Appendix

Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages Naxi, Na and Laze

Guillaume Jacques and Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale / Langues et civilisations à tradition orale-Centre national de la recherche scientifique

Appendix 1. Background data about the Naish languages

This Appendix provides (i) information on the geographic coordinates of Naxi, Na and Laze, and a brief review of the literature; (ii) phylogenetic reflections on the Naish group and its position within Sino-Tibetan; and (iii) reasons why no comparison with languages closely related to the Naish languages was attempted in the present research.

Geographic coordinates and a brief review of the literature Naxi is the best-documented of the three languages studied in the present article. This is due in part to the scholarly attention devoted to the Naxi scripts (picto- graphic and syllabic), which indirectly stimulated linguistic work (Fang Guoyu & He Zhiwu 1995, Li Lincan, Zhang Kun et al. 1953, Rock 1963–1972). Annotated editions of Naxi ritual texts also constitute important resources for linguists (see in particular Fu Maoji 1981–1984 and the 100-volume Annotated collection of Naxi Dongba manuscripts, 1999–2000). Specialised linguistic work includes reflections on the position of Naxi respective to the Yi (a.k.a. Ngwi, Lolo) subgroup of Tibe- to-Burman (Okrand 1974, Bradley 1975); preliminary field notes by Hashimoto Mantaro (Hashimoto 1988); and a book-length glossary (Pinson 1998) which pro- vides data on several dialects (see Pinson 1996). Finally, the rudimentary word lists collected at the turn of the 20th century provide a few useful hints: on this topic, see Michaud & Jacques 2010. The specific language varieties studied here are indicated on the map (Fig- ure 1):

Diachronica 28:4 (2011), 1–25. doi 10.1075/dia.28.4.02jac.additional issn – / e-issn – © John Benjamins Publishing Company 2 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud

i. Naxi (autonym: /nɑ˩hi˧/), as spoken in the hamlet of A-sher (/ɑ˧ʂɚ˩/); Chinese coordinates: Wenhua township, Lijiang Municipality, , . ii. Yongning Na (autonym: /nɑ˩˧/), as spoken in Yongning township, Lijiang mu- nicipality, Yunnan, China.1 A neighbouring dialect is described by Lidz (2006, 2007, forthcoming). iii. Laze (autonym: /lɑ˧ze˧/; referred to in China as Muli Shuitian 木里水田 or Lare 拉热), as spoken in Xiangjiao township, Muli prefecture, , China. (See Huang Bufan 2009 for a general overview of a neighbou-ring dialect.) The present research essentially relies on first-hand data collected by Alexis Mi- chaud from 2002 to 2009. With apologies for self-references, here is a list of pub- lished results: analyses of the phonemic system of Naxi (Michailovsky & Michaud 2006, Michaud 2006a) and of its tone system (Michaud 2006b, Michaud & He Xueguang 2007); a phonemic and tonal analysis of Yongning Na (Michaud 2008); and a tonal analysis of Laze (Michaud 2009).

The Naish group and its position within Sino-Tibetan Although language classification is not the main focus of the present paper, it is essential to provide evidence of the close phylogenetic relatedness of Na, Laze and Naxi in order to legitimate the attempt made in the present article: to contribute to the reconstruction of their common ancestor, ‘Proto-Naish’, and to document the evolution from this common ancestor to Naxi, Na and Laze, which are referred to as ‘Naish languages’. It is widely accepted in Chinese scholarship that Naxi and Na are closely re- lated. He Jiren & Jiang Zhuyi (1985: 107) consider them as dialects of the same language, which they call “Naxi”, even though speakers of Na do not call their own language ‘Naxi’. The boundaries of ‘Naxi’ as defined by He & Jiang are so broad that they actually coincide with what we call Naish languages. ‘Naxi’ in the sense used in the present article (i.e. restricting its extent to the area where speakers use the name ‘Naxi’ for their own language) coincides with what He & Jiang refer to as ‘Western Naxi’ (纳西语西部方言), whereas they consider Na as part of a looser set of dialects to which they refer as ‘Eastern Naxi’ (纳西语东部方言). Laze is not mentioned in He & Jiang (ibid.); the question of its inclusion within Naish (‘Naxi’ as defined by He & Jiang) has been the object of some controversy in Chinese scholarship. With fewer than 300 proficient speakers, Laze is less well documented than the other two varieties. In their History of the Naxi People, Guo Dalie and He

1. This language is also known as ‘’; for a discussion of this exonym, see Yang Fuquan 2006. Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 3 4 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud

Zhiwu, adopting the same broad understanding of the term ‘Naxi’ as He & Jiang, classify the Laze as one out of eight subgroups within the Naxi ethnic group on the basis of cultural and linguistic similarities with another proposed Naxi subgroup, the Nari 纳日 (Guo Dalie & He Zhiwu 1994 [2nd ed. 1999]: 6–7). Huang Bufan (2009: 55) expresses reservations on this topic, concluding that “…the relationship [of Laze] with Naxi, and its position within Tibeto-Burman, call for more in-depth investigation”. Our own research results point to a degree of closeness between Naxi, Na and Laze which is clearly greater than with other languages of the area. In addition to a fair amount of basic vocabulary, they share some lexical innova- tions. A short list of such probable innovations is provided in Table 18, including two disyllables: “medicine” and “noble”. Not all the words in the list belong to the basic vocabulary, witness the word for the Bai ethnic group. On the other hand, their correspondences for initials and rhymes all coincide with one of the regular phonetic correspondences brought out in this article, suggesting that they may all be actual cognates.

Table 18. A short list of probable Naish lexical innovations.[2] meaning Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish to stumble pe˧ kʰɯ.piM *(S)pa cloud2 ki˩ tɕi˧ tɕi˩sɯ˥ *ki village hi˧mbe˧ fv̩.biL ɖɯ˧bie˧ *mba Bai (ethnic group) le˧bv̩˧ ɬi.bvM̩ *Sla noble sɯ.pʰiM sɯ˩pʰie˩ *si pʰa medicine (2nd syllable) ʈʂʰɚ˧ɯ˧ ʈʂʰæ.ɯ#H tsʰɯ˧fi˧ *rtsʰi Swri

Moreover, Laze, Na and Naxi share structural properties of numeral-plus-classifier determiners which are not found in other languages of the area (Michaud forth- coming) The boundaries of the Naish branch remain to be worked out in detail; the list of «subfamilies» (支系) of the “Naxi nationality” (纳西族) provided by Guo & He (1999: 5–9) can serve as a starting-point, keeping in mind that this list was es- sentially based on anthropological criteria, and that the inclusion of a language in the Naish branch requires a systematic comparative study such as the present one.

