Approaching the historical phonology of three highly ...the Naish group and its position within Sino-Tibetan; and (iii) reasons why no comparison with languages closely related to

Diachronica 28:4 (2011), 1–25. doi 10.1075/dia.28.4.02jac.additionalissn 017–4225 / e-issn 15–714 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

Appendix

Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languagesNaxi, Na and Laze

Guillaume Jacques and Alexis MichaudCentre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale / Langues et civilisations à tradition orale-Centre national de la recherche scientifique

Appendix 1. Background data about the Naish languages

This Appendix provides (i) information on the geographic coordinates of Naxi, Na and Laze, and a brief review of the literature; (ii) phylogenetic reflections on the Naish group and its position within Sino-Tibetan; and (iii) reasons why no comparison with languages closely related to the Naish languages was attempted in the present research.

Geographic coordinates and a brief review of the literature

Naxi is the best-documented of the three languages studied in the present article. This is due in part to the scholarly attention devoted to the Naxi scripts (picto-graphic and syllabic), which indirectly stimulated linguistic work (Fang Guoyu & He Zhiwu 1995, Li Lincan, Zhang Kun et al. 1953, Rock 1963–1972). Annotated editions of Naxi ritual texts also constitute important resources for linguists (see in particular Fu Maoji 1981–1984 and the 100-volume Annotated collection of Naxi Dongba manuscripts, 1999–2000). Specialised linguistic work includes reflections on the position of Naxi respective to the Yi (a.k.a. Ngwi, Lolo) subgroup of Tibe-to-Burman (Okrand 1974, Bradley 1975); preliminary field notes by Hashimoto Mantaro (Hashimoto 1988); and a book-length glossary (Pinson 1998) which pro-vides data on several dialects (see Pinson 1996). Finally, the rudimentary word lists collected at the turn of the 20th century provide a few useful hints: on this topic, see Michaud & Jacques 2010.

The specific language varieties studied here are indicated on the map (Fig-ure 1):

2 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud

i. Naxi (autonym: /nɑ˩hi˧/), as spoken in the hamlet of A-sher (/ɑ˧ʂɚ˩/); Chinese coordinates: Wenhua township, Lijiang Municipality, Yunnan, China.

ii. Yongning Na (autonym: /nɑ˩˧/), as spoken in Yongning township, Lijiang mu-nicipality, Yunnan, China.1 A neighbouring dialect is described by Lidz (2006, 2007, forthcoming).

iii. Laze (autonym: /lɑ˧ze˧/; referred to in China as Muli Shuitian 木里水田 or Lare 拉热), as spoken in Xiangjiao township, Muli prefecture, Sichuan, China. (See Huang Bufan 2009 for a general overview of a neighbou-ring dialect.)

The present research essentially relies on first-hand data collected by Alexis Mi-chaud from 2002 to 2009. With apologies for self-references, here is a list of pub-lished results: analyses of the phonemic system of Naxi (Michailovsky & Michaud 2006, Michaud 2006a) and of its tone system (Michaud 2006b, Michaud & He Xueguang 2007); a phonemic and tonal analysis of Yongning Na (Michaud 2008); and a tonal analysis of Laze (Michaud 2009).

The Naish group and its position within Sino-Tibetan

Although language classification is not the main focus of the present paper, it is essential to provide evidence of the close phylogenetic relatedness of Na, Laze and Naxi in order to legitimate the attempt made in the present article: to contribute to the reconstruction of their common ancestor, ‘Proto-Naish’, and to document the evolution from this common ancestor to Naxi, Na and Laze, which are referred to as ‘Naish languages’.

It is widely accepted in Chinese scholarship that Naxi and Na are closely re-lated. He Jiren & Jiang Zhuyi (1985: 107) consider them as dialects of the same language, which they call “Naxi”, even though speakers of Na do not call their own language ‘Naxi’. The boundaries of ‘Naxi’ as defined by He & Jiang are so broad that they actually coincide with what we call Naish languages. ‘Naxi’ in the sense used in the present article (i.e. restricting its extent to the area where speakers use the name ‘Naxi’ for their own language) coincides with what He & Jiang refer to as ‘Western Naxi’ (纳西语西部方言), whereas they consider Na as part of a looser set of dialects to which they refer as ‘Eastern Naxi’ (纳西语东部方言). Laze is not mentioned in He & Jiang (ibid.); the question of its inclusion within Naish (‘Naxi’ as defined by He & Jiang) has been the object of some controversy in Chinese scholarship. With fewer than 300 proficient speakers, Laze is less well documented than the other two varieties. In their History of the Naxi People, Guo Dalie and He

1. This language is also known as ‘Mosuo’; for a discussion of this exonym, see Yang Fuquan 2006.

Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 3


Zhiwu, adopting the same broad understanding of the term ‘Naxi’ as He & Jiang, classify the Laze as one out of eight subgroups within the Naxi ethnic group on the basis of cultural and linguistic similarities with another proposed Naxi subgroup, the Nari 纳日 (Guo Dalie & He Zhiwu 1994 [2nd ed. 1999]: 6–7). Huang Bufan (2009: 55) expresses reservations on this topic, concluding that “…the relationship [of Laze] with Naxi, and its position within Tibeto-Burman, call for more in-depth investigation”. Our own research results point to a degree of closeness between Naxi, Na and Laze which is clearly greater than with other languages of the area. In addition to a fair amount of basic vocabulary, they share some lexical innova-tions. A short list of such probable innovations is provided in Table 18, including two disyllables: “medicine” and “noble”. Not all the words in the list belong to the basic vocabulary, witness the word for the Bai ethnic group. On the other hand, their correspondences for initials and rhymes all coincide with one of the regular phonetic correspondences brought out in this article, suggesting that they may all be actual cognates.

Table 18. A short list of probable Naish lexical innovations.[2]

meaning Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish

to stumble pe˧ kʰɯ.piM *(S)pa

cloud2 ki˩ tɕi˧ tɕi˩sɯ˥ *ki

village hi˧mbe˧ fv.biL ɖɯ˧bie˧ *mba

Bai (ethnic group) le˧bv˧ ɬi.bvM *Sla

noble sɯ.pʰiM sɯ˩pʰie˩ *si pʰa

medicine (2nd syllable) ʈʂʰɚ˧ɯ˧ ʈʂʰæ.ɯ#H tsʰɯ˧fi˧ *rtsʰi Swri

Moreover, Laze, Na and Naxi share structural properties of numeral-plus-classifier determiners which are not found in other languages of the area (Michaud forth-coming)

The boundaries of the Naish branch remain to be worked out in detail; the list of «subfamilies» (支系) of the “Naxi nationality” (纳西族) provided by Guo & He (1999: 5–9) can serve as a starting-point, keeping in mind that this list was es-sentially based on anthropological criteria, and that the inclusion of a language in the Naish branch requires a systematic comparative study such as the present one.

2. Lookalikes to this etymon are found in Lizu: /tɕe35/, Shangyou Shixing: /tɕi55ro21/, and Xiay-ou Shixing: /ti55ro21/, as pointed out by Katia Chirkova (p.c.). The Shixing form, however, is more profitably compared instead to Proto-Lolo-Burmese *C-dim¹ and Rgyalrong /zdɯm/. As for Lizu /tɕe35/, more research is needed to determine whether or not this could be an external cognate.


