Proto-Sino-Tibetan language

Last updated
Proto-Sino-Tibetan
PST, Proto-Trans-Himalayan
Reconstruction of Sino-Tibetan languages
Lower-order reconstructions

Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) is the hypothetical linguistic reconstruction of the Sino-Tibetan proto-language and the common ancestor of all languages in it, including the Sinitic languages, the Tibetic languages, Yi, Bai, Burmese, Karen, Tangut, and Naga. Paul K. Benedict (1972) placed a particular emphasis on Old Chinese, Classical Tibetan, Jingpho, Written Burmese, Garo, and Mizo in his discussion of Proto-Sino-Tibetan. [1]

Contents

While Proto-Sino-Tibetan is commonly considered to have two direct descendants, Proto-Sinitic and Proto-Tibeto-Burman, [2] in recent years several scholars have argued that this was not well-substantiated, [3] and have taken to calling the group "Trans-Himalayan". [4] In this case, Proto-Tibeto-Burman may be considered as equivalent to Proto-Sino-Tibetan if Sinitic is indeed not the first branch to split from Proto-Sino-Tibetan. [5]

Features

Reconstructed features include prefixes such as the causative s-, the intransitive m-, the miscellaneous b-, d-, g-, and r-, suffixes -s, -t, and -n, and a set of conditioning factors that resulted in the development of tone in most languages of the family. [6] The existence of such elaborate system of inflectional changes in Proto-Sino-Tibetan makes the language distinctive from some of its modern descendants, such as the Sinitic languages, which have mostly or completely become analytic.

Proto-Sino-Tibetan, like Old Chinese, also included numerous consonant clusters, and was not a tonal language.

Phonology

Benedict (1972)

The table below shows consonant phonemes reconstructed by Benedict. [1] [ page needed ]

PlosiveFricativeSonorant
VoicelessVoicedVoicelessVoicedNasalOther
Labialpbmw
Dentaltdsznr
Palatalcʒy
Laterall
Velarkghŋ

Peiros & Starostin (1996)

The reconstruction by Peiros & Starostin suggests a much more complex consonant inventory. [7] The phonemes in brackets are reconstructions that are considered dubious.

Plosive/AffricateFricativeSonorant
UnaspiratedAspirated
VoicelessVoicedVoicelessVoicedVoicelessVoiced
OralNasal
Labialpbm(bʰ)w
Dentaltdn(dʰ)r
Alveolarcʒ(ʒʰ)s
Palatalćʒ́ńćʰʒ́ʰśy
Lateral(ƛ)l
Velarkgŋ(gʰ)xɣ
Uvular(q)(ɢ)(qʰ)(ɢʰ)(χ)
Laryngealʔ

Hill (2019)

The following tables show the reconstruction of Proto-Sino-Tibetan phonemes by Nathan Hill (2019). [8]

Consonants Labial Coronal Palatal Velar Labiovelar Uvular Labiouvular Glottal
Nasal * m * n * ŋ * ŋʷ
Plosive voiced * b * d * g * ɢ * ɢʷ
voiceless * p * t * k * * q * ʔ
Affricate voiced * dz
voiceless * ts
Fricatives *( s ) [lower-alpha 1]
Approximant * l * j [lower-alpha 2]
Rhotic *r [lower-alpha 3]
  1. The sibilant correspondences are simply presented according to their proto-Burmish outcomes, as no patterns could be found by Hill. [9]
  2. This consonant can only exist as a coda.
  3. This phonetic nature of this rhotic is unknown.

The consonants /ptkqʔmnŋlrj/ can take coda position, as well as the cluster /rl/. While Hill does not reconstruct /j/ as an initial consonant due to Baxter and Sagart's Old Chinese reconstruction lacking such a phoneme, he mentions that Jacques and Schuessler suggest a /j/ initial for some Old Chinese words due to potential Tibetan or Rgyalrongic cognates. [10]

Vowels Front Central Back
Close i u
Mid e ə o
Open a

Hill also claims that his reconstruction is incomplete, as it does not account for Tibetic palatalization, proto-Burmish preglottalization, Sinitic aspirates, and the Sinitic type A and B distinction of syllables.

