Language Log

« previous post | next post »

[This is a guest post by Axel Schuessler]

Some Old Chinese (OC) words that relate to religion, mythology and ritual, and words found in ritual literature (Yijing, Liji, Zhouli), have no Sino-Tibetan (ST) roots, but instead have connections with other language families.

    For comparison, the first section of this paper will list (§1) Sino-Tibetan words, i.e., ones with Tibeto-Burman (TB) cognates. Then: (§2) Mon-Khmer words from the state of Chu and mid-Yangtze region. (§3) Miao-Yao (Hmong-Mien) and area words, perhaps also from the mid-Yangtze. (§4) Tai/Kra-Dai items from the Huai River basin. (§5) The Gou-language(s), so called because among its prefixes stands out a conspicuous syllable gou (see Schuessler forthc.). These languages were in prehistoric times spoken from at least Yue in the South in the vicinity of the Coast all the way to Song and Qi. Their connection with known language families is unknown. (§6) The last section is dedicated to the mythological figures Xi and Hé 羲和.

    About the hypothetical early historic locations of these language families, see Schuessler forthc. (“Tigers, and the languages of ancient Chu, Wu, and Yue”). Outside of China, the items under consideration tend to be ordinary, mundane words, but in OC they often acquire a narrow meaning just for ritual use. This identifies them as loans.

1          Sino-Tibetan origin

 

Some important OC terms have cognates in Tibeto-Burman languages; they are therefore likely a ST inheritance.

 

(1) tiān 天 (QYS* tʰien), OC *thîn ‘Sky, heaven, heavenly deity’ [Zhou bronze inscriptions (BI), Shijing (Shi), perhaps Shang Dynasty Oracle Bone Inscriptions (OB)].

[*QYS = “Qieyun System”, alias MC = Middle Chinese; all OC forms are “Minimal OC” from Schuessler 2009.]

The graph shows a person (identical with the graph 大) with a head in the shape of a disk like the BI character for dīng 丁 *têŋ ‘a cyclical sign’. The anthropomorphic graph indicates that ‘sky’ could also in some contexts be thought of as a person; Sarah Allan (2007) considers tiān to refer primarily to a place. On the Zhou Dynasty bronze inscriptions, one could draw sharp curves, circles, and filled areas, whereas the carving on OB is more conducive to more or less straight lines. Therefore, the BI were more faithful to the original graphic representation. As such, the graph 子 has always a circle as a head, while 天 shows a filled-in round disk. How does one represent and draw the ‘sky’? The sky was always thought of as round (with the earth square); therefore I suggest that 丁 was originally the round disk symbolizing the sky tiān (*thîn, from earlier **thîŋ?), which was then borrowed for the phonetically similar cyclical sign *têŋ. (For the *-eŋ ~ *-in variation, see Schuessler 2007 §6.4.1). ‘Sky, heaven’ was then differentiated by the addition of 大, mutatis mutandis similar to the treatment of the graph for ‘nose’ 自, which was borrowed for ‘self’; ‘nose’ was then identified by the addition of a phonetic 鼻.

    Because the deity Tiān, which appeared prominently during the Zhou dynasty, had its roots in the west, a Central Asian origin has been suggested for tiān: note Mongolian tengri ‘sky, heaven, heavenly deity’ (Shaughnessy, Sino-Platonic Papers, no. 11, July 1989, and others, like Shirakawa Shizuka, before him). Alternatively, Bodman (International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics 1987) connects tiān with TB-Adi taleŋ, Lepcha tă-lyaŋ ‘sky’, yet these items could belong to líng 陵 instead.

    Most likely, this word is related to diān < *tîn 顛 ‘top of head’, 巔 *tîn ‘top of a mountain’ (so SW) and its TB cognates: Written Tibetan (WT), Old Tibetan steŋ ‘above, upper part, that which is above’ (Unger Hau–ku 36, 1990: 48), steŋ-lha ‘the upper gods, gods in heaven’ (Hoffmann 1975: 94); Kachin puŋdiŋ ‘zenith, top’ (Benedict 1972: 180); Zemi (Naga) tiŋ ‘sky’, Lushai paᴸ-tʰianᴴ ‘god’ (lit. ‘father above’) (French 1983: 157f; 374), perhaps also Chepang diŋ ‘(helpful) spirits’. Note the semantic parallel shàngdì 上帝 ‘god on high’ (i.e. in heaven). If MC aspiration should be a reflex of an earlier *s in the initial (Schuessler 2007 §5.8.1), then tiān would agree closely with WT steŋ.

