Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
1
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
Vietnam. 1 Here we accept Haudricourt’s view that Vietnamese
is a Mon-Khmer language which came under the influence of
Tai and Chinese. 2 A recent study by Ruth Wilson shows that
Muong occupies an intermediate position between Vietnamese
and Mon-Khmer, thus lending support to Haudricourt’s thesis. 3
2
A.Haudricourt, “La place du vietnamien dans les langues austroasiatiques,”
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 49 (1953), 122-28, and “L’origine des tons
vietnamiens,” JA 242 (1954), 69-82.
3
Ruth Wilson, “Muong and some Mon-Khmer languages,” in SCAL.
2
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
usually classified as Tibeto-Burman. But according to Davies,
Forrest, and Haudricourt Miao-Yao is AA. 4 The genetic
affiliation of Tai remains a problem. Traditionally, Tai and
Chinese were regarded as constituting a subfamily under Sino-
Tibetan. 5 But Benedict proposed some thirty years ago that
Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian belong together in an Austro-Thai
family. 6 In a recent series of papers, Benedict has further
suggested an AA sub-stratum in Austronesian, which he now
calls Austro-Thai. 7 While the AS relationship to Miao-Yao and
Thai are both still in dispute, there are other reasons for
believing that AA once extended far into the present borders of
4
H.R, Davies, Yun-nan, the link between India and the Yangtze (Cambridge,
1909), p. 341; R.A.D. Forrest, The Chinese language (second edition, London,
1965), p. 95; A. Haudricourt, “Austroasiatic in the northeast,” in SCAL, p. 54 ff.
A. Meillet and M. Cohen, Les langues du monde, 1st ed. (1924), K. Wulff,
5
6
Paul Benedict, “Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: a new alignment in Southeastern
Asia,” Am. Anthr. 44 (1942), 576-601.
[http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(279)benedict-thai-indo.pdf ]
7
P.K. Benedict, “Austro-Thai studies,” I, Behavior Science Notes, vol. 1, no. 4
(1966); II, BSN, vol. 2, no. 3 (1967); III, BSN, vol. 2, no. 4 (1967). See especially
the 1966 article, pp. 258-259.
3
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
China.
R.A.D.Forrest, op. cit., p. 135; Benedict, especially the third article, “Austro-Thai
studies, III; Chinese and Austro-Thai.”
9
Dictionaries such as H.L.Shorto’s two Mon dictionaries; see notes 69, 70 below.
4
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
forms contained in Pinnow and Zide, and the languages
consulted are probably not the direct descendents of the source
of the Chinese loans. Under these circumstances, it seems to us,
we cannot expect too great a rigor in making phonetic equations;
nonetheless, we have tried to avoid extravagant or totally
unsupported claims. Obviously part of the difficulty is the
inadequacy of the available reconstructions of Old Chinese
(hereafter OC).
13
Izui Hisanosuke 泉井久之助 , “ 劉向 ‘ 說苑 ‘ , 卷十一の越歌 について
Gengo Kenkyū 22/23(1953), pp. 41-5.
14
Lo Hsiang-lin, op. cit., pp. 151-172 has a convenient collection of such words.
6
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
“dog”.
19
N. Bodman, A linguistic study of the Shih-ming (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), p.
100, no. 779.
20
Tung T’ung-ho 董同龢 ,上古音韻表稿 , reprinted 1967, Academia Sinica.
8
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
system is *tsət.
9
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
10
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
Kat, Suk, Aak, Niahon, Lave có ; Boloben, Sedang có ; Curu,
Crau ʃŏ ; Huei, Sue, Hin, Cor sor ; Sakai cho; Semang cû, co ;
Kharia sɔ’lɔʔ , ʃɔ’lɔʔ ; Ju solok ; Gutob, Pareng, Remo guso ;
Khasi ksew ; Mon klüw ; Old Mon clüw ; Khmer chkɛ.
