15.8.12.3:06: MONOMASTICS

Old Chinese, Written Tibetan, Old Burmese, and Tangut all have the same vowels in 'one' and 'name' (hence the title). Why is Pyu the odd man out?

The phonetic value of the Pyu grapheme that I transliterate as ṃ is uncertain.

Here are four possible explanations for why Pyu has different vowels in those two words.

1. The heights of a and i were conditioned by different presyllabic vowels. If pre-Pyu had *low and *high presyllabic vowels in 'one' and 'name', the main vowels might have harmonized with them: e.g.,

*Cʌ-tek > taṃ (*e lowered to *a after low *ʌ)

*Cɯ-meŋ > mi (*e raised to *i after high *ɯ)

2. Matisoff (2003) reconstructed Proto-Tibeto-Burman *tyak as well as *g-t(y)ik. Putting aside the problem of whether PTB even existed (I don't think it did), one might say that Pyu taṃ is from *tyak (which in Indo-European-like terms could be an a-grade form of *tik).

3. The different vowels in Pyu reflect the presence or absence of something corresponding to the mysterious pre-Tangut feature that I write as *X and conventionally place after the vowel, though I do not know its location.

4. Pyu had asymmetrical developments of vowels after homorganic codas. Such asymmetrical development later occurred in Burmese:

-ac > [iʔ]

-añ > [e] and [ɛ] as well as [ĩ] and [i]

Mandarin also has similar instances of asymmetrical development: e.g.,

*-ak > -e, -o, -uo (generally depending on initial, but note how 樂 *lak became le whereas 洛 *lak became luo; is this apparent split due to dialect mixture?)

*-aŋ > -ang

In those particular examples, vowels before *nasals are lower than those before *stops: cf. how French -in has a vowel lower than the vowel in French -it.

However, Burmese also has an example of the opposite phenomenon:

*-ak > [ɛʔ] (which has no nasal counterpart [ɛ̃])

*-aŋ > [ĩ]

Has anyone studied asymmetrical development across languages?

8.12.4:48: A fifth possibility is that Pyu preserves a vocalic distinction lost in the other four languages.