As for the position of the Naish languages within the Sino-Tibetan family, it remains controversial. Naxi was initially classified within the Loloish branch of Tibeto-Burman (Shafer 1955); however, Bradley (1975: 6) shows that it does not share the innovations that characterise this group and concludes that Naxi is “cer-tainly not a Loloish language, and probably not a Burmish language either”. Thur-good (2003: 19) lists Naxi among the unsubgrouped languages of the Sino-Tibetan family. This issue links up with more general uncertainties about subgroupings within a relatively large portion of the family, which encompasses Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic. The Naish languages appear closely related to the Shixing language, spoken in Muli county, Sichuan, and which was initially classified by Sun Hon-gkai 2001 within a ‘Southern Qiangic’ branch on purely typological grounds. A relatively close relationship with other languages likewise classified as ‘Southern Qiangic’, such as Namuyi (a.k.a. Namuzi, Namʑi) and Ersu, Tosu and Lizu, is also plausible; specific investigations are required to ascertain the degree of closeness between these languages. Bradley (2008) proposes the following set of hypotheses: Naxi and Na are closest to Namuyi, the second closest is Shixing, and the third closest is Ersu. In the family tree proposed in Figure 2, the name “Naic” is pro-posed for a node grouping Naish with Shixing and Namuyi.

Some of the groupings in Figure 2 are by now well-established, in particular the Rgyalrongic group (Sun 2000a). Higher-level groupings are more controversial. Under the present proposal, the Qiangic group only includes Rgyalrongic, Tangut, Pumi (a.k.a. Prinmi), Muya and Qiang, i.e. languages that can be shown to have an extensive amount of uniquely shared vocabulary (there remain doubts concerning Zhaba). Ersu, Tosu and Lizu are generally considered to be Qiangic languages, fol-lowing Sun Hongkai’s 1983 classification (see e.g., Yu 2009), but evidence for their inclusion in this subbranch is weak; our hypothesis is that these languages may in fact belong to the Burmo-Qiangic group but not to Qiangic proper; more research is needed before any conclusion can be reached on this issue.3

The family tree outlined in Figure 2 reflects the hypothesis that Naish is close-ly related to Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic, and that it belongs in an independent branch of a larger Burmo-Qiangic group. This Burmo-Qiangic group is close to ‘Eastern Tibeto-Burman’ as proposed by Bradley 1997. This hypothesis will be briefly defended here on the basis of lexical evidence, since Lolo-Burmese and Naic languages have not preserved much morphology.

3. Fieldwork on these languages is underway, so that the necessary basis for comparative stud-ies should become available in the near future: see in particular Chirkova 2008, 2009. Further research will also be necessary to clarify the relationship of Guiqiong and Tujia to the Burmo-Qiangic group as defined here.


One such piece of evidence is the suppletion found for the noun “year”, with a labial-initial root (Proto-Tangut *C-pja) in “this year, next year, last year” and a different root (Proto-Tangut *kjuk) with numerals: see Table 19. Rgyalrong has generalized the labial form (“next year” is innovative) and the velar root was lost. In Lolo-Burmese languages, only the root related to Tangut *kjuk is found.

Figure 2. A tentative family tree showing the position of Naxi, Na and Laze within a Burmo-Qiangic branch of Sino-Tibetan.


Table 19. Suppletion for the noun “year” in several Burmo-Qiangic languages. About the Proto-Naish forms, see Appendix 2, items a7.20 and u3.14

meaning Tangut Rgyalrong Shuiluo Pumi Muya Proto-Naish

last year .jɨ².wji¹ japa ʑɛpə jø³³zɑ²⁴ …*C-ba

this year pjɨ¹.wji¹ ɣɯjpa pəpə pə³³βə⁵³ …*C-ba

next year sjij¹.wji¹ fsɤqʰe <*psaŋ-qʰo-j

ʑɛkʰiu sæ³³βə⁵³ …*C-ba

one year .a-kjiw¹ tɯ-xpa tɜ-ko tɐ⁵⁵-kui⁵³ …*kʰu

two years njɨɨ¹-kjiw¹ ʁnɯ-xpa ɲi-ko …*kʰu

Table 20 presents a preliminary list of common etyma between Qiangic, Naish and LB not found elsewhere in ST (to the best of our knowledge). It should be kept in mind that finding uniquely shared lexical innovations is a difficult task. This short list will require revision in future; if the hypothesis is correct, it is expected that an increasing number of cognates and uniquely shared lexical innovations will come to light.

Table 20. Correspondences for lexical items that may constitute Burmese-Qiangic in-novations. The Naish forms are Na, apart from those marked as NX, which are from Naxi. Achang belongs to Burmish, and Hani to Loloish.

meaning Rgyalrong(S=Situ)

Tangut Naish(NX=Naxi)

Proto-Naish

Burmese Achang Hani

copula ŋu ŋwu² ŋi˩˧ ? ŋɯ³¹

star ʑŋgri gjij¹ kɯ˥ *kri kray² kʰʐə⁵⁵ a³¹ gɯ⁵⁵

forget jmɯt mjɨ² mv.pʰæ L+MH# *mi me¹ ɲi³⁵ ɲi⁵⁵

be ill ngo < *ngaŋ

ŋo² gu˩ *go

flint ʁdɯrtsa tse.miH# *tsa

to hide nɤtsɯ tsɯ˥ NX *tsu

to swallow mqlaʁ ʁv˥ *NqU <*Nqak

dry spɯ pv˧ *Spu

thick jaʁ laa¹ lo˧˥ *laC2

jump mtsaʁ tsʰo˧ *tsʰaC2

winter qartsɯ tsur¹ tsʰi˥ *tsʰu cʰoŋ³ tɕʰɔŋ³¹ tsʰɔ³1 ga³³

knee tə-mŋɑ S ŋwer² ŋwɤ.ko H# *ŋwa

sun ʁmbɣi be² bi˧ NX *bi


Note that the inclusion of Rgyalrongic within Qiangic contradicts LaPolla’s hy-pothesis of a Rung group, distinct from Qiangic, that would include Rgyalrongic as well as Kiranti and Dulong/Rawang. LaPolla’s proposed grouping is based on the hypothesis that the morphology found across these languages is a common innovation (LaPolla 2003: 30 and references therein). However, the comparison of Rgyalrong to Kiranti reveals very little common vocabulary: a careful examination of Boyd Michailovsky’s unpublished Kiranti etymological dictionary brought out less than 150 potential cognates, which are too widespread within the Sino-Tibet-an family to be convincing instances of shared innovation. If Rgyalrong and Ki-ranti were closely related in the Sino-Tibetan family tree, one would expect more cognate vocabulary, including some lexical innovations.

The view of the Sino-Tibetan family presented in Figure 2 has the important implication that any morphology that is found in both Rgyalrong and Kiranti, or Rgyalrong and Tibetan, must be of great antiquity (predating the split between Proto-Burmo-Qiangic and other branches), and that it was lost almost without traces in Lolo-Burmese and Naish. In this light, vestigial phenomena such as the traces of vowel alternation found in the Naic language Shixing (Chirkova 2009) deserve special attention: they may point to an earlier verb conjugation system.