25
A. Haudricourt, “Austroasiatics in the northeast,” SCAL, p. 55.
11
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
(3) 江 **krong / kang / chiang ‘Yangtze River’, ‘river’
26
S.E. Yakhontov, “Consonantcombinations in Archaic Chinese,” XXV
International Congress of Orientalists, papers presented by the USSR delegation
(Moscow, 1960); E. Pulleyblank, “The consonantal system of Old Chinese,” part I,
Asia Major (new series) 9 (1962), pp. 59-144.
27
Fang-kuei 李方桂 , 上古音研究 , Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies (new
Li
series) 9.1 & 2 (1971),1-61
28
See Wen I-to 聞一多 , 聞一多全集 II, p. 206.
12
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
by Yakhontov. 29 In spite of these minor differences, it is clear
that the final had a rounded back vowel in OC.
The two general words for ‘water’ and ‘river’ in OC, shui
and ch’uan, occur in the oracle bones and can be traced to Sino-
Tibetan: ‘water’ Tib. ch’u; Bara, Nago dui; Kuki-chin tui;
29
Tung T’ung-ho, op. cit.;
E. Pulleyblank, “The consonantal system of Old
Chinese,” part 2, Asia Major 9 (1963), 206-65; S.E. Yakhontov, “Fonetika
kitaiskogo yazyka I tysyacheletiya do n.e. (sistema finalei)” in two parts, Problemy
vostokovedeniya 2 (1959), 137-47, (1960), 102-15, English translation by Jerry Norman
in Chilin (Publication of the Chinese Linguistic Project, Princeton University), nos. 1& 6.
13
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
Chinese 水* siwər / świ / shui, 川* t’ iwen / tś’ iwän / ch’uan.
The nasal final in ch’uan probably represents the vestigial form
of a plural ending, and there is a phonological parallel in the
sound gloss in the Shuo-wen 水,準也(準 ** t̂ ń iwən) ; shui
and ch’uan are therefore cognaes. OC 河ɤa /g’â earlier * g’al or
*g’ar, we suspect, is a borrowing from Altaic. 30
14
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
is ruled out because chiang is a late word with a restricted
geographic distribution, and because MC 2nd Division generally
corresponds to Tib. -r- but not to -l-. Similarly, the basic word
for ‘river’ and ‘water’ in Tai is na:m; khlɔ : ŋ is a secondary
word restricted in its meaning to ‘canal’, with limited
distribution in the Tai family; it is unlikely to be the source of
Chinese * krong. The most plausible explanation is that both
Tibetan and Thai also borrowed Klun and khlɔ : ŋ from AA.
We will now try to show that the Chinese first came into
contact with the Yangtze in Hupei, anciently part of the Ch’u
Kingdom. This must be region where the Chinese first came into
contact with AA’s and borrowed chiang from them.
十駕齋養新l錄 , chüan11. For the opposite view, see Jao Tsung-yi 饒宗頤 ,
楚辞地理考, ( Shang hai, 1946), 78-83 .
34
L.Aurrouseau,
op. cit., p. 263 .
35
大越史記外紀全書 卷一鴻龐記 (sis)
16
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
can therefore be taken as a tentative date for the AA presence in
the Middle Yangtze region. Recently, however, archaeologists
are increasingly inclined to the view that contact between North
China and South China occurred as early as the Shang dynasty:
artifacts showing strong Shang and early Chou influence have
been discovered in the lower Yangtze region, and according to
some scholars, also in the Han River region. 36 If further
investigations show that pre-Chou traffic between the North and
the South was extensive and bi-directional, we may have to
revise the date for chiang upward.
(4)䗽 ‘fly’ 37
‘fly’ in Mon-Khmer: VN ruồi; Camb. Ruy; Lawa rue ;
Mon rùy; Chaobon rùuy ; Kuy ʔaruəy ; Souei ʔarɔɔy;
36
Chang
Kwang-chih, op. cit., 249-255 .
