appearances are deceiving!). Nonetheless I did wonder if the left-hand element in
TT2843 DEER ?lhya 1.20
TT2846 FAWN ?xwụ 1.58
was meant to look like a deer:
ソ = horns
フ = head
カ = body and legs
even though it appears in non-cervine tangraphs that outnumber DEER and FAWN by a 7 : 2 ratio:
|Tangraph||Tangut Telecode||Gloss||Other elements||Gong reconstruction||Rhyme|
|2841||(first half of lhya1 jyï1 不識 'ignorant'?; TT4993 is second half)||FINERY / ORNAMENT (Grinstead 1972: 28) (what does this have to do with ignorance?)||lhya||1.20|
|2842||(syllable of a surname, tribal name, and/or an ancestral name)||function of T unknown; right is TEMPERAMENT or 意志 INTENTION (function?)||jywaa||2.18|
|2844||煩 惱 / 煩わしい VEXING||function of 丰 unknown; right is TEMPERAMENT or 意志 INTENTION (indicating a feeling?)||jiew||1.44|
|2845||山羊の一種 KIND-OF-GOAT (Nishida 1966: 321); あぶ HORSEFLY (Nishida 1966: 424); (syllable of a name) (Grinstead 1972: 123); 獸 BEAST (Shi et al. 1983: 519 and 2000: 176); 野 WILDERNESS (Li Fanwen 1986: 359)||TT1309 HIGH byiy 2.33 (what does this have to do with any of the meanings, or the reading?)||tsar||1.80|
|2847||帛 SILK||基本 BASIC (Nishida 1966: 242) (function?)||tsar||1.80|
|2848||(kind of grass)||PLANT||tsar||1.80|
|2849||(syllable of a name) (Grinstead 1972); 呼 CALL (Li Fanwen 1986)||SPEECH||lhya||1.20|
'Longhorn' has at least two phonetic values:
lhya 1.20 in TT2841, 2843, 2849 (all homophones)
tsar 1.80 in TT2845, 2847, 2848 (all homophones)
It appears to be semantic (an abbreviation of TT2843 DEER?) in TT2846 FAWN (< DEER + phonetic ?xwụ 1.58).
Its function in TT2842 and TT2844 is unknown, and TT2844 may not actually contain 'longhorn' but a combination of elements resembling 'longhorn'. The same may be true of TT2842, for which no analysis has survived. However, there is no known tangraph that is to TT2842 what TT5512 is to TT2844:
TT2842 : ? (tangraph resembling TT2842 but without upper left ソ)
TT2844 : TT5512 (tangraph resembling TT2844 but without upper left ソ)
So perhaps the left side of TT2842 is a single element, unless TT2842 is an amalgam of three or four parts:
upper left ソ from tangraph 1
bottom left フ+カ from tangraph 2
center/right (T + フ+カ) from tangraph 3 (only one candidate possible?) or
two tangraphs 3 and 4
Strangely, there is very little correlation between the phonetic values of 'longhorn' and the Tangraphic Sea analyses. One might expect the lhya 1.20 and tsar 1.80 graph sets to have non-intersecting analyses:
lhya 1.20: TT2841, TT2849 < TT2843
tsar 1.80: TT2847, TT2848 < TT2845
but in fact 'longhorn' in TT2845 tsar 1.80 is from TT2843 lhya 1.20 (see part 1). This implies that TT2845 and TT2843 (and by extension, all other tangraphs derived from them) had something in common: a semantic link (unlikely; the meanings don't intersect) or a phonetic link (i.e., a common Tangut B sound [sequence]).
Next: Secondary DEER-ivatives.
