Historical Linguistics

Home , Bernhard Karlgren, Classical Chinese, Grammata Serica Recensa, Long Ju, Middle Chinese, Old Chinese

NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

I. INTRODUCTION

The literature on Chinese historical linguistics is already very large, and indeed unti very recently at least, the history of the language and its writing system has been the major focus of attention for scholars writing on the Chinese language. These writings are now becoming more and more voluminous, and many of them deserve more than ever before to be characterized as having real linguistic value, in the modern sense of the term, whereas the earlier writings in this field pertain more to a traditional philological or sinological approach.1 The native Chinese tradition of phonological studies had, in particular, reached a high degree of sophistication during the Ch'ing dynasty. This discipline2 has in fact made a generally happy marriage with modern Western linguistics. In surveying the major developments from the time of the Second World War to the present, I shall attempt to cover the most important current trends in the fields of historical phonology, morphology and syntax in writings dealing with the history of the Chinese language only,3 excepting where I touch upon comparative linguistic studies which would relate Chinese to other linguistic groups. The many works of a purely philological or text-critical nature and those having to do with semantic problems are not dealt with here. Important and numerous as they are, historical studies of lexical items are not treated here unless they are significant in a broader way or deal with matters having some phonological, morphological, or syntactic import. Similarly, I have not attempted any coverage of the large and important 1 The most important studies of the past twenty-five years are listed alphabetically by author in the Selected Bibliography at the end of this chapter. All references by short title with date of publication appearing in the footnotes refer to this bibliography. All of the items in the Selected Biblio- graphy, and any other publications referred to in the text and footnotes, are also incorporated in the comprehensive Bibliography of Chinese Linguistics, Chapter 7. 2 Including yin-yiin-hsiieh, 'traditional phonology', ku-yin-hsiieh, 'studies of ancient sounds', teng-yiin-hsueh, 'study of the rhyme tables'. The very recent article by G. B. Downer, "Traditional Chinese phonology", Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 127-42 (1963), deals particularly with different systems of fan-ch'ieh spellings. 3 The content of this chapter departs in this respect from that of most of the articles in Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 1. No mention is made here of writings by Chinese linguists on general historical linguistics or on the historical linguistics of languages other than Chinese. Such writings form only a minuscule proportion of what Chinese linguists have written. 4 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN body of writings on paleography and epigraphy since this study is in itself not strictly relevant to a discussion of the language.4 It is natural that the modern linguistic approach to the study of Chinese should initially have come in the main through the work of Western scholars. The situation nowadays is different. Western linguistic techniques have been well assimilated by the best of the Chinese scholars, and this fact is in itself an instance of a very important trend in the Chinese linguistics of today. However, the contribution to Chinese linguistics by writers from Japan, Europe, and America is very notable indeed and this survey must give due weight to the large number of writings done by such foreign scholars.5 For many years the name of the eminent Swedish sinologist, Bernhard Karlgren, overshadowed all others in the field of Chinese historical linguistics. His influence was paramount in China as in the scholarly world at large, for it was chiefly through his writings that the techniques of Western historical linguistics (as developed to about 1920) were applied to the study of Chinese, and it was mainly the stimulus of his work that has led to the present great resurgence of interest and new developments in this field. The contributions of this one man have been enormous, and if some of his work now begins to be outdated, or is controverted in part by newer studies based on more modern approaches, one cannot fail to give him a large share of the credit for our present systematic knowledge of the older stages of Chinese; certainly it is chiefly through his writings that the Western scholarly world has been made aware of the fascinating and intricate problems in Chinese historical linguistics. Karlgren's work still stands as a generally firm foundation upon which new studies can be based. His notation for Ancient Chinese (600 A.D.) and Archaic Chinese (about 800 B.C.)6 is in common use, and he himself remains an extraordinarily productive scholar to this day. Starting from the early nineteen-forties, there has been a steadily increasing number of works whose authors have in one way or another taken issue with Karl- gren. He is no longer universally considered the absolute authority on historical phonology, but the swing away from him has been a gradual process involving not only the discovery and dissemination of new phonetic data, but also a strongly growing tendency to interpret the data within a phonemic frame of reference. While some scholars still follow Karlgren closely in his avowedly nonphonemic presentation of the Ancient Chinese forms, others would substitute new phonetic interpretations; yet others have worked along phonemic lines while generally accepting Karlgren's phonetic analysis. Most recently, there have appeared studies which would not only revise details of the phonetic data, but which would treat the new