37
We are indebted to Professor Nicolas Bodman of Cornell University for pointing
this out to us. The Mon-Khmer data is taken from Franklin Huffman, “An
examination of lexical correspondences between Vietnamese and some other Mon-
Khmer languages,” a paper presented to the Cornell Linguistics Club, April, 1974
and also to the 8thSino-Tibetan Conference .
[ 䗽 = a small gadfly that suck blood of horse or cow; weevil found in rice, etc.]
17
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
38
Li Fang-kuei, op. cit., p. 10 .
18
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
MC iək (with a yü IV initial) matching –lek (s)-. The word 酉,
one of the twelve earth’s branches, has *r- in Proto-Tai, still
attested in several modern dialects. Sino-Tibetan
correspondences point to the same value, for example, ‘leaf’
Chinese 葉 * * rap / iäp / yeh ; Tib. lob-ma, ldeb ( *dl- ).
19
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
phonemic or non-phonemic, in which case the best the Chinese
could do to approximate the AA form (which has a rounded
back vowel) is * rəi < * rəd ; or else, OC had a non-phonemic
-w- , in which case the OC form is * rwəi. We have chosen the
latter alternative.
The two loan words, chiang ‘Yangtze River’ and wei ‘fly’,
suggest the following sequence of events. The Chinese came to
the middle Yangtze between 1000 and 500 B.C., and there met
the AA’s. Subsequently, some of the AA’s migrated toward the
south, and some were absorbed into the Ch’u population. That is
why this word shows up in the Ch’u-yü section of the Kuo-yü
and nowhere else.
20
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
21
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
MC l- initial: 盧 MC luo, 慮 MC liwo, etc. 40 Therefore, in Li’s
system, hu ‘tiger’could be reconstructed as *χlag, since his OC
medial -l- simply drops in MC; -r- on the other hand yields the
second Division vowels. Further, certain Western Min dialects
have an initial aspirated k’ in the word for tiger ; Kienyang k’o3,
Shaowu k’u3. This is not an isolated phenomenon in Min; for
example, 許 Amoy k’ɔ3 , but MC x iwo ; 火 Kienyang k’ui3, MC
χuâ ; 壑 Foochow k’auʔ7 , MC χuât. From this we can see that
MC x- (in some cases) may go back to a stop *k’- . Since 虎 is
one of the words involved in this change, we are justified in
reconstructing it as ** k’la(g) . This form is very close to
Pinnow’s Proto-Munda reconstruction *kala.
22
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
is even closer.
24
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
t, and l in initial position. 44 It may be that AA * kalaʔ had a
dialect
form kataʔ , and the latter was represented by the Ch’u word for
‘tiger.’ The above two paragraphs were offered merely as a
speculative conjecture, since much remains uncertain on both
the Chinese and the AA side.
46
LiHsiao-ting, op, cit., Yung Keng容庚 ,金文編 .
47
Kuo Muo-jo 郭沫若 ,两周金文大系考释 , p. 196 .
26
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
There are reasons to believe that the absence of ya from
early epigraphic records was not merely accidental. The oracle
bones contained many records of prognosis concerning illness,
and among them tooth-ache. 48 The graphs used were always
ancestral forms of ch’ih. The oracle bones also contained a
representative list of terms for parts of the body, including head,
ear, eye, mouth, tongue, foot, and probably also elbow, heel,
buttock, shank 49. The absence of ya under such circumstances is
quited conspicuous.
27
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
mean. 牙 also occurs as the phonetic of eight graphs (six
according to Karlgren). But none of these graphs is older than
牙, and our conclusion is not affected.