*The only other tangraph I know of with (T + フ+カ) is
TT4937 魅 DEVIL pə 1.27
which did not sound like TT2842 jywaa 2.18 and has a four-tangraph analysis:
top of TT4943 EMPTY nga 1.17 +
right of TT2215 GHOST khia 2.15 +
Precious Rhymes implies
its right side is from TT4937 DEVIL (semantic)
its left side is from TT2203 MAGPIE khia 2.15 (phonetic)
center of TT4942 礦石 ORE pə 1.27 (homophonous with TT4937) +
right of TT5757 MAD be 1.8
looks like WAIST/BIRD + TEMPERAMENT
but was analyzed as
left side of TT5743 OWL jyi (rhyme unknown) +
has WAIST/BIRD on left
right element forms tangraphs with negative meanings
right side of TT4660 MAD Gạ 2.56
looks like SPEECH + TEMPERAMENT
07.3.30.23:57: OH DEER (PART 1)
Homophones contains a few instances of one tangraph with two readings: e.g.,
TT0971 BIG lyịy 2.54 (native, possibly with *-a > -yiy shift; cf. Old Chinese 大 *lats 'big')
TT0972 BIG tha 2.14 (< Tangut period northwestern Chinese 大 ?*tha 'big'?)
in two different chapters (IX [liquids] and III [dentals]).
The Tangut Telecode has different numbers for each reading and Mojikyo even has separate but identical glyphs for them:
Mojikyo 4456 (chapter III reading)
Mojikyo 4457 (chapter IX reading)
How can we be sure that the left sides of
TT2843 DEER lha (sic; should this be lhya?) 1.20 and
TT2816 MUTUAL twụ 1.58
are not simply variants of the same element, and that these are really one tangraph with two readings (and meanings!?)? Just because Mojikyo distinguishes between them doesn't necessarily mean that we should too. After all, Mojikyo distinguishes between the left-hand elements of
TT5126 MOREOVER lyị̈ 1.69 (PERSON on right)
TT5125 DISCOURSE lyị̈ 1.69 (HAND on right)
but Nevsky (1960 II: 609), Nishida (1966), and Sofronov (1968) regarded their left sides as identical. (The TT numbers are adjacent because they are Sofronov's numbers.) Who is correct? Instead of turning to modern authorities, we can look in the Tangraphic Sea and find this analysis implying that the two left-hand components are really one:
TT5126 MOREOVER lyị̈ 1.69 <
left of TT5125 DISCOURSE lyị̈ 1.69 +
[bottom] right of TT5124 DISTRESS lyị̈ 1.69
The opposite direction of derivation is also attested. DISTRESS' left side is from the left side of MOREOVER:
TT5124 DISTRESS lyị̈ 1.69 <
left of TT5126 MOREOVER lyị̈ 1.69 +
right of TT2338 SUFFERING gyu 2.3
The significance, if any, of the two variants is unknown. (I suspect the version in DISTRESS originated as an abbreviation of the version in MOREOVER, replacing a three-stroke sequence with a Z-shaped single stroke.)
For more on this element, see "The Origin of Origin (Part 1)".
Are there any analyses in the Tangraphic Sea in which the left-hand elements of
TT2843 DEER lha (sic; should this be lhya?) 1.20 and
TT2816 MUTUAL twụ 1.58
are implicitly equivalent? Fortunately the analyses of all but two of the nine graphs with the left side of DEER are available, and none derive that left side from the more common element found in MUTUAL.
The left-hand elements of
TT2842 2843 2845 2846 2848 2849
go back to TT2843 and TT2849:
left side of TT2848
< left side of TT2845 which along with TT2842 and 2846
< left side of 2843
<> left side of 2849
(<> = derived from each other)
I have never seen their left-hand element in other positions.
Next: Should that be element or elements?
07.3.29.8:05: OH DEER (PART 0)
I really messed up yesterday morning. I thought two tangraphic components were one and the same. Compare the left sides of these two tangraphs with identical right-hand components:
TT2843 DEER lha (sic; should this be lhya?) 1.20
TT2816 MUTUAL twụ 1.58
DEER has Nishida's 'radical' 188 whereas MUTUAL has Nishida's 'radical' 194. The upper left corner makes a big difference. These are not two variants of one tangraph. These are totally different characters with totally different meanings and readings. I knew that, yet I still thought they had the same left side. That made no sense.
Next: To paraphrase the Talking Heads, start making sense.
07.3.28.8:07: 胡 HU GAVE BIRTH TO FAWNS?