2. Lookalikes to this etymon are found in Lizu: /tɕe35/, Shangyou Shixing: /tɕi55rõ21/, and Xiay- ou Shixing: /ti55rõ21/, as pointed out by Katia Chirkova (p.c.). The Shixing form, however, is more profitably compared instead to Proto-Lolo-Burmese *C-dim¹ and Rgyalrong /zdɯm/. As for Lizu /tɕe35/, more research is needed to determine whether or not this could be an external cognate. Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 5

As for the position of the Naish languages within the Sino-Tibetan family, it remains controversial. Naxi was initially classified within the Loloish branch of Tibeto-Burman (Shafer 1955); however, Bradley (1975: 6) shows that it does not share the innovations that characterise this group and concludes that Naxi is “cer- tainly not a Loloish language, and probably not a Burmish language either”. Thur- good (2003: 19) lists Naxi among the unsubgrouped languages of the Sino-Tibetan family. This issue links up with more general uncertainties about subgroupings within a relatively large portion of the family, which encompasses Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic. The Naish languages appear closely related to the , spoken in Muli county, Sichuan, and which was initially classified by Sun Hon- gkai 2001 within a ‘Southern Qiangic’ branch on purely typological grounds. A relatively close relationship with other languages likewise classified as ‘Southern Qiangic’, such as Namuyi (a.k.a. Namuzi, Namʑi) and Ersu, Tosu and Lizu, is also plausible; specific investigations are required to ascertain the degree of closeness between these languages. Bradley (2008) proposes the following set of hypotheses: Naxi and Na are closest to Namuyi, the second closest is Shixing, and the third closest is Ersu. In the family tree proposed in Figure 2, the name “Naic” is pro- posed for a node grouping Naish with Shixing and Namuyi. Some of the groupings in Figure 2 are by now well-established, in particular the Rgyalrongic group (Sun 2000a). Higher-level groupings are more controversial. Under the present proposal, the Qiangic group only includes Rgyalrongic, Tangut, Pumi (a.k.a. Prinmi), Muya and Qiang, i.e. languages that can be shown to have an extensive amount of uniquely shared vocabulary (there remain doubts concerning Zhaba). Ersu, Tosu and Lizu are generally considered to be , fol- lowing Sun Hongkai’s 1983 classification (see e.g., Yu 2009), but evidence for their inclusion in this subbranch is weak; our hypothesis is that these languages may in fact belong to the Burmo-Qiangic group but not to Qiangic proper; more research is needed before any conclusion can be reached on this issue.3 The family tree outlined in Figure 2 reflects the hypothesis that Naish is close- ly related to Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic, and that it belongs in an independent branch of a larger Burmo-Qiangic group. This Burmo-Qiangic group is close to ‘Eastern Tibeto-Burman’ as proposed by Bradley 1997. This hypothesis will be briefly defended here on the basis of lexical evidence, since Lolo-Burmese and Naic languages have not preserved much morphology.

3. Fieldwork on these languages is underway, so that the necessary basis for comparative stud- ies should become available in the near future: see in particular Chirkova 2008, 2009. Further research will also be necessary to clarify the relationship of Guiqiong and Tujia to the Burmo- Qiangic group as defined here. 6 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud

Figure 2. A tentative family tree showing the position of Naxi, Na and Laze within a Burmo-Qiangic branch of Sino-Tibetan.

One such piece of evidence is the suppletion found for the noun “year”, with a labial-initial root (Proto-Tangut *C-pja) in “this year, next year, last year” and a different root (Proto-Tangut *kjuk) with numerals: see Table 19. Rgyalrong has generalized the labial form (“next year” is innovative) and the velar root was lost. In Lolo-Burmese languages, only the root related to Tangut *kjuk is found. Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 7

Table 19. Suppletion for the noun “year” in several Burmo-Qiangic languages. About the Proto-Naish forms, see Appendix 2, items a7.20 and u3.14 meaning Tangut Rgyalrong Shuiluo Pumi Muya Proto-Naish last year .jɨ².wji¹ japa ʑɛ́pə jø³³zɑ²⁴ …*C- this year pjɨ¹.wji¹ ɣɯjpa pəpə́ pə³³βə⁵³ …*C-ba next year sjij¹.wji¹ fsɤqʰe < ʑɛkʰiú sæ³³βə⁵³ …*C-ba *psaŋ-qʰo-j one year .a-kjiw¹ tɯ-xpa tɜ́-kó tɐ⁵⁵-kui⁵³ …*kʰu two years njɨɨ¹-kjiw¹ ʁnɯ-xpa ɲí-kó …*kʰu

Table 20 presents a preliminary list of common etyma between Qiangic, Naish and LB not found elsewhere in ST (to the best of our knowledge). It should be kept in mind that finding uniquely shared lexical innovations is a difficult task. This short list will require revision in future; if the hypothesis is correct, it is expected that an increasing number of cognates and uniquely shared lexical innovations will come to light.

Table 20. Correspondences for lexical items that may constitute Burmese-Qiangic in- novations. The Naish forms are Na, apart from those marked as NX, which are from Naxi. Achang belongs to Burmish, and Hani to Loloish. meaning Rgyalrong Tangut Naish Proto- Burmese Achang Hani (S=Situ) (NX=Naxi) Naish copula ŋu ŋwu² ŋi˩˧ ? ŋɯ³¹ star ʑŋgri gjịj¹ kɯ˥ *kri kray² kʰʐə⁵⁵ a³¹ gɯ⁵⁵ forget jmɯt mjɨ̣² mv̩.pʰæ L+MH# *mi me¹ ɲi³⁵ ɲi⁵⁵ be ill ngo < ŋo² gu˩ *go *ngaŋ flint ʁdɯrtsa tse.miH# *tsa to hide nɤtsɯ tsɯ˥ NX *tsu to swallow mqlaʁ ʁv̩˥ *NqU < *Nqak dry spɯ pv̩˧ *Spu thick jaʁ laa¹ lo˧˥ *laC2 jump mtsaʁ tsʰo˧ *tsʰaC2 winter qartsɯ tsur¹ tsʰi˥ *tsʰu cʰoŋ³ tɕʰɔŋ³¹ tsʰɔ³1 ga̱³³ knee tə-mŋɑ S ŋwer² ŋwɤ.ko H# *ŋwa sun ʁmbɣi be² bi˧ NX *bi 8 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud

Note that the inclusion of Rgyalrongic within Qiangic contradicts LaPolla’s hy- pothesis of a Rung group, distinct from Qiangic, that would include Rgyalrongic as well as Kiranti and Dulong/Rawang. LaPolla’s proposed grouping is based on the hypothesis that the morphology found across these languages is a common innovation (LaPolla 2003: 30 and references therein). However, the comparison of Rgyalrong to Kiranti reveals very little common vocabulary: a careful examination of Boyd Michailovsky’s unpublished Kiranti etymological dictionary brought out less than 150 potential cognates, which are too widespread within the Sino-- an family to be convincing instances of shared innovation. If Rgyalrong and Ki- ranti were closely related in the Sino-Tibetan family tree, one would expect more cognate vocabulary, including some lexical innovations. The view of the Sino-Tibetan family presented in Figure 2 has the important implication that any morphology that is found in both Rgyalrong and Kiranti, or Rgyalrong and Tibetan, must be of great antiquity (predating the split between Proto-Burmo-Qiangic and other branches), and that it was lost almost without traces in Lolo-Burmese and Naish. In this light, vestigial phenomena such as the traces of vowel alternation found in the Naic language Shixing (Chirkova 2009) deserve special attention: they may point to an earlier verb conjugation system.

