How to reconstruct Old Chinese André-Georges Haudricourt To cite this version: André-Georges Haudricourt. How to reconstruct Old Chinese. 2017. halshs-01631479 HAL Id: halshs-01631479 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01631479 Preprint submitted on 9 Nov 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Non-final version (November 9th, 2017). In preparation for: Haudricourt, André-Georges. Evolution of languages and techniques. (Ed.) Martine Mazaudon, Boyd Michailovsky & Alexis Michaud. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM] 270). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. How to reconstruct Old Chinese (1954) Originally published as: Comment reconstruire le chinois archaïque, Word 10(2/3). 351–364 (1954). Reprinted (with additions) 1 in Problèmes de phonologie diachronique: 161-182. translated by Guillaume Jacques Abstract [The reconstruction of Chinese raises special difficulties due to the nature of the writing system, which only provides indirect evidence concerning pronunciation. The reconstructions proposed by Karlgren and Maspero are revisited systematically. Comparative data from other East Asian languages are adduced, with special attention to early loans from Chinese into Vietnamese and Tai languages, which provide decisive evidence on Old Chinese, i.e. Chinese as it was spoken before the Tang dynasty. The paper argues against reconstructing a contrast between two series of voiced stops (plain vs. aspirated) in Old Chinese. It provides evidence for the reconstruction of a labiovelar series in Old Chinese, and, taking as a model the development of tonal oppositions from syllable finals in Vietnamese, proposes to reconstruct an Old Chinese derivational suffix *s to account for a series of tonal alternations in Middle Chinese.] [1. Introduction] [1.1 Historical linguistics in East Asian and European languages] The linguistic history of Chinese bears some analogy to that of Romance: Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu (from the lower reaches of the Yangtze River) and Min (from Fujian) correspond to the Romance languages; Classical Chinese, the written language of Korea, Japan and Vietnam, played the 1. [The 1972 reprint includes handwritten Chinese characters for all examples in the text (except in §1.2). These had been omitted in the original publication.] 2 André-Georges Haudricourt same role as Medieval Latin, the written language of Germanic, Hungarian and West Slavic countries; early loanwords from Chinese into Miao [Hmong], Thai, Vietnamese and Khmer correspond to the ancient Latin loanwords in Germanic, Albanian, Basque and Berber.2 There are nonetheless two important differences. First, Latin, an inflectional language, can be classified in a straightforward way as a member of the Indo-European family, to which Germanic, Slavic and Albanian also belong but Basque and Berber do not. But Chinese, a language with invariable words [i.e. lacking inflectional morphology], is more difficult to classify: it belongs to the Tibeto-Burman group, but is it as close to the Tai languages3 as people have long believed? In this type of language, relatedness can only be assessed on the basis of vocabulary, and the number of Chinese loanwords has often been underestimated. 4 In addition, the concept of “mixed languages” was accepted: when language C had vocabulary in common both with language A and with language B, it was said that language C originated in a mixture of a dialect of A and a dialect of B.5 It seems now that the best hypothesis is that the languages A, B, and C all belong to the same language family. In East Asia, languages would all be linked in a chain as one large family, Tibeto-Burman and Chinese being related to Miao [Hmong] and Austroasiatic, these two to Tai, and the latter to Malayo-Polynesian. The second difference lies in the writing system: Latin is written alphabetically, and its spelling encapsulates phonetic information that was passed down unchanged through the ages, while the early loanwords from 2. The best recent overview on this subject is Forrest (1948). 3. [In the translation, the national language of Thailand is referred to as “Thai”, and the name “Tai” refers to what Haudricourt called “Common Thai”, or “Thai proper” (Haudricourt 1956, 1970, in this volume), a group comprising Thai, Lao, Shan, etc., but excluding the Zhuang (a.k.a. Dioi) group of languages. It is a lower level group than what comes to mind nowadays when using the terms Tai or Proto-Tai.] 4. [Haudricourt here questions the view that Tai and Chinese constitute a sub- family within Tibeto-Burman (or “Sino-Tibetan”) (Maspero 1920:22n1). Haudricourt’s proposed chain of relations (next paragraph) excludes Tai from Tibeto-Burman entirely, following Benedict (1942); this view has gained widespread acceptance, although the Tai-Chinese genetic relationship is still defended by some linguists, especially in China (Luo 2008).] 