07.11.17.23:59: GUMMING UP THE WORKS
Did GSR 658 have a velar phonotype? Matisoff (2003: 309) wrote:
This GSR #658 has members with OC palatal, dental, and velar initials (for an example of the latter see 'die / kill'), perhaps pointing to a Proto-Chinese *ky- initial for most of them.
On the previous page, two members of GSR 658 were compared to Proto-Tibeto-Burman reconstructions. (The Late Old Chinese reconstructions are in my modification of Schuessler's  system.)
PTB *m-kum ~ *m-kim 'block/pillow' : 658f 椹 LOC *Tïm 'chopping block'
Matisoff (2003) also listed PTB *'um 'block/pillow' though not in this comparison
PTB *gum ~ *kum 'die/kill' : 658q 戡 'vanquish, kill' and 651v 戈+今 'kill', both LOC *khəm
Schuessler (2007: 330) compared 658p 堪 LOC *khəm 'able to bear' with
Written Burmese kham 'receive, endure'
Mru kham 'to bear, sustain' ("Burmese loan?")
Jingpho kham31 'endure'
The rhymes are not a problem. OC *ə regularly corresponds to a in Tibeto-Burman languages. LOC *-ïm and *-əm could have sometimes come from an earlier OC *-um via dissimilation. Although Sagart (1999: 52-54) argued against reconstructing OC *-um, perhaps such a rhyme existed in a pre-OC stage (i.e., in Proto-Sino-Tibetan). Hence in PST, 'block' and 'kill' could have ended in *-um, whereas 'to bear' could have ended in *-əm. OC merged the two rhymes, unlike PTB.
Although 658f had a retroflex initial in LOC, it could have come from an OC cluster with a velars:
LOC *Tïm < OC *r-t-kəm'
However, if the above external comparisons are correct, this internal comparison might have to be rejected:
658q 戡 EOC *khəm 'vanquish, kill'
扌+ 林 LOC *ləm' ~ *lïm' < EOC *Cə-ləm' ~ *Cə-ləm-' 'kill'
Even if the unknown EOC initial consonant of 扌+林 were *k-, its *-l- corresponds to nothing in EOC *khəm or PTB *gum ~ *kum. There is no infix *-l- in OC.
But there was an *-r- prefix and/or infix. Since 扌+林 dates from the 1st century AD, there is no guarantee that an EOC-speaking scribe would have chosen an *l-phonetic. LOC *l- could come from both EOC *Cə-l- and *r- (Sagart 1999), so the word might have had *r in EOC. Moreover, Schuessler (2007: 358-359) regarded 林 as an *r-phonetic. Therefore 扌+林 might have orignated as an *r-affixed form of 'kill':
*r-kəm-' > *krəm' with variant *kərəm' > *rəm' (loss of presyllable) > LOC *lïm'
*r-kəm-' > *krəm' with variant *kərəm' > *rəm' (loss of presyllable) > LOC *ləm'
The aspiration of 戡 EOC *khəm could reflect an alternate development of earlier *r-k-:
*r-k- [ʀq] > *ʁk- > *χk- > *hk- (preaspiration) > *kh- (postaspiration)
(Schuessler 2007: 58 proposed *rk- > *kh-, citing a comparison of 磡 'cliff, bank, step' [not in Karlgren;*khə̂ms in his EOC reconstruction] to PTB *r-ka[a]m, 'id.' [though Matisoff defined this as '‘edge/bank/precipice/lip/mouth' [no 'cliff']. He explained the aspiration of 戡'kill' as reflecting "forceful action" [2007: 60].)
645a 貪 LOC *thəm, used to write a nonstandard word for 'kill', could have come from EOC *t-khəm, so it might still share a root with 658q EOC *khəm and PTB *gum ~ *kum.
(11.18.00:45: The EOC source of 658e 揕 LOC *Tïm 'to strike' might have combined the prefixes *r- and *t- found in 戡磡 and 貪 with a root *kəm: *r-t-kəm or *t-r-kəm.)
So far, not so bad. However, reconstructing all of series 658 as velar entails a lot of EOC clusters because most of that series is nonvelar in LOC:
velars (phonetically uvulars?):
LOC *kh- < EOC *kh-
LOC *ng- < EOC *ng- < *n-k-
LOC *ch- < EOC *ky-
LOC *j- < EOC *gy-
LOC *sh- < EOC *sk-
LOC *zh- < EOC *Nsk-
LOC *y- < EOC *kəl-
LOC *T- < EOC *rtk-
LOC *Th- < EOC *rtkh-
LOC *D- < EOC *rNtk-
LOC *N- < EOC *rntk-
LOC *J- < EOC *rNtsk-
LOC *ts- < EOC *sk- (Sagart 1999: 69 allowed *sk- > *ts- as well as *sh-)
LOC*s- < EOC *skh-
LOC *t- < EOC *tk-
LOC *th- < EOC *tkh-
LOC *d- < EOC *Ntk-
The only simple EOC initial in this reconstruction is *kh- in only three words (or four if 磡 'cliff' is included), and even that may have originated from an earlier *rk- cluster.