Why no comparison with languages closely related to the Naish languages was attempted in the present research The phylogenetic distance between Naish, Rgyalrong and Burmese is relatively great — although we believe that they belong together with the Naish languages in a Burmo-Qiangic branch of Sino-Tibetan, as explained above. The distance be- tween Naish and Tibetan is even greater. Some justifications must be provided for referring to these distant languages in the reconstruction of Proto-Naish, in- stead of relying on data from Shixing, Namuyi and Ersu/Tosu/Lizu, which, while they do not belong to the Naish branch by our criteria, appear to be its closest relatives and could belong in a Naic group (see Figure 2). There are in fact three pressing reasons not to attempt to incorporate data from these languages at the present stage. (i) Available phonemic analyses for these languages are not fully satisfactory. A thorough synchronic description, including a complete inventory of syllables, is required before these languages can be put to use in historical com- parison. In the case of the Naish languages, a preliminary to the present research consisted in elaborating a comprehensive synchronic phonological analysis. By ‘comprehensive’, we mean an analysis which, in addition to the inventory of vowel and consonant phonemes in the language, comprises a list of all attested syllables. As the Naish languages tend to present many phonological contrasts in restricted contexts, the inventory of syllables is necessary to study the full extent of gaps Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 9 in the combinations of onsets and rhymes. For Shixing, Namuyi and Ersu, such inventories are not yet available. (ii) In addition to this practical reason, there is a methodological reason for postponing comparison with these languages: they are almost as eroded as the Naish languages, and therefore extremely difficult to use for comparative purposes. Naish, Shixing, Namuyi and Ersu have undergone an enormous amount of phonological changes independently from one another, and do not share most of their phonological innovations. Comparing them di- rectly to one another only yields a lengthy list of opaque correspondences, offering precious few insights as to how these correspondences should be sorted out and reconstructed. Since these languages are mostly isolating and have almost no in- flections (except in their tonology), we cannot rely on the reconstruction of vowel alternations to solve these issues. (iii) Last but not least, areal diffusion has had a conspicuous influence on Shixing and Namuyi, whose speakers are currently mul- tilingual, raising with extreme acuteness the classical issue of inheritance versus borrowing (about which see Aikhenvald & Dixon 2001, among others).

Appendix 2. Examples of five rhymes of Proto-Naish (*a, *i, *o, *u and

*aC1/*aC2) with comparanda in the conservative languages and proposed reconstructions.

The question mark after a reconstructed form indicates that this form has other possible origins, and that the form indicated is a rule-of-thumb hypothesis. The “Ref[erence]” consists of (i) the proto-vowel, (ii) the number assigned to the vowel correspondence among the three Naish languages under study, and (iii) the num- ber assigned to the cognate set. In the “HTB” column, we indicate the page num- ber corresponding to the etymon in Matisoff’s handbook (2003). The words pro- vided in the “Rgyalrong” column are Japhug Rgyalrong forms, except those with the mention “(Situ)”, which are Situ Rgyalrong forms from Huang Liangrong & Sun Hongkai 2002. The notation of the tones for Na disyllables follows the conven- tions set out in Michaud (2008). Finally, it must be emphasised that the data in the “other languages” column are not part of the comparative study carried out here: these potential cognates are provided solely as stepping-stones for future com- parative work with these languages (Tangut, Pumi and Lisu). For Pumi, SL refers to the Shuiluo dialect (unpublished fieldwork data), and LP to the Lanping dialect (Lu Shaozun 2001). Personal communications from James Matisoff are labelled “(JAM)”. 10 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud ) (or (or 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nka/aC k ʰ wa Cka/aC ŋwa k ʰ wa dza tsa sa dza tsa Nka/aC ŋga/aC ts ʰ a k ʰ a/aC ŋga/aC w ɤ˩ ˧ h ɑ˧ lu ˥ ɑ˩ tu ŋw k ʰ ˥ k ʰ w ɤ˥ bie dze ˥ tse ˥ se ˧ dze ˥ tse ˧ mie ˥ ( ɖɯ˧ ) ʁɑ˧ ts ʰ e ˧ k ʰɑ˧ L# H# M H# M ˩˧ q ʰ w ɤ dze ˩ tse ˩ tse.mi se ˧ ʁɑ˧ q ʰ w ɤ . ʂ e ts ʰ e ˥ ɑ lo.h ɤ .ko ŋw ɯ dze.l q ʰɑ˥ k ʰ w ɑ˥ tse ˧ m ɑ˩ se ˩ k ɑ˧ t ɯ˥ ʁɑ˥ ʁɑ˩ zi ˩ k ʰ w ɑ˧ ts ʰ e ˧ dze ˧ Naxiɑ˧ŋg Na ʁɑ˥ k ʰɑ˧ Laze Proto-Naish nguages Pumi k ʰ w ǎ Tangut ɣ ie Tangut <*C-ka ́ Pumi kwa Tangut Tangut ŋwer² <*rŋwa ­ la dka cha³ ts ʰ wa kha³ k ʰ a ʁ d ɯ rtsa nqa t ə -mŋ ɑ (Situ) m ɢ la β ʁ a a3.05 a3.04 a1.02 170–4 a1.05 a2.01 a3.03 162–5 ndza ca³ za a1.04 Rhyme *-a Rhyme