 

(2) dì 帝 (tiei`) *têh ‘Heavenly spirits of deceased ancestors, honorific for deceased kings, fathers’ [OB, Shi] (Eno EC 15, 1990: 1-26; Allan 2007). 

            dì 禘 (diei`) *dêh ‘A kind of great sacrifice’ [OB, Zuo].

WT tʰe ‘celestial gods’ of the Bon religion, JP mə³¹-tai³³ ‘god of the sky’.

 

(3) chī  魑离螭  (ṭhjie) *rhai  ‘Mountain demon’ 离 [SW], 魑 [Zuo], 螭 [Lü] (Bodde 1975:102; Carr 1990: 136-140) occurs in texts mostly in the compound chī-mèi 魑魅 *rhai-mrǝs.

WT ’dre < Ndre or Nre ‘goblin, demon, evil spirit’, gre-bo / -mo ‘species of demon’; KN *t/s-rai [IST: 23]: Tangkhul raiᴴ ‘unclean spirit’, Bodo ráj ‘devil’. (This is distinct from WT sri, Lushai hri^F ‘evil spirit which causes sickness’).

 

(4) xiān 仙僊 (sjän) *san or *sen ‘An immortal’ [Liezi].

    A relatively late word. Xiān are men and women who attain supernatural abilities; after death they become immortals and deities who can fly through the air. Lǎozi, the founder of Taoism, is called a xiān. Xiān can also refer to living persons who have unusual skills in their profession (Eberhard 1983: 287). The original graph was 僊, the simplified form 仙 has been partially inspired by the notion that xiān live as recluses in the mountains shān 山.

    Perhaps ST: WT gšen < g-syen ‘shaman’, one who has supernatural abilities, incl. travel through the air; Gšen-rab(s) was the founder of the ancient Tibetan Bon religion, sometimes thought to be identical with Lǎozi. The vocalic discrepancy, though rare, has parallels (Schuessler 2007 §11.1.3). Or is WT gšen a CH loan?

 

(5) wū 巫 (mju) *ma ‘Spirit medium, witch, shaman’ [OB, Yi, Shu, Lunyu], both male and female, but later restricted to females [SW] while the male is called xí 覡 (ɣiek) [Guoyu].

Wū were associated with chaotic and negative aspects of nature and life, e.g., natural disasters, and often killed (sacrificed) in order to fight such disasters. They had little to do with ritual. (Boileau BSOAS  2002, 65.2: 350ff).

    The word is widely distributed in East Asia, and its source is difficult to pinpoint, but it could be ST: Western Tibetan ’ba-po < Nba ‘shaman(ess), sorcerer’ (HST: 107). As to foreign initial b– for OC *m-, see Schuessler 2007 §5.12.2. However, the usual WT word for ‘shaman’ is gšen. — Tai: Siamese (S.) mɔɔᴬ¹ < PTai *hmɔᴬ ‘doctor, sorcerer’ is usually considered a Chinese loan (Li 1976: 40) and has been cited as evidence for an OC voiceless initial. MK-PWa *səmaŋ ‘shaman’ may also be connected.

Several alternative etymologies have been proposed: (1) Perhaps wū 誣 ‘to deceive’ is the same word. Note a WT semantic parallel ‘deceive’ ~ ‘magical power’: sprul–ba ‘to juggle, make phantoms, miraculous power’, ’pʰrul ‘magical deception’. (2) Wū could be cognate to wǔ 舞 ‘to dance’ [Shi] (Lau 1999: 87). (3) Wū could in addition to ‘dance’ be cognate to mǔ 母 ‘mother’ as wū were female, acc. to late Zhou and Han texts (E. Schafer, see Jensen EC 20, 1995: 422). (4) V. Mair (EC 15, 1990: 27-47) has proposed that wū is a loan from Iranian *maghu or *maguš ‘magician’, i.e. an ‘able one’ (specialist in ritual).