4 References to recent works on philological or paleographic matters may be found in the general bibliographical references given at the beginning of Selected Bibliography at the end of this chapter. 5 The inclusion here of works by foreign authors is another departure from the procedure generally followed in Volume 1 of this series. 6 As registered for both periods in the standard reference work, Grammata Serica Recensa, Karl- gren, 1957. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 5 findings in terms of a phonemic systematization. All these newly developed approaches will be described in some detail below, but the point at issue here is that the focus has now largely shifted away from Karlgren, and the present trend is characterized by diversity and great vitality. It is a time when major breakthroughs can be expected; it is the beginning of a new era in Chinese linguistics. One can no longer speak of the 'Karlgren age' since this new period has many spokesmen. Evidence of the lively new spirit is reflected in the title of Paul B. Denlinger's eloquent and important article: 'Chinese historical linguistics: The road ahead'.7

2. GENERAL

Rather than following a strictly chronological order of presentation in recounting the developments of the past twenty-five years, it is more convenient to deal in sequence with the major topical fields, subdividing these where necessary according to the significant historical stages of the language. The major emphasis is on phonological research because of its primary importance and the large number of contributions on the subject. In dealing with Archaic Chinese, it will be more convenient to include studies on morphology with phonological work since morphological alternations have been important in contributing to the phonological analysis. New studies on syntax are mostly on the classical language, and will be discussed separately. In consonance with the principle that the further back we go in time the less data we have and that these data also become increasingly hard to interpret, this account will mostly be set down in an inverse chronological order of the historical periods. Dealing first with the more recent stages of the language is a procedure that emphasizes our dependence on knowledge of the data of one period for our generally, lesser knowledge of earlier periods. The methods of recovering information on the various older periods of Chinese are perforce very different from those used for languages that have old records in an alphabetic script. In order to make this matter clear to the non-specialist, I have found it necessary to go into considerable detail and at times to present the background of a problem in my own terms. I have tried to do this objectively, but may not always have been successful in repressing my personal views and preferences. Before treating the various subjects in detail, it may be helpful at this point to say a few words of a general nature, making some mention of the chief scholars and their particular specializations as well as listing the main works of a general nature that either cover the history of the language as a whole or that concern themselves with more than one of the major topics that we take up in more detail in subsequent sections. The three most famous linguists in China before 1939 were Chao Yuan-jen (Yuen-Ren Chao), Lo Ch'ang-p'ei, and Li Fang-Kuei, all members of Academia