Sound changes

Final consonant changes

In Gong Huangcheng's reconstruction of the Proto-Sino-Tibetan language, the finals *-p, *-t, *-k, *-m, *-n, and *-ŋ in Proto-Sino-Tibetan remained in Proto-Sinitic and Proto-Tibeto-Burman. However, in Old Chinese, the finals *-k and *-ŋ that came after the close vowel *-i- underwent an irregular change of *-k>*-t and *-ŋ >*-n. In Proto-Tibeto-Burman, *-kw and *-ŋw underwent a sound change to become *-k and *-ŋ respectively, while in Old Chinese those finals remained until Middle Chinese, where the finals underwent the same sound change. [11]

Furthermore, in Proto-Tibeto-Burman, the finals *-g, *-gw, and *-d underwent the following changes:

  1. *-d>*-y
  2. *-gw>*-w
  3. *-g>*-w when it follows the vowel *-u-
  4. *-g>*-∅ when it follows the vowel *a and *-a-.

Example of sound changes

Voiceless plosive finals

Proto-Sino-TibetanOld Chinese (Li Fang-Kuei)Proto-Tibeto-Burman
*-p*-jəp汲 *kjəp*ka·p
泣 *khrjəp*krap
立 *(g-)rjəp*g-ryap
*-jap接 *tsjap*tsyap
*-jup入 *njəp*nup~ *nip
*-t*-iat八 *priat*b-r-gyat
殺 *r-siat*g-sat
*-uat脫 *hluat*g-lwat
*-jit一 *·jit*it
*-k*-ək翼 *lək*lak
*-jək織 *tjək*tak
息 *sjək*sak
食 *N-ljək*(m-)lyak
飼 *s-ljəks*(s-)lyak
*-ik節 *tsik>*tsit*tsik
縊 *·iks, *·jiks*ik
*-jik蝨 *srjik>*srjit*s-rik
*-juk曲 *khjuk*guk~kuk
*-kw*-əkw毒 *dəkw*duk~*tuk
*-jəkw腹 *phjəkw, *bjəkw*pu·k~*buk
六 *drjəkw*d-ruk

Nasal finals

Proto-Sino-TibetanOld Chinese (Li Fang-Kuei)Proto-Tibeto-Burman
*-m*-əm含 *gəm*gam
頷 *gəm*gam
*-jəm飲 *·jəmx*am
尋 *ljəm*la[·]m
*-jim坅 *khjamx “pit”*kim
*-um三 *səm*g-sum
*-jum尋 *ljəm*lum
*-n*-an乾 *kan*kan
*-jin辛 *sjin*m-sin
*-ng*-jəng夢 *mjəngs*mang
蒸 *tjəng*tang
*-jang紡 *phjangx*pang
涼 *grjang*grang
迎 *ngrjang*ngang
*-ing盈 *bling*bling~pling
*-jing年 *ning>*nin*ning
名 *mjing*r-ming
甥 *srjing*sring
薪 *sjing>*sjin*sing
仁 *njing>*njin*s-ning
*-ngw*-jəngw躬 *kjəngw*gung

