220.127.116.11:10: VOLUNTEER BACKREST
Last night I saw a sign at a Thai restaurant asking for people to work at the front counter. It contained two words that puzzle me:
สมัคร <smagr> samák 'to volunteer' < Skt samagra- 'all'?
cf. Khmer ស្ម័គ្រ <smăgr> smak 'to volunteer; all'
พนัก <bnak> phanák 'backrest' < ?
First, I presume Thai samák 'to volunteer' was borrowed from
Khmer smak, but was Khmer smak 'to volunteer' really
borrowed from Sanskrit (as its spelling implies at first glance), or is
it a native Khmer word respelled as if it
were an unrelated Indo-Khmer homophone ស្ម័គ្រ <smăgr> smak
'all'? I can't
imagine how 'all' could become 'to volunteer'. samák is not in Gedney's (1947) Indic Loanwords in Spoken
Thai. Did Gedney regard it as Khmer?
Second, where does phanák come from? The Royal Institute Dictionary doesn't list an etymology. My guess is that it's from ភ្នាក់ Khmer <bnâk> pneak 'support, prop, agent, official' (as defined by Headley 1997). I suppose then พนักงาน phanák ŋaan 'employee' (with ŋaan 'work') originated as 'work agent'. Did phanák ever mean 'agent' in Thai as well as Khmer? If it did, perhaps it only survives in that sense in phanák ŋaan 'employee'.
18.104.22.168:24: WHAT IS THE SOUND OF THE WIND STOPPING?
Today I saw this cartoon with the following comment:
I'm afraid the bottom-right character in the Chinese panel isn't used in Chinese. It seems to be used in Japanese, though.
That character is 凪, a made-in-Japan character for nagi 'lull' or the first syllable of its root nag- 'to be calm'. It is a combination of the enclosing element 𠘨 of 風 'wind' and all of 止 'stop'. (That description sounds like something out of the Tangraphic Sea.) 凪 is a relatively rare character; it is not in this list of 3,289 kanji ordered by frequency from two newspapers though it is on the JLPT N1 kanji list. I wonder how many people learn the character from the name of this restaurant.
One might argue that the character is Chinese since Wiktionary lists a Mandarin reading zhǐ and a Cantonese reading ji2 for it. That entry even includes a Sino-Korean reading 지 chi and a Sino-Vietnamese reading chỉ. But all of those readings are obviously simply taken from the reading of the bottom component 止. Do those non-Japanese readings have any reality beyond dictionaries?
What is to stop one from, say, inventing similar analogical readings for other 'non-Chinese Chinese' characters: e.g.,
Mandarin yǐ for the made-in-Korea character 乭 tol (by analogy with Mandarin 乙 yǐ)
Mandarin shàng for the made-in-Vietnam character 𡗶 trời (by analogy with Mandarin 上 shàng)
(12.3.7:20: zdic.net lists a Mandarin reading shí for 乭 by analogy with Mandarin 石 shí! But the site has no reading for 𡗶 which could also be a character for Zhuang gwnz [kɯn˧˩] 'top'. I am agnostic about the relationship between the Vietnamese and Zhuang scripts.)
Answering my own question, there may be a demand for Chinese readings for made-in-Japan characters when such characters appear in Japanese names in Chinese texts and have to be pronounced somehow: e.g., in this Chinese-language Wikipedia entry about 榊一郎 Sakaki Ichirou which even explains how to read the made-in-Japan character 榊 Sakaki in Mandarin:
'榊 belongs to [the set of] Japanese-language Chinese characters; its [Mandarin] Chinese reading is shén [as in] 神, and its Japanese pronunciation is Sakaki.'
Made-in-Korea or Vietnam characters (or other 'non-Chinese Chinese' characters like those of Zhuang, Bai, etc.) are far less likely to appear in similar contexts in Chinese texts. Hence there is far less of a need to invent readings for them.
As far as I know, nobody today reads Japanese names in Sino-Korean or Sino-Vietnamese, so invented Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese readings for made-in-Japan characters may have no value beyond being fun 'what if' exercises. Thus I think a case could be made for including Chinese readings of made-in-Japan characters but not Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese readings in dictionaries.
22.214.171.124:05: DO GO-BETWEENS INVITE DAUGHTER-IN-LAWS?
Out of curiosity I looked up Korean 며느리 myŏnŭri 'daughter-in-law' in Sergei Starostin's database and found it traced back to a Proto-Altaic *májŋV 'go-between' on the basis of that Korean word and
Proto-Tungusic *maŋa 'go-between, matchmaker'
Proto-Japonic: *mániák- 'to invite' (all PJ forms in this post are Starostin's, not mine)
That Altaic form is in turn derived from a Eurasiatic
*mVjNV from a Borean
*MVNV. That in turn could be derived from a Proto-World *CVCV
Seriously, here's what I think might be the logic behind the Proto-Altaic reconstruction:
The meaning 'go-between' was retained in Tungusic, but shifted to 'daughter-in-law' (the product of matchmaking) in Korean and lost all matrimonial associations as 'to invite' in Japanese. The semantic fit between Tungusic and Korean is loose to be generous and almost nonexistent in Japanese.
*-j- disappeared in Tungusic, whereas it moved before
the preceding vowel in Korean and after the following consonant
in Japonic. This is phonetically plausible.
Tungusic and Japonic share the second vowel *a in common, but it doesn't match Korean -ŭ-, so the second vowel is left unspecified at the Proto-Altaic level.
Japonic *-k- is unexplained - could it be a verbal suffix added to a nominal root?
Now here's what I think:
First, the semantics are weak, and get weaker at higher nodes (the
Eurasiatic meaning is 'female relative', so the meaning went almost
full circle in Korean, going from 'female relative' to 'go-between' and
- I would expect more examples of Proto-Altaic (PA) *ajC becoming Korean yŏC, but I can only find two others:
'breast': PA *č`ằjǯV : Korean chŏt < Middle Korean /cyəc/
'to stand': PA *sajri : Korean sŏ- < Middle Korean /syə/
Elsewhere, PA *aj becomes Korean i, a, ʌ(y), or u.
- I would expect more examples of PA *ajC becoming Japonic *aCi, but I can only find instance of PA *ajC becoming Japonic *aC (thrice), *i, *aiNC (not *aiC!), *iCi, word-final *ai and *u, *uC.
These chaotic 'reflexes' in Korean and Japonic are what I would expect from an attempt to link a lot of lookalikes into cognate sets, and some seem less probable than others (e.g., *aj > u in both Korean and Japonic).
PA intervocalic *-ŋ- has 'split reflexes' in Korean, becoming zero, Middle Korean -ɲ- (which others interpret as -z-), and -ŋ- as well as -n-.
Similarly, PA intervocalic *-ŋ- has 'split reflexes' in Japonic: zero, *-m-, and *-nk- as well as -n-.
Split reflexes are not impossible, but they need to be conditioned. A very complicated system could account for such diverse outcomes, but there is a risk of ad hoc solutions, particularly if many individual words have unique explanations.
Near-homophones in a proto-language should develop similarly in a daughter language. One might expect PA *mà̀jŋì 'temple, forehead, ear' (the semantic range of the gloss is itself a warning sign) to develop like *májŋV 'go-between', but it does not: the former became *mìmì in Japanese, not *mànì by analogy with *mániák- from PA *májŋV. The shift of PA *-ŋ- flanked by palatal segments (*j, *i) to Japonic *-m- is highly unlikely.
Third, Vovin might argue that 'to invite' can't be reconstructed at
the Proto-Japonic level if it is not attested in Ryukyuan (and I have
not found it there). (One could, of course, argue that Ryukyuan lost
In conclusion, I think the Tungusic, Korean, and Japonic forms have
nothing in common but initial *ma- (since I reconstruct Old
Korean *mainɯRi 'daughter-in-law' with an *R which
could have been *-r- or *-t-).
126.96.36.199:59: KA(H)I-NUS ET *TAI-MPLUM
One advantage of online publishing is immediate peer feedback. For example, in " 'Buddha Khan' in Korea and Japan" I wrote,
This begs the question of where Middle Korean ㅐ ay came from. Did only some *ai monophthongize to *e, and if so, why? Is [16th century] Middle Korean 개 kay 'dog' from *kaCi with a *-C- that blocked monophthongization before it was lost?
Sven Osterkamp reminded me that the answer in that particular instance is yes. In my haste to write something that night, I forgot about 15th century Middle Korean 가히 kahi 'dog' whose medial fricative was also recorded centuries earlier in the 12th century Jilin leishi transcription 家稀 *kya xi. (Such embarrassing oversights result from my self-imposed rule requiring me to post something before going to bed; most of these posts are written while racing against time.)
Sven also pointed out that not all instances of Middle Korean ㅐ ay could be from *aCi: e.g., 내 nay 'I-NOM' from na 'I' plus nominative -i. Could analogy have prevented monophthongization from taking place when -a (pro)nouns were followed by nominative -i?