4 5 21. 7

6 difficult hoof a2.03 170 t ɯ -qa bowla pair a2.02 lockto a3.01 wheat a3.02 steel (for (for steel flint) naemorhe- goral dus salt a3.06 172 Table meaning Refstrength HTBbitter ac- step to Rgyalrong Burmesecross a1.03 Tibetanknee 164–8 other to winto a1.01 Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 11 a wa (S)mba (S)pa Sla (S)p ʰ wa Cdza sa ŋi/a Swa tra ŋi/a twa gra Swa S vi ˧ ze ˧ ɲ i ˩ ze ˥ fi ˩ se ˧ se ˧ ŋi ˧ fi ˧ t ʰ u fi ˧ M L #H M L LM+#H ˩˧ ˩˧ k ʰɯ .pi p ʰ i i ˥ se ˥ bi.mi gi ˥ ŋi ˥ ʈ i ˥ ŋi.zu hi ˥ ̩ ze.v hi ɑ . hi.n mi pe ˧ ̩˧le ˧ bv p ʰ e ˩ ̩ ɬ i.bv ɯ˧ ˧ l ɑ˩ mbe ʈʂɯ˧ ʈʂ e ˥ ʈʂɯ˧ g ɯ˧ ŋi ˧ Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish ŋi ˧ ʂɯ˧ ʂ e ˥ ʂɯ˧ ɕ a h ɯ˧ dze ˧ɯ˧ h ɯ˩ h ɯ˥ nguages Tangut Tangut < ŋwe² *ŋwa ­ la < *mtwa ɲ a ɕ a ts ʰ a-bo ʰ o mts < *m-swa kya¹ hŋa³ r ɲ a ŋa³ sa³ rwa² ŋgra “to “to ŋgra fall” t ɯ -t ɣ a thwa²ʰ o mt a7.03 a6.03 8 to stumbleto a7.02 Bai (ethnic group) linen a7.04 to fallto (rain) a6.01 to walkto borrowto a3.08 a4.01span 162–5 a5.01 cow a5.05 axe a7.01 171–2 t ɯ -rpa meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan other fish a4.02tooth 162 a5.02 171–2 t ɯ - ɕɣ a swa³meat so < *swa a6.02 nephew a3.07 171–2 t ɯ -ftsa rain a5.03 171–3 earth lake a5.04 12 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud a t ʰ a p ʰ a mba Sla Sla p ʰ a la la Cba na Smba mba Cba ma l s ɯ˩ p ʰ ie ˩ ʁɔ˩ɬ ie ˩ l̥ a ˧ ɖɯ˧ bie ɬ ie ˧ mie ˥ɬ ie ˧ tu ɬ ie ˥ k ʰ w ɤ˥ l̥ a p ʰ ie ˧ lie ˥ t ʰ u ˧ lie ˥ ts ʰɯ˧ vie ˧ vie ˧ ˥ t ʰɑ˧ bie vie ˧ mie ˩ lie ˩ L M L M M L# L (M) L# L+#H ˩˧ ˩˧ s ɯ .p ʰ i ts ʰ i.i ni t ʰ u.li fv ̩ .bi ˥ bi li p ʰ i.li ˥ bi i ˥ mimi ˩ mie ma ɬ i æ. s ɯ .t ʰ i le ˧ʰ w ɤ ɬ i.q ʈʂʰɯ˧ be ˧ ˩ ə˧ ne t ʰ o ˧ le ˧ hi ˧ mbe ˧ mbe le ˥ p ʰ e ˧ le ˩ be ˧ ˧ me ˥ me ˧ mbe ˥ ts ɯ˩he ɬ i.pi ˧ o ˩ he Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish le ˩ ɬ i.mi z ɯ˧ t ʰ e ˧ ossible. 170) is p 170) is

nguages Tangut ljii¹ ljii¹ Tangut < *ljaa ­ la h could point to an alternative etymology. alternative an to point h could byed (suffix) ma 1066), whic

originally belong to the same root, but they need to be distinguished at the Proto-Naish 1 dha³ pa t ɯ -xpa qala ɯ la qambal and “strength” *Nka/aC and “strength” 1 a7.07 162 t ɯ -rla seefootnote bla/brla a7.19 lso find forms such as Lahu /ha¹¹/ “difficult” (Matisoff 1988: (Matisoff “difficult” as /ha¹¹/ such Lahu forms lso find 10 is is likely *ŋga/aC that win” “to 9 It It We a We

noble a7.06 soul thin a7.08 doto 162 a7.11 ear mbatrousers a7.15 a7.14female pa³ 163–5 a7.16 162–5 t ɯ -rna 175 na³ rna rabbit this yearwho a7.20 4. a7.21 meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan other stage. A relationship with Burmese a³ and its Lolo-Burmese cognates (Matisoff 2003: (Matisoff Lolo-Burmese cognates its Burmese with a³ and A relationship stage. 5. village a7.10 snow a7.09tea 172 a7.12 t ɤ -jpa 48 butterfly a7.18 moon a7.13 162–4 forask t ɯ -sla a7.17 la¹ zla-ba knife a7.05 162 Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 13 n explanation for the form *ndzi in *ndzi form the for explanation n 62).

356). A 356).

(for instance /ndze/ “he eats”) that results from the from results that /ndze/ “he eats”) instance -e (for “to eat”, the cognate of Proto-Naish *ndzi) have a non-past form singular stem in stem singular form a non-past *ndzi) have Proto-Naish of the cognate eat”, ndza “to ⁵³la²¹/ “year of the rabbit” (JAM). the rabbit” of Lahu /t ʰɔ ⁵³la²¹/ “year instance for languages, in other found are names lar orm is perhaps relatable to the second syllable of Lahu /mi²¹cha⁵³/ “earth” (JAM). “earth” Lahu /mi²¹cha⁵³/ syllable of the second to relatable perhaps is orm was was originally a nominalised form of the verb a eat’; ‘to semantic change from to ‘food’ occurred‘wheat’ in this etymon. The free verb“to eat” “beautiful” (Matisoff 2003: (Matisoff “beautiful” hla¹ and “soul” pra¹ lip this etymon: for Burmese etymologies exist o competing Simi / is not attested in Na, one may consider that the contrast contrast the that consider may one Na, in attested not is ɑ / /w rhyme a and velar initial an of combination the Since ɤ ]. [ŋw pronounced is word Na The Tw This f This

This This

ɑ ]. Lazeɤ ] with [ŋw [ŋw Na compare hence and neutralised /w ɑ / is in this context, /w ɤ / and etween the rhymes 10. in Naish, in /dz ɯ˥ / Naish, in Na and ɯ˧ / /ndz in points Naxi, to a reconstruction *ndzi which in is Proto-Naish, with not compatible the in vowel the languages rhyme of *-i the verb of The might the be result the only can be in afound ofwords ofthisThe tracemorphology. *-a pair / *-i alternation reference. of with open-syllable -a final verbs transitive Rgyalrong, Japhug in languages: in found is Rgyalrongic phenomenon a Such a suffix. with the root of fusion (including 6. b 7. 9. attested as a free form in other Rgyalrongic languages (Jacques 2004: (Jacques languages Rgyalrongic other in form free a as attested *-j ə suffix a with vowel root the of fusion preserving a thereby had tracetheof languages form the a non-past verb, of generalisation whenstage historical Naish is represents it that Naish this preserves day. Rgyalrong to the typeverbal morphology of that 8. 14 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud si zi zi t ɕʰ i mi ri rsi si mi mi si tsi ts ʰ i v ̩˥ ̩˩ z ɯ˧ ̩˥ z ɯ˥ mv i ˧ʈʂʰɯ˥ mie ˧ mv ʐɯ˧ k s ɯ˩ s ɯ˥ ̩˧ mv ̩˧ mv s ɯ˩ ts ɯ˧ ʂɯ˩ ts ɑ˩ ɕ i ts ʰɯ˩

L

˩˧ ˩˧ MHL L+MH# ʈʂʰɯ .mi i. z ɯ˥ ̩ .z ɯ mv ̩ mv ʂɯ˩ ʂɯ˧ k ɔ˥ læ ˥ ɕ i s ɯ˧ ̩˥ mv ̩˥ mv s ɯ˥ ̩ .s ɯ mv ts ɯ˥ ts ʰɯ ˧˥ i ˧ʈʂʰɯ˧ m ɯ˩ z ɯ˧ m ɯ˩ z ɯ˧ mi ˥ ɯ˧ p ʰ i ˩ ɯ ʂɯ˧ ʂɯ˧ Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish mi ˧ s ɯ˧ ̩˧ s ɯ˥ t ɯ˧ mv ʂɯ˥ts ɯ˧ ʂɯ ˧˥ ts ʰɯ˥ Lisu s ɯ ³³ Lisu languages Pumi m ɛ̃ ³ k ʰ o ˧ mi ɕ i ɕ es sac ɕɤɣ ts ʰ ik³³ (Situ) i1.02 189 i1.08 189 si se² i1.09 Vowel *-i Vowel

22.