 

(6) zōng 宗 (tsuoŋ) *tsûŋ   ‘Ancestral temple’ [OBI, BI, Shijing].

    ST: WT rdzoŋ ‘castle, fortress’ as administrative center; Written Burmese (ǝ-)choŋ ‘a building’. This was perhaps originally a building as a center for a dominant clan and the region it controlled.

 

(7) biǎn 窆 (pjäm`, pǝŋ`) *pams < **poms? and/or *pǝms < **pums?    ‘To lower a coffin into the grave, bury’ [Liji].

    ST: WT ’bum ‘tomb, sepulcher’, Lushai phuumᴴ ‘to bury, inter’ (CVST 1: 7).

 

2          Mon-Khmer

 

(8)  huāng 衁 (xwâŋ)  *hmâŋ  ‘Blood’ in an Yijing quote in Zuozhuan: Xi Gong 15, quoting Yi 54,6.

MK *jhaam, *jhiim ‘blood’ (Shorto 2006 #1430); with -m- infix/prefix: Khmu ma:m < *mh-, PNBahnaric *maham, PMnong *mham. Chinese has final -ŋ because initial and final m tend to be avoided. The OC initial was probably a voiceless *m- which can derive from, among others, a prehistoric cluster with either *h or *s.

 

(9) táng 唐 OC *lâŋ ‘Path in a temple’ [Shi 142, 2; Erya].

    MK or area word: MK: PMonic *glɔɔŋ ‘road, track, way, direction’; *g-n-lɔɔŋ ‘habitual path’; OKhmer /glɔɔŋ/ ‘way, path, passage > channel, canal, watercourse’ (Jenner and Pou 1980-1981: 289); note also Muong ta:ŋ ‘road, way’ [Pulleyblank JCL 22.1, 1994: 82] (-> PTai *d-: S. tʰaŋᴬ¹ ‘way, road’).

 

(10) xiē 楔 (siet) *sêt ‘A wedge’ (inserted for fastening something) [Huainanzi], ‘wedge’ (put between the teeth of a corpse) [Liji]. The choice of the “phonetic” in the graph is not clear, perhaps some mental association with qì 契 ‘perforate’.

    MK: Khmer sniata /snììǝt/ ‘peg, pin, wedge’, derivation with nominalizing -n- infix from siat /sìiǝt/ ‘to stick into, insert, plug’.

 

(11)  bèng 塴 (pǝŋ`) *pə̂ŋh or *pə̂ŋs   ‘To put the coffin into the ground, bury’ [Zuo].

MK: cf. Old Khmer pāṅ /paŋ/ ‘to cover, hide, bury’; Tai pɔɔŋ^C¹ ‘to protect, cover up’.

 

(12) jí 藉 *dzak (or dzjak?) ‘to perform the plowing ceremony, ceremonial plowing’ [OB, BI, Zuo], 藉田 ‘sacred field’; 耤 [SW] (Bodde 1975: 232-241).

    PMK *jiik, *jiǝk ‘to break ground for cultivation, harrow’; cf. Old Khmer jyak, Praok (Palaungic) ciak ‘to dig, break ground for digging’ (Shorto #300). 

 

(13) méi 媒禖 (muậi) *mǝ̂  ‘Marriage go-between, match-maker’ [Shijing], ‘god of fecundity’ 禖 [Liji], ‘Supreme Intermediary’ (Bodde 1975: 243-261); also relating to horses (Sterckx 1996:58-59). A long foreign vowel causes the loss of a coda in OC.

    MK: Khmer dhmāya [tmíiǝj] ‘agent, representative’ > ‘marriage go-between’, derived from [*-dǝj] ‘bear, support’ (cf. dài 戴), with the infix -m- which forms agental derivatives (Jenner and Pou 1980-1981: xlvi f). The AA infix was treated like the word initial in OC (Schuessler 2007, §2.6).

 

(14) gāo-méi 高禖 *kâu-mǝ̂ [Lüshi], 郊禖 *krâu-mǝ̂   A fecundity rite which was performed at an altar outside of town jiao 郊 where sexual intercourse (jiāo 交) was involved (Jensen EC 20, 1995: 420ff). While gāo merely transcribed a pre-initial, jiāo reflects re-etymologization.