Voiced plosive finals

Proto-Sino-TibetanOld Chinese (Li Fang-Kuei)Proto-Tibeto-Burman
*-b*-əb柔 *njəb>*njəgw*nəw
*-d*-əd𤈦 *smjədx*məy
*-ad簸 *padx/s*pwa·y
太  *tads*tay
蜾 *kwadx*kwa·y
我 *ngadx*ngay
移 *lad*lay
*-id四 *sjids*b-liy
*-jid妣 *pjidx*piy
畀 *sbjids*biy
几 *krjidx*kriy
屎 *skhljidx*kliy
死 *sjidx*siy
*-g*-əg       母 *məgx*ma
*-jəg     負 *bjəgx*ba, *bak
子 *tsjəgx*tsa
慈 *dzjəg*m-dza
孳 *dzjəgs*za
耳 *njəgx*r-na~*g-na
牛 *ngwjəg*ngwa
*-ag補 *pagx*pa
苦 *khagx*ka
吾 *ngag*nga
五 *ngagx*l-nga~*b-nga
狐 *gwag*gwa
*-jag斧 *pjagx*r-pwa
夫 *pjag*(p)wa
父 *bjagx*pa
無 *mjag*ma
魚 *ngjag*ngya
咀 *dzjag*dza
汝 *njagx*na
*-ug口 *khugx*kuw
寇 *khugs*r-kuw
*-jug霧 *m(r)jugs*(r-)muw
軀 *khjug*(s-)kuw
乳 *njugx*nuw
*-gw*-əgw寶 *pəgwx*puw
抱 *bəgwx*buw
*-jəgw鳩 *kjəgw*kuw
九 *kjəgwx*d-kuw
舅 *gjəgwx*kuw
*-agw豪 *gagw*m/s-gaw
號 *gagws*gaw
熬 *ngagw*r-ngaw
臊 *sagw*sa·w
*-jagw飄/漂 *phjagw*pyaw

Liquid finals

Proto-Sino-TibetanOld Chinese (Li Fang-Kuei)Proto-Tibeto-Burman
*-l*-al肝 *kan*m-kal
*-ul本 *pən*bul~*pul
*-jul銀 *ngjən*(d)-ngul
閩 *mjən*s-brul
*-jal疲 *brjal*bal
*-il洒 *silx*(m-)s(y)il
*-r*-ar播 *s-bars*bwar
皤 *bar, *par*pwa:r
*-jar販 *pjans*par
鮮 *sjan*sar
*-uar酸 *suan*swa·r
*-jur飛 *pjər*pur~*pir

Vocabulary

Words which do not have reliable Sinitic parallels are accompanied by a (TB).

Social terms

EnglishReconstruction byOld Chinese (Baxter-Sagart) [lower-alpha 1] [12]
I. Peiros & S. StarostinJ. Matisoff
Person (in general)*mĭ*mi民 *mi[ŋ]
Male*pă*pʷa父 *p(r)aʔ
Female*mǝw*mow母 *mˤoʔ (or məʔ)
Name (of a person)*miǝŋ*miŋ名 *C.meŋ

Natural phenomena

EnglishReconstruction byOld Chinese (Baxter-Sagart) [lower-alpha 1]
I. Peiros & S. StarostinJ. Matisoff
Earth*ƛăy*ley ~ *lǝy地 *[l]ˤej-s
Stone*ƛɨāŋ ~ *ƛɨāk*luŋ ~ *luk琭 *[r]ˤok
Sand*srāy*sa沙 *sˤraj
Fire*mēyH*mey火 *[qʷʰ]ˤəjʔ [lower-roman 1]
Smoke*gʰiw*kǝw熏 *qʰu[n]
Water*tujʔ*t(w)i(y)水 *s.turʔ
Rain*(r-)qʰʷăH*rwa ~ *wa雨 *C.ɢʷ(r)aʔ
Sun*nĭy*nǝy日 *C.nik
Moon (TB)*(s-)lăH*laN/A [lower-roman 2]
Star*(s-)q(ʰ)ār*kar扈 *m-qˤaʔ [lower-roman 3]
Night*yăH*ya夜 *[ɢ]Ak-s
Tree*sĭŋ*siŋ ~ *sik薪 *[s]i[n]
Leaf*lăp*lap葉 *l[a]p
Plant root*bʰūl*bul ~ *pul本 *C.pˤə[n]ʔ
  1. See also the dialectal 𤈦 /*m̥əjʔ/ and 燬 /*m̥ajʔ/.
  2. Chinese 月 /*[ŋ]ʷat/ is a descendant of another PST word, *s-ŋʷ(j)a-t.
  3. Unclear. The more common word is 星 /*s-tsʰˤeŋ/, which is possibly related to 清 /*tsʰeŋ/, in turn from PST *(t)s(j)aŋ.

