Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T18:36:16.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological issues in Rma etymology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2024

Nathaniel Sims Open the ORCID record for Nathaniel Sims [Opens in a new window]
Nathaniel Sims*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA
*
Email: nasims@oregon.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the state-of-the-art for the historical study of the Rma (Qiang) language (< Trans-Himalayan/Sino-Tibetan) and points out some methodological issues in earlier work. The paper discusses how vowel correspondences have been obfuscated by loanwords, onomatopoeic forms, and analogical levelling. It also discusses the analysis of compound forms and points out how certain compound forms have been incorrectly etymologized. It deals with broader, more fundamental issues in prior work such as top-down rather than bottom-up reconstructions, and problematic conceptualizations of what constitutes reconstructions. The article offers potential solutions to the issues discussed and points out where future work would be most profitable.

Keywords

Rma/QiangEtymologyVowelsComparative methodCompoundingTibeto-BurmanTrans-Himalayan/Sino-TibetanLoanwords

Information

Type
Article
Information
Bulletin of SOAS , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , June 2024 , pp. 357 - 374
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of SOAS University of London

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baxter, William H. and Sagart, Laurent. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, William H. III. 1992. A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 64.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1983. “Qiang monosyllabization: a third phase in the cycle”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7/2, 113–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialek, Joanna. 2018. Compounds and Compounding in Old Tibetan: A Corpus-Based Approach. (Tibetica.) Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 2005. “Why do numerals show ‘irregular’ correspondence patterns in Tibeto-Burman? Some southeastern Tibeto-Burman examples”, Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 34/2, 221–38.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Third edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Chan, Ning-ping and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1998. “Fang-kuei Li, linguistics east and west: American Indian, Sino-Tibetan and Thai, an oral history conducted in 1986 by Ning-ping Chan and Randy LaPolla.” Online Archive of California, <https://oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb3489n99m&chunk.id=div00064&brand=oac4&doc.view=entire_text>..>Google Scholar
Chang, Kun. 1967. “A comparative study of the Southern Ch'iang dialects”, Monumenta Serica XXVI, 422–43.Google Scholar
Chang, Kun. 1973. “Review of Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus (Benedict)”, Journal of Asian Studies 32, 335–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirkova, Katia. 2012. “The Qiangic subgroup from an areal perspective: a case study of languages of Muli”, Language and Linguistics 13/1, 133–70.Google Scholar
Chirkova, Katia and Handel, Zev. 2019. “‘Brightening’ in Ersu, Lizu, Duoxu and neighboring languages”, The 5th Workshop on Sino-Tibetan Languages of Southwest China (STLS-2019), Nankai University, PRC, Aug 2019, Tianjin, China.Google Scholar
Daudey, Henriëtte and Pincuo, Gerong. 2022. “‘A long foot crossing mountain’: forty-three annotated Pumi riddles”, Himalayan Linguistics 20/3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan P. 2001. Introduction to Qiang Phonology and Lexicon: Synchrony and Diachrony. Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan P. 2006a. “Origins of vowel pharyngealization in Hongyan Qiang”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 29/2, 95–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan P. 2006b. “Vowel quality in Hongyan Qiang”, Language & Linguistics 7/4, 731–54.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan P. and Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2015. “Qiāng 羌 Language”, in Sybesma, Rint (ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics Online. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7363_ecll_COM_00000347Google Scholar
Fellner, Hannes A. and Hill, Nathan W.. 2019. “Word families, allofams, and the comparative method”, Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 48/2, 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2020. “Uvulars and uvularization in Tangut phonology”, Language and Linguistics 21/2, 175–212.Google Scholar
Handel, Zev. 2019. “A brief response to Fellner and Hill's ‘Word families, allofams, and the comparative method’”, Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 48/2, 125–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S.P. 2003. “On the limits of the comparative method”, in Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 213–43. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2011. “An inventory of Tibetan sound laws”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 21/4, 441–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2012. “Evolution of the Burmese vowel system”, Transactions of the Philological Society 110/1, 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2014. “Grammatically conditioned sound change”, Language and Linguistics Compass 8/6, 211–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2015. “The contribution of Tangut to Trans-Himalayan comparative linguistics”, Archiv Orientalni 83/1, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2019. The Historical Phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2022. “Two notes on Proto-Ersuic”, Cahiers de Linguistique: Asie Orientale 51/1, 105–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Second rev. and updated ed. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Bufan and Facheng, Zhou. 2006. Qiangyu yanjiu (Studies in Qiang). Zhongguo Qiangxue wenku. Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe.Google Scholar