    MK: related to the above: Khmer ghmāya [kmíiǝj] ‘marriage broker’, by alteration of the (root-) initial from [tmíiǝj] above (Jenner and Pou 1980-1981: 138).

 

3          Miao-Yao and areal words

 

Most MY words that could have an OC connection have links to other language families.

 

(15) miào 廟 (mjäu`3) *mrauh ‘Ancestral temple’ [BI, Shi].

    Perhaps related to PMY *prɣauᴬ ‘house’ (Ostapirat 2013), *prauᴮ (Chen 2013); a semantic parallel ‘building’ > ‘temple’ is zōng₁ 宗 (#6 above). The phonetic seems to be zhāo 朝 *trau ‘morning’ (perhaps partially also a semantic choice) whose Siamese relative has a labial cluster phrau^A2 < *br- ‘morning’. As to foreign initial labial stop for Chinese m-, see Schuessler 2007 §5.12.2.

 

(16) lóng 龍 (ljwoŋ) *roŋ ‘Dragon’

    This is not a ST word in spite of its being often linked to WT ‘brug ’thunder, dragon’ (WT ‘brug could equally well be connected with lóng 隆 *ruŋ ‘thunder’). It is a SEAsian areal word: MY *-roŋ (Ratliff 2010); MK: Khmer roŋ~rôŋ, Muong hôŋ~rôŋ, Viet. rôǹg; Siamese maḥroŋ~măroŋ.

 

(17) píng  萍蓱 OC *bêŋ, probably < *bleŋ   ‘Rain’ as in ‘rain master’萍氏 [Zhouli], ‘rain doctor’ 蓱 [Chuci]; other texts borrow different graphs.

    PMY *mbluŋ (Chen 2013) ‘rain’ (Huáng Shùxiān YYYJ 1989.2: 113), probably ultimately from MK *pliɲ ‘sky’ (Shorto 2006 #930): Palaung pleŋ ‘sky’, Khmer bhlieŋ ‘rain’ [Pinnow 1959: 405];

 

(18) gōng 觥觵 (kwɐŋ) *kwraŋ  ‘Drinking vessel of buffalo horn’ [Shijing]; Shijing 292 is a song about a festival or formal ceremony.

    PMY *kruŋᴬ ~ *krwaŋᴬ ‘horn’; probably ultimately borrowed, note PTB *ruŋ ‘horn’. Ostapirat 2013 mentions an AN word *quRuŋ ‘horn’. (Blust and Tressel (2010) list only PAN *uReŋ and *sequŋ).

 

 

4          Tai, Kra-Dai

 

(19) shà 歃 (ṣăp, ṣjäp) *srap  ‘To smear the mouth with victim’s blood’ (at covenant) [Zuozhuan].

Tai: Siamese čap⁴ ‘to smear over, paint’; MK: Khmer sropa /sraaop/ ‘to cover with plaster or with thin slabs, plates, or gold leaf’ (< –ropa /-róop/ ‘cover’).

 

(20)  gé 骼   (kɐk) *krâk ‘Bones’ [Liji 6/10 = Couvr. I: 338], gé 骼 (kɐk, khɐk, kâk) *krâk, *khrâk, *klak ‘Haunch’ of victim’ [Yili].

Proto-Kam-Sui *k-la:kᴰ (Edmondson / Yang 1988: 157), or *tla:kᴰ¹ (Thurgood 1988: 210) ‘bone’.

 

(21) kuí 夔 (gjwi 3) OC *grui or *gwrǝ ?  ‘Music master; mythical figure, sometimes compared to an ox;’ probably etymologically the same as 犪 ‘a large buffalo’ in the mountains of Shǔ (Sìchuān) [Shanhaijing] (Carr 1990: 142-144). The OC *-r- may be spurious; after a foreign long vowel, a coda (like *-j) is dropped in OC. Kuí’s association with drums, music and dance is perhaps due to buffalo hide’s having been used for covering drums (see Granet 1926 for discussions on the various aspects of a Kui).