If I used 'majority rule' to determine how to reconstruct the phonotype of a phonetic series, I would vote for a dental phonotype for 658, since five of its LOC initials could have been derived from EOC simple dental initials:
LOC *ch- < EOC *t-
LOC *j- < EOC *d-
LOC *t- < EOC *t-
LOC *th- < EOC *th-
LOC *d- < EOC *d-
658a 甚 had LOC *j-, which usually came from EOC *d-, though *gy- would also be possible.
(Baxter [1992: 550] reconstructed 658a as *Gyum [gjum] with a capital *G for a voiced velar stop that unexpectedly palatalized in Middle Chinese. I believe that LOC and MC *j- is the normal reflex of EOC *gy-, so I use a lowercase *g-.)
It is far easier to derive LOC retroflexes from dentals (just add *r) than from velars or laterals which would both require at least two additional consonants: a *t to change the place of articulation, and an *r to add rhoticity:
< *rt- or *tr-
< *rtl- or *tlr-
< *rtk- or tlk-
Only four of the LOC initials of 658 could be derived from simple EOC lateral initials:
LOC *sh- < EOC *hl- (voiceless lateral, not an h + l cluster)
LOC *y- < EOC *l-
LOC *th- < EOC *hl- (voiceless lateral, not an h + l cluster)
LOC *d- < EOC *l-
LOC *zh- is usually a strong sign of an EOC root-initial lateral, but it might also originate from an EOC *md-.
11.18.00:54: The velar phonotype hypothesis could account for the remaining words with lateral cognates:
658h 斟 EOC *t-k-ləm 'ladle out'
first half of 斟酌 *t-k-ləm t-lewk 'ladle out'; the alliteration no longer works unless this expression was coined in a dialect which had simplified *t-k-l- to *t-l- or which had a version of the word without the *k- prefix
658l-m 湛 EOC *t-k-ləm 'deep' (among many other readings)
658n 黮 'dark' EOC *t-k-hləm', *kə-ləm'
658o 糂 EOC *s-k-ləm 'rice gruel with meat'
With clusters and presyllables, seemingly anything is possible. The LOC initials of 658 are compatible with a velar, dental, or lateral phonotype. I have tried to choose between the three phonotypes using two other criteria which point in opposite directions:
- simplicity: dentals win, since more LOC initials in 658 can be derived from simple EOC dentals than from simple EOC velars or laterals
- etymology: internal and external cognates have velars and laterals
Next: How could this conflict be resolved?
07.11.16.23:59: GSR 658
is a very strange series from a Late Old Chinese standpoint because it contains both grave and acute initials
velars (phonetically uvulars?): *kh- *ng-
palatals: *ch- *j- *sh- *zh- *y-
retroflexes: *T- *Th- *D- ?*N- *J-
alveolars: *ts- *s-
dentals: *t- *th- *d-
Only glottals and labials are missing!
Did the Early Old Chinese phonotype of 658 have a velar or a dental initial? Sagart reconstructed lateral root initials for the EOC readings of 658h, 658l-m, and 658q. If Sagart is correct, then
658n 黮 'dark'
LOC *thəm' < EOC *hləm' < pre-EOC *ql-?
LOC *dəm' < EOC *(qə-)ləm'
may be cognate to
671k 黬 EOC *r-(N/'-)qləm(-') or *(N/'-)qrəm(-') 'black blot'
606k 紺 EOC *qləm(-')-s 'dark purple'
614e 晻 EOC *(r-)'-qləm-' ,*r-'-qlam-',*rɯ-'-qlam-' 'dark'
653h 暗 EOC *'-qləm(-')-s 'dark'
653i 闇 EOC *'-qləm'(-s) 'dark, hidden'
(and at least one more word I'll save for next time)
However, the LOC readings of 658 lacks three initials that are commonly associated with lateral series:
LOC *l- < EOC *Cə-l-
LOC *z- < EOC *sl-
All of the LOC initials of 658 could have come from nonlateral sources if I adopt Schuessler's (2007: 459) proposal of two sources for LOC *zh-: nonlateral *md- as well as *ml-.
