12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Comparison of the vocabularies of Tibetan and Chinese, although attempted in the past, cannot be said as yet to have been undertaken along lines likely to produce outstanding results. All too frequently single words have been singled out for comparison, or a single member of a known family has been selected from the one language and placed beside a single word, seemingly related, likewise torn loose from a known group in the other. Or, again, an entire series of comparisons seems to rest on identity of meanings no matter how widely dissimilar the words which carry them may be in the two languages. The dangers of such methods are obvious. We are not only very probably selecting the wrong members on one side, or on both, but are detaching the words so used entirely from their semantic backgrounds.
page 401 note 1 We need only mention here the one serious attempt of recent years: Simon, W., “Tibetisch-Chinesische Wortgleichungen,” Mit. d. Seminars f. Orient. Spr., Berlin, Bd. xxxii (1929), Abt. 1, pp. 157–228Google Scholar. Though I do not believe that more than a fraction of the equations there set up will prove to be true, yet this is a work which has already called forth elsewhere an extremely valuable discussion of the problems involved: Karlgren, v., “Tibetan and Chinese,” T'oung Pao, vol. xxviii (1931), pp. 25–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 402 note 1 “Word Families in Chinese,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, No. 5, pp. 9–120, Stockholm, 1934Google Scholar. This will be abbreviated in the following pages as K. WF.
page 402 note 2 Op. cit., pp. 18–37.
page 403 note 1 The zero sign here indicates lack of final consonant.
page 403 note 2 That -d here is of a different nature from -d in the cases above there can be no doubt. It is, to begin with, the final of an active verb as against the “perfect” (adjectival and substantival) forms derived from verbs above. That -d in ạgrod-pa may have been a suffix of active (or transitive) force is, of course, a possibility, but this sets it apart from the suffixes which we have just been considering. We shall return again to this below.
page 406 note 1 Cf. Simon, op. cit., p. 19, No. 197.
page 407 note 1 Footnote 2 on p. 403.
page 407 note 2 The same observation is also true of Tibetan final -s, to which these remarks apply with equal force. As, however, -s does not occur in the preceding material in any but its “static” function, I do not mention it specifically here.
page 407 note 3 Op. cit., p. 36.
page 408 note 1 Loc. cit.
page 409 note 1 The following additional abbreviations will be used here: S = Simon, “Tib.-Chin. Wortgleichungen,” as already quoted in full; L = Laufer, , in the T'oung Pao, vol. xvii (1916), pp. 116–121Google Scholar, an appendix to his article “The Si-Hia Language”. Both these sources are quoted by equation number, not by page.
page 409 note 2 The assemblies should not be regarded as necessarily correct in all particulars. Various problems present themselves which will undoubtedly call for a revision of some cases only tentatively advanced here. The entries are arranged according to their finals in the order -n, -O, -s, -d, -t, -r.
page 409 note 3 Cf. S., No. 177.
page 409 note 4 Cf. S., No. 164; L., No. 61.
page 410 note 1 Cf. S., No. 168; L., No. 71.
page 410 note 2 Cf. S., No. 175.
page 411 note 1 Cf. S., No. 271.
page 411 note 2 The two Chinese groups in this case, although kept apart by Karlgren, appear possibly to be related. I have indicated the same apparent division in Tibetan, where, however, only one group is probably in question.
page 411 note 3 Cf. S., No. 214.
page 412 note 1 Cf. L., Nos. 7, 56, 77.
page 412 note 2 Cf. S., No. 228; L., No. 11.
page 413 note 1 Cf. S., No. 229; L., No. 16.
page 413 note 2 Cf. S., No. 174; L., No. 8.
page 413 note 3 Cf. S., No. 222.
page 413 note 4 Cf. S., No. 223.
page 413 note 5 Cf. L., No. 96.
page 414 note 1 Cf. S., No. 206. A problem presents itself here. T. ńi-ma “sun”, ńin(-mo) “day”, though evidently belonging with 
ńḭĕt and its relatives, cannot possibly belong to the same group as dron-mo, dro-ba, etc., as there is no evidence in Tibetan that families in -r- subscript ever have relatives in n- or ń-. The Chinese assembly should probably be divided as Karlgren has indicated by punctuation, and I here emphasize by parentheses.
page 414 note 2 There is a curious resemblance here to T. mísan “grandchild” under (8) above.
page 414 note 3 Cf. S., Nos. 170, 224; L., Nos. 7, 20.