Getting back to the subject of Buddhism, it occurred to me that Jurchen
<tai.ra(.an)> taira(n) 'temple'
might preserve an Old Korean *ai that diphthongized to *e and broke to yə, resulting in Middle Korean tyər 'temple'.
Middle Korean Sino-Korean readings ending in -ay from circa the eighth century AD must postdate diphthongization. Thus I think that *taira was borrowed into Jurchen before the eighth century: e.g., perhaps in the early years of the Parhae state.
11.28.0:56: Old Korean *taira may have been contemporaneous with Sino-Korean readings such as
低 chŏ < tyə < *te < *tai
西 sŏ < syə < *se < *sai (cf. Go-on sai, presumably from Sino-Paekche *sai)
which were borrowed before monophthongization.
Go-on sai in turn may have been borrowed from Paekche after *ai > e monophthogization in Japanese, whereas Japanese tera 'temple' was presumably borrowed from Paekche *taira before monophthogization.
Strata of early Koreanic *e/*ai in Japanese
|Paekche||Pre-Old Japanese||*e-raising||*ai-monophthongization||Old Japanese|
|*sai 'west' (< southern Chinese 西)||(not yet borrowed)||sai|
*ai-monophthongization must postdate *e-raising because tera did not become *tira.
Sino-Japanese 世 se 'world' may have been borrowed as *sai before *ai-monophthongization.
Returning to native Korean words, I wonder if 'daughter-in-law' can be reconstructed with *ai. Here is how I would account for the variants listed on this page: e.g.,
standard 며느리 [myənɯri] < *me ... < *mai ...
미느리 [minɯri] < *mi ... < *me ... < *mai ...
메니리 [meniri] < *məi ... < *mai ...
매느리 [mɛnɯri] < *mai ...
The medial -r- may be from a *-t- that lenited in intervocalic position (or Ramsey's *-d-).
I wonder what the reflexes of early Korean *sema 'island' with (presumably) primary *e (as opposed to secondary *e from *ai) are in those dialects. The standard word is
섬 [səm] < syəm < *sema
but I would predict
심 [ɕʰim] /sim/ in a dialect with 미느리 [minɯri] (i.e., a dialect which had raised *e to [i])
though not 셈 [sem] or 샘 [sɛm] which would be reflexes of *saima rather than *sema.
11.28.13:43: No, wait, 셈 [sem] would be possible in dialects preserving *e.
11.28.13:39: I would expect 질 [tɕil], 젤 [tɕel], and 잴 [tɕɛl] as variant reflexes of *taira 'temple' parallel to 미느리 [minɯri], 메니리 [meniri], and 매느리 [mɛnɯri]. But I fear that reality is messier than the predictions of this simple model.
188.8.131.52:36: NEAR-HOMO-*FO-NES OF 'BUDDHA' IN THE KHITAN LARGE SCRIPTIn my previous post, I wrote,
I wonder if Liu and Wang's <bor> was actually read <fu> or <pu>, a transcription of Liao Chinese 佛 *fu 'Buddha', just as <ta> may be a transcription of 塔 *tʰa 'pagoda'.
Since there was no f in native Khitan words (see Kane 2009: 256), Liao Chinese *f- could be transcribed as
in the Khitan small script, implying that Liao Chinese *f-loanwords could also be pronounced with [p] in Khitan.
This begs the question of why Liao Chinese 佛 *fu 'Buddha' would have been transcribed in the Khitan large script as Liu and Wang graph (hereafter LW) 187 (and 188 if it is a variant of 187?)
instead of as LW 22, 56, or 161
which Liu and Wang read as <pu>.
I will examine those three graphs below.
1. LW 22
This graph transcribed Chinese characters which were all pronounced as *fu (albeit with different tones) in Liao Chinese: 副, 夫, 傅, 府, 撫. This suggests a reading <fu> which would have been perfect for transcribing 佛 *fu 'Buddha'. Was 'Buddha' considered worthy of a special character? And/or could some instances of 'Buddha' have been written as LW 22? See below for a third possibility.
LW 22 would have been read as <pu> in native Khitan words and in a Khitanized pronunciation of Liao Chinese loanwords.
The Khitan small script equivalent of LW 22
has a dotted variant
for <fu>, whereas LW 22 was ambiguous and could have been read as either <pu> or <fu>. (Perhaps the dotless original version of <pu> was similarly ambiguous.)
2. LW 56
This corresponds to Liao Chinese 邑 *i (line 4 of 耶律昌允 Yelü Changyun's epitaph) and 保 *pau (line 12), so Liu and Wang read it as <i> and <pu> (= <bu> in the Kane-style notation I use for Khitan on this site).
Khitan large script characters generally do not have multiple dissimilar readings, so I wonder if LW 56 represented a native Khitan <bu> 'village' that was the translation equivalent of Liao Chinese 邑 *i 'village'. 邑 did have a final *-p in Late Middle Chinese (cf. its Sino-Korean reading ŭp which was borrowed from a northeastern Late Middle Chinese dialect), but it's unlikely that <bu> represented a final *-p that was lost by the 11th century. Kane (2009: 179) did not reconstruct an <i>-like reading for LW 56; he listed <bau> as its sole reading.
Liu and Wang's second reading <bu> is in
a transcription of the Liao Chinese title 太保 *tʰai pau 'great protector'. Such titles are rendered as straight transcriptions, so I would not expect a half-translated <tai i> combining the loanword <tai> with a native word <i> as an equivalent of 太保.
<bu> matches the unusual Khitan small script spelling
for 保 *pau in line 29 of the epitaph for 許王 Prince Xu. The spelling I would have expected is
Kane (2009: 179) listed <b.au> as a small script equivalent of LW 56 but did not include <b.au> in his section on the Khitan small script transcription of Liao Chinese. Where is <b.au> attested? (契丹小字研究 does not list <b.au> in its list of possible <b>-combinations on p. 432, but it is possible <b.au> for保 has been found during the 24 years between the publication of that book in 1985 and Kane's book.)
The Khitan equated Liao Chinese unaspirated *p- with their <b> whose exact phonetic value is unclear; it could have been [p], [b], or even [ɓ]. The Khitan small script graph <b> may have had been read with an inherent vowel as <bo> implied by the Khitan small script spelling
for the Liao Chinese title 太保 *tʰai pau (Kane 2009: 32, 80). Hence
could be reinterpreted as <bo.u> for a Liao Chinese reading like *pɔu. I could then revise my reading of LW 56 as <bou>.3. LW 161
Once again, Liu and Wang's <pu> is equivalent to <bu> in Kane-style notation. LW 161 appears in the word
<bu ai> 'grandfather'
whose Khitan small script spelling is
<ai> is 'father'. This <bu> was distinct from the aforementioned
that Kane (2009: 256) read as <b.u>.Conclusion
Here is a table comparing my readings with those of Liu and Wang (2004) and Kane (2009). Some differences are merely notational (e.g., Liu and Wang's <th> = Kane's and my <t>).
|LW||Liu and Wang||Kane||This site|
|22||pu||fu ~ pu|
|56||pu ~ i||bau||bou (~ i?)|
|187||bor||(none)||fu ~ pu (or fo ~ po?; see below)|
|188||tha||ta||fu ~ pu (or fo ~ po?; see below) or ta|
LW 56 <bou> and LW 122 <bu> were not suitable for writing <fu> ~ <pu> 'Buddha', but LW 22 was. I have already mentioned the possibility that some instances of 'Buddha' could have been written as LW 22. Although 'Buddha' has not yet been found in small script texts, perhaps it is in plain sight as
~<pu> ~ < fu>.
Pulleyblank (1991) reconstructed 佛 'Buddha' in Old Mandarin as *fɔ with an irregular *-ɔ as well as the regular *fu. The modern standard Mandarin reading fo is a descendant of *fɔ. If this *fɔ already existed in Liao Chinese, perhaps LW 187 (and 188?) was something like <fo> ~ <po> and would not have been written as LW 22 <fu> ~ <pu>.
I wonder if the irregular vowel of *fɔ is due to the influence of *ɔ in the second syllable of the disyllabic word for 'Buddha':
佛陀 *fu tʰɔ > *fɔ tʰɔ?
was borrowed from that second syllable's northwestern Chinese counterpart before its vowel raised and rounded to *ɔ.
184.108.40.206:54: 'PERSON' OVER 'KING' = 'BUDDHA' OR 'PAGODA'?
Andrew West questioned the equation of the Khitan large script character
resembling Chinese 全 'complete' (in turn resembling* Chinese 人 'person' over 王 'king') with <bor> 'Buddha' for two reasons.
First, the 靜安寺 Jing'an Temple inscription mentions 佛山 *fu ʂan 'Buddha Mountain' (lines 12-13 of Liu & Wang 2004: 97) and the Chinese epitaph of 耶律昌允 Yelü Changyun's wife mentions 塔山 *tʰa ʂan 'Pagoda Mountain' (line 16 of Liu & Wang 2004: 94). (The Liao Chinese reconstructions are my own and the line numbers refer to modern printed texts, not the original inscriptions.) Liu and Wang equate those Chinese names with
<bor śan> and <ta śan>
in the Khitan large script epitaph for Yelü Changyun. (I have rewritten Liu & Wang's IPA in Kane 2009's transcription.) But what if the identifications are reversed?