12 11 girl i2.01 187 t ɯ -me min³ skin i1.05 189ʐ i t ɯ -nd re² southgrass i1.03 i1.04 Table meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other fire i2.01 206 smi me mi³ yellow knowto i1.06 i1.07 191 206 s ɯ si¹ to thread thread to (beads) new i1.10 344 goat i1.01 315 ts ʰɤ t chit to hearto i2.02 to die to morning i1.12 to tieto i1.11 oat Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 15 mi mi mi rts ʰ i Swri hi t ɕʰ i t ɕʰ i k ʰ i kri ŋi/a kri siN kri t ʰ i gi ji ts ʰ iN siN siN ̩˩ læ ˥ mv v ̩˧ʈʰ æ ˥ ts ʰɯ˧ fi ˧ ɕ i ˩ mie ˥ t ɕʰ i ˧ tu t ɕʰ i ˧ ts ʰ i ˥ tsi ˥ ŋi ˥ gv ̩˥ tsi ˧ si ˧ tsi ˩ ts ʰ i ˧ si ˧ si ˧ ˧˥

MH# M #H L ˩˧ ̩ . ʈʰ æ mv t ɕʰ i ˥ t ɕʰ i ˧ L+MH# t ɕʰ i ˩ ̩ . ʈʂ æ mv k ɯ˥ ŋi ˧˥ k ɯ˥ si k ɯ˥ ̩ .p ʰ æ mv d ʑ i ˩ t ʰ i ˩ ts ʰ i ˧ si ˧˥ si ˥ hi.mi m ɯ˨ t ʰ æ ˧ k ʰ i ˧ k ʰ i ˩ mi ˩ ŋi ˧ k ɯ˩ Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish s ɚ˥ k ɯ˩ le ˧ mi ˥ gi ˩ i ˩ ʑ i ˧ t ʰ i ˩ ts ʰɚ˧ s ɚ˧ ʈʂʰɚ˧ɯ˧ɯ ʈʂʰ æ. hi ˥ languages grim-po ɕ iŋ che³ rtsi lhya²ɕ e lt ʁ n ɯ s hnac g ɲ is ɣ e nts ʑ ŋgri kray² c ʰ i jm ɯ t me¹ t ɯ -ci jit i3.01 212 i5.06 i5.01 14 13 ood i4.02 347 si sac star lower sidelower i2.04 name i2.05 296 t ɤ -rmiɲ ² ma ming tight i3.04 305 two i5.05 434 thorn i5.08 to sellto i5.07 meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other liver i4.01 297ʰ i t ɯ -mts sa ɲ ³sweet ɕʰ in mt gallbladder i3.02 189 t ɯ - ɕ kr ɯ t sa ɲ ³ khre² mk ʰ ris to forgetto i2.03 w medicine i3.03 189 water flowto i5.02 tongue i5.03 i5.04 215 to plane plane to down to shaveto hot i4.03 i4.04 16 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud briN t ɕ i C-NkriN C-ŋgriN t ɕ i t ɕ i briN t ɕ i ji ŋgi ni mbi k ʰ i priN rdiN rliN ˩ ˩ t ɕ i ˩ ʁ æ ˧ s ɯ˧ p ɑ˧ ˧ʁ æ ˥ thu t ɕ i ˩ q ʰɔ˥ t ɕ i ˩ t ɕ i ˩ s ɯ˥ zi ˩ ts ʰ i ˥ bæ læ L #H H# ˩˧ ˩˧ L ʁ æ t ʰ o. t ɕ i t ɕ i ˩ t ɕ i ˩ bæ ˧ hĩ.bæ t ɕ i ˧ ŋi ˥ t ɕʰ i ˩ bæ ɚ˩ tho ˧ ŋgj ki ˥ ʐ w ɑ˧ ki ˥ k ʰ o ˩ ki ˥ ɚ˧ p ɚ˩kj ʈ v ̩ ʁ æ. b ɚ˧ i ˥˧ ŋgi ʑ i ˧˥ ki ˩ Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish ˧ mbi k ʰ i ˩ ɚ˩ mb ɚ˧nd l ɚ˥ ɖ æ ˧ ɻ æ ɖ æ ˧˥ ʃɛ́ Pumi: st ́ (LP), t ʂ hõ ɕ i² (SL) (SL) languages Pumi bĩ² Pumi bĩ² (SL) mgrin Pumi k ɛ̃ ² mbreŋ khye² ɲ ² pra t ɯ -mbri xt ɕ i t ɯ mci t ɯ -pi t ɯ -rmbi ŋke i5.10 i5.13 500 n ɯʑɯ w ‘ip i6.04 16 15 17 to sleep to resinrope i6.05 i6.06 small i5.12 saddle i5.11 meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other guest i6.07 urine i5.17 to walkto loseto i5.14 cloud i5.15 i5.16 muntjac i5.09 189 pus i6.01 saliva shortgrainneck i6.02 i6.03 Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 17 /, /, as :ndzi. ɚ˩ p ɯ :k ɚ˧ ɯ / and /æ/ (to (to /æ/ / and rts ʰ i rtsi ɕ iN ɕ iN rtsi rts ʰ i ɚ ts ʰɯ˧ fi ˧ i ˩ ts ɯ˩ ts ɯ˩ b ɑ˥ l ts ʰɯ˩ / and /æ/ is preserved in these in preserved is /æ/ and / ɚ #H L+MH# ʈʂ æ i. k ʰ v ̩˧ʂ æ ˧˥ Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish ʂɚ˩ʂɚ˩ ʂ æ ˧ ʈʂɚ˥ʈʂʰɚ˧ ʈʂ æ ˧˥ ʈʂʰ æ ˧ ʈʂʰɚ˧ɯ˧ɯ ʈʂʰ æ. 2), where the contrast between / between contrast the where 2), 43

languages (SL) 182).

riŋ Pumi ʂɛ̃ ¹ /; however, this is due to an innovation found in this dialect: the merger of / of in this dialect: the merger found innovation an to due this is /; however, ɚ˩ p 451).

