The comparative study of Chinese and Tibetan has been central to Sino-Tibetan linguistics, as these two languages have the longest history of documentation and the largest corpus of all other languages (e.g. Burmese, Newari, and Tangut). The results, however, were not quite satisfactory until recent decades, mainly thanks to rapid progress in Old Chinese phonology. The book under review offers a concise overview of Chinese-Tibetan comparative linguistics (here I use the term “Chinese-Tibetan” rather than “Sino-Tibetan” in order to avoid confusion with the Sino-Tibetan language family, since these are the only two languages compared in the book).
The work under review is based on the author's previous studies: Xiangdong Shi, Hanyu he Zangyu tongyuan tixi de bijiao yanjiu 漢語和藏語同源體系的比較研究 [A Comparative Study on the Cognate Systems of Chinese and Tibetan] (Beijing: Huayu jiaoxue chubanshe, 2000); Yinshi xunyou: Shi Xiangdong zixuanji 音史尋幽——施向東自選集 [Exploring the Historical Phonology: A Self-Selected Anthology] (Tianjin: Nankai daxue chubanshe, 2009); and Guyin yanjiu cungao 古音研究存稿 [Kleine Schriften on Chinese Historical Phonology] (Tianjin: Nankai daxue chubanshe, 2013), and follows on from the pioneering works by Yu Min 俞敏 (Yu Min yuyanxue lunwenji 俞敏語言學論文集 [Kleine Schriften on Linguistics] (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1999)). Although it pays more attention to Chinese historical linguistics, there are also many inspiring proposals for Sino-Tibetan comparative linguists.
Methodological issues are discussed in the introduction (pp. 1–12) and the first chapter (pp. 13–32). The author strictly follows the neogrammarian paradigm, and always tries to establish clear sound correspondence sets (or yùnguǐ 韻軌 “rhyme tracks” in Yu Min's terminology) between Old Chinese and Tibetan, which is a great strength of the book. The Old Chinese is based on Zhèngzhāng Shàngfāng's 鄭張尚芳 reconstruction with some minor revisions (see below). In addition, one will also find two useful tables of Yu Min's Old Chinese reconstruction summarized by the author (p. 58 for rimes, and pp. 75–7 for initials).
After a brief but helpful introduction to Chinese and Tibetan in chapter 2 (pp. 33–54), chapters 3 and 4 deal with the sound correspondences between Old Chinese and Tibetan (pp. 55–96), constituting the main body of the book. Notably, the author makes an innovative argument that Old Chinese rime categories zhī 之, zhí 職, and zhēng 蒸 also correspond to Tib. -od, in addition to the previously regarded OC *ə :: Tib. a (pp. 68–71, note that the commonly used *ə vowel is replaced with *ɨ in this book, thus are reconstructed as *- ɨ, *-ɨk, and *-ɨŋ respectively). For example, OC cài 菜 *tshɨɨs :: Tib. tshod ma “vegetable”, OC dài 待 *dɨɨʔ :: Tib. sdod pa “to stay”, OC xī 熙 *hlɨ :: Tib. ’od “light”, and OC dài 代 *l’ɨɨgs :: Tib. dod “to substitute”, etc. The author claims that PST **-ɨ (> OC *-ɨ) changes into PTB **-ɨ (> Tib. -od, and Tib. -i after -y- or before velars) and **-ə (> Tib. -a, and Tib. -u before velars), of which the former is parallel to OC *-ɨ > *-ɐi > MC hāi 咍 *-ɒi and jiē 皆 *-ai rimes, since the -i coda is not phonologically allowed in Tibetan. These examples seem to be fairly plausible, but the author did not give the condition that led PST **-ɨ to be split into **-ɨ and **-ə in Proto-Tibeto-Burmese.
Another remarkable merit of the book is that, following Yu Min's tradition, there is a philological annotation given under each Chinese entry, in order to prove that such usage is indeed attested in Old Chinese texts. It is especially useful when a less common meaning is being used (e.g. OC kǎo 考 *khluuʔ is compared with Tib. grub pa “accomplished” in the sense of 成也 “to achieve” rather than “old” or “to investigate, examine” at first glance, p. 65). However, some of them may seem to be less contributive (e.g. OC èr 二 *njis “two” is glossed as 地之数也 “number of the earth”, which hardly helps compare with Tib. gnyis, nis “two”, p. 61). Additionally, it would be better if such annotations were also provided for Tibetan entries, since the reviewer failed to find several of them in general Tibetan dictionaries (e.g. Tib. mtshod [sic!] “做事(尊稱) [to do (honorific)]” being compared with OC cài 采 *tshɨɨʔ, p. 68).
Chapter 5 (pp. 97–118) deals with the comparative morphology between Chinese and Tibetan languages, which has also been widely concerned especially on causative and nominalization. The author offers several notable examples, of which both the original and the derived words are cognated, e.g. OC jú 局 *gog “bent, curved” :: Tib. gug “curved” with voiced initials, and OC qū 曲 *khog “bent, crooked” :: Tib. khug “corner” with voiceless ones (p. 104). However, it is a pity that such examples are too limited for the author or the reader to conclude any morphological patterns, and it is the same situation of binomes (liánmiáncí 連綿詞, pp. 107–14). Chapter 6 (pp. 119–42) briefly summarizes the value of Tibetan evidence for Chinese historical linguistics.
In chapter 7, dealing with loan words (pp. 143–57), the author makes an interesting argument that those Tibetan words with an unexpected s- prefix result in a metathesis of division-II medial *-r- in Early Middle Chinese. For example, EMC bāguà 八卦 *prat kra → Tib. *rpa(t) rka > spar kha “the eight trigrams”, similarly EMC jiè 芥 *krai → Tib. *rke > ske as in ske tshe “black mustard”.
In addition, the author's term bǐjiào 比較 “comparative” is used in a broader sense, so one will also find a useful summary on Tibetan transcriptions of Middle Chinese and Old Mandarin in chapter 8 (pp. 158–78). The book concludes with chapter 9, where 40 examples of Chinese-Tibetan cognates and their sound correspondences are illustrated in detail, with reference to Chinese dialects and other Tibeto-Burmese languages (pp. 179–244).
There are, of course, some faults. Although the author observes that some Tibetan consonants are later innovations (e.g. the palatalization of *ŋy, *mj > Tib. ny, pp. 78–85, 153–7), the historical phonology of Tibetan is less discussed, and thus most of the comparison is directly based on Written Tibetan. Furthermore, recent studies, especially those in Western languages, are somehow rarely cited, making some of the arguments appear rather conservative. For example, the author compares the Tib. k : kh : g etc. with Chinese jiàn 見 *k- : qī 溪 *kh- : qún 羣 *g- etc. (p. 48), but it is now generally believed that aspirated and unaspirated voiceless consonants in Tibetan are not phonemic (cf. Nathan W. Hill, “Aspirated and unaspirated voiceless consonants in Old Tibetan”, Language and Linguistics 8/2, 2007, 417–93). In the bibliography, some studies are referred to in Chinese instead of the original language, while others are not, which can make some items difficult to locate.
In conclusion, this book offers a concise presentation of the scholarship history and recent progress in Chinese-Tibetan linguistics. It will be particularly useful for those with a background in Chinese historical linguistics and interested in extending their knowledge to the fundamentals of the Tibetan language and script, as well as Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics in general, while experts in the field will also find the book very enjoyable and inspiring to read.