Second, the reading <bor> is Liu and Wang's educated guess - a compromise between Daur barkan 'Buddha' and bologu 'complete'. There is no known Khitan small script spelling or Chinese transcription to back up this interpretation. Daur is not to Khitan what Manchu is to Jurchen, so a Daur-based guess is even shakier than my Manchu-based guess of
*putihi > *futihi 'Buddha'
in Jurchen. There is no guarantee that Manchu fucihi is a direct descendant of the written Jurchen word for 'Buddha'; cf. how Jurchen
<tai.ra(.an)> taira(n) 'temple'
might have been phased out by other words in Manchu. (anakv.com lists taira 'temple' as a Manchu word, but Norman's 2013 dictionary does not. This implies that the word survived into the Qing Dynasty but had become marginal.)
I wonder if Liu and Wang's <bor> was actually read <fu> or <pu>, a transcription of Liao Chinese 佛 *fu 'Buddha', just as <ta> may be a transcription of 塔 *tʰa 'pagoda'. The Khitan word for 'Buddha' could have been distinct from <fu> or <pu>, just as Korean puchhŏ is distinct from Sino-Korean 佛 pul and Japanese hotoke is distinct from Sino-Japanese 佛 butsu.
It is even possible that the Khitan had a native word recycled for the foreign concept of 'pagoda'. And Tibetan 'Buddha' demonstrates that even 'Buddha' does not have to be a borrowing.
In Tangut, 'Buddha' is
1tha < Northwestern Tangut period Chinese 佛陀 *fu tʰa 'Buddha'
which sounds like Liu and Wang's <ta> 'pagoda' (?). It is also interesting that the Tangut character has 'person' on the left and a 王-like element on the right. I have long considered the Tangut graph to be derived from Chinese 佛 which has Chinese 亻 'person' on the left, but ever since I saw Liu and Wang's identification of 全 as 'Buddha' some time ago, I've wondered if the Tangut partly translated and rearranged the components of 全 to create the graph for 1tha.
(The Tangraphic Sea explains that Tangut graph as 'a person penetrating the three worlds' - a reference to the vertical line intersecting the three horizontal lines of the right-hand element 丰 whose Boxenhorn code is ... bor!)
Could the two Khitan characters
be variants of each other? They both share an arrow-like shape 个 in common. The first two horizontal strokes of the first graph correspond to the four diagonal strokes of the second. Could they both be pictographs of pagodas?
11.26.3:10: ADDENDUM: If I understand the logic of Liu and Wang (2004: 68) correctly, the identification of <bor> and <ta> was made on chronological grounds.
Yelü Changyun died in 1061, only a year after the construction of Jing'an Temple and its pagoda had begun. The temple would be completed in 1072. A reference to 1084 in line 29 of.the Khitan inscription indicates that it was written at least 23 years after the death of Yelü Changyun. (Why so long? His ethnic Khitan wife died in 1091. Was his inscription written around the same time as hers? Why was hers in Chinese rather than Khitan? And why was his in the Khitan large script rather than the small script?)
appears on lines 19 and 20 between references to 1061 on line 18 and 1062 on line 19. Therefore it should not represent 'Pagoda Mountain', a name that dated after the erection of the pagoda. (The assumption seems to be that the pagoda could not have been finished within a year or two.)
On the other hand,
appears on line 22, so it represents the later name 'Pagoda Mountain'. Or does it? There is no reference to a year after 1062 before <ta śan>; the next reference to a year is on the aforementioned line 29. So it's not clear that <ta śan> is a much later name. Does dative-locative <de> after <ta śan> have a translative function? Could line 22 mean something like 'It (i.e., Buddha Mountain) became Pagoda Mountain'? Or are
really just two spellings of the same word (as opposed to two words with the same referent)?
*The character 全 is actually derived from 入 'enter' over 玉 'jade'.
220.127.116.11:18: 'BUDDHA' IN MANCHU, JURCHEN, AND KHITAN
When writing my previous post, I looked up burqan 'Buddha' (< 'Buddha-khan') in Clauson's An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-13th Century Turkish, but I didn't notice the following passage in that entry until I saw it quoted in Drompp (2005: 232; emphasis mine):
This word [burqan], corresponding properly to some [Indic] phr[ase] like Buddharājā ['Buddha-king'], was the one chosen to represent Buddha in the earliest Turkish translation of Buddhist scriptures
Drompp identified Chinese characters now read as Fuyun in Mandarin as a transcription of burqan. What are those characters?
I think 'Buddha-khan' also underlies Manchu fucihi 'Buddha', which probably goes back to Jurchen
*putihi (> Ming Jurchen *futihi)
I have no idea what the origin of that character is; it does not
resemble either Chinese 佛 'Buddha' or the Khitan large script character
<bor> 'Buddha' (see below).
There is no phonetic transcription of these characters, so I have guessed their readings using known correspondences between Manchu and Jurchen.
*putihi in turn probably goes back to Parhae Jurchen *putiki, a borrowing from Old Korean *putke.
Note that Jurchen and Japanese have different epenthetic vowels (*-i- and -ə-) between the two parts of the compound; this may indicate those vowels were indepedently added. (Another possibility incorporating Frellesvig and Whitman's hypothesis of pre-Old Japanese *ɨ lowering to ə in Old Japanese is that the Japanese word was originally *potɨ-ka-i with a *-ɨ- corresponding to Jurchen *-i-.) The earliest Koreanic version of the word might have been *putɨ-ka-i, and the second vowel dropped out in what eventually became Middle Korean 부텨 puthyə.
Jurchen final *-i was the closest equivalent of Old Korean *-e since Jurchen had no mid front vowel *[e]; the vowel letter e in Jurchen transcription is phonetically [ə]. If the word were borrowed after *e broke to yə in Korean, it might have been borrowed into Jurchen as *putikiye or *putike which would become Manchu *fucihiye or *fucihe.
I do not know if the Khitan also had a 'Buddha-khan'-type word for 'Buddha'. Kane (2009) lists no Khitan word for 'Buddha'. Has anyone found it in Khitan small script texts? Liu and Wang (2004) identified
as the large script character <bor> 'Buddha', 'complete' (the meaning of the Chinese word represented by its sinographic lookalike 全). <bor> is obviously borrowed from northern Late Middle Chinese 佛 *bvur 'Buddha'. I wonder if <bor> ever occurs in a compound like *bor-qa 'Buddha-khan'. In 北大王墓誌, <bor> appears three times:
<bor bor en er er ? ? po> '... time'
<bor ? ? ? in de> '... (dative-locative)'
I don't know what these phrases mean or even where to divide words. Both are preceded by what look like case markers at the ends of phrases (genitive <in> and and dative-locative <de>), so I assume <bor> is word-initial.
The reduplication of <bor> and <er> in the first phrase may not be coincidental.
I assume <in> before <de> in the second phrase indicates an -in at the end of a noun rather than the genitive case unless this phrase has double case marking.
I wonder if <bor> was read as bor for 'complete' and as bur for 'Buddha'. If 'Buddha' was bor in Khitan, its mid vowel is reminiscent of the mid vowel in Old Japanese 保止氣 potəkəy.
18.104.22.168:33: 'BUDDHA KHAN' IN KOREA AND JAPAN
I have long been troubled by Korean 부처 puchhŏ and Japanese hotoke 'Buddha' which must be related but not in a straightforward way. Here's my attempt to explain how they came to be.
When Buddhism came into the Korean peninsula in the 4th century AD, the first word for 'Buddha' there must have been Chinese 佛 *but, short for 佛陀 *butda, a borrowing of Sanskrit Buddha-. This word was localized as *put with the addition of *-ka-i 'ruler' (cf. Koguryŏ 皆 *kɛ 'king', perhaps from *ka-i, the Puyŏ title suffix -加 *-ka, Paekche -瑕 *-ka 'king', Shilla -干 *-kan 'king' [Lee and Ramsey 2011: 48], Khitan <qa> and <qa.ɣa.an> [Kane 2009], and Old Turkic and Written Mongolian qan and qaɣan [see Vovin 2007 on the ultimate origins of this term]). *put-ka-i is similar in structure to Old Turkic and Written Mongolian burqan 'Buddha' (lit. 'Buddha khan'). (The -r of bur reflects Late Middle Chinese 佛 *bvur 'Buddha'.)
In Paekche, *putkai became *potkai, and was borrowed into pre-Old Japanese as *potəkai which then became 保止氣 potəkəy in Old Japanese. Unfortunately, I don't know of any other evidence for *u lowering to *o in Paekche; if such a change occurred, it must have predated the borrowing of the Chinese character readings that were later transmitted to Japan. (11.24.0:57: Did Paekche have vowel rotation: e.g., *ü > *u > *o?)