˧ chac ts ʰ igs che² rtsi t ɯ -rts ɤɣ i (Situ χt ɕ i (Situ rt ɕ i) (cf. Matisoff 2003: Matisoff (cf. Burmese khyui² to related perhaps is ymon oot could be related to ‘water’ (cf. Matisoff 2003: Matisoff (cf. ‘water’ to be could oot related correspondence of initials for this item is problematic. The reconstruction proposed here rests on the hypothesis that *ji changed to /zi/ in in Laze. /zi/ to changed *ji that hypothesis the on rests here proposed reconstruction The problematic. is item this for initials of correspondence reconstruction of the cluster *rs for this word results from the application of the same principle as for other cases where a retroflex initial in Na initial in cases a other retroflex where as for theprinciple same of the application from results this word for *rs the cluster of reconstruction rhyme in the Naxi dialect studied here is /æ/: /kjæ /æ/: is here dialect studied in the Naxi rhyme tisoff (1980) has proposed a detailed etymology for this etymon common to Naish, Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic languages. Qiangic and Lolo-Burmese Naish, to common a detailedproposed etymology etymon this has for (1980) tisoff oto-Lolo-Burmese *z ə y² “barley” (JAM). oto-Lolo-Burmese The The This et This The The Ma This r This Pr The

14. Crucial evidence would come from other instances of the correspondence /i: ʑ i:zi/. the correspondence of instances other from Crucial come evidence would 17. waist11. i7.04 12. 15. 16. ŋg correspondence the expect would one otherwise *kri, as evolution phonetic same the follow not do *ŋgriN and *NkriN that Note contexts. and Naxi corresponds with a dental initial in Laze. This reconstruction is not supported by comparative evidence from the conservative languages. The evidence the conservative languages. with from a dental initial bycorresponds in comparative Laze. Naxi supported and reconstructionis not This in Proto-Naish. developed had be morphology that could a trace in *rsi of cluster 13. /æ/) /æ/) afterS-, TS-Kj-,and where S- stands for coronal , TS-forandaffricates, coronal for velarK stops. The conservative form /kj is found in the variety of Naxi spoken in the city of Lijiang (Fang Guoyu & He Zhiwu 1995: Zhiwu He & Guoyu (Fang Lijiang of city the in spoken Naxi of variety the in found meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other long i6.08 280–2 zri articulation i7.01 hunt i6.09 washmedicine i7.02 i7.03 18 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud o go mo Cro ŋgo SNko mo so t ʰ o mbo mbo ndro p ʰ o mo k ʰ o ɑ˥ u ˥ gu ˧ mie ˥ mu ʐ u ˧ ts ʰ i ˥ʂ u ˥ ɕ o ˥ u ˧ tu ˩ hĩ ˩ mu ˥ mi ˧ su t ʰ u ˧ si ˩ ˩ tu bu p ʰ u ˥ ˩ʈʂʰ w ɤ˩ mu k ʰ u ˧ L# L (M) L# L# L# M H# LM gu.mi p ʰ i.mu hĩ.mu ˩ go ˧ bu ˧ bu ʈʂʰɯ . ʂ u ɖʐ u ˥ ɖʐ u ˧ p ʰ u ˩ ˧˥ mu k ʰ o ˥ t ʰ o.dzi so.ŋi ˧ gu ˧ me ˩ mu ʐ u ˧ɯ ʐ u.dz ˩ ʂɯ˧ mu ˩ ŋgu mi ˧ u ˩ ɑ . ʁ u ˧ mbu ˧ mbu p ʰ u ˩ ˥ mu k ʰ u ˧ ˩ t ʰ o ˧ ndzæ ˧˧ ly ku ʰ w ɤ ʁ u.q so ˩ ŋi ˧ Tangut mjij² graŋ-mo mbros mgo ɲ in saŋ hmui² ɕ a mog ʐ o ɣɤ nd ɕ k ʰ o khaŋ³ ngo t ɯ -ku fso o1.04 o1.05 o1.07 262 o1.01 o1.10 o1.13 o1.08 Vowel *-o Vowel 20

23. 18

19 younger younger sister winnowing fan lunch cold (weather) o1.06 to runto away o1.09 294 p ʰɣ o mushroom o1.16 183–4 t ɤ jm ɤɣ corpse o1.11 spreadto o1.12 265 pinebe ill o1.14 o1.15 264 t ɤ ʰ o thaŋ³ t ʰ aŋ home o1.03 dike o1.02 Table meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish this morn- ing head tomorrow bright Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 19 Proto-Naish Cbu pru ts ʰ u tsu bu p ʰ ru bru ndzu Cgu pru bu bu pru tsu ̩˥ v ̩˧ mie ˧ ̩˩ pv ˧ ˧ ts ʰ y bie mu p ʰ v ̩˥ dzy ˥ bv æ ˧ v ̩˥ l ɑ˩ʈʰɯ˩ ̩˥ bv L MH# LM L+MH# MH# ˩˧ g ɤ .tsi v ̩˥ ̩ ˧˥ pv ts ʰ i ˥ ̩ ʁ u.bv ̩˩ bv ̩ lo.pv ̩ .mi pv p ʰ v ̩˩ dzi ˩ ̩ bv ̩˥ bv ts ɯ˩ ts ɯ˥ ə˩ gv ̩˧.v ̩ ə ̩˧ bv p ɚ˩ m ɯ˧ ts ʰɯ˧ ̩˩ bv l ɑ˩ p ɚ˥ p ɚ˥ p ʰɚ˩ ɯ˩ ndz b ɚ˩ ˧ di ˩ bi Tangut < Cpo .wju¹ Pumi p ɜ ³ (SL) ʰ rum mp mbri u³ a-k ʰ u choŋ³ pui³ mbu n ɤ ts ɯ qarts ɯ w ɣ rum ɯ qambr ɯ mdz u3.01 u3.03 u3.01 u1.01 u1.02 u1.04 u1.03 u2.02 Vowel *u Vowel “head” is tempting, but the vowels do not match. do not the vowels but tempting, is Burmese u² “head” and “head” dbu Tibetan with parison

olo-Burmese, one finds cognates that point to a rhyme *-ak rather than *-aŋ as do the Naish and Tibetan forms. Tibetan and Naish as do the *-aŋ than *-ak rather rhyme to a point that cognates finds one olo-Burmese, 24.