I can reconstruct 658 with a lateral or a stop-inital phonotype:
EOC phonotype *ləm
EOC phonotype *dəm
*dləm'(-s) or *Ntləm'(-s)
*dləm or *Ntləm
*dləm or *Ntləm
reliable, to trust
*r-t-ləm(-'/s) or *t-r-ləm(-'/s)
*r-t-ləm(-'/s) or *t-r-ləm(-'/s)
*Tïm, *zhïm', *shïm'
*r-t-ləm or *t-r-ləm; *m-ləm-', *hləm-'
*r-t-ləm or *t-r-ləm, *m-dəm-', *s-t-ləm-'
chopping-block; mulberry (according to Jiyun; another spelling of 658i)
*rhləm(-'/s) or *hlrəm(-'/s)
*rthəm(-'/s) or *thrəm(-'/s)
*təm, *DEm', *tsiem, *Dïm(h), *shïm, *jïm, *yïm('), *Thïm', *dəm', *Diem', *Tïmh, *tsimh, ?*Nïm'
*t-ləm, *r-ləm-', *s-t-lam, *r-ləm(-s), *hləm, *N-t-ləm, *ləm(-'), *r-hləm-', *ləm-', *r-lam-', *r-t-ləm-s, *t-s-hləm-s, ?*r-n-ləm-'
*t-ləm, *r-N-t-ləm-' or *N-r-t-ləm-', *s-t-lam, *r-N-t-ləm(-s) or *N-r-t-ləm(-s), *s-t-ləm, *N-t-ləm, *tə-ləm(-'), *r-t-hləm, *N-t-ləm, *r-N-t-lam-' or *N-r-t-lam-', *r-t-ləm-s, *s-təm-s, ?*r-n-t-ləm-'
sunk in / deep / to soak (each meaning corresponds to each of the first three readings; I can't confirm Karlgren's third reading in a Chinese source)
*hləm' < pre-EOC ?*ql-, *(qə-)ləm'
dark; also used to write 658i mulberry ('dark fruit'?)
rice gruel with meat
able to bear
*khəm, *ngəm, *khEm', *ngəm', *JEm'
In the EOC phonotype *dəm column, I have only reconstructed *-l- whenever Sagart and I have identified Chinese cognates with laterals*.
Working mostly within Sagart's (1999) model of prefixation, I was forced to reconstruct a four-prefix sequence to account for why 嵁 LOC *JEm' [dʐɛmʔ]< *dzrəm < EOC *r-N-s-t-ləm has a lateral-initial phonetic.
Conversely, I had to reconstruct a three-prefix sequence to account for why 嵁 LOC *JEm' [dʐɛmʔ] < *dzrəm < *r-N-s-thəm has a dental stop-initial phonetic.
And those are not the only cases requiring multiple prefixes to reconcile LOC initials with the EOC initials (*l- or *d-) of 甚. Neither solution satisfies me.
Next: Gumming up the works.
*11.17.12:50: The following words probably have roots with laterals:
658e 揕 EOC*r-t-ləm-s or *t-r-ləm-s 'to strike'
658f 椹 EOC *r-t-ləm or *t-r-ləm 'chopping block' (< 'striking place'?)
658q 戡 EOC *k-(t)-hləm 'vanquish, kill'
645a 貪 LOC *thəm < EOC *(?kə-)hləm
扌+ 林 LOC *ləm' ~ *lïm' < EOC *Cə-ləm' ~ *Cə-ləm-'
not in Karlgren; its phonetic is 林 655a-d
did its prefixes have initial *k- [q] and *k-?
both dialect words for 'kill' in Fangyan (1st c. AD)
658h 斟 EOC *t-ləm 'ladle out'
first half of 斟酌 *t-ləm t-lewk 'ladle out', assumed to be an alliterative expression (Sagart 1999: 93)
could the -m of 斟 *t-ləm be from *-wng, the nasal counterpart of *-wk?
658l-m 湛 'deep' (see above for a list of readings)
cognate to 646b 潭 EOC *ləm 'deep, abyss'
658o 糂 *s-hləm or *s-t-ləm 'rice gruel with meat'
also written with lateral phonetics:
炎 *w-lam: 米+炎
參 *s-hləm: 糝 (Sagart 1999: 151 explained why this had a lateral initial)
See above for 658n 黮 'dark'.
There is a remote chance that 658b 煁 - if reconstructed with a prefixed lateral root as EOC *N-t-ləm - is cognate with 617a 炎 EOC *w-lam 'blaze, blazing'.