29
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
finding: over 100 individuals, dog, pig, deer, lamb, cow, etc.;
between 10 and 100 individuals, tiger, rabbit, horse, bear, badger
(貛 [hoan,quyền ]) etc.; under 10 individuals, elephant, monkey,
whale, fox, rhinoceros, etc. 54 The authors went on to say that
rare species such as the whale, the rhinoceros, and the elephant
were obviously imported from outside, and their uses were
limited to that of display as items of curiosity. This view is also
confirmed by literary sources. In the Han Fei-tzu, it is said that
when King Chou of the Shang dynasty made ivory chopsticks,
Chi Tzi, a loyal minister, became apprehensive – implying that
when as rare an item as ivory was used for chopsticks, the king’s
other extravagances could be easily imagined. 55 Importation of
ivory in the form of tribute was also reported in Ode 299 and in
the “Yü-kung,” both of which were cited above.
54
Yang
Chung-chien and Liu Tung-sheng, op. cit.
55
韓非子 , 喩老 , “昔者紂爲象箸而箕子怖. ”
30
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
象揥,象弭,象箸 ‘ivory comb-pin,’ ‘ivory bow tip,’ ‘ivory
chopsticks.’ 56 Then ya came into the Chinese language in the
sense of ‘tusk,’ Because a tusk is larger than other types of teeth,
ya gradually acquired the meaning of ‘big tooth, molar’ by
extension, thus encroaching upon the former domain of ch’ih.
When later lexicographers defined ya as ‘molar’ and ch’ih as
‘front tooth,’ they are describing, though without clear
awareness, the usage of the Han dynasty and thereafter. By
further extension, ya also became the general word for ‘tooth,’
while retaining tis special meaning of ‘ivory.’
56
象揥 Ode No. 107, 象弭 Ode No. 167, 象箸 Han-fei-tzu.
31
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
In a note published in BSOAS, vol. 18, Walter Simon
proposed that Tibetan so ‘tooth’ and Chinese ya 牙 (OC *ngå)
are cognates, thus reviving a view once expressed by Sten
Konow. Simon’s entire argument was based upon historical
phonology; he tried to show (a) OC had consonant clusters of
the type sng- and Cɤ- , (b) by reconstructing 牙 as sngå > zngå
> nga and 邪 as zɤå > z iå, one can affirm Hsü Shen’s view that
邪 has 牙 as its phonetic, and (c) Chinese sngå can then be
related to a Proto-Tibetan *sngwa and Burmese swa: > θwa: .
57
For example, S.E. Yakhontov,
Drevne-Kitaiskii Yazyk [The Old Chinese
language], (Moscow, 1965), pp. 30-31.
32
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
‘crossbow’ in AA: VN ná ; Proto-Mnong * so’na ; 58
Proto-Tai * hnaa .
Cf. Mon, Old Mon tŋa ; Palaung kaŋ³ , kaŋaʔ ; Tibeto-
Burman: Nung the-na; Mso ta-na.
33
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
along the crossbow as he entered Vietnam when Chao T’o tried
to conquer Vietnam at the end of the Ch’in dynasty; he was for a
time stymied by King An-yang’s archers using crossbow. 62
62
舊 唐書卷四十一 .
34
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
during the Warring States Period, but not earlier. 63 The third
and fourth century B.C. seems to be the time when the crossbow
and the term for it were introduced into China.
35
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
sought in India or elsewhere is a question lying beyond the
scope of this paper.
67
Foochow forms are based on R. S. Maclay and C.C. Baldwin, An alphabetic
dictionary of the Chinese language in Foochow dialect (Foochow, 1870); Amoy
forms are taken from Carstairs Douglas, Chinese-English dictionary of the
vernacular or spoken language of Amoy (London, 1899). Forms from other
Min dialects are from J. Norman’s field notes. For Proto-Min, see Jerry Norman,
“Tonal development in Min,” Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1.2 (1973), 222-238;
and “The Initials of Proto-Min,” JCL 2, 1(1974), 27-36.
