15.11.14.23:54: FALLEN PREFIXES: GSR 0011

I don't have time to do what I said I would at the end of my last entry. A simple answer grew into a long post that I can't complete now. While researching that entry, I came across Grammata serica recensa series 0011 and thought it might be fun to apply my 'extended emphatic theory' to it taking Baxter and Sagart's reconstructions as a starting point.

First, a few words about the phonetic component of 0011: 阝+左. It represents syllables of the shape LOJ. (I use capital letters to reflect generic forms.) But - at least in the later script - it contains 左 representing syllables of the shape TSAJ/TSAR*. 左 TSAJ/TSAR is too different from 阝+左 LOJ to be a phonetic within a phonetic. The Sino-Korean reading 좌 chwa for 左 and 佐 could be from a Middle Chinese *tswa which in turn could be from an Old Chinese TSOJ/TSOR. Is the 左 in阝+左 a partial phonetic reflecting a dialect in which 左 ended in -OJ rather than -AJ? Is there a way to reconcile L- and TS-?

Another case of a possible L-/TS- alternation is 酉 *luʔ (Baxter and Sagart: *N-ruʔ) 'wine' ~ 酒 *tsuʔ 'wine'. I proposed that 酉 and 酒 are members of an Old Chinese palatal series. But the initials of 0011 do not overlap with those of my proposed palatal series.

Maybe all of this is a nonissue if 阝+左 and 左 are in fact unrelated. My ignorance of Chinese paleography is showing.

Let's move on to something I think I understand better: the words written with 阝+左:

(Thanks to David Boxenhorn for fixing the table.)

Here is a simplified table including possibilities absent from the large table. Only one path of reduction is listed per Middle Chinese reading. There are others: e.g., Middle Chinese *sə.lˁoj could be from a *s(ə).lˁoj that reduced to *lˁoj (*C.l-reduction 2) as well as a *sʌ.loj that reduced to *loj (*C.l-reduction 1).

And here is a text summary of what I think happened.

Originally, there were at least six roots:

*(CV-)loj 'long and narrow mountain'

*loj 'to fall' > 'hanging hair'; perhaps also 'lazy' (fallen?) and 'to destroy' > 'to shred sacrificial meat' and even 'slippery' (causing to fall?)

*sɯ.lojʔ 'beautiful' (and 'oval'?)

*sɯ.lojʔ 'marrow'

*sɯ.loj (place name; derived from one of the other roots?)

*sɯ.loj 'to follow'

The various *sɯ- may have had various earlier sources prior to Early Old Chinese: e.g., *si, *ɕə, *tsu, etc.

These words had variation in degrees of reduction: e.g., *sɯ.lojʔ (none) ~ *s.lojʔ (partial) ~ *lojʔ (full).

Sagart (1999) gave examples of such variation in modern languages: e.g., Phan Rang Cham cơ.lan ~ clan ~ lan 'road' (quoted from Alieva 1994; from disyllabic Proto-Austronesian *zalan).

Although I assume the degree of reduction was unpredictable, I also assume that sound changes regularly applied to consonant clusters and single initials, resulting in predictable outputs (though not inputs!): e.g., all *s.l- at any given time became the same thing. (However, *s.l- became three different things at different times: *l̥-, *s-, and *z-.) Once clusters fused into new initials, they left gaps to be filled by presyllable-initial sequences that reduced into new clusters: e.g., *s.l- > *l̥- followed by *sə.l- > *s.l-,

The Middle Chinese forms in the final column are reflexes of variants that not only happened to survives but were also considered worthy of inclusion in the lexicographic tradition. Yet other variants must have existed in speech but were not recorded.

The variation in the Middle Chinese column does not imply that any given Middle Chinese speaker had three ways to say 'to shred sacrificial meat'. Even if such a word were still in use, each speaker probably only had one way to say it, and three of those ways were regarded as sufficiently prestigious. The term Middle Chinese as used here does not refer to a single coherent language; rather, it is a set of approved forms of heterogeneous origin.

*11.15.13:55: I was wondering why Baxter and Sagart reconstructed *-r in 左 ~ 佐 *tsˁarʔ-s 'to aid, assist'.

I see that 左 'left' (not 'to aid, assist') rhymes with an *-r word in Shijing 1.V.5.3. Starostin (1989: 567) reconstructed the rhyme words as

左 : 瑳 : 儺

*tsaːjʔ 'left' : *sʰaːjʔ : *n̥aːr (or *naːr).

I have rewritten his notation into IPA to faciliate comparison with Baxter and Sagart's reconstructions:

*tsˁa[j]ʔ : *tsʰˁarʔ : *nˁarʔ.