    PTai *ɣwaːjᴬ ‘water buffalo’ (Pittayaporn) (Mei Tsu-Lin, AAS paper 1980); Sui *gwiᴬ ‘buffalo’ (Hansell 1988: 269).

 

5          Gou language

 

(22) Gōu-máng 句芒 *ko-mâŋ [HHS] is a ‘vegetation deity symbolizing vernal growth’. He was a god / a minister to a legendary “green emperor” of the east (where the Yí lived), was associated with the spring season, with wood and the east, sacrifice to the Door (Karlgren 1946:240f.; Bodde 1975:197). Texts and commentators try to interpret this name as ‘sprouts emerging crooked’ (followed by Bodde), as opposed to gōu-méng 句萌 *kô-mrâŋ ‘sprouts emerging straight’ [Liji]. Baihu tongyi considers máng 芒 a mere variant of méng 萌 ‘to sprout’ ‌(ZWDCD II:508c). These look like attempts to explain an incomprehensible foreign name; the spelling Gōu-wáng 句望 (*kô-maŋ) further points in this direction. One could speculate on a connection with MK or PTai; note MK *[g]ma[a]ŋ ‘ghost’: Palaung kǝrmaŋ (Shorto 2006 #B55); or Proto-Tai *mwa:ŋᴬ ‘spirit’. But Gōu-máng must have been more specific than a generic ‘spirit’. This spirit’s origin in the Gou language seems most likely.

 

(23) Gōu-lóng  句籠 *kô-roŋ  a mythological spirit, protector of the land (Zuo, Zhao 29).

 

(24)  tuó 鼉 *dâi ‘alligator’ (discussed by Carr 1990: 128; 131-132; perhaps from *dâl or *dâr) was introduced into Chinese together with the tuó gǔ 鼉鼓 ‘alligator skin drum’ that emerged in the prehistoric eastern Dawenkou culture. Alligators once lived in the Haidai region as far north as Shandong, an area that overlaps with the Gou-language. Imported alligator-skin drums were uncovered in the prehistoric site Taosi in Shanxi (2600 to 2000 BC; Shao Wangping in Allan 2005: 93-94). Such alligator skin drums are mentioned in Shijing 242,4. The word for ‘drum’ 鼓 *kâʔ < *klaʔ is not Sino-Tibetan either; it is an areal word; note Proto-Tai *kloŋᴬ¹ (an OC *-ʔ sometimes takes the place of a foreign *-ŋ, see Schuessler 2007:32-33), and MK: Proto-Wa kloʔ ‘bronze drum’.

 

6          Xī and Hé 羲和

 

OC might possibly have preserved a term from a prehistoric AN layer in the south-east. The DNA of people of the prehistoric agricultural Liangzhu culture shows connections with AN as well as Kra-Dai. Liangzhu influence had spread into other regions of China. The ceremonial ‘circular bì-jade’ 壁 *pek and ‘cóng-jade’ 琮 *dzûŋ first appeared in Liangzhu. The mythological figures Xi and He may also have originated there, with possible etymological roots in Tai and AN.

   Popular legends and mythology tell of a moon deity whose phonetic and graphic variants have been collected and discussed by Karlgren (1946: 262-266):

 

Cháng-xī 常羲 *daŋ-hŋai: 常羲生月十有二此始浴之 ‘moon goddess gives birth to 12 moons, bathes them’ [Shanhaijing 16]

Cháng-yí  常儀 *daŋ-ŋai [Shiben]

Shàng-xī  尚儀 *daŋh-ŋai [Lüshih chunqiu]

Cháng-é 常娥 *daŋ-ŋâi

=Héng-é 姮娥 *gǝ̂ŋ-ŋâi [Huainanzi, Hou Hanshu]

 