07.11.15.23:59: THE PURPLE PROBLEM
All sinographic phonetic series can be divided into three categories:
1. Nonrhotic: Series whose Late Old Chinese readings have none of the characteristics pointing toward an Early Old Chinese *r: e.g., low front (retroflex?) vowels and/or retroflex initials
2. Mixed rhotic: Series whose Late Old Chinese readings sometimes have the aforementioned rhotic characteristics
3. Pure rhotic: Series whose Late Old Chinese readings always have rhotic characteristics
For a while now, I've been hypothesizing that EOC *r- could either precede or follow another consonant:
*(r)C-series: mixed or pure rhotic: *r could be anywhere in the syllable:
a prefix: *r-CV
a root initial: *rCV
a root medial: *CrV
*(C)r-series: pure rhotic; *r is part of the root *(C)rV
GSR 671 was a mixed rhotic series. Therefore I reconstructed its phonotype as *qəm and regarded its rhotic members as descending from earlier *rqəm-type syllables.If this hypothesis were correct, GSR 671 words should have cognates in Chinese and in other languages with nonrhotic roots. This pair initially fit my expectations:
671k 黬 EOC *r-('-)qəm' 'black blot'
606k 紺 EOC *qəm(-')-s 'dark purple'
would also add
614e 晻 EOC *'-qəm-' 'dark'
653h 暗 EOC *'-qəm(-')-s 'dark'
653i 闇 EOC *'-qəm-'(-s) 'dark, hidden'
I would have reconstructed a root *qəm 'dark' until I noticed that Schuessler (2007: 250) linked 紺 to
Proto-Tai *klam 'dark red; purple'
Proto-Austronesian *kəlam 'dark'
which in turn could be connected to
Proto-Tai *'dlam or *'dram 'black' (with a medial *-r-!)
(but the Proto-Kam-Sui form is *'nam with a nasal, so maybe PT *'dl-/*'dr- is from *'dn- < *'n-, or PKS *'n- < *'nr- < 'dr?)
Since the PT forms have *-l/r-, I was going to revise my reconstruction of 黬 'black blot' as EOC *('-)qrəm(-'), with an *-l- variant:
606k 紺 EOC *qləm(-')-s 'dark purple'
614e 晻 EOC *'-qləm-' 'dark'
653h 暗 EOC *'-qləm(-')-s 'dark'
653i 闇 EOC *'-qləm-'(-s) 'dark, hidden'
I would then change the *rq- and *rɢ- in my GSR 671 reconstructions to *qr- and *ɢr-.
However, now I wonder if I can still reconstruct 671k 黬 'black blot' with initial *r- as *r-('-)qləm(-').
The Chinese root *qləm for 'dark' may ultimately be borrowed from Proto-Austronesian *kəlam, though the vowels don't match:
EOC *ə : PAN *a
I can't explain this as the result of Chinese ablaut because I don't know of any EOC 'dark' words like *qlam with *a.
11.16.1:06: EOC *lam (no *q-) is ironically associated with flames and brightness:
617a 炎 EOC *w-lam 'blaze, blazing', *lam 'brilliant'
for *w- cf. its Sino-Vietnamese reading viêm implying Middle Chinese *wiem
phonetic in 熋 (now written as 674a 熊) EOC *wəm 'bear'; cf. Proto-Tibeto-Burman *d-wam 'bear' (Matisoff 2003: 618)
Tibeto-Burman forms with w-: Jingpho wam31 'flash', Lushai vaamL ~ vamF 'red-hot glowing of fire, etc.' (Schuessler 2007: 180)
borrowed into Siamese: wOOm-wEEM 'brilliant, glowing (of fire) (Manomaivibool 1975 in Schuessler 2007: 180)
Proto-Tibeto-Burman *s-lyam 'tongue/flame' (Matisoff 2003: 601)
617c 燄 EOC *lam-'(-s) 'flame up'
617d 剡 EOC *lam-' 'brilliant'
617e 掞 EOC *lam-' 'brilliant'
617f 琰 EOC *lam-' 'jade tessera with pointed top' (< 'something bright'?)