Why no comparison with languages closely related to the Naish languages was attempted in the present research

The phylogenetic distance between Naish, Rgyalrong and Burmese is relatively great — although we believe that they belong together with the Naish languages in a Burmo-Qiangic branch of Sino-Tibetan, as explained above. The distance be-tween Naish and Tibetan is even greater. Some justifications must be provided for referring to these distant languages in the reconstruction of Proto-Naish, in-stead of relying on data from Shixing, Namuyi and Ersu/Tosu/Lizu, which, while they do not belong to the Naish branch by our criteria, appear to be its closest relatives and could belong in a Naic group (see Figure 2). There are in fact three pressing reasons not to attempt to incorporate data from these languages at the present stage. (i) Available phonemic analyses for these languages are not fully satisfactory. A thorough synchronic description, including a complete inventory of syllables, is required before these languages can be put to use in historical com-parison. In the case of the Naish languages, a preliminary to the present research consisted in elaborating a comprehensive synchronic phonological analysis. By ‘comprehensive’, we mean an analysis which, in addition to the inventory of vowel and consonant phonemes in the language, comprises a list of all attested syllables. As the Naish languages tend to present many phonological contrasts in restricted contexts, the inventory of syllables is necessary to study the full extent of gaps


in the combinations of onsets and rhymes. For Shixing, Namuyi and Ersu, such inventories are not yet available. (ii) In addition to this practical reason, there is a methodological reason for postponing comparison with these languages: they are almost as eroded as the Naish languages, and therefore extremely difficult to use for comparative purposes. Naish, Shixing, Namuyi and Ersu have undergone an enormous amount of phonological changes independently from one another, and do not share most of their phonological innovations. Comparing them di-rectly to one another only yields a lengthy list of opaque correspondences, offering precious few insights as to how these correspondences should be sorted out and reconstructed. Since these languages are mostly isolating and have almost no in-flections (except in their tonology), we cannot rely on the reconstruction of vowel alternations to solve these issues. (iii) Last but not least, areal diffusion has had a conspicuous influence on Shixing and Namuyi, whose speakers are currently mul-tilingual, raising with extreme acuteness the classical issue of inheritance versus borrowing (about which see Aikhenvald & Dixon 2001, among others).

Appendix 2. Examples of five rhymes of Proto-Naish (*a, *i, *o, *u and *aC1/*aC2) with comparanda in the conservative languages and proposed reconstructions.

The question mark after a reconstructed form indicates that this form has other possible origins, and that the form indicated is a rule-of-thumb hypothesis. The “Ref[erence]” consists of (i) the proto-vowel, (ii) the number assigned to the vowel correspondence among the three Naish languages under study, and (iii) the num-ber assigned to the cognate set. In the “HTB” column, we indicate the page num-ber corresponding to the etymon in Matisoff ’s handbook (2003). The words pro-vided in the “Rgyalrong” column are Japhug Rgyalrong forms, except those with the mention “(Situ)”, which are Situ Rgyalrong forms from Huang Liangrong & Sun Hongkai 2002. The notation of the tones for Na disyllables follows the conven-tions set out in Michaud (2008). Finally, it must be emphasised that the data in the “other languages” column are not part of the comparative study carried out here: these potential cognates are provided solely as stepping-stones for future com-parative work with these languages (Tangut, Pumi and Lisu). For Pumi, SL refers to the Shuiluo dialect (unpublished fieldwork data), and LP to the Lanping dialect (Lu Shaozun 2001). Personal communications from James Matisoff are labelled “(JAM)”.


Tabl

e 21

. Rh

yme

*-a

mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

othe

r la

ngua

ges

Nax

iN

aLa

zePr

oto-

Nai

sh

to w

ina1

.01

βʁa

ŋgɑ˧

ʁɑ˥

ŋga/

aC1

stre

ngth

4a1

.02

170–

4Ta

ngut

ɣie

<*

C-k

akɑ˧tɯ

˥ʁɑ˥

ʁɑ˩z

i˩N

ka/a

C1

bitte

ra1

.03

164–

8kh

a³kʰ

akʰɑ˧

qʰɑ˥

kʰɑ˧

kʰa/

aC1

to st

ep a

c-cr

oss

a1.0

4mɢl

aʁɑ˧

(ɖɯ˧)

ʁɑ˧

ŋga/

aC1 (o

r N

ka/a

C1)

diffi

cult5

a1.0

5nq

adk

alo

.hɑM

lu˧hɑ˧

Cka

/aC

1

knee

6a2

.01

tə-m

ŋɑ

(Situ

)Ta

ngut

ŋw

er²

<*rŋ

wa

ŋwɤ.k

o H#

ŋwɑ˩

tu˥

ŋwa

bow

la2

.02

Pum

i kʰwǎ

kʰwɑ˥

qʰwɤ˩˧

kʰwɤ˩

kʰw

a

hoof

a2.0

317

0tɯ

-qa

Pum

i kw

akʰ

wɑ˧

qʰwɤ.ʂ

eL#kʰ

wɤ˥

bie˥

kʰw

a

a pa

ira3

.01

dze˩

dze˥

dza

to lo

cka3

.02

tse˩

tse˥

tsa

whe

at7

a3.0

316

2–5

ndza

ca³

zadz

e˧dz

e.lɯ

Mdz

e˥dz

a

naem

orhe

-du

s gor

ala3

.04

se˩

se˧

se˧

sa

stee

l (fo

r fli

nt)

a3.0

5ʁd

ɯrt

sats

e˧mɑ˩

tse.m

iH#

tse˧

mie˥

tsa

salt

a3.0

617

2ch

a³tsʰw

atsʰe˧

tsʰe˥

tsʰe˧

tsʰa


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

othe

r la

ngua

ges

Nax

iN

aLa

zePr

oto-

Nai

sh

neph

ewa3

.07

171–

2tɯ

-ftsa

tsʰa

-bo

dze˧ɯ˧

ze.vL

ze˧

Cdz

a

to w

alk

a3.0

8se˥

se˧s

e˧sa

to b

orro

wa4

.01

162–

5hŋ

a³rɲ

aŋi˧

ŋi˥

ŋi˧

ŋi/a

fish

a4.0

216

2ŋa

³ɲa

ŋi˧

ŋi.zu

#Hɲi˩z

e˥ŋi

/a

span

a5.0

1tɯ

-tɣa

thw

a²m

tʰo<

*mtw

aʈi˥

twa

toot

ha5

.02

171–

2tɯ

-ɕɣa

swa³

so <

*sw

ahɯ

˧hi˥

fi˧tʰu

˧Sw

a

rain

a5.0

317

1–3

rwa²

hɯ˩

hi˩˧

fi˧Sw

a

lake

a5.0

4m

tsʰo

< *m

-sw

ahɯ

˥hi

.nɑ.