This name has its origin in Tai languages, note Proto-Tai *hŋaiᴬ¹ ‘moonlight’ (Li 1977: 206; acc. to Gedney CAAAL 6, 1976: 70, ŋaaiᴬ¹ originally from ‘to lie face up’), Siamese dianᴬ¹-ŋaaiᴬ¹ and Saek blian¹-ŋaay² ‘full moon’ (literally ‘moon full-face’?), Lungming looŋᴮ²-haaiᴬ¹ ‘moonlight’ (literally ‘bright / moon’) (Li 1977: 206). It is tempting to compare the syllables 常 and 尚 in the name with the Tai form dianᴬ¹ ‘moon’, where the final nasal *-n was assimilated to the following word’s initial *ŋ-. It is unexpected, however, to find that this and other words in the Huai region that were recorded perhaps as early as 1000 BC agree closely with Proto-Tai, and not with other Kra-Dai languages located between Huai and Thailand today. Sagart (p.c.) has therefore expressed doubts about the connection with OC; yet the agreement between Tai and OC is so striking that we may hypothesize prehistoric contacts. Xi 羲 *hŋai for ‘moon’ looks identical to the PTai innovation; perhaps an earlier word for ‘moon’ had in the course of centuries and millennia been replaced by the PTai word (note English ‘Monday’ for Latin lunae dies, French lundi).

    Xī 羲 *hŋai occurs in the combination Xī Hé 羲和 *Hŋai Wâi in Shūjīng:

 

乃命羲和欽若昊天歷象日月星辰敬授人時 “And then he [Emperor Yao] charged Xī and Hé reverently to follow the august Heaven and calculate and delineate the sun, the moon and the stars and constellations and respectfully give the people the seasons” (Shūjīng 1,3; Karlgren’s [1950] translation).

 

帝曰咨汝羲暨河。朞三百有六旬有六日。以閏月定四時成歲 “The emperor said: oh, you Xi and He, the year has 366 days, by means of an intercalary month, fix the four seasons and complete the year.” (Shūjīng 1,8; Karlgren’s [1950] translation).  — jī 朞 *kǝ ‘year’.

 

If *hŋai means ‘moon’, then *wâi should mean ‘sun’, which is indeed the Proto-Austronesian (PAN) word:

 

PAN *waRi ‘day, sun’: e.g., Bunun vali ‘sun’, Malay hari.

 

A foreign *waRi would be reduced to a single syllable in the Sinosphere. There are several possible scenarios how *waRi could adjust to *wâi in OC: possible developments like *waRi> *wRai > *wâi > MC ɣwâ (Div. I is sometimes due to loss of a voiced element in the initial) are not unthinkable; or more likely: final *-r, *-l do occasionally correspond to OC final *-i (= *-j), merging with the final *-i. In literature Xi-He are eventually treated as one person and associated with the sun (see Karlgren 1946); in fact, Xi alone never involves the sun, only the moon. The original (prehistoric?) meaning of the first part of the Shujing quote was literally: “And then he charged the Moon and the Sun reverently…”

    It is noteworthy that most of the astronomical and calendrical terms are not Sino-Tibetan, nor Sinitic. Sino-Tibetan is only rì 日 *nit ‘sun, day’. Sinitic innovations are probably xīng 星 *sêŋ ‘star, planet’, cognate to qīng 清 *tsheŋ ‘clear’; and suì 歲 *swats ‘year’, cognate to yuè 越 *wat pass over’ with the *s-prefix that sometimes marks repetition (Schuessler 2007:52f.). Xún 旬 *s-win ‘10-day cycle’ is derived from a root *win ‘turn around’ (see Schuessler 2007:328). 

    Jī 朞 *kǝ ‘year’ is reminiscent of AA *khǝyʔ (and *khǝǝyʔ?) ‘moon, month, season’ (Shorto 2006 #1542), where a foreign coda *-y would be lost in OC after a long vowel. But the semantic shift from ‘moon, month’ to ‘year’ seems too risky a leap. Norman (1985) has suggested AA connections for a few animals in the dizhi Earthly Branches. But these AA connections are not very firm.

    The majority of terms have no ST, Sinitic nor any identifiable outside connection: 月辰閏時, most or all of the animals in the dizhi, none of the 10 tiangan. The term for the Milky Way, Tiān-Hàn 天漢 ‘Heavenly Han River’, was coined perhaps in Chǔ (after all, it is not called Tian-Hé 天河).