37
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
38
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
In Vietnamese we find a word which both semantically and
phonologically corresponds to the unexplained min
etymon perfectly: đông‘to shamanize, to communicate with
spirits,’ đồng cậu ‘male, shamanistic spirit,’ đồng bóng ‘to
shamanize, to communicated with spirits,’ bà đồng
‘shameness,’ đồng cô ‘female shamanistic spirit,’ đồng cốt
‘shaman, sorcerer.’ 68 This word is not confined to Vietnamese
within Austroasiatic. In Written Mon the cognate is don ‘to
dance (as if) under daemonic possession, ’ dån ‘trance of ?
shaman.’ 69 In Modern Mon the corresponding form is tòŋ ‘to
leap with the feet together, to proceed by leaps, to dance while
under daemonic possession, to climb’; Shorto also lists a derived
meaning ‘shaman(?).’ 70 Further AA connections can be adduced
: Shorto links the Written Mon form with Khasi lyngdoh ‘priest’;
to support this equation, one can cite similar examples of Mon
final -ŋ corresponding to Khasi –h : Spoken Mon pɜ̀ŋ, Written
Mon bun ‘belly,’ Khasi kə-poh ‘id.’ On the Munda side, there
are at least three good cognates: Santali dOn ‘a kind of dance,
drumming and singing connected with marriage’; Ho dong ‘a
68
VN
forms are taken from Ho Ch’eng 何成et al., 越漢辭典 (Peking, 1966).
Hereafter all VN forms will be cited from this source.
69
H.L. Shorto, A dictionary of the Mon inscriptions (London, 1971), p. 200.
70
H.L. Shorto, A dictionary of the modern spoken Mon (London, 1962), p. 117.
39
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
wedding song’; Sora toŋ- ‘to dance.’ 71
This word like the preceding one is attested for all Min
dialects. From the conservative dialects of northeastern
Fukien, we can see that the word originally ended in -n: Fuan
kiɛŋ3, Ningteh kian3. The Proto-Min form was probably
something like *kian with the tone which corresponds ot the
classical shang or rising tone. This word is attested textually
quite early. The T’ang poet Ku K’uang 顧況 (? 725-? 816)
composed a poem when he was serving in Fukien in which he
used the word in question. In the poet’s own preface to the poem
he explains the word 囝: “it is pronounced like the word 蹇
[Kiển ] (MC k iɒn k i än - shang tone); in Fukien ‘son’ is called
囝 in the popular language.” 72 This word is clearly the same as
the modern Min words for ‘son, child.’
71
Munda forms are taken fromthe following sources: Santali-P.O. Bodding, A
Santal dictionary (Oslo, 1934); Ho-Lionel Burrows, Ho grammar (Calcutta, 1915);
Sora-Rao Sahib G. V. Ramamurti, Sora-English dictionary (Madras, 1938).
72
For
the quotation from Ku K’uang, see The Institute of Literature of the Chinese
Academy of Science , 中國文學史 (Peking, 1963), voll II, p. 414.
40
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
We would like to suggest that the Min word is related to the
AA etymon represented by VN con ‘child.’ This etymon is very
widely distributed throughout Austroasiatic: Khmer koun,
Spoken Mon kon, Written Mon kon, kwen, Bru kɔɔn, Chong
kheen, Wa kɔn, Khasi khu:n; 73 it is also well represented in
Munda: Kharia kɔnɔn ‘small,’ Santali hɔn ‘son, child,’ Ho hon
‘child.’ 74 The Min form agrees with the AA forms
predominantly show low to mid unrounded vowels. The Min
form of Kienyang kyeŋ, however, has a rounded medial which
may indicate that the Min forms derive from some type of
earlier rounded vowel.
73
See Franklin Huffman, op. cit.
74
Pinnow, op, cit., pp. 111-112.
41
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
forms such as Bahnar, Written Mon khatham, etc. 75
42
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
Mon pè, Written Mon bew ‘to ride low in the water.’