5. A case in point is H. Maspero’s statement (1912: 117) that “Proto-Vietnamese was born from the fusion of a Mon-Khmer dialect, a Tai dialect, and maybe even a third, yet unknown, language.” How to reconstruct Old Chinese (1954) 3 Latin followed the considerable phonetic evolution of the languages of Europe. These early loanwords are therefore quite eroded in comparison to recent loanwords that retain the Latin graphic form. Chinese, on the other hand, is written ideographically, and hence defenceless against phonetic evolution. The official language as it was spoken varied from century to century, either abruptly – as when the location of the capital city changed and a different dialect came to be looked up to as the standard – or gradually, following the phonetic evolution of the language. In fact, since the capital city was located in the North, in an area which was subjected to invasions by Turks, Mongols, Tungus and Manchus, who founded dynasties and became assimilated after a period of bilingualism, the language of the capital city evolved much more rapidly than the languages of Southern China and Southeast Asia. The vulgar pronunciation of Chinese words from the oldest layers of borrowings preserves the original pronunciation better than the more recent learned borrowings as represented by the official readings of the ideographic characters. Analogous cases are exceptional in Europe, e.g. in German, where the word Kaiser [ˈkʰaɪzɐ] ‘emperor’, an early borrowing from Latin Caesar, preserves the ancient pronunciation better than the proper name Cäsar [ˈtsɛzɐ, a later, learned borrowing of the same word]. [1.2 Resources for the reconstruction of Chinese] For the reconstruction of the pronunciation of earlier stages of Chinese, we first have at our disposal the tools of comparative linguistics: comparing Chinese dialects with one another, using early Chinese loanwords into other languages, and assessing to what extent the reconstructions are in keeping with the facts observed in neighbouring languages that are genealogically related to Chinese. [Another resource is the analysis of the writing system.] Most characters are phonograms, which is to say that they work as rebuses. For instance, the ideogram for the word pa 巴6 bā ‘boa’ is used as a phonetic component in the characters 把 ba ̌ ‘to grasp’, 靶 ba ̌ ‘target’, 耙 bà ‘harrow’, 疤 bā ‘scar’, etc. However, this writing system goes back to nearly two thousand BC, and some words whose pronunciation used to be similar at that period are now very different. If we could distinguish with confidence between 6. [See the Appendix for a summary of Pinyin and other transcriptions used in the translation.] 4 André-Georges Haudricourt phonogram and ideogram, this would provide valuable clues concerning the original pronunciation. Unfortunately, this is not the case. For instance, the character 肥 féi ‘fat’ contains the ideogram for ‘boa’; it is difficult to know whether this indicates the idea of fatness that this kind of snake evokes, the pronunciation of a word beginning by a bilabial followed by an open vowel, or both. It is apparently only in the third century AD that people started to compare the pronunciation of characters by means of the method known as fanqiè̌ ( 反切): the pronunciation of a character is indicated by two others, the first having the same initial consonant as the target character, and the second the same rhyme. For example, the pronunciation of ‘boa’, pa, is represented by characters pronounced pak̆ and ka. 7 Basing themselves on fanqiè̌ , on Japanese and Vietnamese readings of Chinese characters,8 and especially on a rhyme dictionary, compiled in 601, but which until recently was known only in a 1008 edition, 9 Henri Maspero and Bernhard Karlgren attempted to reconstruct the pronunciation of Middle Chinese, the language of the Tang period [7th to 9th centuries].10 Maspero and Karlgren were not in agreement on everything, but Karlgren’s reconstruction is the more advanced and the more systematic of the two, and it is the one which has been adopted by a majority of sinologists.11 Moreover, going backwards in time from this Middle Chinese reconstruction and using the phonograms and the rhymes in the Book of Odes [11th–8th centuries BC], Karlgren also 7. [The fanqiè̌ formula for this character is 巴伯加切 |boa uncle add cut|, which translates as: “‘boa’ cuts up into ‘uncle’ and ‘add’”, i.e. “its pronunciation is composed of the initial of ‘uncle’ and the rhyme of ‘add’”.] 8. [Local systems of pronouncing Chinese characters became established in medieval times in neighboring countries which adopted Chinese writing; these readings, called Sino-Japanese, Sino-Vietnamese, etc., evolved independently of the pronunciations in Chinese, and are used in reconstructing older Chinese pronunciation.] 9.