In Shilla, *putkai became *putke. Later *tk became th and *e broke to yə, resulting in Middle Korean 부텨 puthyə. In Modern Korean, thy fused into chh [tɕʰ]: 부처 pucchŏ.
Some Sino-Korean readings with -ŏ < -yə may also have undergone the same monophthongization and breaking:
西 *sai (cf. Go-on sai) > *se > 셔 syə > 서 sŏ
This begs the question of where Middle Korean ㅐ ay came from. Did only some *ai monophthongize to *e, and if so, why? Is Middle Korean 개 kay 'dog' from *kaCi with a *-C- that blocked monophthongization before it was lost?
THE Dʑ-IFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTHEASTERN LATE MIDDLE CHINESE
Since at least 1999, I have thought that Korean borrowed from a northeastern Late Middle Chinese dialect. The Khitan Empire encompassed northeastern China and so Khitan must have also borrowed from a northeastern Late Middle Chinese dialect. Standard Mandarin today is based on the Beijing dialect, and what is now Beijing was once the Southern Capital of the Khitan. So one might think that loans from Chinese in Korean and Khitan come from the ancestor of modern standard Mandarin: i.e., a prestigious northeastern Chinese dialect.
But there are subtle clues indicating otherwise. In my previous post, I wrote about the different Mandarin and Korean initials corresponding to *dʐ- in the Middle Chinese rhyme dictionary tradition. The very limited Khitan data I had on hand suggested that Khitan borrowed from a language similar to the ancestor of standard Mandarin, not from the source of the Chinese loans in Korean.
Looking at the Mandarin, Khitan, and Korean nitials corresponding to *dʑ- in the Middle Chinese rhyme dictionary tradition also confirms that conclusion from last night:
||Middle Chinese tone
||Before Late Middle Chinese *-ɨ
||Mandarin 尚 chang is extinct
||Cf. Korean 振 /cin/
||尚 (again!), 署
The Mandarin initials are predictable:
sh- before *-ɨ (class 1)
ch- before level tone rhymes (classes 2-4)
sh- elsewhere (class 5)
This pattern is close to that for *dʐ- except that the elsewhere initial is sh-, not zh-. I don't understand why an affricate weakened to a fricative before *-ɨ and nonlevel tone rhymes.
Khitan had two initials for 尚 (class 2 and 5; Takeuchi 2007: 29)
presumably depending on tone. (Khitan was atonal, but of course the
source of its Chinese loanwords was tonal.) Pulleyblank (1991: 50)
listed chang as a level tone reading of 尚 in 尚羊 'ramble', but I
cannot find any other source indicating that it is still in use: e.g., zdic.net lists the
reading of 尚羊 as shangyang.
Korean has a fricative with the exception of 辰 /cin/ (class 4) which has an unaspirated initial unlike Mandarin chen; its reading may be by analogy with 振 /cin/ and may be of Korean origin since its prescriptive 15th century reading in 東國正韻 Tongguk chŏngun is <ss.i.n> like 臣 (class 3) which is its homophone in the Middle Chinese rhyme dictionary tradition. Is there any modern northeastern Chinese dialect with fricatives for *dʑ- and *dʐ- in the Middle Chinese rhyme dictionary tradition corresponding to Korean /s/?
22.214.171.124:59: SA(L)SA-FLAVORED CHACHA
I wonder how many people learned the Mandarin word 查 cha 'investigate' from the name of 查查 ChaCha.com.
Standard Mandarin ch- and -a normally correspond to chh- and -a in Chinese borrowings in Korean, so the expected Korean reading of 查 is *chha. However, the actual Korean reading of 查 is sa with s-, not chh-. (Hence the asterisk on *chha indicating that it is not attested.) So 查查 would be read as sasa in Korean. Why does Korean have s- instead of chh-?
The initial of 查 in the rhyme dictionary tradition is *dʐ- which corresponds to three consonants in both Mandarin and Korean:
(all from Baxter & Sagart 2011 except 查)
|2||儕棧||ch-||Cf. Korean 齊 che, 錢 chŏn|
|4||驟||zh-||chh-||Cf. Korean 聚 chhwi|
|5||轏助||ch-||Cf. Korean 孱 chan|
The Mandarin initials are predictable:
sh- before *-ɨ (class 7)
ch- before level tone rhymes (classes 2-3)
zh- elsewhere (classes 4-6)
The Korean initials are only partly predictable:
s- before *-ɨ (class 7)
s- nearly everywhere (classes 3 and 6)
ch(h)- in classes 2, 4, and 5 by analogy with other readings of characters with the same phonetic components
I cannot explain why the high-frequency class 5 character 助 has irregular ch- unlike the low-frequency character 鋤 containing it as a phonetic. Its final -o is also irregular; 鋤 has the regular rhyme -ŏ.
Does Korean s- reflect a northeastern Late Middle Chinese *ʂ- corresponding to *dʐ- in the rhyme dictionary tradition? It is a shame that I can only find Khitan transcriptions for two syllables with the rhyme dictionary initial *dʐ- (Takeuchi 2007: 27, 33, Kane 2009: 258):
So far - which is to say not far at all - the Khitan initials match the Mandarin pattern. Were other syllables of this type transcribed with Khitan <sh> or <ś>-graphs?
11.22.1:07: I can't find 查 in the prescriptive Korean dictionary 東國正韻 Tongguk chŏngun, but its variants 楂 and 槎 have the reading <ss.a.Ø>. This indicates that a fricative initial was considered prestigious.
I expected to find 助 and 鋤 in the section for <ss.ə>-syllables (disregarding tones), but in fact both were listed in the section for <cc.o> syllables.
Korean <cc.ò>/<cc.ó> and cho for 助 seem to be descended from Old Chinese *dza(-s) whereas the rhyme dictionary reading dʐɨəʰ is from Old Chinese *rɯ-dza-s with a presyllable.
Cantonese [tsɔː] for 助 also seems to be from Old Chinese *dza-s; a descendant of *rɯ-dza-s would have been *[tsɵy]. It seems that northeastern and southern dialects of Old Chinese independently retained presyllableless *dza-s.
On the other hand, Vietnamese trợ for 助 was borrowed from a descendant of a southern Old Chinese dialect with *rɯ-dza-s. Old Chinese *dza-s would correspond to *tộ in Vietnamese.
126.96.36.199:50: NON-NASAL-INITIAL NEGATIVES IN INDO-EUROPEANWow, that title is full of nasals.
I normally expect Indo-European languages to have negatives descended from *ne: e.g., Sanskrit na, Russian ne, and English not. (See Wiktionary for more examples.) Standard Irish ní 'not' fits the pattern.
Looking at this part of the Wikipedia article on Ulster Irish,
In Ulster the negative particle cha (before a vowel chan, in past tenses char - Scottish/Manx Gaelic chan, cha do) is sometimes used where other dialects use ní and níor.
I wondered where cha 'not' (which is also in standard Irish) came from. I thought it might be from Proto-Celtic *kʷā-nī which looks like a compound of *kʷā- (some sort of question word?) and *nī 'not', but it turns out to be from Old Irish nícon < ní 'not' + con 'that' (Thurneysen 1980: 538) with 'not' as the first syllable, not the second! I assume its initial fricative ch- [x] weakened before a lost ní-:
nícon [niːkon] > *[niːxon] > cha [xa]
In the now-extinct dialect of Rathlin Island, cha was reduced to [a] (Holmer 1942: 37)!
Many years ago I was surprised that North Germanic languages have e/i-negatives (e.g., Icelandic ekki and Swedish icke) instead of n-negatives like German nicht and Dutch niet. Wiktionary derives the e/i-negatives "[f]rom Old Norse ekki ("nothing"), from eitt (neuter of einn ("one")) + negative suffix -gi, -ki." So ekki etc. are like English none from 'not' plus 'one' but with the elements in the opposite order. But what is the origin of the negative suffix, and what other words contain it?
11.21.2:19: -gi/-ki "comes ultimately from the PIE [Proto-Indo-European] indefinite suffix *kʷid" (Fortson 2010: 375).
11.21.2:36: I assume that Swedish inte 'not' and intet 'nothing' also contain 'one' like icke, but why do they have -t- instead of -k-?
I think Swedish ej 'not' is from Old Norse eigi 'not' < ei 'ever' + -gi (Fortson 2010: 375). These 'not'-less words for 'not' are products of Jespersen's Cycle; they originated as intensifiers for 'not' and came to mean 'not' themselves: cf. French pas 'not', originally 'step'.
11.21.1:01: While I'm on the subject of Germanic, where does German kein 'no' come from? Wiktionary derived it from Old High German nihein, and Jäger (2008: 200) in turn derived that from Proto-Indo-European *ne-kʷe 'not-and' plus 'one'. If the ni- fell off, hein would be left, not kein, and I have never heard of fortition of h- to k- in German. So why does the German form have k-? And why does its Dutch cognate geen have voiced g- [ɣ]? (The voiceless northern Dutch pronunciation [x] of g- is a recent innovation and not a retention of Proto-Germanic *x.)