Qualitative features of an object

EnglishReconstruction byOld Chinese (Baxter-Sagart) [lower-alpha 1]
I. Peiros & S. StarostinJ. Matisoff
Black, dark (TB)*nǝk*nak黑 *m̥ˤək [lower-roman 1]
Whitewār*hwār皤 *[b]ˤar [lower-roman 2]
Big*tayH*tay大 *lˤa[t]-s
Cold*(k-)răŋ ~ *(k-)răk*glak ~ *glaŋ ~ *graŋ涼 *C.raŋ
Warm*lɨm*lim ~ *lum融 *luŋ
Long (TB)*rĭŋ*riŋN/A
New*cʰăr*sar鮮 *s[a]r
  1. It is possible that *s-nak is a descendant of *s-maŋ ~ s-mak (whence OC /*m̥ˤək/).
  2. The more commonly used 白 /*bˤrak/ might be a derivation of it.

Verb stems

EnglishReconstruction byOld Chinese (Baxter-Sagart) [lower-alpha 1]
I. Peiros & S. StarostinJ. Matisoff
To eat*ʒʰa*dzya咀 *dzaɁ
To drink*dʰɨn ~ *dʰɨŋ*daŋ ~ *doŋ
To bite/chew*wā*wa
To die*sĭy(H)*sǝy死 *sijʔ
To know, to think*siǝH*syey悉 *[s]i[t]
To hear (TB)*tʰa(s)*taN/A
To sleep*mĭyH*mwǝy寐 *mi[t]-s
To stand*ryǝp*r(y)ap立 *k.rәp
To sit*tūŋ ~ *tūk*duŋ ~ *duk ~ *tuŋ ~ *tuk住 *dro(ʔ)-s
Give*pĭy*bǝy畀 *pi[k]‑s

Numbers

NumberReconstruction byOld Chinese (Baxter-Sagart) [lower-alpha 1] Old Tibetan [13] Old Burmese [13]
I. Peiros & S. StarostinJ. Matisoff
1*dyiǝk*dik ~ *t(y)ik ~ *t(y)ak一 *ʔi[t], 隻 *tekgcigtac
2*nĭy*ni二 *ni[j]-sgnyisnhac
3*sɨm*sum三 *s.rumgsumsumḥ
4*lĭy*lǝy四 *s.li[j]-sbzhiliy
5*ŋāH*ŋa五 *C.ŋˤaʔlngaṅāḥ
6*rŭk*ruk六 *k.rukdrugkhrok
7*(s-)nĭt*ni七 *[tsʰ]i[t]N/A [lower-roman 1] khu-nac
8*ryēt*gyat ~ *ryat ~ *rit八 *pˤretbrgyadrhac
9*kwɨH*gǝw ~ *kǝw九 *[k]uʔdgukuiḥ
10*k(ʰ)ĭp*g(y)ip十 *t.[g]әpN/A [lower-roman 2] kip
100*(p-)ryā*gya百 *pˤrakbrgyaryā
  1. Tibetan bdun has unknown origins, likely used to avoid confusion with the similar-sounding "two".
  2. Tibetan bcu is a descendant of another PST root, *tsjaj.
  1. 1 2 3 4 5 For Old Chinese notations in the Baxter–Sagart system:
    • Parentheses "()" indicate uncertain presence;
    • Square brackets "[]" indicate uncertain identity, e.g. *[t] as coda may in fact be *-t or *-p;
    • Angle brackets "<>" indicate infix;
    • Hyphen "-" indicates morpheme boundary;
    • Period "." indicates syllable boundary.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sino-Tibetan languages</span> Language family native to Asia

Sino-Tibetan is a family of more than 400 languages, second only to Indo-European in number of native speakers. Around 1.4 billion people speak a Sino-Tibetan language. The vast majority of these are the 1.3 billion native speakers of Sinitic languages. Other Sino-Tibetan languages with large numbers of speakers include Burmese and the Tibetic languages. Four United Nations member states have a Sino-Tibetan language as their main native language. Other languages of the family are spoken in the Himalayas, the Southeast Asian Massif, and the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. Most of these have small speech communities in remote mountain areas, and as such are poorly documented.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Old Chinese</span> Oldest attested stage of Chinese

Old Chinese, also called Archaic Chinese in older works, is the oldest attested stage of Chinese, and the ancestor of all modern varieties of Chinese. The earliest examples of Chinese are divinatory inscriptions on oracle bones from around 1250 BC, in the Late Shang period. Bronze inscriptions became plentiful during the following Zhou dynasty. The latter part of the Zhou period saw a flowering of literature, including classical works such as the Analects, the Mencius, and the Zuo Zhuan. These works served as models for Literary Chinese, which remained the written standard until the early twentieth century, thus preserving the vocabulary and grammar of late Old Chinese.