In "Plant People", I left out the Tangraphic Sea analysis of TT4464 BARBARIAN? 'ụ (xwụ?) 1.58 as
left of TT4463 生 GIVE-BIRTH? shywa 1.19 +
HAND is on its right
right of TT2846 小鹿/幼鹿 FAWN 'ụ (xwụ?) 1.58
(Chn 生 can also mean 'live', and a fawn is, of course, a young deer.)
Both halves of TT4464 BARBARIAN are rare.
Its left half (コ+ / + h) occurs in only four tangraphs: BARBARIAN, GIVE-BIRTH,
TT4462 物 THING no 2.42 (a distortion of 物?)
and a character without a TT number in Grinstead (19184.108.40.206). It has no known meaning or phonetic value.
Its right half (亠+コ+ PERSON) is presumably phonetic since BARBARIAN and FAWN are homophones.
FAWN 'ụ (xwụ?) 1.58 was analyzed as
(3.29.1:50: For a rewritten version of the rest of this post, see the "My Deer" series starting with part 1.)
left of TT2843 DEER lha (sic; should this be lhya?) 1.20
right of TT4464 BARBARIAN? 'ụ (xwụ?) 1.58
this was inevitable because as far as I know, DEER and BARBARIAN are the only tangraphs with the component (亠+コ+ PERSON) in any position
Next: Old moon.
07.3.27.2:09: 胡 HU WERE THE PLANT PEOPLE?
The first part of the title refers to a possible etymology for
TT4464 BARBARIAN? 'ụ 1.58
Last night, I was uneasy about proposing Chinese 胡 'barbarian' as a possible source for that word because their initials did not match. 胡 probably had an initial *x- whereas Gong reconstructed TT4464 with an initial glottal stop '-. If TT4464 were truly a loan from Chinese, it would be xụ 1.58.
Now I wonder if it was xwụ 1.58. If its initial were a simple glottal stop, it should have had a fanqie like
'- + -ụ
with a glottal stop-initial speller from Homophones chapter VIII.
But in fact its Tangraphic Sea fanqie has a labial initial speller from Homophones chapter II
申/ 猴 MONKEY 千 THOUSAND
wyị 1.67 + tụ 1.68
implying wụ 1.68.
This is a case of what I called "the Chapter II/VIII crossover problem" in part 11 of "Lip Sounds Light". I came up with three solutions in that post, and the second might apply here:
Tangut dialects had w- ~ xw- variation similar to [w] ~ [hw] variation in English. For some English speakers, wear and where are both [wer], but for others they are distinct: [wer] and [hwer].
In this particular case, perhaps:
- TT4464 BARBARIAN xwụ 1.68 was borrowed from Tangut period NW Chn 胡 *xu
- and was subject to w- ~ xw- variation
- TT4464 BARBARIAN and its initial speller TT2394 MONKEY had the same initial w- in the Tangraphic Sea dialect
- but in the Homophones dialect, they had different initials:
TT4464 BARBARIAN had initial xw- and was assigned to chapter VIII
TT2394 MONKEY had initial w- and was assigned to chapter II
However, this explanation introduces a new complication: why was Chinese *xu borrowed as *xwụ with a medial -w-?
Moreover, it does not address the issue of why Chinese *u corresponds to a Tangut tense vowel ụ rather than a Tangut lax vowel u. (Even if one does not accept the tense vowel interpretation of rhyme 1.58, most agree that the basic Tangut u-rhymes were at the beginning of the Tangraphic Sea, and that there was something unusual about the u-rhymes that occur later.)