    If true, this analysis has interesting implications. First, the calendar creators Xi and He, Moon and Sun, originated in an Austro-Tai-speaking area east / south of the Central Plain. Second, the calendar must have been invented in an early agricultural society; the Liangzhu culture is a candidate, which may have been the probable source, or transmitter, of the traditional Chinese calendrical system with its terminology. Third, the DNA of the inhabitants of Liangzhu links them to Austronesians as well as Kra-Dai. Although DNA is not proof of linguistic affiliation, nevertheless prehistory and geography suggest many of the Liangzhu people likely spoke some form of Austro-Tai.

 

 

Works cited

 

Allan, Sarah, ed., 2005. The Formation of Chinese Civilization. An Archaeological Perspective. New Haven, London: Yale Univ. Press; Beijing: New World Press.

Allan, Sarah 2007. On the identity of Shang di 上帝 and the origin of the concept of a celestial mandate (tian ming 天命). Early China 31: 1-46.

Benedict, Paul 1972. Sino-Tibetan Conspectus.

Blust, Robert, and Stephen Trussel 2010. The Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Web ed.

Bodde, Derk 1975. Festivals in Classical China. Princeton U. Pr.

Carr, Michael 1990. Chinese dragon names. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13.2: 87-189.

Chén Qíguāng 陳其光 2013.《苗瑤 語文》Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House. (Wiktionary.org/wiki).

Eberhard, Wolfram 1983. Lexikon chinesischer Symbole. Köln: Diederichs.

Edmondson, Jerold, and Quan Yang 1988. Word-initial consonants and the history of Kam-Sui resonant initials and tones. In: Jerold Edmondson and David Solnit, eds., Comparative Kadai: Linguistic Studies beyond Tai, 1988, 145-166. SIL, Arlington, TX.

French, Walter 1983. “Northern Naga: A TB Mesolanguage.” PhD diss., City Univ. of NY. 737pp.

Granet, Marcel 1926. Danses et légendes de la Chine ancienne. Paris: Annales du musée Guimet.

Hansell, Mark 1988. The relation of Be to Tai: Evidence from tones and initials. In: Edmondson and Solnit, eds., 1988, Comparative Kadai: Linguistic Studies beyond Tai, 239-287. SIL, Arlington, TX.

Hoffmann, Helmut 1975. Tibet. A Handbook. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Publications.

Jenner, Philip N., and Saveros Pou 1980-1981. A Lexicon of Khmer Morphology. MK Studies 9-10: 1-517.

Karlgren, Bernhard 1946. Legends and Cults in Ancient China. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 18:199-365.

Karlgren, Bernhard 1950. The Book of Documents. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 22, reprint.

Lau, Ulrich 1999. Quellenstudien zur Landvergabe und Bodenübertragung in der westlichen Zhou-Dynastie (1045?-771 v. Chr.). MS Monograph Series XLI. 

Li Fang Kuei 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. U. of Hawaii Press.

Mair, Victor H. 1990. Old Sinitic *Myag, Old Persian Maguš and English Magician. Early China 15: 27-47.

Norman, Jerry 1985. A note on the origin of the Chinese duodenary cycle. In: Thurgood, Matisoff, Bradley, eds., 1985: Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan Area: The State of the Art (Benedict Festschrift), 85-89. Canberra: Australian National Univ.

Ostapirat, Weera 2013. Austro-Tai revisited. The 23rd Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society, Chulalongkorn University.

Ratliff, Martha 2010. Hmong-Mien Language History. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. (Wiktionary.org/wiki).

Schuessler, Axel 2007. ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Schuessler, Axel 2009. Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese. A Companion to Grammata serica recensa. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Schuessler, Axel. Forthcoming. Tigers and the ancient languages of Chu, Wu, and Yue. To appear in the Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics.

Shaughnessy, Edward L. 1989. Western Cultural Innovations in China, 1200 B.C. Sino-Platonic Papers, no. 11, July 1989.

Shorto, H. L. 2006, Paul Sidwell, main editor. A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary. Canberra: Australian National University.  

Thurgood, Graham 1988. Notes on the reconstruction of Proto-Kam-Sui. In: Jerold Edmondson and David Solnit, eds., Comparative Kadai: Linguistic Studies beyond Tai, 1988, 179-218.

 

September 17, 2023 @ 7:25 am · Filed by Victor Mair under Borrowing, Etymology, Language and astronomy, Language and biology, Language and genetics, Language and geography, Language and religion, Reconstructions

Permalink