miLM

+#H

fi˩Sw

a

cow

a5.0

5Ta

ngut

ŋw

e² <

*ŋ

wa

ɯ˧

i˥vi˧

wa

to fa

ll (r

ain)

a6.0

1ŋg

ra “t

o fa

ll”ky

a¹gɯ

˧gi˥

gra

mea

ta6

.02

sa³

ɕaʂɯ

˧ʂe˥

ʂɯ˧

ɕa

eart

h8a6

.03

ʈʂɯ˧

ʈʂe˥

ʈʂɯ˧

tra

axe

a7.0

117

1–2

tɯ-r

palɑ˩m

be˧

bi.m

iL(S

)mba

to st

umbl

ea7

.02

pe˧

kʰɯ

.piM

(S)p

a

Bai (

ethn

ic gr

oup)

a7.0

3le˧b

v˧ɬi.

bvM

Sla

linen

a7.0

4pʰ

e˩pʰ

i˩˧(S

)pʰa


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

othe

r la

ngua

ges

Nax

iN

aLa

zePr

oto-

Nai

sh

knife

a7.0

516

2dh

a³zɯ

˧tʰe˧

sɯ.tʰ

iLtʰa

nobl

ea7

.06

sɯ.pʰiM

sɯ˩pʰie˩

pʰa

soul

9a7

.07

162

tɯ-r

lase

e foo

tnot

ebl

a/br

lao˩

he˧

æ.ɬi

L+#

Hʁɔ˩ɬi

e˩la

thin

a7.0

816

2m

bapa

³m

be˧

bi˥

tʰɑ˧ b

ie˥

mba

snow

a7.0

917

2tɤ

-jpa

mbe˧

bi˥

vie˧

Smba

villa

gea7

.10

hi˧m

be˧

fv.b

iLɖɯ

˧bie˧

mba

to d

oa7

.11

paby

edbe˧

i˥vi

e˧C

ba

tea

a7.1

248

le˥

li˩˧lie˩

l a

moo

na7

.13

162–

4tɯ

-sla

la¹

zla-

bale˩

ɬi.m

iMɬie˧m

ie˧

Sla

ear

a7.1

416

2–5

tɯ-r

nana

³rn

ahe˥tsɯ˩

ɬi.pi

L#

ɬie˧tu

˥la

trou

sers

a7.1

516

3–5

Tang

ut lj

ii¹

< *lj

aale˧

ɬi.qʰ

wɤL

ɬie˥kʰwɤ˥

Sla

fem

ale

a7.1

617

5m

a (s

uffix)

me˧

mi

mie

ma

ask

for

a7.1

7m

e˥m

i˩m

ie˩

ma

butte

rfly

a7.1

8qa

mba

lɯla

pʰe˧

le˩

pʰi.l

i L#

pʰie˧li

e˥pʰ

a la

rabb

it10a7

.19

qala

tʰo˧le˧

tʰu.li

Mtʰu

˧lie˥

la

this

year

a7.2

0tɯ

-xpa

ʈʂʰɯ

˧be˧

tsʰi.

i(M)

tsʰɯ

˧vie˧

Cba

who

a7.2

1ə˧

ne˩

ni˩˧

na

4. I

t is l

ikel

y th

at “t

o w

in”

*ŋga

/aC

1 and

“str

engt

h” *

Nka

/aC

1 orig

inal

ly b

elon

g to

the

sam

e ro

ot, b

ut th

ey n

eed

to b

e di

stin

guish

ed a

t the

Pro

to-N

aish

st

age.

A re

latio

nshi

p w

ith B

urm

ese

a³ a

nd it

s Lol

o-Bu

rmes

e co

gnat

es (M

atiso

ff 20

03: 1

70) i

s pos

sible

.

5. W

e al

so fi

nd fo

rms s

uch

as L

ahu

/ha¹

¹/ “d

ifficu

lt” (M

atiso

ff 19

88: 1

066)

, whi

ch co

uld

poin

t to

an a

ltern

ativ

e et

ymol

ogy.


6. Th

e Na w

ord

is pr

onou

nced

[ŋwɤ]

. Sin

ce th

e com

bina

tion

of an

initi

al v

elar

and

a rhy

me /

wɑ/

is n

ot at

test

ed in

Na,

one

may

cons

ider

that

the c

ontr

ast

betw

een

the

rhym

es /w

ɤ/ a

nd /w

ɑ/ is

neu

tral

ised

in th

is co

ntex

t, an

d he

nce

com

pare

Na

[ŋwɤ]

with

Laz

e [ŋ

wɑ]

.

7. Th

is w

as o

rigin

ally

a n

omin

alise

d fo

rm o

f the

ver

b ‘to

eat

’; a

sem

antic

cha

nge

from

‘foo

d’ to

‘whe

at’ o

ccur

red

in th

is et

ymon

. The

free

ver

b “t

o ea

t”

in N

aish

, /dzɯ˥/

in N

a an

d /n

dzɯ˧/

in N

axi,

poin

ts to

a re

cons

truc

tion

*ndz

i in

Prot

o-N

aish

, whi

ch is

not

com

patib

le w

ith th

e vo

wel

in th

e la

ngua

ges

of re

fere

nce.

The

*-a

/ *-i

alte

rnat

ion

foun

d in

this

pair

of w

ords

can

onl

y be

a tr

ace

of m

orph

olog

y. Th

e rh

yme

*-i o

f the

ver

b m

ight

be

the

resu

lt of

the

fusio

n of

the

root

with

a su

ffix.

Suc

h a

phen

omen

on is

foun

d in

Rgy

alro

ngic

lang

uage

s: in

Japh

ug R

gyal

rong

, tra

nsiti

ve v

erbs

with

ope

n-sy

llabl

e -a

fina

l (in

clud

ing

ndza

“to

eat”,

the

cogn

ate

of P

roto

-Nai

sh *n

dzi)

have

a n

on-p

ast f

orm

sing

ular

stem

in -e

(for

inst

ance

/ndz

e/ “h

e ea

ts”) t

hat r

esul

ts fr

om th

e fu

sion

of th

e roo

t vow

el w

ith a

suffi

x *-

jə at

test

ed as

a fr

ee fo

rm in

oth

er R

gyal

rong

ic la

ngua

ges (

Jacq

ues 2

004:

356)

. An

expl

anat

ion

for t

he fo

rm *n

dzi i

n N

aish

is th

at it

repr

esen

ts th

e ge

nera

lisat

ion

of th

e no

n-pa

st fo

rm o

f the

ver

b, th

ereb

y pr

eser

ving

a tr

ace

of a

hist

oric

al st

age

whe

n N

aish

lang

uage

s had

ve

rbal

mor

phol

ogy

of th

e ty

pe th

at R

gyal

rong

pre

serv

es to

this

day.

8. Th

is fo

rm is

per

haps

rela

tabl

e to

the

seco

nd sy

llabl

e of

Lah

u /m

i²¹ch

a⁵³/

“ear

th” (

JAM

).

9. T

wo

com

petin

g Bu

rmes

e et

ymol

ogie

s exi

st fo

r thi

s ety

mon

: lip

pra

¹ “so

ul” a

nd h

la¹ “

beau

tiful

” (M

atiso

ff 20

03: 6

2).

10.

Sim

ilar n

ames

are

foun

d in

oth

er la

ngua

ges,

for i

nsta

nce

Lahu

/tʰɔ

⁵³la

²¹/ “

year

of t

he ra

bbit”

(JA

M).