Historical Chinese phonology deals with reconstructing the sounds of Chinese from the past. As Chinese is written with logographic characters, not alphabetic or syllabary, the methods employed in Historical Chinese phonology differ considerably from those employed in, for example, Indo-European linguistics; reconstruction is more difficult because, unlike Indo-European languages, no phonetic spellings were used.

The Kiranti languages are a major family of Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Nepal and India by the Kirati people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lolo-Burmese languages</span> Sino-Tibetan language group of Southeast Asia

The Lolo-Burmese languages of Burma and Southern China form a coherent branch of the Sino-Tibetan family.

The Burmish languages are a subgroup of the Sino-Tibetan languages consisting of Burmese as well as non-literary languages spoken across Myanmar and South China such as Achang, Lhao Vo, Lashi, and Zaiwa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tibeto-Burman languages</span> Group of the Sino-Tibetan language family

The Tibeto-Burman languages are the non-Sinitic members of the Sino-Tibetan language family, over 400 of which are spoken throughout the Southeast Asian Massif ("Zomia") as well as parts of East Asia and South Asia. Around 60 million people speak Tibeto-Burman languages. The name derives from the most widely spoken of these languages, Burmese and the Tibetic languages, which also have extensive literary traditions, dating from the 12th and 7th centuries respectively. Most of the other languages are spoken by much smaller communities, and many of them have not been described in detail.

Sino-Austronesian or Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian is a proposed language family suggested by Laurent Sagart in 1990. Using reconstructions of Old Chinese, Sagart argued that the Austronesian languages are related to the Sinitic languages phonologically, lexically and morphologically. Sagart later accepted the Sino-Tibetan languages as a valid group and extended his proposal to include the rest of Sino-Tibetan. He also placed the Tai–Kadai languages within the Austronesian family as a sister branch of Malayo-Polynesian. The proposal has been largely rejected by other linguists who argue that the similarities between Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan more likely arose from contact rather than being genetic.

Proto-Tai is the reconstructed proto-language of all the Tai languages, including modern Lao, Shan, Tai Lü, Tai Dam, Ahom, Northern Thai, Standard Thai, Bouyei, and Zhuang. The Proto-Tai language is not directly attested by any surviving texts, but has been reconstructed using the comparative method.

There have been various classification schemes for Southeast Asian languages.

Proto-Tibeto-Burman is the reconstructed ancestor of the Tibeto-Burman languages, that is, the Sino-Tibetan languages, except for Chinese. An initial reconstruction was produced by Paul K. Benedict and since refined by James Matisoff. Several other researchers argue that the Tibeto-Burman languages sans Chinese do not constitute a monophyletic group within Sino-Tibetan, and therefore that Proto-Tibeto-Burman was the same language as Proto-Sino-Tibetan.

Proto-Hmong–Mien (PHM), also known as Proto-Miao–Yao, is the reconstructed ancestor of the Hmong–Mien languages. Lower-level reconstructions include Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic.

William Hubbard Baxter III is an American linguist specializing in the history of the Chinese language and best known for his work on the reconstruction on Old Chinese.

Scholars have attempted to reconstruct the phonology of Old Chinese from documentary evidence. Although the writing system does not describe sounds directly, shared phonetic components of the most ancient Chinese characters are believed to link words that were pronounced similarly at that time. The oldest surviving Chinese verse, in the Classic of Poetry (Shijing), shows which words rhymed in that period. Scholars have compared these bodies of contemporary evidence with the much later Middle Chinese reading pronunciations listed in the Qieyun rime dictionary published in 601 AD, though this falls short of a phonemic analysis. Supplementary evidence has been drawn from cognates in other Sino-Tibetan languages and in Min Chinese, which split off before the Middle Chinese period, Chinese transcriptions of foreign names, and early borrowings from and by neighbouring languages such as Hmong–Mien, Tai and Tocharian languages.