617h 燅 EOC *s-lam 'to heat, to warm'
617k 惔 EOC *lam 'aflame; burning with grief'
(no EOC attestation; form projected back from MC) 閃 *hlam 'flash/lightning' (also written as 617i 覢 'time of a short glance; a moment' < ?'flash'; Schuessler 2007: 553)
It would be confusing if *lam 'bright' had derivatives with *ə which could be confused with *ləm 'dark', and vice versa. Yet there are probable derivatives of *lam 'bright' with a schwa and a final *-p differentiating them from members of the *ləm 'dark' word family:
682a 燁 EOC *w-lap ~ *w-ləp 'shining'
690f 熠 EOC *w-ləp ~ *s-ləp ~ *ləp 'gleaming'
cf. Proto-Tibeto-Burman *s-lyap 'glitter/flash/lightning' and Proto-Tibeto-Burman *s-lyam 'tongue/flame'
The above forms may be related to words ending in (?labio)velars: e.g.,
(no EOC attestation; forms projected back from MC) 煜 EOC *w-ləp ~ *lukw < ?*ləkw 'illuminate; shine'
(ditto) 昱 EOC *lukw < ?*ləkw 'sunlight'
and via *a-ablaut:
1119f 爚 EOC *lakw 'burn; brilliant; illuminate; brightly, clearly' and its relatives
More starting here.
Next: Extreme complications.
07.11.14.23:56: GSR 671
If pre-Old Chinese - or an early Old Chinese - word for 'needle' was *Ci-qəp-NV, how would I reconstruct other words sharing the same phonetic - 咸 'all' (numbered 671a-d in Karlgren's Grammatica Serica Recensa)?
Let me start by reconstructing their Late Old Chinese forms using Schuessler's system in my notation. These are far less controversial than what is to follow.
671a -d 咸 *gEm 'all'
671e 諴 *gEm 'harmony' (prob. rel. to 671a-d)
671f 鹹 *gEm 'salt' (cf. Written Tibetan rgyam 'sea salt')
671g-h 減 *kEm' ~ *gEm' 'abridge; moderate'
671i-j 緘 *kEm 'rope; to tie'
671k 黬 *kEm ~ *'Em' 'black blot'
671l 感 *kəm' 'to move; to touch'; also used to write 671p *gəmh
671m 顑 *xəmh ~ *khəm' 'emaciated'
671n 箴 *kim 'needle'
671o 鍼 *kim 'needle'
671p 憾 *gəmh 'dissatistifed; resent'
Almost all of them have *E which can point to an earlier OC *e or *ə preceded by an *r in emphatic syllables. Since most of the exceptions (671l-m, 671p) had LOC *ə, I assume that *ə was the original shared vowel in the series.
The absence of high vowels in all but one word (671n/671o 'needle') implies that the series was originally emphatic.
Most of the words begin with velars, so I will reconstruct 'emphatic' velars (phonetically uvulars?) in Early OC.
Summing up, the shared archetype (i.e., phonotype) of the series was *qəm, and all variation consists of voicing or aspiration of its initial and the presence of other consonants in preinitial, medial, and coda positions:
671a-d 咸 EOC *rɢəm > LOC *gEm 'all'
671e 諴 EOC *rɢəm > LOC *gEm 'harmony' (prob. rel. to 671a-d)
671f 鹹 EOC *rɢəm > LOC *gEm 'salt' (cf. Written Tibetan rgyam-tshwa 'rock salt' - if the *-g- is not secondary, could the first half be a loanword from Chinese coupled with the native word tshwa 'salt'?)
there could have been a *-y- in this word and others reconstructed here as *r...ə since I think *r...yə would also have become *E.
671g-h 減 'abridge; moderate'
EOC *rqəm' > LOC *kEm'
EOC*N-rqəm' > LOC *gEm'
671i-j 緘 EOC *rqəm > LOC *kEm 'rope; to tie'
671k 黬 'black blot'
EOC *r-qəm > LOC *kEm
EOC*r-'-qəm-' > LOC *'Em'
cognate to 紺 EOC *qəm(-')-s > LOC *kəmh 'dark purple'?
671l 感 EOC *qəm' > LOC *kEm' 'to move; to touch'
also used to write 671p EOC*N-qəm'-s > LOC *gEmh
671m 顑 'emaciated'
EOC *s-qhəm'-s > LOC *xəmh
EOC*qhəm' > LOC *khəm'
671n 箴 EOC *Ci-qəm > LOC *kim 'needle'
671o 鍼 EOC *Ci-qəm > LOC *kim 'needle'
from an even earlier *Ci-qəp-NV; *-p-N had already simplified to *-m by the time the graphs containing an *-m phonetic were devised
671p 憾 EOC *N-qəm'-s > LOC *gəmh 'dissatistifed; resent'
11.15.3:15: Next: The purple problem and other reasons why the above reconstructions are erroneous.