Tabl

e 22

. Vo

wel

*-i

mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erla

ngua

ges

Nax

iN

aLa

zePr

oto-

Nai

sh

goat

i1.0

131

5tsʰɤ

tch

ittsʰɯ

˥tsʰɯ˧˥

tsʰɯ

˩tsʰi

oat11

i1.0

218

9mɯ˩zɯ˧

mv.

zɯL

mv˥

zɯ˥

zi

sout

hi1

.03

i˧ʈʂʰɯ˧m

ɯ˩

i.ʈʂʰɯ

.mi

MH

Li˧ʈʂʰɯ˥m

ie˧

tɕʰi

gras

si1

.04

zɯ˧

zɯ˥

zɯ˧

zi

skin

i1.0

518

9tɯ

-ndʐ

ire

²ɯ˧pʰi˩

ɯ˩˧

ʐɯ˧k

v˥ri

yello

wi1

.06

191

ʂɯ˩

ʂɯ˧ k

ɔ˥ læ

˥ɕi

to k

now

i1.0

720

6sɯ

ssi¹

ɕes

sɯ˧

sɯ˥

sɯ˩

si

to d

ie12

i1.0

818

9si

se²

ɕiʂɯ

˧ʂɯ

˧sɯ

˩rs

i

to th

read

(b

eads

)i1

.09

Lisu

sɯ³³

sɯ˧

sɯ˥

si

new

i1.1

034

4ɕɤɣ

sac

ʂɯ˥

ʂɯ˧˥

ʂɯ˩tsɑ˩

ɕi

to ti

ei1

.11

tsʰik

³³

(Situ

)tsɯ˧

tsɯ˥

tsɯ˧

tsi

mor

ning

i1.1

2m

v˧sɯ

˥tɯ˧

mv.

sɯ

L+M

H#

si

girl

i2.0

118

7tɯ

-me

min

³m

i˥m

v˩˧m

v˩m

i

fire

i2.0

120

6sm

im

i³m

em

i˧m

v˥m

v˧m

i

to h

ear

i2.0

2Pu

mi m

ɛ³kʰ

o˧m

i˧m

v˥m

v˧m

i


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erla

ngua

ges

Nax

iN

aLa

zePr

oto-

Nai

sh

to fo

rget

i2.0

3jm

ɯt

me¹

le˧m

i˥m

v.pʰ

æ

L+M

H#

læ˥m

v˩m

i

low

er si

dei2

.04

mɯ˨tʰ

æ˧

mv.ʈʰæ

Mv˧ʈʰæ

˥m

i

nam

ei2

.05

296

tɤ-r

mi

maɲ

²m

ing

mi˩

mv.ʈʂ

æ M

H#

mi

star

13i3

.01

212

ʑŋgr

ikr

ay²

kɯ˩

kɯ˥

tsi˧

kri

gallb

ladd

eri3

.02

189

tɯ-ɕ

krɯ

tsaɲ³

khr

e²m

kʰris

kɯ˩

kɯ˥

tsi˩

kri

med

icin

ei3

.03

189

che³

rtsi

ʈʂʰɚ˧ɯ

˧ʈʂʰæ

.ɯ#H

tsʰɯ

˧fi˧

rtsʰ

i Sw

ri

tight

i3.0

430

5gr

im-p

okɯ

˥ts

i˥kr

i

liver

i4.0

129

7tɯ

-mtsʰi

saɲ³

mtɕʰin

sɚ˥

si˩˧si˧

siN

woo

di4

.02

347

sisa

cɕi

ŋsɚ˧

si˥si˧

siN

to sh

ave

i4.0

3si˧˥

si˧si˧˥

siN

hot

i4.0

4tsʰɚ˧

tsʰi˧

tsʰi˧

tsʰiN

to p

lane

do

wn

i5.0

1tʰi˩

tʰi˩

tʰi

wat

eri5

.02

tɯ-c

igi˩

dʑi˩

gi

to fl

owi5

.03

jiti˩

ʑi˧

ji

tong

uei5

.04

215

lhya

²ltɕ

ehi˥

hi.m

iLɕi˩m

ie˩

hi

two

i5.0

543

4ʁn

ɯs

hnac

gɲis

ŋi˧

ŋi˧˥

ŋi˥g

v˥ŋi

/a

swee

t14i5

.06

cʰi

kʰi˩

tɕʰi˩

tsʰi˥

kʰi

to se

lli5

.07

ntsɣ

etɕʰi˧

tɕʰi˧

tɕʰi

thor

ni5

.08

kʰi˧

tɕʰi˥

tɕʰi˧

tu˥

tɕʰi


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erla

ngua

ges

Nax

iN

aLa

zePr

oto-

Nai

sh

mun

tjac

i5.0

918

9kh

ye²

kʰi˩

tɕʰi˩

tsʰi˥

kʰi

saliv

a15i5

.10

tɯ m

ciki˥

tɕi˩

tɕi˩

tɕi

sadd

lei5

.11

Pum

i: stʃɛ

tʂho

(LP)

, ɕi

² (SL

)

ʐwɑ˧

ki˥

kʰo˩

tɕi˩

tɕi˩q

ʰɔ˥

tɕi

smal

li5

.12

xtɕi

ki˥

tɕiL

tɕi˩

tɕi

to sl

eep16

i5.1

350

0nɯ

ʑɯw

‘ipi˥

ʑi˧˥

zi˩

ji

to w

alk

i5.1

4ŋk

eŋg

i˧ŋg

i

to lo

sei5

.15

ŋi˥

ni

clou

di5

.16

ki˩

tɕi˧

tɕi˩sɯ˥

tɕi

urin

ei5

.17

tɯ-r

mbi

Pum

i bi²

(SL)

mbi˧

mbi

pus

i6.0

1pr

aɲ²

mbɚ˩

bæ˩˧

bæ˩

priN

shor

ti6

.02

ndɚ˧

ɖæ˧

ɖæ˧˥

rdiN

grai

ni6

.03

lɚ˥

ɻæ˩˧

læ˩

rliN

neck

17i6

.04

mgr

inPu

mi kɛ²

(S

L)kjɚ˧

pɚ˩

ʁæ.ʈv

H#

ʁæ˧sɯ˧pɑ˧

C-N

kriN

resin

i6.0

5th

o˧ŋg

jɚ˩

tʰo.ʁ

æL

thu˧ʁæ

˥C

-ŋgr

iN

rope

i6.0

6tɯ

-mbr

im

breŋ

bæ˧

briN

gues

ti6

.07

tɯ-p

ibɚ˧

hi.b

æ#H

briN


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erla

ngua

ges

Nax

iN

aLa

zePr

oto-

Nai

sh

long

i6.0

828

0–2

zri

riŋPu

mi ʂɛ¹

(S

L)ʂɚ˩

ʂæ˧

ɕiN

hunt

i6.0

9ʂɚ˩

kʰv˧ʂæ˧˥

ɕiN

artic

ulat

ion

i7.0

1tɯ

-rtsɤɣ

chac

tsʰig

sʈʂɚ˥

ʈʂæ˧˥

tsɯ˩

rtsi

was

hi7

.02

χtɕi

(Situ

rtɕi

)ʈʂʰɚ˧

ʈʂʰæ˧

bɑ˥lɑ

˥ tsʰɯ˩

rtsʰ

i

med

icin

ei7

.03

che²

rtsi

ʈʂʰɚ˧ɯ

˧ʈʂʰæ

.ɯ#H

tsʰɯ

˧ fi˧

rtsʰ

i

wai

sti7

.04

i.ʈʂæ

L+M

H#

i˩tsɯ

˩rt

si

11.