22 23 In L In 21 A com Possibly related to Lahu /ba³³/ “bright”, though the vowel correspondences are problematic. are correspondences the though vowel Lahu /ba³³/ to “bright”, related Possibly

ring maternal unclematernal u3.04 vertical u2.01 to hideto bald u2.04 pan to hoe upto u1.05 white winter u2.03 18. 19. 20. Table meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other Naxi Na Laze comb bug eggs lay to u3.02 57 yak sit to 20 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud C-ru ku Proto-Naish k ʰ u lu k ʰ u gu lu lu lu gu gu gu hu gu gu lu C-ru l̥ a bu ʐ v ̩˩ ̩ kv k ʰ v ̩˧ ̩˩ lv k ʰ v ̩ ˧˥ ̩˩ lv ̩˥ ˧ k ʰ v ̩˥ lv mu gv ̩˧ ɭɔ˥ gv ̩˥ l ɑ˥ gv ̩˥ ˧ fv˧ lu ̩˧ bu ɖɯ˧ gv ̩˧ɖɯ˧ dzi ˧ gv ̩˩ ̩˥ k ʰɯ˥ lv H M LM L M l ə . ʐ v ̩ ̩ kv k ʰ v ̩˧ l ɑ .gv ̩ ̩ ˧˥ lv gv ̩ .mi k ʰ v ̩ ˧˥ ̩˩ lv gv ̩˧ ̩˥ lv gv ̩˧ æ.gv ̩ gv ̩˩ ̩˩ lv ̩˧le ˧ bv ̩ ɬ i.bv ʐ v ̩˧ ʐ v ̩ ˧˥ ̩ kv k ʰ v ̩˩ gv ̩˩ ̩˥ lv ̩˥ lv gv ̩˧ ˩ fvbu ̩˧ k ʰ v ̩˥ ̩˩ lv gv ̩˧ ̩˧ ndv gv ̩˧ Pumi ko² Pumi ko² (SL) gug khui³ rku kuiy² sku lok ku¹ a ʁ r ɯʁ ru l ɤɣ ɯ qaj p ɣɤ -k ʰɯ fs ɤ q ʰ e u3.06 u3.17 u3.12 357ɤɣ ŋg u3.21 u3.13 u3.14 u3.09 u3.10 u3.18 u3.11 u3.20 26 25 24 creased, creased, wrinkled Bai ethnic group to sewto u3.05 141 t ʂɯ β khyup ndrub classifier (men)classifier u3.16 to stealto u3.15 182ɯ m ɯ rk bent wind to (thread) larva grazeto u3.22 body u3.08 198ʰ r ɯ t ɯ -sk meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other Naxi Na Laze to fix to owl year plow nice enough u3.19 357 to pass (time) pass to u3.07 bark to Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 21 ŋu ndu Proto-Naish ŋu ndu ŋgu ndu Npu p ʰ u pu pu ŋgu mu Nku ŋgu p ʰ u nu p ʰ u ̩˧ ŋv ̩˩ ts ʰɯ˩ dv ̩˧ ŋv ̩˧ bv æ ˩ p ʰ v ̩˩ ̩˥ s ɯ˧ pv ? ̩˧ ts ɯ˥ mv ˧ gvhũ ̩˥ ˧ gvmu ̩˧ ʁɑ˧ p ʰ v ̩˧ MH# #H #H L# L# L+MH# L M ̩ .ts ɯ mv ̩˩ ŋv ̩˩ dv ̩˩ ŋv ̩˩dv ɖ v ̩˩ ̩ t ɕ i.nv ̩ s ɯ .pv ̩ . ʂɯ pv gv ̩ ( ˧ ) gv ̩˥ gv ̩˥ ̩˥ dv ̩˩ bv ̩ .gvmv ̩ k ɑ˧ p ʰ v ̩˧ ʁɑ .p ʰ v ̩ ̩˧ʂ v ̩˥ kv v ̩ .gv ʂ ̩ ̩˧ ts ɯ˥ mv ̩˩ ŋv ̩˧ p ʰ i ˩ ndv ̩˩ ŋv ̩˩ ndv ̩˧ ki ˥ nv ̩˩ s ɯ˥ pv ̩˧ʂɯ˩ pv ŋgv ̩˧ ̩˧ ndv ŋgv ̩˧ ̩˥ pv m ɯ˧ ŋgv ̩˧ p ʰ v ̩˧ ə .p ʰ v ̩ p ʰ v ̩˧ Pumi diõ³ (SL) Lisu Lisu si³¹p ʰ u³¹ Pumi bu³ Pumi bu³ (SL) dug p ʰ o phui³ ŋwe² dŋul tu³ ɯ p ʰɯ ɣɤ wu ŋui² ŋu t ɯ -ŋgru t ɯ -rp ɯ 184 415 u3.26 285 u3.32 182ɯ t k ɯ ng kui³ dgu u3.36 price u3.35 183– sickle u3.27 beard u3.23 silver u3.34 414– wing to cryto u3.33 182 poison u3.25 357ɤɣ t ɤ -nd saddlecloth u3.29 meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other Naxi Na Laze bladderamber u3.38 u3.39 nine to digto u3.24 184 steamto u3.28 sinew u3.31 male thunder u3.30 uncle’s uncleuncle’s u3.37 22 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud 28 Proto-Naish *rts ʰ U Sku *rts ʰ U Spu Stu tu NqU q ʰ U Stu Sbu Smbu Stu q ʰ U q ʰ U qU r bu t ʰ u tru rtu ts ʰ v ̩˩ fv ̩˧ ts ʰ v ̩˩ læ ˩ fv ̩˩ p ɑ˥ tv ̩˥ q ʰɔ˥ v ̩˧ n ɑ˥ v ̩˩ li ˩ ʈ v ̩˧ʈ ̩˥ læ ˥ j ɑ˩ q ʰɔ˩ læ ˩ q ʰɔ˩ q ɔ˧ ts ɯ˥ b ɔ˧ɭɔ˥ M MH# L #H L L LML ̩ .l ɯ bv ʈ v ̩ æ. ʰ v ̩ i.q ̩ . ɻ bv tv ̩ .tv ̩ ̩˥ kv tv ̩˧ ʈ v ̩˧ ̩˧ pv qv ̩ . ʈʂ æ q ʰ v ̩˧ tv ̩˧ ʈ v ̩˧ ̩˧ bv t ʰ v ̩˧ ʈʰ v ̩˧ ʈʂ v ̩˩ ʈʂ v ̩˩ > ̩˥ʈʂ ˧ ˧ ly mby ʈʂʰʷɚ˥ ʈʂʰɻ ˧˥ l ɑ˩ j ɤ˥ k ʰ o ˧ ŋgy ˩ k ʰ o ˧w ɤ .q ʰ v ̩ ʁ ɚ˧ l ɚ˥ mb tv ̩˩ ̩˧ kv ʈʂʰʷɚ˥ ʈʂʰɻ ˧˥ ˧ko ʁ v ̩˥ ʁɔ˧ ̩˩ pv k ʰ o ˧ tv ̩˩ t ʰ v ̩˧ rdo (?) rdo sgog lkog chut thoŋ stoŋ doŋ khyui² ru thut t ɯ - ɤ t ɯ m mb t ɯ -rts ʰɤ s <*rts ʰɔ s) astu ɕ ku ʁ mqla t ɯ -rqo ɯ sp u3.40 u3.50 u4.03 285 u5.01 255 u3.44 u4.05 182 ta- ʁ r ɯ u3.45 27 rock kidneys u3.43 lungs u6.02 to go out go to hole sleevecave u4.01 fly straight u3.48 garlic u3.42 meaning Ref HTB Rgyalrong Burmese Tibetan Other Naxi Na Laze holdto u6.01 dry thousand u3.49swallow 294 throat u4.02 horn u4.04 to contaminateto u3.46 plantto u3.47 intestine u3.41 180 t ɯ -pu u² p ʰ o-ba Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 taC 1 1 1 1 1 1 *rtsU Proto-Naish Nka/aC ndaC laC k ʰ a/aC daC ndaC laC taC p ʰ aC ka/aC daC naC t ʰ aC d ɑ˥ k ʰɤ˥ l ɑ˧ t ɑ˥ k ʰɑ˧ i ˥ u ˥ d ɑ˩ d ɑ ˧˥ l ɑ ˧˥ t ɑ˥ ( ɖɯ˧ t ɑ˥ ) p ʰɑ˥ q ɑ˥ d ɑ˩ n ɑ ˧˥ t ʰɑ ˧˥ tsv ̩˧ MH# ( ɖɯ . ) L M LM ) M MH# MH# d ɑ ˧˥ d ɑ .k ʰɤ t ɑ l ɑ ˧˥ l ɑ .t ̩ q ʰɑ .kv ɑ ʁ u.d t ɑ ̩ pv q ɑ˩ d ɑ˩ n ɑ˩ t ʰɑ ˧˥ ɑ˥ nd ɑ˧ k ʰɤ˩ nd t ɑ˥ l ɑ˥ p ʰɑ˩ k ʰɯ˧ k ɑ˩ ʁɑ˧ ( ʁɑ . k ɑ˥ t ʰɑ˥ ʈʂʷɚ˧ ʈʂɻ Tangut <*C-r- ɣ ar kaC ʰ ar mp ŋgebs bkab ŋgebs raknakthak btags po nag qapar fkaβ ɲ a ʁ l ɤ t 2 and *aC and 1 C1.13 C1.02 Rhymes *aC Rhymes