07.11.13.23:59: AN ALL-METAL MYSTERY
When I found Zhongu khi 'needle' while writing about that language's unexpected /hk/onsonantal /kh/ontrast, it reminded me of 鍼/針 Late Old Chinese *kim 'needle'. This word is interesting for several reasons:
1. It has both -m and -p versions.
The earlier Chinese spelling 鍼 has an *-m phonetic (咸 'all'), but the newer spelling 針 has a *-p phonetic (十 'ten'), though there is no other evidence to suggest that the word had *-p in Chinese. Both spellings have the semantic element 金 'metal'.
Southeast Asian languages borrowed the -m version from Chinese:
Proto-Hmong *kɐəng (Wang Fushi in in Schuessler 2007: 610)
Proto-Mien *siim (Wang Fushi in in Schuessler 2007: 610)
Vietnamese kim (Bodman 1980 in Schuessler 2007: 610)
Khmu skam (Benedict 1992 in Schuessler 2007: 610)
Siamese เข็ม khem
Saek kim (Schuessler 2007)
Proto-Tai (Li Fang-kuei 1977): *khyem
Proto-Southwestern Tai (Jonsson 1991): *Xem ~ *Xim
(reconstructions from Proto-Tai'o'Matic)
Tibeto-Burman languages have the -p version:
Written Tibetan khab < *kap
Japhug rGyalrong ta-qaV < Proto-rGyalrong *-qap
(Matisoff [2003: 659] reconstructed Proto-Tibeto-Burman *ram with *-m as well as a number of *-p forms. Are there are any TB languages with -m in 'needle'?)
2. It has various initials:
- unaspirated *k- in Late Old Chinese (palatalizing to Middle Chinese*ch-)
- aspirated kh- or a uvular (?) fricative *X- in Tai (WT aspiration is secondary)
- uvular q- in Japhug
- a liquid (cluster) *(k-)r- in Proto-Lolo-Burmese (Matisoff 2003: 557)
- a sibilant *s- in Proto-Mien
- Matisoff (2003: 517) also reconstructed Proto-Tibeto-Burman versions with a voiced initial and a glottal stop: *gaap and *'ap. He did not list any modern forms as evidence for these reconstructions.
3. It has various vowels:
- high *i in Late OC
- mid (*)e in Siamese and Proto-(SW)Tai
- *a(a) in Proto-Tibeto-Burman
Is it possible to come up with a single root at the base of all this variation? I'll try:
> WT khab, Japhug -kaV
> *X- > *ʁ- > Proto-Lolo-Burmese *(k-)r- (with optional prefix)
this would imply other cases of PLB *r- corresponding to velar or uvular stops elsewhere
maybe PLB borrowed this word from a language which had lenited *q- to a fricative
> *g- or *'- in other Tibeto-Burman languages?
> Pre-OC *Ci-qəp-NV
nasal-initial suffix caused root-final stop to assimilate before the suffix was lost: *-p-N- > *-m-N- > *-m
root-initial *q- fronted to *k- due to adjacent high vowel
cf. Sagart's (2007) hypothesis of prefixes causing uvulars to front to velars
high vowel of prefix metathesized and became post-root initial glide
the spelling with the emphatic phonetic 咸 *r-gəm [ʀɢəm] may predate the fronting of *q-
> OC *kyəm
> Late OC *kim (schwa dropped)
borrowed into Vietnamese and the Tai language Saek as kim
> Middle Chinese, Proto-Min *chim (Schuessler 2007: 610)
late southern Middle Chinese *chəm was borrowed into Vietnamese as châm
was Proto-Mien *siim borrowed from a Chinese dialect which had reduced *skim to *schim, *sxim, *shim, *sim, etc.?
could the long vowel *ii reflect an OC long vowel or diphthong?
> Late OC *kiem (schwa fronted to *e)
> Proto-Min *chem (Schuessler 2007: 610)
prefixed variant *N-kiem > Middle Chinese *giem (in Guangyun and jiyun)
> doubly prefixed variant *r-N-kiem or *N-r-kiem > Middle Chinese *gïem (in Jiyun)
> OC variant *sʌ-kyəm
nonhigh vowel of prefix associated with emphasis
> *skyəm > *skem > *khem [qhem] ~*xem [χem]
borrowed into Tai; emphatic prefix lowered root vowel and fused with root initial to become an aspirate or a fricative
borrowed into Khmu as skam
> Pre-OC*C-qəp-NV (*C- = nonemphatic prefix; rapid speech variant of *Ci-)
> OC *kəm
borrowed into Proto-Hmong as *kɐəng without a front vowel
> Pre-OC *Ci-qəp (no nasal suffix)
> OC *kyəp
> Late OC *kip > no modern descendants
implied by alternate spelling 針 with the phonetic 十 *gip
(Data from Schuessler 2007, Guangyun, and Jiyun added 11.14.2:27.)