Although the etymology - and even the pronunciation - of TT4464 BARBARIAN are uncertain, the Tangraphic Sea makes it clear that it referred to what at first appears to be the name of some kind of plant:
chhyï 1.29 tã 1.24
Both tangraphs have the PLANT semantic element on top. However, there are nonbotanical tangraphs with that element: e.g.,
TT0991 FIRE məə 1.31
has both tangraphic semantic elements for FIRE beneath PLANT
TT0839 火苗 TONGUE-OF-FLAME nwụ 1.58
has neither tangraphic semantic element for FIRE
though note the Chinese equivalent (火苗 'fire seeding') has 艹 'plant' too
TT0994 經? CLASSIC / 道 ROAD / 徑 PATH lhery 2.66
TT0879 西 WEST shyạ 1.64
has two PERSONs
but note that the Tangut indigenous religion was the 'Root West' (written with a different WEST, though!*), so there is a plant connection
TT0870 三 THREE lhery 2.66 (not the normal word; is this ritual language?)
homophonous with the similar-looking TT0994 above
has two PERSONs around a vertical line
and it turns out that
chhyï 1.29 tã 1.24
doesn't have anything to do with plants at all. It means KHITAN. If the Tangut were SAGEs and the Chinese were INSECTs, were the Khitan likened to ... plants?
The Tangraphic Sea derives the first half of KHITAN from the second:
TT0988 chhyï 1.29 <
top of TT0952 tã 1.24
all of TT5540 彼 THAT / 他 HE chhyï
TT0952 tã 1.24 <
top of TT0881 WOOD syi 1.11
looks like TT0879 西 WEST shyạ 1.64 with a bottom right element added
WOOD syi sounded like the northwestern Chinese word for 'west' which was something like 西 *si - so is WEST a Chinese-based phonetic element in WOOD?
all of TT1439 單衣 UNLINED-GARMENT tã 1.24
a loan from Chinese?; 單 SINGLE was something like tã in Tangut period northwestern Chinese
Both tangraphs for KHITAN have transparent (and homophonous) phonetic components. But the choice of a top component remains puzzling.
It is also unclear to me why KHITAN has a palatal initial chh-. Even if one rejects Gong's initial, one cannot avoid the fact that the first tangraph is in Homophones chapter VII (palatals) and not chapter V (velars). Although the modern standard Mandarin name for the Khitan is 契丹 Qidan [chhitan], this [chh] is a recently palatalized kh-. During the Tangut period, the Khitan were called something like Khitã in northwestern Chinese. The Khitans' own name for themselves is uncertain, but all other evidence points to velar or uvular-initial names for them: e.g.,
modern Korean 거란 kOran 'Khitan' < *kətan
Arabic خطا Xataa
Russian Китай Kitay 'China' and English Cathay are both ultimately from 'Khitan'. Details and more derivatives here.
Kazakh Қытай Qïtay (found here)
Did Tangut borrow the name as something like khyï tã and then palatalize the initial? If pre-Tangut *khy- became chhy-, I would expect Tangut to lack syllables of the type khyV, just as modern standard Mandarin has no [khyV] syllables (since they became [chhyV] syllables). But Tangut is full of khyV syllables. I wonder if the earliest Tangut word for KHITAN had a prefix (*C-khyi tã) which fused with khy- to become chhy-.
Next: Who were the living deer?
*ROOT WEST was
mər 2.76 lyi (tone unknown)
See parts 1 and 2 of "The Origin of ORIGIN" for an analysis of TT4484 ORIGIN.
TT1523 WEST shares only a PERSON in common with
TT0879 西 WEST shyạ 1.64
This is hard to explain if tangraphy is semantocentric.
07.3.26.2:00: BARBARIAN BROTHERS?
After mentioning the Uighur in "A sywiy-pler Solution?", I Googled "uighur 'tangut empire' " and rediscovered Kepping's "Chinggis Khan's Name Encrypted in a Tangut Song":
The songs on the verso include one — 'The Sacred Might Overcomes All Neighbouring Peoples' ...
The term 'sacred might' in the song's title certainly refers to the Tangut state. The term 'u I translate as 'all neighbouring peoples'. The dictionary The Sea of Characters (Kepping et.al. 1969, 1, p. 296, no. 1764) defines 'u as 'nine brothers 'u - the Khitans, Uighurs and others.' Obviously, the Tanguts considered the Mongols as one of the brothers 'u ...
In Professor S.E.Yakhontov's (St. Petersburg University; personal communication) opinion, 'u is a general designation for non-Tangut peoples (perhaps with the exception of the Chinese and Tibetans) which corresponds to the Chinese term hu.