Prot

o-Lo

lo-B

urm

ese

*zəy

² “ba

rley”

(JA

M).

12.

The

reco

nstr

uctio

n of

the

clus

ter *

rs fo

r thi

s wor

d re

sults

from

the

appl

icat

ion

of th

e sa

me

prin

cipl

e as

for o

ther

cas

es w

here

a re

trofl

ex in

itial

in N

a an

d N

axi c

orre

spon

ds w

ith a

den

tal i

nitia

l in

Laze

. This

reco

nstr

uctio

n is

not s

uppo

rted

by

com

para

tive

evid

ence

from

the

cons

erva

tive

lang

uage

s. Th

e cl

uste

r in

*rsi

coul

d be

a tr

ace

of m

orph

olog

y th

at h

ad d

evel

oped

in P

roto

-Nai

sh.

13.

Mat

isoff

(198

0) h

as p

ropo

sed

a de

taile

d et

ymol

ogy

for t

his e

tym

on co

mm

on to

Nai

sh, L

olo-

Burm

ese

and

Qia

ngic

lang

uage

s.

14.

This

etym

on is

per

haps

rela

ted

to B

urm

ese

khyu

i² (c

f. M

atiso

ff 20

03: 1

82).

15.

This

root

coul

d be

rela

ted

to ‘w

ater

’ (cf

. Mat

isoff

2003

: 451

).

16.

The c

orre

spon

denc

e of i

nitia

ls fo

r thi

s ite

m is

pro

blem

atic

. The r

econ

stru

ctio

n pr

opos

ed h

ere r

ests

on

the h

ypot

hesis

that

*ji c

hang

ed to

/zi/

in L

aze.

Cru

cial

evi

denc

e w

ould

com

e fr

om o

ther

inst

ance

s of t

he co

rres

pond

ence

/i:ʑ

i:zi/.

17.

The

rhym

e in

the

Nax

i dia

lect

stud

ied

here

is /æ

/: /k

jæ˧pɚ˩

/; ho

wev

er, t

his i

s due

to a

n in

nova

tion

foun

d in

this

dial

ect:

the

mer

ger o

f /ɚ/

and

/æ/ (

to

/æ/)

afte

r S-,

TS- a

nd K

j-, w

here

S- s

tand

s for

cor

onal

fric

ativ

es, T

S- fo

r cor

onal

affr

icat

es, a

nd K

for v

elar

stop

s. Th

e co

nser

vativ

e fo

rm is

/kjɚ˧pɚ˩

/, as

fo

und

in th

e var

iety

of N

axi s

poke

n in

the c

ity o

f Liji

ang (

Fang

Guo

yu &

He Z

hiw

u 19

95: 4

32),

whe

re th

e con

tras

t bet

wee

n /ɚ

/ and

/æ/ i

s pre

serv

ed in

thes

e co

ntex

ts. N

ote t

hat *

Nkr

iN an

d *ŋ

griN

do

not f

ollo

w th

e sam

e pho

netic

evol

utio

n as

*kri,

oth

erw

ise o

ne w

ould

expe

ct th

e cor

resp

onde

nce ŋ

gɯ:kɯ

:ndz

i.


Tabl

e 23

. Vo

wel

*-o

mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

brig

ht18

o1.0

1m

bu˧

bu˧

mbo

dike

o1.0

2m

bu˧

bu˧

bu˩tu

˩m

bo

hom

eo1

.03

mi˧u

˩ɑ.ʁu

LMɑ˥

u˥o

youn

ger

siste

ro1

.04

gu˧m

e˧gu

.miM

gu˧m

ie˧

go

win

now

ing

fan

o1.0

5m

u˩pʰ

i.mu L

#m

u˥m

o

lunc

ho1

.06

ʐu˧

ʐu.d

zɯL

ʐu˧

Cro

cold

(w

eath

er)

o1.0

726

2ɣɤ

ndʐo

graŋ

-mo

ɖʐu˥

ɖʐu˧

ndro

this

mor

n-in

go1

.08

ʈʂʰɯ

.ʂu(M

)tsʰi˥ʂu˥

ɕo

to ru

n aw

ayo1

.09

294

pʰɣo

mbr

ospʰ

u˩pʰ

u˩pʰ

u˥pʰ

o

head

19o1

.10

tɯ-k

um

goku

˧ly˧

ʁu.qʰwɤ L

#u˧

tu˥

SNko

corp

seo1

.11

265

Tang

utm

jij²

ʂɯ˧m

u˩hi

.mu L

#hi˩m

u˩m

o

to sp

read

o1.1

2ɕkʰo

khaŋ

³kʰ

u˧kʰ

o˥kʰ

u˧kʰ

o

tom

orro

w20

o1.1

3fs

osa

ŋ ɲi

nso˩ŋ

i˧so

.ŋi H

#m

i˧su˥

so

pine

o1.1

426

4tɤ

tʰoth

aŋ³

tʰaŋ

tʰo˧n

dzæ˩

tʰo.d

zi L

#tʰu

˧si˧

tʰo

be il

lo1

.15

ngo

ŋgu˩

go˩

ŋgo

mus

hroo

mo1

.16

183–

4tɤ

jmɤɣ

hmui

²m

og ɕ

am

u˥m

u˧˥m

u˩ʈʂʰwɤ˩

mo


18.

Poss

ibly

rela

ted

to L

ahu

/ba³

³/ “b

right

”, th

ough

the

vow

el co

rres

pond

ence

s are

pro

blem

atic

.

19.

A co

mpa

rison

with

Tib

etan

dbu

“hea

d” a

nd B

urm

ese

u² “h

ead”

is te

mpt

ing,

but

the

vow

els d

o no

t mat

ch.

20.

In L

olo-

Burm

ese,

one

finds

cogn

ates

that

poi

nt to

a rh

yme

*-ak

rath

er th

an *-

aŋ a

s do

the

Nai

sh a

nd T

ibet

an fo

rms.