07.11.12.23:59: AN UNEXPECTED /HK/ONSONANTAL /KH/ONTRAST
I haven't run out of Tibeto-Burman / Old Chinese comparisons for "Eight Reasons". I've been saving some since Friday. But I just learned something so surprising that I thought it was worth interrupting the series.
Unlike Written Tibetan, the modern Zhongu dialect of Tibetan contrasts preaspirates (corresponding to WT s- and r-clusters) with postaspirates (corresponding to WT aspirates). I've heard of languages with one or the other before, but never both:
hki 'language' : WT skad
khi 'needle' : WT khab
hkO 'marrow' : WT rkang
khO 'leisure; have free time' : WT khom
hcha [htʃa] 'fear' : WT skrag
chha [tʃha]] 'blood' : WT khrag
htsa 'roast; burn' : WT sreg
tsha-Shu 'sieve' : WT tshags + ?
hta 'tiger' : WT stag
hta 'mark' : WT rtags (not stags)
tha 'weave' (perfective) < ?*thags : cf. WT Hthag 'weave' (present correspodning to Zhongu ntha; the WT past is btags)
hpu 'pile up' : WT spung
phu 'belly' : WT pho-ba
I wonder if some early stage of Chinese also had such a distinction with a similar origin:
original *s-consonant clusters > *preaspirates
original aspirates > *postaspirates
(I'll explore the question of whether *r- led to Chinese preaspiration in a future post.)
I suspect that the voiceless sonorants and (some) aspirated obstruents of OC originated as *s-clusters, and that OC *s-clusters originated from *s-presyllable-initial sequences: e.g.,
pre-OC *sk- > early OC *hk- > later OC *kh- (merging with the original postaspirate below)
pre-OC *kh- > OC *kh-
pre-OC *sŋ- > early OC *hŋ- > later OC *ŋ̊- (voiceless nasal) > very late OC *ŋ-
note that Zhongu has no preaspirated sonorants, though it does have voiceless sonorants: Zhongu ŋ̊- : WT sŋ-
pre-OC *sV-k(h)- > early OC *sk(h)- > later OC *ts(h)-
pre-OC *sV-ŋ- > early OC *sŋ- > later OC *s-
Could pre-OC *skh- have briefly become *hkh- before merging with *hk- and *kh-? Zhongu has no double aspirates because Old Tibetan had no sequences like *skh-.
Zhongu has some other interesting features which are potentially relevant for the reconstruction of Old Chinese and Tangut, but I'll get to them later.
(11.13.1:21: Replaced two of the original examples of velar minimal pairs [khɐ-hkO 'thirst' and khO-ntshə 'angry'] with simpler examples, and added nonvelar examples. Added nasal examples to the section on OC.)
07.11.11.18:09: EIGHT REASONS *Y (PART 6)
This is another data-heavy, analysis-less post listing all remaining PTB *(-)y- words and their proposed OC cognates from Matisoff 2003, unless otherwise indicated:
PTB *velar-y- words:
PTB *kyang 'ginger' : 薑 OC *kang 'id.'
a loan from late OC *kïang with *-ï-?
PTB *k(y)ik/*k(y)it 'tie/bind' : borrowing from *-l-less descendant of OC *klit < ?*-ik 'tie/knot'?
繫 OC *keks 'tie' may be the true cognate
PTB *k(y)im 'pillow' : not cognate to 枕 OC*təm 'pillow'
PTB *k-yum 'house' : 宮 OC *kung < ?*-um 'dwelling house'
PTB *kyeng 'red' : 赤+巠/赬 OC ?*rtkeng 'id.' (not normal word; borrowing from TB?); not cognate to 騂 OC *sing 'red ox'
PTB *m-kyen 'know' : 見 OC *ken 'see'
is the latter really cognate to PTB *hyen 'hear/listen; look/see'?
PTB *kywal 'jackal, wild dog' : 犬 OC *khw(e/i)(n/r)' (vowel and coda uncertain) 'dog'
PTB *b-r-gyat (I would reconstruct *p-ryat) 'eight' : 八 OC *pret (< ?*pryat) or *prit 'id.'
PTB *b-r-gya (I would reconstruct *p-rya) 'hundred' : 百 OC *prak 'id.'
PTB *gyi/dzyi 'ride horse' : see part 5
PTB *g(y)ip 'ten' : 十 OC *gip 'id.'
PTB *s-ngya 'fish' : 魚 OC *nga 'id.'