'ụ 1.58 (or possibly 'wụ 1.58, judging from its fanqie) even resembles the probable northwestern Chinese pronunciation of 胡 'barbarian' as *xu.
(If the Tangut term was borrowed from Chinese, it is not clear why Chinese *x was changed to '- or 'w- in Tangut. Tangut did have an x- or h-like voiceless fricative which was transcribed as h- in Tibetan.)
(2:31: I've figured out to tie TT4464 and 胡 *xu together! Details tomorrow.)
Yakhontov (Jaxontov)'s interpretation is somewhat like Nevsky's (1960 II: 261) definition of
TT4464 'ụ 1.58
as 'иноземцы (?) (в частности Кидане)' (foreigners [?] [in particular the Khitan]).
Grinstead (1972: 143) defined TT4464 as "Kidan (= Khitan)?"
Shi et al. (1983: 489), Li Fanwen (1986: 423), and Shi et al. (2000: 136) defined TT4464 as 夷 'barbarian'.
In Homophones (44B62) TT4464 and its subscript clarifier form a compound
'ụ 1.58 zyi 1.11
which Li Fanwen translated as 夷雄 'barbarian male', 夷男 'barbarian man'. TT4464 is a noun, not an adjective, so it precedes the noun it modifies.
'Barbarian' is far from Kepping's 'brothers'. Which is correct? The problem seems to be that the key tangraph in Tangraphic Sea is hard to read. Here are literal and free translations of the Tangraphic Sea definition of TT4464 (based on Shi et al. 1983: 489):
TT4464 (topic) TT4464 NINE (TT????) UI-
GHUR KHITAN (plural; see here) (genitive) SAY
'As for TT4464, it is what the Nine (TT????) - the Uighurs, Khitans, [and others?] are called.'
Kepping et al. (1969) apparently considered the tangraph after NINE to be
TT0030 弟 YOUNGER-BROTHER tyọ 2.64
(condescending, perhaps, but still better than 'barbarian'!)
whereas Shi et al. (1983: 252) intrepreted it as
TT0029 myïr 1.86
(probably cognate to rDong-brgyad rGyalrong tU rme 'person')
which they translated as 人 PERSON in its own entry (p. 525) but as 姓 SURNAME in the entry for TT4464 (p. 489). Guillaume Jacques (2003: 13) translated it as 族 peuple as well as 人 homme.
So the passage could either refer to 'nine brothers' or 'nine peoples'. In either case, if the Uighur and the Khitan were two of the nine, who were the other seven?
Next: Who were the plant people?
07.3.25.23:45: A SYWIY-MPLER SOLUTION?
Soon after I had posted "Neither Old nor Distinct", I realized that I had ignored the obvious.
I had insisted on looking at
TT1465 NEW syiw 1.46
as a three-component tangraph because of its Tangraphic Sea analysis:
left of TT1491 NOT myi 1.11
right of TT3846 OLD kywi 1.11
right of TT3819 DISCRIMINATE / 分明 DISTINCT sywiy 1.36
But then it occurred to me that I should look at other tangraphs meaning NEW. Two of them have the same center and right elements as TT1465 (Gong 1995: 59, 76, Jacques 2003: 13):
TT1113 RENEW/NEW syï 2.28
TT1764 NEW syi 2.10
TT3848 NEW mee 2.12
PERSON is on the left
Gong (1995: 59) implied that TT1113 RENEW/NEW syï 2.28 and TT1764 NEW syi 2.10 came from an earlier *sying whereas he stated that TT1465 NEW syiw 1.46 came from an earlier *syik. (He proposed that Tangut -w can be the remnant of an earlier -k.) Gong did not explain why *-ying corresponded to both -yï and -yi. Presumably the -yï version is somehow derived from -yi, since the basic root for NEW was probably *syi + velar. Pre-Old Chinese and Written Burmese had different velars:
新 Old Chinese *sin < Pre-OC *sing?
Written Burmese sach < *sik
gDong-brgyad rGyalrong has a velar fricative from an earlier *-k: kU shëG 'new'.