Tabl

e 24

. Vo

wel

*u

mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

ring21

u1.0

1lɑ˩pɚ˥

lo.p

v L+M

H#

lɑ˩ʈʰɯ˩

pru

com

b22u1

.02

pɚ˥

pv.m

iLpr

u

yak

u1.0

3qa

mbrɯ

mbr

ibɚ˩

bv˩˧

bv˥

bru

whi

te23

u1.0

4wɣr

umm

pʰru

mpʰɚ˩

pʰv˩

pʰv˥

pʰru

to h

oe u

pu1

.05

pɚ˩

pv˧˥

pv˩

pru

vert

ical

u2.0

1tsɯ˩

gɤ.ts

iLMts

u

to si

tu2

.02

mdzɯ

ndzɯ

˩dz

i˩dz

y˥nd

zu

win

ter

u2.0

3qa

rtsɯ

choŋ

³mɯ˧tsʰɯ

˧tsʰi˥

mu˧

tsʰy˧b

ie˧

tsʰu

to h

ide

u2.0

4nɤ

tsɯ

tsɯ˥

tsu

bald

u3.0

1ʁu

.bv M

H#

bv˥

bu

bug

u3.0

1pu

i³m

bubi˧d

i˩bv˥

bu

to la

y eg

gsu3

.02

57Pu

mi p

ɜ³

(SL)

bv˩

bv˩

bu

pan

u3.0

3Ta

ngut

.wju

¹ < C

pobv˧

v˥v˧

mie˧

Cbu

mat

erna

l unc

leu3

.04

u³a-

kʰu

ə˩gv˧

ə.v M

H#

æ˧v˥

Cgu


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

to se

wu3

.05

141

tʂɯ

βkh

yup

ndru

bʐv˧

ʐv˧˥

ʐv˩

C-r

u

crea

sed,

w

rinkl

edu3

.06

aʁrɯ

ʁru

lə.ʐv

.ʐvH

C-r

u

to p

ass (

time)

u3.0

7gv˧

gv˧

gv˧

gu

body

u3.0

819

8tɯ

-skʰ

rɯku

iy²

sku

gv˧

gv.m

iMɖɯ

˧gv˧ɖɯ

˧dzi˧

gu

plow

u3.0

9æ

.gv L

ɭɔ˥g

v˥gu

to fi

x24u3

.10

ku¹

gv˩

gv˩

gu

nice

u3.1

1gv˧

gv˧

gu

bent

u3.1

235

7ŋg

ɤɣgu

ggv˩

lɑ.g

vLMlɑ˥g

v˥gu

owl

u3.1

3pɣ

ɤ-kʰɯ

bu˩fv

˧bu

˧lu˧fv

˧hu

year

u3.1

4fsɤqʰe

Pum

i ko²

(S

L)kʰ

v˥kʰ

v˧˥kʰ

v˧˥kʰ

u

to st

eal

u3.1

518

2mɯ

rkɯ

khui

³rk

ukʰ

v˩kʰ

v˧kʰ

v˧kʰ

u

clas

sifier

(men

)u3

.16

kv

kv

kv

ku

Bai e

thni

c gr

oup

u3.1

7le˧b

v˧ɬi.

bvM

la b

u

to b

ark25

u3.1

8lv˩

kʰɯ˥ l

v˥lu

enou

ghu3

.19

357

lok

lv˩

lv˩

lv˩

lu

to w

ind

(thr

ead)

26u3

.20

ndv˧

lv˥

lu

larv

au3

.21

qajɯ

lv˥

mu˧

kʰv˥

lv˥

lu

to g

raze

u3.2

2lɤɣ

lv˥

lv˧˥

lv˩

lu


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

bear

du3

.23

mv˧

tsɯ˥

mv.

tsɯ

MH

#m

v˧tsɯ˥

mu

to d

igu3

.24

184

tu³

ndv˧

dv˥

ndu

poiso

nu3

.25

357

tɤ-n

dɤɣ

dug

ndv˩

dv˩

ɖv˩

ndu

win

gu3

.26

285

Pum

i dio

³ (S

L)nd

v˧pʰ

i˩dv˩

dv˩tsʰɯ

˩nd

u

sickl

eu3

.27

ʂv˥k

v˧ʂv.g

vLhu

˧gv˥

Nku

to st

eam

u3.2

8Pu

mi b

u³

(SL)

pv˥

bv˩

bv˧

Npu

sadd

lecl

oth

u3.2

9ki˥n

v˧tɕ

i.nv L

+MH

#nu

thun

der

u3.3

0mɯ˧ŋ

gv˧

mv.

gv#H

mu˧

gv˧

ŋgu

sinew

u3.3

1tɯ

-ŋgr

uŋg

v˧ŋg

u

nine

u3.3

218

2kɯ

ngɯ

tku

i³dg

uŋg

v˧gv(˧

)gv˥g

v˥ŋg

u

to cr

yu3

.33

182

ɣɤw

uŋu

i²ŋu

ŋv˩

ŋv˩

ŋv˧

ŋu

silve

ru3

.34

414–

41

5ŋw

e²dŋ

ulŋv˩

ŋv˩

ŋv˧

ŋu

pric

eu3

.35

183–

18

4ɯ

pʰɯ

phui

³kɑ˧pʰv˧

ʁɑ.pʰv

#Hʁɑ˧pʰv˧

pʰu

mal

eu3

.36

pʰo

pʰv˧

pʰu

uncl

e’s u

ncle

u3.3

7tɯ

-rpɯ

pʰv˧

ə.pʰvM

æ˩pʰv˩

pʰu

blad

der

u3.3

8Li

su

si³¹pʰu

³¹sɯ

˥pv˩

sɯ.p

v L#

sɯ˧p

v˥pu

ambe

ru3

.39

pv˧ʂɯ˩

pv.ʂɯ

L#

?pu


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

rock

u3.4

0rd

o (?

)æ

.ʈv L

ML

rtu

inte

stin

eu3

.41

180

tɯ-p

uu²

pʰo-

babv˧

v˧nɑ

˥Sb

u

garli

cu3

.42

ɕku

sgog

kv˧

kv˥

fv˧

Sku

kidn

eys

u3.4

3tɯ

-m

bɤtɯ

mm

by˧ly

˧bv.lɯ

Lv˩

li˩Sm

bu

dry

u3.4

4spɯ

pv˩

pv˧

læ˩fv

˩Sp

u

to g

o ou

t27u3

.45

thut

tʰv˧

tʰv˧

ʈʰv˧

tʰu

to co

ntam

inat

eu3

.46

ʈʂv˩

ʈʂv˩

> ʈʂ

v˥ʈʂ

v˩tr

u

to p

lant

u3.4

7tv˩

tv˧

ʈv˧

Stu

stra

ight

u3.4

8as

tutv˩

tv.tv

Lʈv˧ʈv

˥læ˥

Stu

thou

sand

u3.4

929

4th

oŋst

oŋtv˧

ʈv˧

Stu

hole

u3.5

0do

ŋpɑ˥ t

v˥tu

sleev

eu4

.01

lɑ˩jɤ˥kʰo˧

i.qʰv

Ljɑ˩qʰɔ˩

qʰU

swal

low

u4.0

2m

qlaʁ

ko˧

ʁv˥

ʁɔ˧

NqU

cave

u4.0

328

5ŋg

y˩kʰ

o˧ʁw

ɤ.qʰv

Mlæ˩qʰɔ˩

qʰU

thro

atu4

.04

tɯ-r

qolk

ogqv.ʈʂ

æ M

H#

qɔ˧tsɯ˥

qU

horn

u4.0

518

2ta

-ʁrɯ

khyu

i²ru

kʰo˧

qʰv˧

qʰɔ˥

qʰU

flyu5

.01

255

mbɚ˧lɚ

˥bv.ɻ

#Hbɔ˧ɭɔ˥

bu r28

to h

old

u6.0

1ʈʂʰʷɚ˥

ʈʂʰɻ˧˥

tsʰv˩

*rtsʰU

lung

su6

.02

tɯ-r

tsʰɤ

s <*

rtsʰɔs

)ch

utʈʂʰʷɚ˥

ʈʂʰɻ˧˥

tsʰv˩

*rtsʰU


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

to co

ugh

u6.0

3ʈʂʷɚ˧

ʈʂɻ

tsv˧

*rts

U

Tabl

e 25

. Rh

ymes

*aC

1 and

*aC

2

mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

ches

tC

1.01

Tang

utɣa

r <*C

-r-

kaC

kɑ˩

ʁɑ˧ (ʁɑ

.pvM

)N

ka/a

C1

to fe

ll (a

tr

ee)

C1.