25.

29 to coughto u6.03 meaning RefTable meaning HTB Rgyalrong Ref Burmese Tibetan HTB (a fell to Othertree) drum Naxi Rgyalrong Burmeseall C1.03 Tibetan Naslanted Other C1.04 muchhow C1.05 C1.06 Laze Naxi coverto weaveto C1.08 Nablack C1.09sharp hitto C1.10 Laze 318 C1.11wolf 317 C1.12 Proto-Naish ta ʁ 318– 319 in front ofin front C1.07 chest C1.01 24 Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 /saC 2 /laC /laC 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 aC kaC ndaC taC laC laC saC t ʰ aC taC haC daC laC ndaC ts ʰ aC saC laC laC N Sb saC ˥ ˩ du hæ ˧ tu ˧ vie ˧ lu l ɑ˩ p ʰ ie ˩ ˥ su t ʰ u ˥ ˧ ˧ bie tu ˧ hu ˥ g ɤ˧ du ts ʰ u ˥ ˩ su ˧ ɑ˥ p ɤ˥ lu ˥ lu u ˩ w ɤ˧ s ɑ˩ LM MH# M M ˩˧ ˩˧ so ˩ t ʰ o ˩ ˩ to to.to ˥ ho do ˩ lo ˩ do ˥ ts ʰ o ˧ so ˩ lo ˧˥ lo ˧ lo.i bu so ˧˥ ʰ w ɤ lo.q ˩ʂɤ˥ ndo ʂɤ .do so ˩ t ʰ o ˩ ˥ to ˧ ˩ to to do ˩ lo ˧ ˧ ndo ts ʰ o ˧ l ɑ˥ so ˩ lo ˧ ˩ko lo ˧ be ˧ ʁ u ˩ bu s ɑ˥ l ɑ˩ o ˧ lup waksak p ʰ ag srog lak lag ʁ mtsa ja ʁ 318– 319 pa ʁ 317 319 t ɯ -ja ʁ C2.01 C2.03 C2.01 28 meaning Ref beto HTBashamed tasty lean to Rgyalrong Burmeseagainst C2.02 slope Tibetan hugto Othergruel C2.04 C2.05 Naxi C2.06 Na Laze Proto-Naish to seeto valley C2.07 climbto C2.08 C2.09 to jumpto needle C2.10 studyto C2.11 workto C2.12 pig C2.13 342breath taqaβthick ap k ʰ ab vat, wooden vat, basin hand Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages 25 / 2 2 /aC 1 1 / l̥ aC 1 SnaC k ʰ aC k ʰɑ˩ h ɑ˩ l̥ aC q ʰ o ˧˥ hough the vowel correspondence remains to to remains correspondence vowel the hough 25–26), t 25–26),

˥ho ɬ o ˧˥ empting, but the vowels do not match, as Proto-Naish *lo would be expected. *lo would Proto-Naish as match, do not the vowels but empting, 495) is t 495) is

ossible but requires further research. requires but ossible and its Lolo-Burmese cognates (JAM). However, the Naish data do not allow to choose to allow not do data Naish the However, (JAM). cognates Lolo-Burmese its and phru² nak 317) is p 317) is

and other comparanda cited in Matisoff (2003: Matisoff in cited comparanda other and phri³ es Lahu and Pumi words that could be cognate to this root. to be could cognate that Pumi words es Lahu and 317 rna ʁ 69, ft.101) cit

rresponding Lolo-Burmese root means ‘recover from illness’ (JAM). illness’ from ‘recover means Lolo-Burmese root rresponding parison with Proto-Lolo-Burmese *laŋ (Matisoff 2003: (Matisoff *laŋ Proto-Lolo-Burmese with parison ibetan and Rgyalrong cognates actually mean ‘dhole (Cyon alpinus)’. (Cyon ‘dhole actually mean cognates Rgyalrong ibetan and urmese form means ‘to take out’. ‘to means urmese form form is probably related to Burmese to related probably is form lation with the forms cited in Matisoff (2003: in Matisoff cited the forms with lation suspect that the forms for in‘fly’ LazeandNaxi result a sporadicfromphenomenon in vowelright-to-leftharmony, disyllables (themore fre- other possible etymology for this etymon is Burmese is etymon this for etymology possible other ⁵/ “spindle” (JAM). Lahu /l ɔʔ ⁵/ “spindle” to related ausibly Pl The co The The T The A re We We This This An A com Matisoff (2003: Matisoff The B The

meaning Ref killto HTB21. Rgyalrong Burmese22. Tibetan Other Naxi Na Laze Proto-Naish be explained. 23. deep between these hypotheses. two 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. in Naxi. ‘kidneys’ likewise for harmony), vowel towards has it propensity the more a word, quent 29. 30.