Until the 1950’s archaic loans into Chinese have not been
seriously studied. Part of the reason is quite understandable. As
alluded to before, the languages of China’s neighbors and ethnic
minorities were not sufficiently known, and without such
knowledge, it was impossible to estimate the time-depth of a
non-Chinese word suspected as the source of a loan, or to
reconstruct its old form. But this handicap is rapidly being
removed. There is, however, another reason – in fact-, a
prejudice – that is blocking progress in the field. We have in
mind the widely held that the Chinese culture was so superior
that there was no need for her to borrow anything, linguistic
43
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
elements included. 77 When a Chinese word shows similarity to
a non-Chinese word, it was automatically assumed that Chinese
was the donor, not the receiver. With the recent discovery of
cereal grains and bronze artifacts at archaeological sites in
Northern Thailand, we now know that Southeast Asia had a
highly developed culture in remote antiquity, quite capable of
serving as the originator and donor of cultural inventions.
Leaving aside the question of relative cultural superiority –
which can never be subject to precise scientific proof – it seems
evident that when two peoples are in contact, borrowing is
almost always a two-way street. Witness the large number of
American Indian words in English and vice versa. A people may
have given more than what she receives. But to assert that a
certain people I principle cannot and need not receive
anything seems to go against common sense and all known
instances of cultural contact. The evidence presented above, we
hope, will halp to undermine that ancient myth whose downfall
is long overdue.
77
The latest example of this
belief is found in Charles Li and Sandra Thompson,
“An explanation of word order change SVO>SOV,” Foundations of Language 12:2
(1974), where it is stated that China had “the overwhelming dominance of
civilization in pre-twentieth century Asia….” and “such cultural dominance
precludes the possibility of an external influence on Chinese.”
44
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
Chinese is one of the major languages of the world without
an adequate etymological dictionary, 78 and we may take a
moment to consider what sort of preparatory work is necessary
to bring it into existence. Obviously one of the basic unresolved
questions is the linguistic affiliation of Chinese. If Chinese is
related to Tibetan or Tibeto-Burman, as most scholars believe to
be the case, then the origin of a Chinese word is ascertained
once its cognates in these languages are found. The same applies
to Tai if Tai also turns out to be related to Chinese. Here already
we encounter a problem, for the assumption is that we are
dealing with an original Chinese word. How can we be sure?
Phonological regularity provides one test. If , for example, a
Chinese word and a Tibetan word in the same semantic range
show regular phonological correspondence, then this fact
provides strong evidence that both are derived from the proto-
language. Even here ther eis the possibility that both words are
loans from a third language, witness Chinese ** krong and
Tibetan klun . Further, in the present state of Sino-Tibetan
studies there is much uncertainty concerning phonological
matters, and therefore this test has only limited application.
78
One way to measure the
distance future etymological work has to advance is to
examine the work by Td Akiyasu 藤堂明保 , 漢字語源辭典 [An etymological
dictionary of Chinese characters].
45
JERRY NORMAN
MONUMENTA SERICA
University of Washington
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL STUDIES TSU-LIN MEI
Vol. XXXII , 1976 Cornell University
Another often followed procedure is to look up GSR and
see if the word is included. This, we submit, is only the first step
and not the last. The GSR includes words from the oracle bones
up to texts written before the Ch’in dynasty, a period of over a
thousand years, during which time many things could have
happened to lexicon. To ascertain whether a word is old, or new
and therefore possibly a loan, we need to ask a number of
questions. Is it attested in the oracle bones or bronze
inscriptions? Does it have a skewed geographic distribution?
Does it have many synonyms or few? Is its meaning unusually
restricted, as loan words tend to be when first introduced into a
language? Finally, there is always one way to show the relative
recency of a word, that is, to establish the fact that it is a loan. In
this sense, the study of loan words is complementary to the
comparative reconstruction of words in the proto-language, and
provides the peripheral vision without which netymological
work can proceed safely.
46