The function of Sino-Tibetan -ng ~ -k alternations is unknown. I have suspected that the nasal variants come from earlier -k + nasal-initial suffix sequences:
-Vk-NV > -Vng-NV > -Vng
̣̣(N = unknown nasal)
One could, however, propose the reverse:
-Vng-kV > -Ṽk > -Vk
In any case, Tangut appears to have had two types of 'new' words:
s + high vowel:
syi, syï < *-ng
syiw < *-k
The latter resembles southeast Asian words for 'new':
Khmer thməy < *thmii
Thai ใหม่ may < *hmaï < Proto-Tai *hmoU (using Proto-Tai'o'Matic)
but the resemblance is presumably coincidental. I have not yet seen any other Austroasiatic or Tai-like words in Tangut, and Tangut was not in contact with AA or Tai languages.
All agree that Tangut had loans from Chinese, but as far as I know, no one has identified loans from Tangut's two other major linguistic neighbors: Tibetan and Uighur. Tibetan-like words in Tangut are assumed to be inherited, but this may not always be the case.
(None of these words for 'new' resemble Written Tibetan gsar 'new'* or Uighur yéngi 'new' < Proto-Turkic *yangï / *yengi [> Turkish yeni in yeniçeri 'new-soldier' = 'Janissary'].)
Note that there is no correlation between word families and graphic form:
|Graphic type||no TT||TT4733 on right|
|Word family||s-type 'new'||m-type 'new'|
Since tangraphy is usually considered to be semantocentric, one would expect all the tangraphs for NEW to share common elements which might mean NEW. But of course TT1764 does not share the central and right elements of the others.
Moreover, that central and right element form an independent tangraph
TT4733 GRIND sywiy 1.36
which has no semantic relationship with NEW and which is a homophone of
TT3819 DISCRIMINATE / 分明 DISTINCT sywiy 1.36
cited by Tangraphic Sea as the source of the right-hand side of
TT1465 NEW syiw 1.46
Presumably that tangraph was not meant to be 刂 NOT + GRIND. I guess it could be analyzed as
with the center element doing double duty as an abbreviation of TT3846 OLD kywi 1.11 and as the left side of a phonetic element TT4733 GRIND sywiy 1.36 (which isn't that close to syiw - were they very close in some dialects?: e.g., were both like [sü]?).
I would still prefer a Tangut B interpretation. Since TT3848 NEW mee has no known Sino-Tibetan etymology, I wonder if it is a monosyllabified Tangut A version of a polysyllabic Tangut B word for 'new'. (I fear that Tangut B may be an isolate - an old language of the region that was being displaced by Tangut A, Chinese, Tibetan, and Uighur.)
Nevsky (1960 II: 171) has no definitions or citations for TT1113 and TT3819 other than the Homophones entry for the latter*** and he has no entry for TT1764 NEW syi 2.10 at all****.
This suggests that one or more of these three words may have been (part[s] of) ritual language words.
*Possibly related to 鮮 Old Chinese *ser 'fresh' (also see note below). See Matisoff (2003: 391) for other cognates.
**Nevsky (1960 I: 225) defined TT1465 NEW syiw 1.46 as свежий 'fresh' as well as новый 'new'.
***TT3848 NEW mee 2.12 had the clarifier TT1465 NEW syiw 1.46: i.e., 'the mee that means new (syiw)'.
****The entry in Nevsky (1960 II: 608) is a near-lookalike and total soundalike of TT1764 NEW syi 2.10 forming the second half of
强 敵 STRONG-ENEMY 敵 ENEMY
khyã 2.24 syi 2.10
'враг, неприятель; enemy'
khyã 2.24 may simply mean STRONG. It looks like a possible borrowing from Chn 强 'strong' which would have been something like khyÕ in Tangut period northwestern Chinese. In modern dialects of the region, kh- has palatalized to chh- in 'strong':
Xining, Dunhuang, early 20th c. Lanzhou chhiÕ
Pingliang, early 20th c. Xi'an, late 20th c. Lanzhou chhiã
mid 20th c. Xi'an chhiang (due to influence of standard Mandarin qiang [chhyang]?)