11.21.2:41: If I understand this Wikipedia reference desk entry correctly, kein has k- because when earlier nich ein 'not a' lost its ni-, initial ch- was not permissible and was replaced with k-. Did Dutch speakers do something and replace ch- with g- after something like nich een 'not a' lost its ni-?
188.8.131.52:54: GOSNELL: A HOSIER IN DISGUISE?I assumed Gosnell was an English name like Cornell and Parnell, so I was surprised to see that ancestry.com listed it as Irish:
Is Gosnell an Anglicized version of an Hibernized English name? I would have expected an Anglicized version of Góiséir [goːʃeːɾʲ] to be something like *Gosher. Gosnell has an -n- lacking in Góiséir, and its -ll corresponds to -r.
from an Irish adaptation (Góiséir) of English Hosier, the name of a family in Munster in the late 16th century.
Modern Irish has h- for foreign h-, but Góiséir has a Russian-like substitution of G- for H- (cf. Russian Gollandija 'Holland'). Are there other examples of Irish g- for foreign h-? (There are no native Irish words with initial h- in their base forms.)
11.20.00:24: I forgot to mention that Edward MacLysaght wrote in The Surnames of Ireland that the derivation of Gosnell from Góiséir is "very doubtful". Could it be an unrelated English name? Are all the Gosnells in Great Britain* of Irish ancestry?
*Maps showing where Gosnells lived in Great Britain in 1891 can be viewed by clicking on "Name Distribution of Gosnell Families" at ancestry.com.
11.21.00:31: I don't see any examples of Irish g- corresponding to English h- in this admittedly incomplete list of loanwords.
184.108.40.206:54: PREINITIAL GLIDES IN OLD CHINESE?
After posting "An I-nigmatic Reading", I realized that an intermediate stage between Old Chinese *iba and *bia for 夫/扶 could have been *jba.
Japhug rGyalrong has jC-clusters, though not jb- (Jacques 2004: 43). Those clusters are from Proto-rGyalrongic (PGR) *lC-clusters as well as *jC-clusters (Jacques 2004: 332). No PGR consonant is preceded by both *l- and *j- in Jacques' reconstruction; *j- is only before dentals and the velar *ŋ- whereas *l- is elsewhere: e.g., *lp- and *lk-. I suspect all jC-clusters go back to *l(V)C-sequences: e.g.,
PGR *ləl- > *λəl- > *jəl- > jl-
(I also suspect j- goes back to PGR *l- rather than PGR *lj-. Jacques' table of PGR laterals on p. 266 has no *l-.)
I don't understand why Jacques (2004: 336) reconstructed PGR *jŋ- instead of *lŋ- as the source of Japhug jŋ-, particularly since he reconstructed PGR *lŋk- as the source of Japhug jŋ- corresponding to Somang jk- on p. 304. Also, he wrote on p. 271 (emphasis mine):
Jacques' (2004: 331) PGR reconstruction also has *wC-clusters. Maybe initial *uC- became *wC- in Old Chinese. If so, Old Chinese preinitial *w- may have had a wider distribution than PGR *w- which is only before liquids.
Nous reconstruisons les préinitiales j- du japhug comme *l- en PGR devant les labiales (et peut-être aussi les vélaires).-
I have been writing the vowels of Old Chinese presyllables as *ɯ and *ʌ respectively representing a higher unstressed short vowel and a lower unstressed short vowel. If Old Chinese was like Pacoh as described by Watson (1964: 144), *ɯ could have been *[i] or *[u], and *ʌ could have been *[a]. Although the height of presyllabic vowels left traces in later Chinese, I do not know of any way to determine whether a higher presyllabic vowel was front *[i] or back *[u].
On the other hand, *-a has a variety of 'brightened' reflexes in Tangut ranging from low -a to high -i and -u (Matisoff 2004). The high reflexes may have been conditioned by high front presyllabic *[i] and *[u]: e.g.,
'year': 1vɨi < *vi < *Ci-βia < *Ci-pa (cf. Japhug tɯ-xpa 'id.')
'nose' 2nii < *Ci-naCH (cf. Japhug tɯ-ɕna 'id.')
'ear': 1niu < *nu < *Cu-na (cf. Japhug tɯ-rna 'id.')
11.19.2:28: Added 'nose'. Matisoff (2004: 20) wrote:
The high back vowel in the Xixia [= Tangut] form [for 'ear'] is unexplained. As a wild guess, we might claim that this abnormal development was due to a desire to avoid homophony with NOSE [which has a high front vowel in Tangut instead of a high back vowel].
In my pre-Tangut reconstruction, the development is normal: a high back vowel in the presyllable conditioned a high back vowel in the main syllable.
One problem with my explanation is that I would expect a lot of Tangut Cu from pre-Tangut *CuCa which is not an exotic sequence and therefore must have been common. However, Matisoff only listed five examples of Tangut -u from *-a, and two are dubious*. Were most presyllabic *u were lost by the time vocalic transfer' (i.e., the shift of vocalic features from the presyllable to the main syllable) took place?
*I doubt that
is from *ŋya or that
is from *g/r-wa. I would reconstruct their pre-Tangut sources as *Cɯ-džuH (I don't see any evidence for the low vowel of his Proto-Qiangic *dza) and *S-dzuH. The initial of 'fish' lenited to -ʐ- in intervocalic position.
220.127.116.11:33: AN I-NIGMATIC READING
In the History of the Northern Dynasties, two names are listed for the capital of Paekche:
固麻 Early Middle Chinese *koʰ mæ (a transcription of the Paekche word for 'bear'; see my previous post)
居拔 Early Middle Chinese *kɨə bɛt
Gari Ledyard (1975: 247) wrote,
Giving the first character [of 居拔] a Korean "kun" reading of i yields the reading *Ibal or *Ipar.
A "kun"* reading in this context is a native Korean morpheme that is a rough translation of the Chinese morpheme represented by a Chinese character. Since 居 *kɨə meant 'dwell' in Chinese, I would expect i to mean something similar in Korean. But I don't know of any Korean 이 i 'dwell'. 이- /i/ 'to be' is an exact phonetic match but a loose semantic match; 있- /iss/ < 잇 /is/ 'to exist' is an even looser phonetic and semantic match. The only hun reading I know of for 居 is 살- sal- 'to live'. (The i reading of 居 does, however, coincidentally resemble the Japanese kun reading i- < wi- 'exist [animate]' for 居.)
Ledyard connected his *Ipar to Japanese 磐餘 Iware < Ipare with an anomalous second character 餘 that is never read -re elsewhere but
just happens to be also the second character of the name Puyŏ (夫餘 or 扶餘 [= Buyeo]) - one begins to see the plausibility of a connection with that name too. The character 餘 had, according to Karlgren, a voiced dental initial in Old Chinese - that is, an initial d-; this could well have served as a transcriptional equivalent for a trilled -r- of the Japanese and Korean type. I am inclined to regard theof Iware as a vowel-harmony variant of the suffix -ra meaning clan or tribe or nation, and that the name Puyŏ possibly orignating in a form like -re *Pora or *Para might boil down to something like "Rocklings" - a more than appropriate name for a people whose legends tell us of births from under rocks, of rock princesses and rock boats.
In modern Old Chinese reconstructions, 餘 has an initial *l-, so I viewed 夫餘/扶餘 as a transcription of *Bala which has reminded me of Japanese *para 'field'. Here is a wild speculation. My Old Chinese reconstruction requires a high-voweled presyllable *Cɯ- in 夫/扶 to account for its later vocalism. What if that presyllable were *ʔi-? Then 夫/扶 would be *ʔiba, a match for the *iba that some would reconstruct as the Proto-Japonic source of iwa 'rock'. Iware, then would be from*Ibala 'Puyŏ' plus a Japanese suffix *-i; *-ai later fused into -e. Here is how *ʔibala could have come to be read as Puyŏ in Korean:
Old Chinese *ʔibala > *ʔibialia > *bialia > *bɨalɨa > *buajɨa > *buojɨə > *pujɨə > borrowed into Old Korean as *pujə = Puyŏ
Ledyard (1975: 248) listed "earlier names for the peoples of the Liao and Eastern Manchurian area" in Peter A. Boodberg's unpublished Old Chinese reconstruction from c. 1960-61:
|Sinograph||Boodberg||This site's Old Chinese|
|浡 (cf. later 渤海 Parhae)
The final letter indicating the final sinograph in Karlgren's (1957) Grammata serica recensa is missing in Ledyard's footnote, so I can only guess that my equivalent of Boodberg's *phard would be *phas. (GSR 320 is a series for Old Chinese *Pas-syllables.)
All of Boodberg's reconstructions - including *barn for 磐 (= my *ban) - contain *Par matching Ledyard's *Para. I don't know the logic underlying Boodberg's *-r-. Only some of my reconstructions roughly match *Para (if one regards *-t as a transcription of a foreign flap *-r).