Scott DeLancey is an American linguist from the University of Oregon. His work focuses on typology and historical linguistics of Tibeto-Burman languages as well as North American indigenous languages such as the Penutian family, particularly the Klamath. His research is known for its diversity of its thematic and theoretical reach.

The Burmo-Qiangic or Eastern Tibeto-Burman languages are a proposed family of Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Southwest China and Myanmar. It consists of the Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic branches, including the extinct Tangut language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area</span> Geolinguistic region sharing areal features such as tonality

The Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area is a sprachbund including languages of the Sino-Tibetan, Hmong–Mien, Kra–Dai, Austronesian and Austroasiatic families spoken in an area stretching from Thailand to China. Neighbouring languages across these families, though presumed unrelated, often have similar typological features, which are believed to have spread by diffusion. James Matisoff referred to this area as the "Sinosphere", contrasted with the "Indosphere", but viewed it as a zone of mutual influence in the ancient period.

Japhug is a Gyalrong language spoken in Barkam County, Rngaba, Sichuan, China, in the three townships of Gdong-brgyad, Gsar-rdzong and Da-tshang.

Although Old Chinese is known from written records beginning around 1200 BC, the logographic script provides much more indirect and partial information about the pronunciation of the language than alphabetic systems used elsewhere. Several authors have produced reconstructions of Old Chinese phonology, beginning with the Swedish sinologist Bernhard Karlgren in the 1940s and continuing to the present day. The method introduced by Karlgren is unique, comparing categories implied by ancient rhyming practice and the structure of Chinese characters with descriptions in medieval rhyme dictionaries, though more recent approaches have also incorporated other kinds of evidence.

Proto-Karenic or Proto-Karen is the reconstructed ancestor of the Karenic languages.

References

  1. 1 2 Benedict, Paul K. (1972), Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus (PDF), Cambridge University Press, ISBN   978-0-521-08175-7.
  2. Sagart, Laurent; Jacques, Guillaume; Lai, Yunfan; Ryder, Robin J.; Thouzeau, Valentin; Greenhill, Simon J.; List, Johann-Mattis (6 May 2019). "Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116 (21): 10317–10322. Bibcode:2019PNAS..11610317S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1817972116 . PMC   6534992 . PMID   31061123.
  3. Orlandi, Georg (2021). "Once again on the history and validity of the Sino-Tibetan bifurcate model". Journal of Language Relationship. 19 (4): 263–292.
  4. Hill 2019.
  5. van Driem, George (2007). "The diversity of the Tibeto-Burman language family and the linguistic ancestry of Chinese". Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics. 1 (2): 211–270. doi:10.1163/2405478X-90000023.
  6. Egerod, Søren Christian. "Sino-Tibetan languages - Linguistic characteristics". Encyclopædia Britannica Online . Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  7. Peiros, Ilia; Starostin, S.A. (1996). A comparative vocabulary of five Sino-Tibetan languages. Parkville, VIC: Univ. of Melbourne, Dept. of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. ISBN   9780732513504.
  8. Hill 2019, p. 211.
  9. Hill 2019, p. 234-235.
  10. Hill 2019, p. 216.
  11. Gong Huangcheng (龔煌城) (2003). 從原始漢藏語到上古漢語以及原始藏緬語的韻母演變 [Final changes from Proto-Sino-Tibetan to Old Chinese and Proto-Tibeto-Burman](PDF). 古今通塞:漢語的歷史與發展. 第㆔屆國際漢學會議論文集語言組 (in Chinese). pp. 187–223. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-11-03. Retrieved 22 October 2023.
  12. Baxter, William H.; Sagart, Laurent. "The Baxter-Sagart reconstruction of Old Chinese". The Baxter-Sagart reconstruction of Old Chinese. Retrieved 10 August 2022.
  13. 1 2 Hill (2012).

Further reading