I assume that 儺 is to be read as *nˁarʔ which would rhyme better with the other two words than its other reading *nˁar. Do commentaries point to one reading or the other?

The brackets indicate that *[j] indicates that the coda is uncertain: it could be *-r as well as *-j. That rhyme sequence seems to indicate that 'left' ended in *-r: *tsˁarʔ. Since 'to aid, assist' was written with the same character as 'left', I think the two words probably both had *r.

15.11.8.23:56: PROTO-MIN AND SINO-VIETIC EVIDENCE FOR EROSION

To demonstrate my proposed stages of Old Chinese erosion, I present my reconstructions for the words with Proto-Min reflexes and/or borrowed forms in Vietic from Baxter and Sagart (2015: 71-72). I retained Baxter and Sagart's numbering of the examples.

Type A words

168. 節 stage 3 *Cʌ-tsik > *Cʌ-tsit > stage 4 *Cə-tˁsit > stage 5 *C-tˁsit > stage 6 *tsˁet 'joint'

> Proto-Min *ts-

> Vietnamese *ts- > Tết 'New Year festival'

Also cf.

.

pre-Tangut *Tʌ-tsik > 4739 1tsewr1 'id.'

whose retroflexion and lowered vowel reflect a lost coronal-initial presyllable.

Monosyllabic words with low series vowels automatically developed emphasis:

167. 斗 *toʔ > *tˁoʔ 'bushel; ladle'

> Proto-Min *t-

> Vietnamese *t- > đấu 'bushel'

169. 繭 *kenʔ > *kˁenʔ 'cocoon'

> Proto-Min *k-

> Vietnamese kén 'id.'

170. 芥 *krets > *krˁets 'mustard plant'

> Proto-Min *k-

> *kɛs or later *kɛjʰ > Vietnamese cải 'cabbage'

171. 點 *temʔ > *tˁemʔ 'black spot'

> Proto-Min *t-

> Vietnamese *t- > đốm 'spot' (irregular vowel)

172. 白 *brak > *bˁrak 'white'

> Proto-Min *b-

> Vietnamese bạc 'silver'

Conversely, monosyllabic words with high series vowels did not develop emphasis:

173. 而 *nə > *nə

cf. 乃 stage 3 *Cʌ-nəʔ > stage 4 *Cə-nˁəʔ > stage 5 *C-nˁəʔ > stage 6 *nˁəʔ

If those Middle Old Chinese monosyllabic words (167, 169-173) were sesquisyllabic or polysyllabic at an earlier stage, external comparison would be necessary to identify the phonemes preceding the surviving syllables. My theory predicts the lost vowels were originally low series: e.g.,

167. 斗 stage 3 *Cʌ-toʔ > stage 4 *Cətˁoʔ > stage 5 *C-tˁoʔ > stage 6 *tˁoʔ

Type B words

Early Vietic presyllables could reflect stage 4 or 5 (if an epenthetic vowel was inserted to break up an initial cluster) in Chinese borrowings.

163. 牀 stage 3 *kɯ-dzraŋ > stage 4 *kə-dzraŋ > stage 5 *k-dzraŋ 'bed'

> Proto-Min *dzh-

> Vietic *kV-ɟ- > Rục /kciːŋ 2/, Vietnamese giưòng 'id.'

164. 種 stage 3 *kɯ-toŋʔ > stage 4 *kə-toŋʔ > stage 5 *k-toŋʔ > stage 6 *toŋʔ 'seed'

> Proto-Min *tš- may be from stage 5 or stage 6 since *t- and *k-t- merged into that Proto-Min initial

> Vietic *kV-C- > Rục /kcoːŋ 3/ 'id.', Vietnamese giống 'species, breed, strain, race, sex, gender'

165. 箴 stage 4 *tə-qəm > stage 5 *t-qəm > stage 6 *q- > *k- > *tɕ- (palatalization)

> Proto-Min *tš- (see 164)

> Vietnamese *tV-C-> găm 'bamboo or metal needle'

11.9.0:14: Later borrowings of the same word are *tV-C-> ghim and *k- > kim. The high vowels reflect the raising and fronting of *ə to *i that in turn conditioned the palatalization of *k. Kim is a borrowing of a stage 6 form *kim prior to palatalization.

the *t- remains in Lakkia /them 1/

166. 謝 stage 2 *si-lak-s > stage 3 *sɯ-ljak-s > stage 4 *sə-ljak-s 'decline, renounce'

> Proto-Min *-dzia C; the hyphen indicates a lost presyllable

> Vietnamese *CV-ɟ- > giã 'say goodbye'

I will bridge the gaps between *sə-lj-, Proto-Min *-dz-, and Vietnamese *CV-ɟ- next time.