Going back to 居拔 *kɨə bɛt, could it be a transcription of a Paekche cognate of Middle Korean kʌβʌr < *kʌbʌr < *kʌpʌr 'village'? (11.17.22:37: That Paekche cognate could be the source of Japanese 郡 koori < kəpori 'district'.)
*訓 Kun is a Japanese term; its Korean equivalent is 訓 hun.
18.104.22.168:51: KUDARA = BEARFORD?
While looking up bear in Wiktionary last night for my second 'bear'-iation post, I found Paekche (= Baekje) 固麻 koma listed as a translation equivalent.
In 2005, I proposed that the Japanese name Kudara < *kundara for Paekche could have contained a Paekche *qon 'hundred' cognate to Korean on 'hundred'. The word would have been borrowed into pre-Old Japanese as *kondara before its *o was raised to *u. I posted this etymology last year and listed five problems with it.
Last night I considered deriving Kudara from *kom(a)-dʌrʌ, a hypothetical Paekche cognate of komanʌrʌ 'bear-ford', the native Middle Korean equivalent of Ungjin, the Sino-Korean reading of 熊津, the capital of Paekche. This new etymology has its own set of issues in addition to carryovers from its predecessor*:
1. All other evidence points to disyllabic *koma for 'bear' in Paekche, not monosyllabic *kom like Middle Korean and modern Korean kom 'bear'. (The -a- in Middle Korean komanʌrʌ is an archaism.)
2. The presence of phonemic voiced stops in early Koreanic is controversial.**
3. The shift of *d- to *n- is highly speculative.***
4. The earliest Japanese form may have been *kutara****, and *-md- would not have been borrowed as *-t-.
*11.17.0:58: As I wrote last year, "There is no guarantee that the u of OJ [Old Japanese] Kundara is from *o rather than *u."
Moreover, the problem of relating *kom(a)-dʌrʌ to the Chinese character spelling 百濟 'hundred-cross' for Kudara remains. A ford (*dʌrʌ) can be crossed, but 'hundred' has nothing to do with 'bear' (*kom(a)).
11.17.2:15: My Paekche *qon 'hundred' (whose *q- is questionable) does, however, vaguely sound like *kom 'bear'. Was 百 a symbol for *KoN-syllables?
**11.17.1:04: Chinese character transcriptions of early Koreanic have voiceless and voiced obstruent alternations in spellings for the same name, implying that voicing was not phonemic. On the other hand, Ramsey proposed voiced obstruents as the source of some Middle Korean medial consonants. I think those voiced obstruents may have been short-lived products of intervocalic voicing in pre-Middle Korean and am hesitant to project them very far back.
***11.17.2:05: Late 19th and early 20th century northern Korean forms of 'four' have nd- or even d- corresponding to standard n- (see Martin 1992: 28) for details. It is tempting to reconstruct *d- as a source of standard n- in 'four' since other 'Altaic' languages have d-words for 'four': Proto-Turkic *dȫrt, Proto-Mongolic *dörbe-n (Janhunen 2003: 16), and Proto-Tungusic *dügin. (It is debatable whether Proto-Japonic *yə should be reconstructed as *də.) Starostin reconstructed Proto-Altaic *tṓj- (with *t- instead of *d-!) on the basis of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, and Japonic (but not Koreanic).
But even if there was a pan-'Altaic' areal word 'four', no complete 'Altaic' numeral system can be reconstructed: e.g., 'three' is Proto-Turkic *üč, Proto-Mongolic *gurba-n (Janhunen 2003: 16), Proto-Tungusic *ilan, early Koreanic *s-ki, and Proto-Japonic *mi. Starostin derived Proto-Turkic *otuŕ 'thirty' and the Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Japonic forms for 'three' from a dubious Proto-Altaic *ŋ[i̯u].
****11.17.2:10: The Zushoryou edition of Ruiju myougishou has the spelling 久太良 indicating *kutara in Early Middle Japanese (Oono et al. 1990: 412).
22.214.171.124:20: 'BEAR'-IATION AND EAST SLAVIC INTERLANGUAGES
Tonight I wonder if Surzhyk
words for 'bear', 'rose', 'apple', and 'cucumber', resemble my
Russian-based guesses for Ukrainian and Belarusian. I can imagine "the
imperfect attempts of urban professionals to use Ukrainian in spheres
where they had only used Russian before" (Bilaniuk
and Melnyk 2008: 71) to contain words such as *medvid'
instead of vedmid' for 'bear'. And/or are there Surzhyk and/or
Trasianka forms which are Ukrainian and Belarusian-based guesses for
|Gloss||Russian||Ukrainian||Ukrainian-based guess for Russian
||Belarusian||Belarusian-based guess for Russian|
|bear||medved'||vedmid'||vedmed' or vedmod'
|cucumber||ogurec||ohirok||ogerok or ogorok
My guesses above incorporate the following rules based on regular correspondences:
Ukrainian and Belarusian h > Russian g
Ukrainian i > Russian e or o (unpredictable without a knowledge of historical phonology that most Ukrainian speakers wouldn't have)
Belarusian unstressed ja > Russian e
Belarusian dz' > Russian d'
Belarusian unstressed a > Russian unstressed o [ʌ]
Belarusian nonpalatalized dz is "marginal" (Mayo 1993: 896), and I don't know what it would correspond to in Russian. I also don't know if -dz- in mjadzvedz' is palatalized or not. If it isn't, I would guess that a Belarusian speaker might Russianize nonpalatalized /dz/ as nonpalatalized /d/ by analogy with palatalized /dzʲ/ which corresponds to Russian palatalized /dʲ/.
126.96.36.199:32: 'BEAR'-IATION IN SLAVIC
Using my knowledge of Russian and rules of sound correspondences, I can roughly guess what the non-Russian cognates of Russian words are. But this imgur image gallery demonstrates the limits to this approach:
|bear||medvěď||medved'||vedmid' (not *medvid'!)||mjadzvedz' (not *mjadvedz'!)||niedźwiedź (not *miedwiedź!)|
|rose||roza||roza||trojanda||ruža (not roza!)||róża [ruʐa] (not *roza or *róza!)
|apple||jabloko||jabloko||jabluko (not *jabloko!)||jablyk (not *jablaka!)||jabłko (not *jabłoko!)|
|cucumber||(none)||ogurec||ohirok (not *ohurek!)||ahurok (not *ahurek!)||ogórek (not *ogurec, though ó is now homophonous with u)|
Interslavic is an artificial generic Slavic.
Bear: Were m and v flipped in Ukrainian for taboo deformation? Did mi- /mʲ/ become ni- /ɲ/ in Polish for the same reason?
The final *-d of 'honey' seems to have assimilated to the following palatal wi- /vʲ/ in Polish, becoming palatal -dź-. Is Belarusian -dz- nonpalatalized like Russian -d- or palatalized /dzʲ/ corresponding to the Polish affricate -dź-?
Rose: The Belarusian word was borrowed from Polish after Polish ó raised to [u]. Why does Polish have -ż- [ʐ] instead of -z-?
Ukrainian trojanda is obviously unrelated to the others.
Apple: Why are the second vowels so different (or absent in the case of Polish)?
Cucumber: Why does Ukrainian have -i- which normally doesn't correspond to -u- in other Slavic languages? -ec, -ok, and -ek are diminiutive suffixes; Czech and Slovak have another suffix -ka. (Is Hungarian uborka 'cucumber' a loan from Slovak uhorka, and if so, why does it have -b-?)
188.8.131.52:09: A PERPLEXING 'PASS'-IVE PHONETIC
In the Hua-Yi yiyu, Jurchen juwa 'ten' (from my last post) was transcribed as 撾 *tʂwa in Ming Dynasty Chinese. 撾 'to knock, beat' is still read as [tʂwa] in standard Mandarin today. It and its homophone 檛 'horsewhip' have semantic left components: 扌 is 'hand' and 木 is 'wood'. Right components are usually phonetic, but [tʂwa] does not sound like 過 [kwo] 'to pass'. Although phonetic mismatches are often cleared up by going back to earlier stages of Chinese phonology, that is not the case here: in Late Old Chinese, 撾 and 檛 were pronounced as *ʈwæi with an initial retroflex stop, whereas 過 *kwai(h) still had an initial velar stop. 𥬲, an equivalent of 檛 in Shuowen (c. 121 AD), has 竹 'bamboo' atop 朵 *twaiʔ which was a better phonetic match for *ʈwæi than 過 *kwai(h).
eastling.org has no Early Old Chinese reconstructions for 撾, though it lists (generates?) a Zhengzhang Shangfang-style reconstruction *kr'ool and a Pan Wuyun-style reconstruction *k-rool for 檛. However, I can't find any attestation of 檛 earlier than Han shu (111 AD), and by then it was read as *ʈwæi. I can't find any attestation of 撾 earlier than Hou Han shu (5th c. AD). So I am hesitant to reconstruct 𥬲/撾/檛 before the first millennium AD.