02nd

ɑ˥dɑ˧˥

dɑ˧˥

ndaC

1

drum

C1.

03nd

ɑ˧kʰɤ˩

dɑ.kʰɤ

Ldɑ˥kʰɤ˥

ndaC

1

all

C1.

04tɑ˥

tɑ M

H# (ɖ

ɯ.

tɑ M

H# )

tɑ˥ (ɖɯ

˧ tɑ˥)

taC

1

slant

edC

1.05

lɑ.tɑ

LMlɑ˧tɑ

˥la

C1 ta

C1

how

muc

hC

1.06

qʰɑ.

kv M

H#

kʰɑ˧

i˥kʰ

a/aC

1

in fr

ont o

fC

1.07

ʁu.dɑM

u˥dɑ˩

daC

1

to co

ver

C1.

08fk

aβŋg

ebs b

kab

kɑ˥

qɑ˩

qɑ˥

ka/a

C1

to w

eave

C1.

0931

8taʁ

rak

btag

sdɑ˩

dɑ˩

daC

1

blac

kC

1.10

317

ɲaʁ

nak

nag

ponɑ

˩nɑ˧˥

naC

1

shar

pC

1.11

318–

319

thak

tʰɑ˥

tʰɑ˧˥

tʰɑ˧˥

tʰaC

1

to h

itC

1.12

lɤtlɑ˥

lɑ˧˥

lɑ˧˥

laC

1

wol

f29C

1.13

qapa

rm

pʰar

pʰɑ˩

kʰɯ˧

pʰɑ˥

pʰaC

1


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

vat,

woo

den

basin

C2.

01lo˧

lo˧

lu˥

laC

2

to b

e as

ham

ed28

C2.

01ʂɤ˥n

do˩

ʂɤ.d

o MH

#hæ

˩du˥

ndaC

2

tast

yC

2.02

so˩

so˩

su˥

saC

2

to le

an

agai

nst

C2.

03tʰo

˩tʰo

˩tʰu

˥tʰa

C2

slope

C2.

04to˥

to˩

tu˧b

ie˧

taC

2

to h

ugC

2.05

to˩to

˧to

.toM

tu˧

taC

2

grue

lC

2.06

ho˥

hu˧

haC

2

to se

eC

2.07

do˩

do˩

daC

2

valle

yC

2.08

lo˧

lo˩

laC

2

to cl

imb

C2.

09nd

o˧do

˥gɤ˧d

u˥nd

aC2

to ju

mp

C2.

10m

tsaʁ

tsʰo˧

tsʰo˧

tsʰu˥

tsʰa

C2

need

leC

2.11

342

taqa

βap

kʰab

ko˩

ʁu˩˧

u˩N

kaC

2

to st

udy

C2.

12so˩

so˩

su˩

saC

2

to w

ork

C2.

13lu

plo˧b

e˧lo

.iMlu˧v

ie˧

laC

2

pig

318–

319

paʁ

wak

pʰag

bu˩

bu˩˧

wɤ˧

SbaC

hand

319

tɯ-ja

ʁla

kla

glɑ˩o˧

lo.qʰwɤLM

lɑ˩pʰie˩

laC

1/laC

2

brea

th31

7sa

ksr

ogsɑ˥

so˧˥

sɑ˩

saC

1/saC

2

thic

kjaʁ

lɑ˥

lo˧˥

ɑ˥pɤ˥ l

u˧la

C1/la

C2


mea

ning

Ref

HTB

Rgya

lrong

Burm

ese

Tibe

tan

Oth

erN

axi

Na

Laze

Prot

o-N

aish

deep

317

rnaʁ

nak

ho˥

ɬo˧˥

hɑ˩

laC

1/ laC

2/Sn

aC1

to k

illqʰ

o˧˥kʰɑ˩

kʰaC

1/aC

2

21.

Mat

isoff

(200

3: 69

, ft.1

01) c

ites L

ahu

and

Pum

i wor

ds th

at co

uld

be co

gnat

e to

this

root

.

22.

This

form

is p

roba

bly

rela

ted

to B

urm

ese p

hri³

and

othe

r com

para

nda

cite

d in

Mat

isoff

(200

3: 25

–26)

, tho

ugh

the v

owel

corr

espo

nden

ce re

mai

ns to

be

exp

lain

ed.

23.

Ano

ther

pos

sible

etym

olog

y for

this

etym

on is

Bur

mes

e phr

u² an

d its

Lol

o-Bu

rmes

e cog

nate

s (JA

M).

How

ever

, the

Nai

sh d

ata d

o no

t allo

w to

choo

se

betw

een

thes

e tw

o hy

poth

eses

.

24.

The

corr

espo

ndin

g Lo

lo-B

urm

ese

root

mea

ns ‘r

ecov

er fr

om il

lnes

s’ (J

AM

).

25.

A co

mpa

rison

with

Pro

to-L

olo-

Burm

ese

*laŋ

(Mat

isoff

2003

: 495

) is t

empt

ing,

but

the

vow

els d

o no

t mat

ch, a

s Pro

to-N

aish

*lo

wou

ld b

e ex

pect

ed.

26.

Plau

sibly

rela

ted

to L

ahu

/lɔʔ⁵/

“spi

ndle”

(JA

M).

27.

The

Burm

ese

form

mea

ns ‘t

o ta

ke o

ut’.

28.

We

susp

ect t

hat t

he fo

rms f

or ‘fl

y’ in

Laz

e an

d N

axi r

esul

t fro

m ri

ght-

to-le

ft vo

wel

har

mon

y, a

spor

adic

phe

nom

enon

in d

isylla

bles

(the

mor

e fr

e-qu

ent a

wor

d, th

e m

ore

prop

ensit

y it

has t

owar

ds v

owel

har

mon

y), l

ikew

ise fo

r ‘ki

dney

s’ in

Nax

i.

29.

The

Tibe

tan

and

Rgya

lrong

cogn

ates

act

ually

mea

n ‘d

hole

(Cyo

n al

pinu

s)’.

30.

A re

latio

n w

ith th

e fo

rms c

ited

in M

atiso

ff (2

003:

317)

is p

ossib

le b

ut re

quire

s fur

ther

rese

arch

.

Documents

Approaching the historical phonology of three highly ...the Naish group and its position within Sino-Tibetan; and (iii) reasons why no comparison with languages closely related to