Huang, Chenglong. 2004. “A reference grammar of the Puxi variety of Qiang”. Doctoral dissertation, City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Huang, Chenglong, Baofeng, Wang, Mingjun, Mao and Xi, Zhang. 2019. Sichuan Songpan Qiangyu. Zhongguo binwei yuyan zhi. Shaoshu minzu yuyan xilie. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2014. Esquisse de phonologie et de morphologie historique du tangoute. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2015a. Dictionnaire Japhug–Chinois–Français, version 1.0. Paris: Projet HimalCo. URL http://himalco.huma-num.fr/.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2015b. “Les ressemblances fortuites entre mots apparentés”. URL https://panchr.hypotheses.org/616.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2017. “The morphology of numerals and classifiers in Japhug”, in Sizhi, Ding Picus and Pelkey, Jamin (eds), Sociohistorical Linguistics in Southeast Asia: New Horizons for Tibeto-Burman Studies in Honor of David Bradley. (Brill's Tibetan Studies Library.) Leiden: Brill, 135–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume and Guedes, Jade D'Alpoim. 2023. “Sichuan peppercorn and the birth of numbing spices in East Asia”, Ethnobiology Letters 14/1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunst, Jaap. 1947. “A hypothesis about the origin of the gong*”, Ethnos 12/1–2, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, Yunfan. 2017. “Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi”, Doctoral dissertation, Paris: Université Paris III.Google Scholar
Lai, Yunfan. 2022. “When internal reconstruction goes further: proposing the vowel system of Pre-Khroskyabs through examining bound state apophony”, Folia Linguistica 56(s43–s1), 213–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy and Chenglong, Huang. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. and Poa, Dory. 2003. “Texts in the Qugu variety of Northern Qiang”, in Descriptive and Theoretical Studies in Minority Languages of East and Southeast Asia, 77–94. Suita: Osaka Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1976. A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, Guangkun. 1981. “Qiangyu zhong de Zangyu jieci” (Tibetan Loan-words in the Qiang language), Minzu Yuwen 3, 19–28.Google Scholar
Liu, Guangkun. 1998. Mawo Qiangyu Yanjiu (Studies in Mawo Qiang). Chengdu Shi: Sichuan minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Lottner, Carl. 1862. “Ausnahmen der ersten Lautverschiebung”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen 11, 161–205.Google Scholar
Lù, Shàozūn. 2001. 普米語方言研究 Pŭmǐyŭ fāngyán yánjiū (A study on Pumi dialectology). Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1975. “Benedict's Sino-Tibetan: a rejection of Miller's Conspectus inspection”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2/1, 155–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 2015. “On the demise of the Proto-Tibeto-Burman mid vowels”, Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 39/3, 375–95.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1997. Sino-Tibetan Numeral Systems: Prefixes, Protoforms and Problems. (Pacific Linguistics.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. (University of California Publications in Linguistics.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 2004. “‘Brightening’ and the place of Xixia in the Qiangic branch of Tibeto-Burman”, in Lin, Ying-chin and Hsu, Fang-min and Lee, Chun-chih and Sun, Jackson T.-S. and Yang, Hsiu-fang and Ho, Dah-an (eds), Studies on Sino-Tibetan Languages: Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-Cherng Gong on His Seventieth Birthday. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 2007. “Response to Laurent Sagart's review of Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction”, Diachronica 24/2, 435–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl and Trask, R.L. (eds). 2015. Trask's Historical Linguistics. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Roy Andrew. 1974. “Sino-Tibetan: Inspection of a conspectus”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 94/2, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, Robert L. 2017. “The comparative method”, in Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 181–212. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 2006. “Review of Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibeto-Burman Reconstruction by James A. Matisoff”, Diachronica 23/1, 206–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 2008. “Reply to Matisoff on the Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction”, Diachronica 25/1, 153–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sims, Nathaniel A. 2014. “A phonology and lexicon of the Yonghe variety of Qiang”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37/1, 34–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, Nathaniel A. 2018. “Yonghe Qiang language and culture: a collection of language and cultural material from the Qiang people of Yonghe valley in Rgnaba Prefecture, Mao County, Sichuan, China”, URL http://hdl.handle.net/2196/00-0000-0000-0012-5FAD-9.Google Scholar
Sims, Nathaniel A. 2020. “Recondsidering the diachrony of Tone in Rma”, Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 13/1, 53–85.Google Scholar
Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus (STEDT) https://stedt.berkeley.edu/Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1981. Qiangyu Jianzhi (A Brief Description of the Qiang language). Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1988. “Lun Qiangzu shuangyuzhi–jiantan Hanyu dui Qiangyu de yingxiang” [A discussion of bilingualism among the Qiang people – with comments on the influence of the Chinese language on the Qiang language]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority Languages of China] 4, 55–65.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2003. “Issues in Mawo Qiang phonology”, Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature 1/1, 227–42.Google Scholar
Wang, Baofeng. 2017. “Luobozhai Qiangyu Yanjiu” (Studies in Luobozhai Qiang). Doctoral dissertation, Central University for Nationalities of China.Google Scholar
Zheng, Wuxi. 2017. A Grammar of Longxi Qiang. (LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics.) Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Zhou, Facheng. 2010. Han Qiang Cidian (Han–Qiang Dictionary). Beijing: Zhong guo wen lian chu ban she.Google Scholar