The change of the cluster *k(-)r- to a retroflex stop *ʈ- is phonetically plausible, but such a change is unlikely to have occurred as late as the first millennium AD when the 過 *k-spellings first appear. Moreover, the Shuowen spelling 𥬲 has a dental-initial phonetic 朵 whose Early Old Chinese reading was *toolʔ in both the Zhengzhang Shangfang and Pan Wuyun-style reconstructions at eastling.org.
I don't know of any characters pronounced *ʈwæi in Late Old Chinese other than 撾 and 檛. Was 過 chosen as a phonetic for 撾 and 檛 in spite of the mismatch in initials because there was no better match available (other than 朵)?
I would rather not reconstruct some exotic cluster like *ktr- or *tkr- to account for 過 in 撾 and 檛 since such clusters were gone in recorded mainstream varieties by the first millennium AD. (They could have survived in colloquial and/or peripheral varieties. Were 撾 and 檛 created by a speaker of such a variety?)
Some further complications:
撾 has a second reading -wo in standard Mandarin 老撾 Laowo 'Laos', a phonetic transcription of Lao ລາວ Laaw 'Lao'. How old is that reading and the word it appears in?
zdic.net lists some non-Mandarin readings of 撾 and 檛:
Sinograph Cantonese Chaozhou Hakka 撾 zaa [tsaː], gwo [kwɔː] tshuaⁿ, ko (none listed) 檛 zaa (none listed) ko
Are the k-readings by analogy with the k- of 過, or are they evidence for reconstructing *k- in 撾 and 檛?
Why does Chaozhou tshuaⁿ have aspiration and nasalization?
184.108.40.206:59: WHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT 'ELEVEN' IN JURCHEN?
Today is November 12, 2013 - 11/12/13 in a date format often used in the US - and that made me think about the Jurchen numerals
omšo jirhon gorhon
'eleven twelve thirteen'
The -hon of 'twelve' and 'thirteen' is not related to Jurchen juwa 'ten' or to omšo 'eleven', though I wonder if it's a Khitan compression of some longer form that was also ancestral to Proto-Mongolic *xarban 'ten' (as reconstructed by Janhunen 2003: 16):
*xarban > *xarvan > *xawn > *xɔn > *hon?
Last night I realized that omšo vaguely resembles Jurchen emu 'one' plus juwa 'ten'. But j > š is not a known Jurchen sound change, so omšo cannot be related to juwa.
Today I thought it might be fun if -sho were related to Japanese -so '-ty' in miso 'thirty' < mi 'three' + -so, etc.
Korean also has a '-ty' morpheme with various shapes: -hŭn, -ŭn, -un, -n (Martin 1992: 176).
John Whitman (1985: 169) reconstruted Proto-Koreo-Japonic *sh which became Japanese š and Korean h. Although I don't think Proto-Koreo-Japonic existed, what if there were some Manchurian source language word *šon 'ten' underlying Jurchen -šo (and Manchu -šon in omšon biya 'eleventh month'), Japanese -so, and Korean -(h)Un, but not the basic words for 'ten':
|Gloss||'ten' (free)||'ten' (bound)|
|Korean||yŏl||-hŭn, -ŭn, -un, -n|
|Japanese||tō < *təwO||-so|
Om- could be a shortened version of emu with a vowel that was rounded to harmonize with -šo(n). However, I don't know of any other cases of regressive harmony in Jurchen compounds.
Andrew West (who wrote about the Jurchen numerals and their graphs last year) reminded me about Janhunen's (2003: 399) more plausible proposal to derive Jurchen-Manchu omšo(n) from a Para-Mongolic *omco cognate to Proto-Mongolic *onca 'special, additional'. Is there any other language in which 'eleven' is from 'special' or 'additional'?
220.127.116.11:32: BURNING QUESTION OF THE DAY
Today is Veterans Day in the US, so I've been thinking about the etymologies of both words in its name. Veteran goes back to Proto-Indo-European *wet 'year', but what is the origin of day? Watkins (2011: 1), like its 2000 predecessor, derived day from Proto-Indo-European *agh-, the root of Sanskrit ahan 'day'. But where does the d- come from? Watkins called it "obscure". Could Proto-Germanic *dagaz 'day' simply be a substratal word whose root *dag just happens to match Proto-Indo-European *agh- (which would go back to *ʕekʰ- in a Leiden-style reconstruction*)? (*-az is from Proto-Indo-European *-os.)
On the other hand, Wiktionary derived day from Proto-Indo-European *dʰegʷʰ- 'to burn'. I don't see any phonological problems, though the semantic fit is not absolute: perhaps 'burn' > 'time of heat' > 'daytime' > 'day'. I do, however, see phonological problems with deriving Proto-Slavic *žeťi 'to burn' from *dʰegʷʰ- since *dʰ- should normally become Proto-Slavic *d-: e.g., *dʰeʔ- 'to place' became Proto-Slavic *děti 'to do', not *žěti. According to Pokorny, the sequence *d-g- might have been assimilated to *g-g-: e.g., *degǫ 'I burn' became *gegǫ and then *žegǫ in Proto-Slavic. This assimilated version of the root coexisted alongside the *d-version which survived in Slovene dę́gniti 'to burn'** and Russian djogot 'tar'.
*See Beekes (1995: 124). Is there any language in which voiceless aspirated stops became voiced stops? The opposite change (*g- > kʰ-) is attested in Thai, Lao, and some varieties of Chinese.
**Is this word extinct? Googling "degniti" (which I think would be its spelling in modern Slovenian) in the .si domain, I only got five results, and none were in running text.
18.104.22.168:19: WATER + EARTH + SMALL
What is the Tangut word for 'island'? I couldn't find one in Li Fanwen 2008 or Grinstead 1972. I wish Kychanov and Arakawa's 2006 dictionary had a reverse index.
I wouldn't expect the landlocked Tangut ao have a native word for 'island', but they might have had a phonetic borrowing of Tangut period northwestern Chinese 島 *taw 'island' or a calque of Tibetan gling phran 'small continent'. I don't know how the Tangut translated gling 'continent' (though 2lhiẹ 'country' might be cognate).
For fun I created a pseudo-Tangut character for 'island' out of 'water', 'earth', and 'small':
(no reading) 'island' =
left of 2ziəəʳ 'water' +
left of 2lɨə̣ 'earth' +
right of 1tsẽ 'small'
It would be fun to see a Tangut version of this kanji creation contest.
22.214.171.124:06: STAINED WITH SICKNESS
I wanted to continue my series on nonstandard Korean e (part 1 / part 2 / part 3), but I'm not feeling well right now, and this Tangut character is on my mind:
1tsəuʳ 'to suffer from an illness, to fall ill, to be ill' =
left and center of 1tsəuʳ 'to stain, smear' +
right of 1ʔieu 'disease'
At first I thought that 1tsəuʳ 'to suffer from an illness' could be a metaphorical use of 1tsəuʳ 'to stain': to be stained is to be sick.
But then I found out that 1tsəuʳ 'to suffer from an illness' might only be attested as the first half of
translated by Li Fanwen (2008: 674) as a verb 患病 'to suffer from an illness' and Kychanov and Arakawa (2006: 674) as a noun 'disease, epidemic'. Unfortunately K&A's dictionary has no examples from texts, and all the examples in Li are from dictionaries: e.g., two Tangraphic Sea entries (13.111, 54.222) list 1tsəuʳ 1bəi as one of the
1lɨəəʳ 2liẹ 1mi (1dzõ) 2ŋwe
'four great not (harmony) harmonious'
'Four Great Disharmonies'
K&A (2006: 673) defined 1bəi by itself as 'illness, disease, suffer, disharmony of four elements - earth, water, fire and air'. Unfortunately I cannot confirm that 1bəi is a word because it too is apparently only attested as half of 1tsəuʳ 1bəi.
1bəi superficially resembles Early Middle Chinese 病 *bɨaŋʰ 'disease', but the rhyme does not match. A hypothetical Tangut borrowing of *bɨaŋʰ would be *bie or *biẽ, not 1bəi.
1tsəuʳ 1bəi could be
a. a verb + noun construction: 'smeared disease'? But is (or was) 1bəi really an independent word 'disease'? (In theory 1bəi could have been a noun that went out of use except in 1tsəuʳ 1bəi.
b. a verb + verb construction: 'to be smeared and ... (with disease)'? Again, this assumes 1bəi is (or was) an independent word.
c. an unanalyzable disyllabic word that may be part of the so-called 'ritual language': a colloquial, substratal non-Sino-Tibetan word?
If 1tsəuʳ 1bəi is (c), that would explain why it only occurs in dictionaries. It would have only occurred outside dictionaries as a gloss for a literary word having to do with illness, as there are no known entirely colloquial texts (if my interpretation of the 'ritual language' is correct).
126.96.36.199:59: NONSTANDARD KOREAN E: REVERSAL OR RETENTION?