I would add
PTB *kyap 'stick into/insert' : 夾 OC *rkep (< ?*rkyap) 'press between'
Is PTB *tsap 'stick into/insert' borrowed from an *s-prefixed 夾 late OC *tsep < OC *s-kep 'press between'?
PTB *gyap 'narrow' : loan from 狹 late OC *gep < OC *N-rkep (< ?*N-rkyap) 'narrow'?
PTB *gyar/*hyar 'run/ride/go by vehicle' : 騎 OC *gay < ?*gal 'ride a horse'
PTB *gyi and *dzyi 'ride horse' may be later borrowings from late OC and an Austroasiatic word cognate to Old Khmer jih; see part 5
PTB *hy-words have OC cognates with emphatic velars (uvulars?):
PTB *hyam 'salt(y)' : 鹹 OC *rgem (< ?*r-[g]yam) 'salt(y)'
is this a loan from late OC *GEm [ɣɛm] 'salt(y)'?
also cf. PTB *g-ryum 'salt' : 鹽 OC ?*rə-yam 'salt' (< *rə-hyam?)
PTB *s-hywəy 'blood' : 血 OC *xwit 'id.'
I could only find three PTB *labial-y- words with Chinese cognates in Matisoff (2003):
PTB *pyar/*byar 'affix/plait/sew' : 編 OC *pen 'weave', 辮 OC *pens 'braid'; 編 OC *ben' (< ?*N-pen') 'arrange in a series) may not be related
PTB *byer 'fly' : 翩 OC *phen (< ?*phyan) 'fly about'
PTB *s-myak/*s-mik 'eye' : 目 OC *muk or ?*mikw 'id.' (but Sagart [1999: 154] reconstructed *m-r-liwk)
I would add
PTB *pyaw 'swim/float' : 漂 OC *phew < OC ?*phyaw (found in Schuessler [2007: 414], who reconstructed OC *phiau)
is 浮 OC *bu 'float' < *N-phyu, a zero-grade cognate of *phyaw sharing a root *py-w?
PTB *pyen/*pyet 'fart' : 屁 MC *phih < OC ?*phi(t)s 'pass gas' (not attested)
could be independently developed onomatopoetic words
Until recently, I would have agreeed with Sagart (1999: 29): PTB *y-words with apparent Chinese cognates were actually borrowed from late OC forms with *y- < earlier OC *l-. However, I am no longer sure that was always the case, since I now think that words written with *l-phonetics representing only nonemphatic syllables may have been *y-initial. Hence I provide both *l- and *y- reconstructions below whenever possible:
PTB *ya 'night' : 夜 OC *laks or *yaks 'id.'
PTB *yang/*g-yak 'sheep' : 羊 OC *lang or *yang or 'id.'
PTB *yaar 'spread/extend/sail' : loan from 延 OC *lan 'extend', 筵 OC *lan 'mat', 演 OC *lan/r' 'flow out, extend' (Schuessler 2007: 554 added 衍 OC *lan'[s] 'be overflowing'), 引 OC *lin' 'pull' are all doubtful, as most of them are not written with OC *y-r phonetics
the 延 phonetic series cannot be reconstructed with *y- because it contains graphs for emphatic syllables with MC retroflex and dental stops:
梴 MC *Thien < OC *r-hlan 'long (beams)' < ?*'extended'
誕 MC *dan' < OC*lan' 'boast' < ?*'to extend the truth'
although 演 OC *lan/r' 'flow out, extend' belongs to a pure nonemphatic series implying the possibility of *yan/r, I reconstruct a lateral initial since I assume the word is cognate to '延 OC *lan 'extend'
PTB *yəw/*yu(w) 'liquor' (latter form on p. 185) : 酒 OC *s-t-lu' (suggested to me by Sagart) or *tsyu' 'wine' (Schuessler 2007: 321)
Schuessler (2007: 568) listed
PTB *(g-)yak 'armpit' : 腋掖亦 OC *lyak or *yak 'id.'
I was tempted to add
PTB *yay/*ay 'mother/grandmother/maternal aunt' : 姨 OC *ləy 'sister-in-law'
but the semantic match is poor and I cannot reconstruct *y for 姨 because its phonetic appears in
洟 'mucus from the nose'
MC *yi < OC *ləy
MC *theyh < OC*hləy-s
which is cognate to 涕 OC *hləy-s 'tears', written with a definite *l-phonetic. Moreover, it is more likely that MC dental *th is a fortition of a dental *hl than a palatal *y.
I will examine Sagart's (2007) recent proposal of a voiced uvular stop *ɢ- corresponding to my *y- in a future installement of this series.