Martin (1992: 39) referred to nonstandard Korean e corresponding to standard yŏ (e.g., in chhene for 處女 chhŏnyŏ 'maiden') as a product of "reversal". In his romanization of Korean, [e] is ey and [jə] (my yŏ) is ye, so he described the phenomenon as ye becoming ey, "especially in the north". Ey was originally [əj]. I assume Martin thought [jə] reversed to [əj] before [əj] monophthongized to [e] because [jə] becoming [e] is not reversal (except in terms of his romanization):
|Stage 2: reversal (and merger)||[əj]|
|Stage 3: monophthongization||[e]|
Standard Middle Korean is at stage 1. Is there any evidence for stage 2?
Martin (1992: 47) mentioned that
King (1990) has examples that argue for ye [jə] > yey [je] > ey [e] with loss of the initial glide after the fronting took place, rather than metathesis of the glide.
Unfortunately I have not seen this work and I cannot identify it as it is not in Martin's bibliography.
If I am correct about nonstandard [e] partly retentions, the process in King would have happened in reverse in standard Korean
[e] > [je] > [jə]
while original [e] merged with secondary [əj] in some dialects:
According to Wikipedia, in the northwestern Phyŏngan dialect (emphasis mine),
'야, 여, 요, 유' 등은 자음 뒤에서 '아, 어, 오, 우'로 실현되기도 한다(차포[차표])
[the letters] <ya, yŏ, yo, yu> etc. are realized as [a ə o u] after consonants: [tsʰapʰo] for standard [tɕʰapʰjo]
(Northern alveolars corresponding to standard and southern palatals are not specified in the article. See the reference to Kim Yŏng-bae 1984 in Martin [1992: 48] for Phyŏngan [ts].)
Minimal pairs of [Ce] : [Cə] corresponding to (premodern) standard [Cjə] may reflect an earlier *e : *jə distinction: e.g.,
|Gloss||Early Korean||Phyŏngan (Lee and Ramsey 2000: 322)||Standard|
|that||*te||[te] (if not a typo for [tə])||[tɕə] < [tjə]|
|temple||*tjər||[təl]||[tɕəl] < [tjər]|
Japanese tera 'temple' is probably a borrowing from a Paekche *ter(a) with a very early secondary *e from original *jə. Vovin (2007: 76) reconstructed Proto-Korean *tjara whose *-ja- underwent metathesis when borrowed into Jurchen as
<tai.ra.an> = tairan 'temple'.
Lee and Ramsey (2000: 324) listed a similar minimal pair in North Kyŏngsang to the south:
|Gloss||Early Korean||North Kyŏngsang||Standard|
|older brother||*hjə(ŋ)||[sə] < *hjə||[hjəŋ]|
|tongue||*het||[se] < *hje (if not a typo for [sə])||[hjə]|
'Older brother' is usually assumed to be a Sino-Korean reading of 兄 'older brother', though Vovin (2013: 225) proposed that it is actually a native Korean word. I think standard [hjəŋ] is Sino-Korean, but the North Kyŏngsang form may be from an unrelated native soundalike *hjə sans final nasal that is related to (1) the Koguryŏ word for 'older brother' transcribed in Chinese as 奢 *ɕæ and (2) Western Old Japanese se 'older brother'.
Both Western Old Japanese se and sita < *seta 'tongue' (see previous entry) have s- corresponding to early Korean *hj-. Perhaps they are both loanwords from Paekche which had *ɕ- from *hj-. Koguryŏ to the north also apparently had *ɕ- from *hj-.
I am not entirely confident that nonstandard [e] is a retention, but in any case I think we should be careful not to assume that more prestigious forms also happen to be more conservative.
188.8.131.52:31: P_YANG CHHENE
Googling for 피양 Phiyang, a short variant of 'Pyongyang', led me to the 1969 song 피 양체네 Phiyang chhene sung by 宋海 Song Hae. The title corresponds to standard Korean 平壤處女 Phyŏngyang chhŏnyŏ 'Pyongyang Maiden'). The e in chhene caught my eye because for years I have agreed with Leon Serafim's 1999 proposal to derive at least some standard Korean yŏ from earlier *e. Nonstandard e corresponds to standard yŏ in
Pheyang (the other short variant) : Phyŏngyang 'Pyongyang'
chhene : chhŏnyŏ < Middle Korean [tsʰjənjə] 'maiden'
meniri (Phyŏngan dialect from Lee and Ramsey 2000: 330) : myŏnŭri 'daughter-in-law'
se (North Kyŏngsang dialect from Lee and Ramsey 2000: 324) : hyŏ 'tongue'
I assume that chhene is a northern form like Pheyang and meniri. Se is southern; see Vovin (2010: 188) for other se-forms from Choy (1978: 426).
Vovin proposed that Japanese shita 'tongue' may be a loan from Korean. The -t- of shita matches the *-t of Early Middle Korean *hjət 'tongue' (transcribed in Chinese as 蝎). I do not know why the final *-t was lost in later Korean.
Serafim (1999: 7) reconstructed Proto-Japonic *seta 'tongue' and derived it and the Korean forms from a Proto-Koreo-Japonic *xé.
Combining Vovin and Serafim's views, I think Proto-Japonic *seta may be a loan from an early Koreanic *het (phonetically [hʲet] or ]çet]?). Is the e of se-forms for 'tongue' a retention of early Koreanic *e, or has *e gone full circle in that word?
*e > *yŏ > e
Could e in Pheyang, chhene, and/or meniri also be retentions?
This page lists many variants of 'daughter-in-law'. Unfortunately they lack specific locations other than North and South Korea. The North Korean forms have ae, e, i, or yŏ in the first syllable whereas the South Korean forms only have i or yŏ.
The nonstandard and early Koreanic e in this post is not to be confused with the e of standard Korean which is from Middle Korean əj.
According to McCune and Reischauer's 1939 article that established the Korean romanization that I use here with modifications, 平壤 'Pyongyang' [pʰjəŋjaŋ] "is colloquially pronounced P'iyang or P'eyang" (p. 52): i.e., as [pʰijaŋ] or [pʰejaŋ]. Who pronounced 'Pyongyang' that way, and is either pronunciation still current somewhere? How many other closed syllables could also be reduced to open syllables?
11.6.23:54: According to 李雲源 Yi Un-wŏn, [pʰijaŋ] is an attempt to imitate the dialectal pronunciation of 'Pyongyang', whereas actual northerners say [pʰejaŋ].
184.108.40.206:25: DID EARLY OLD CHINESE HAVE PALATAL STOPS INSTEAD OF ALVEOLAR AFFRICATES?
So far I have only been able to reconstruct five palatal series in Early Old Chinese, excluding my candidates for *ɲ-series:
Middle Chinese *ts(ʰ)- ~ *s- alternations might go back to Early Old Chinese *c(ʰ)- ~ *sc(ʰ)- alternations: e.g.,
|GSR series||Sinographs||Middle Chinese||Early Old Chinese|
|401||桼漆||*tsʰit||*cʰit (or *tsʰit?)|
|膝||*sit||*scʰit (or *stsʰit?)|
I have no examples of *C-series with the vowels *ə or *o or codas other than *-k, *-r, and *-t. This restricted distribution is suspicious. It contrasts with the wider distribution of the alveolar series with *ts-, *tsʰ-, and *dz-. Was the Chinese script invented at a time when the mergers of the palatal stops with alveolars and *j (below) were nearly complete?
|Early Old Chinese||*ts-||*c-||*tsʰ-||*cʰ-||*dz-||*Nts-||*Ntsʰ-||*Nc-||*Ncʰ-||*Nɟ-||*ɟ-||*j-|
Or are a lot of palatal series undetected because they lack Middle Chinese *ts- ~ *j- (< Early Old Chinese *c- ~ *ɟ-) alternations? Until recently I would have reconstructed GSR series 399/923 with *ts- in Early Old Chinese, but now I could reconstruct it with *c-:
|GSR series||Sinographs||Middle Chinese||Early Old Chinese|
|䳭||*tsɨək, *tsiek||*tsək, *Cɯ-tsek||*cək, *cek|
|399||節||*tset, *dzet||*Cʌ-tsik, *Nʌ-tsik or *dzik||*Cʌ-cik, *Nʌ-cik or *Nʌ-ɟik|
|*dzit||*N-tsik or *dzik||*N-cik or *N-ɟik|
I could go even further and reconstruct palatals instead of *TS-type initials:
|Early Old Chinese||*c-||*cʰ-||*Nc-||*Ncʰ-||*Nɟ-||*ɟ-|
I am not sure a *j- distinct from *ɟ- is necessary for Early Old Chinese, and I am uncomfortable about *c(ʰ)- and *ɟ- developing in different directions. If *c(ʰ)- became an affricate *ts(ʰ)-, why didn't *ɟ- also become an affricate *dz-?
Maybe Early Old Chinese only had a glide *j- instead of a stop *ɟ-, but an alternation between stops *c- and *ɟ- is more likely than an alternation between a stop *c- and a glide *j-.
11.5.22:35: Another possibility is that Early Old Chinese *ɟ- became Middle Chinese *dz-, whereas Early Old Chinese *j- remained intact in Middle Chinese, and Middle Chinese *ts- ~ *j-alternations are rare because the phonetic match between Early Old Chinese *c- and *j- was weak.