7 Denlinger, 1961. 6 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

Sinica. Their influence on younger scholars through their writings and teaching has been very great. Among the latter, Wang Li, Chou Tsu-mo, Chou Fa-kao, and Tung T'ung-ho have with Chao, Lo, and Li all been leaders in Chinese linguistics. We must also add the name of Lu Chih-wei, who has contributed much of value in his linguistic studies. Chao has written very widely in linguistics. His most important article on historical phonology is "Distinctions within Ancient Chinese" ;8 but he has concentrated on descriptive studies of Chinese dialects and present-day Mandarin. Lo was the foremost scholar on historical phonology and also did some outstanding dialect studies where he combined the descriptive and historical aspects. Li has long specialized on the descriptive and comparative linguistics of Tai, and on American Indian linguistics as well. Wang Li and Lu Chih -wei have worked a great deal on phonological matters, but have both been very interested in syntax, not only of the ancient language, but also of modern Chinese. Chou Tsu-mo has worked on the ancient phonology and ancient dialects. Both Chou Fa-kao and Tung T'ung-ho have been prominent as phonologists. Chou Fa-kao has done work in all aspects of Chinese historical linguistics and Tung has worked also on dialects and synchronic linguistics. Of these men, Chao and Li have long taught in the United States, and after 1949, Tung and Chou Fa-Kao followed Academia Sinica to Taiwan. The other scholars mentioned above, and indeed the greater number of all linguists, remained on the Chinese Mainland. Although political developments caused this physical dispersion of many scholars, the new political situation does not seem to have had any very marked effect on the scholarly quality of Chinese linguistic work. Apart from Lo Ch'ang-p'ei who died in 1958 and Tung T'ung-ho who died in 1963, all these scholars are still producing work of the highest worth. I shall dispense here with mentioning the names of all the eminent foreign linguists and sinologists who, with Karlgren, have all so enriched the study of Chinese historical linguistics, and refer the reader instead to the Selected Biblio- graphy which appears at the end of this chapter. Two of the most distinguished, however, have so greatly influenced the development of Chinese linguistics that we cannot pass them by in silence: Henri Maspero who, with Karlgren, contributed more than any other Westerner to the reconstruction of the old language, and George A. Kennedy, who was interested in all aspects of Chinese linguistics. Maspero died in 1945 so he barely falls within the time limits of this survey. Kennedy died in 1960, but almost all of his work falls well within the dates with which we are concerned. General works on Chinese historical linguistics have been surprisingly few. The most complete coverage of the whole field is undoubtedly Wang Li's Han-yii Shih- kao [History of the Chinese language]9 where phonology, morphology and syntax are all described in an excellent comprehensive treatment. Another broad and detailed study, including only a brief sketch of the phonological system, is Chou

8 Chao, 1940. 9 Wang Li, 1957. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 7

Fa-kao's Chung-kuo Ku-tai Yii-fa [A Historical grammar of Ancient Chinese]10 where the coverage of the grammar under the volumes headed Morphology, Syntax, and Substitution is most thorough and exhaustive. W.A.C.H. Dobson in two ambitious works has given a meticulous analysis of the grammar of Classical Chinese of two periods: his Grammar of Late Archaic Chinese and Grammar of Early Archaic Chinese11 respectively. Since all the classics and other old Chinese books are always read with the modern pronunciation of the characters, Dobson follows a general practice in not devoting much attention to the phonology except where fusions or 'allegro forms' are involved. Two other books, both entitled The Chinese language, one by R. A. D. Forrest12 and the other by Karlgren,13 deserve some claim to the generality implicit in this title, but good as they are as introductions to the subject, they deal rather lightly with syntax. Both works are concerned mainly with phonology and problems of reconstruction. In addition, Forrest's book devotes a good many pages to the dialects and to questions of ultimate linguistic affiliation. Five important volumes of collected works have appeared within the last few years. They are, in order of publication: Chou Tsu-mo, Han-yii Yin-ytin Lun-wen-chi [Collected papers on Chinese phonology], (Shanghai, 1957); Han-yii-shih Lun-wen-chi [Collected works on the history of the Chinese language], by Wang Li, (Peking, 1958); Lo Ch,ang-p,ei Yti-yen-hsiieh Lun-wen Hsiian-chi [Selected works of Lo Ch'ang-p'ei on linguistics], The Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Linguistics and Philology, (Peking, 1963); Chou Fa-kao, Chung-kuo Yii-wen Lun-ts'ung [Collected articles on Chinese language], (Taipei, 1963); and Selected works of George A. Kennedy, edited by Tien-yi Li, (New Haven, 1964). All of these collections contain articles of the highest importance, many of which are now very hard to find in the original journals. Although most of the studies appearing in the volume devoted to Lo's works appeared initially before 1939, they include some of the most significant writings on Chinese phonology. The collection of Kennedy's articles ranges from phonology through morphology and syntax and all exhibit his customary brilliance and originality. Chinese linguists, in addition to publishing in academic journals such as the Yenching Journal of Chinese Studies, and others, frequently had their articles published in the Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Following the removal of Academia Sinica to Taiwan, new government-sponsored scholarly journals came into being. Three important new publications for historical linguistics are Yu-yen Yen-chiu [Linguistic research], Yu-yen-hsueh Lun-ts'ung [Collected articles on linguistics], and especially Chung-kuo Yii-wen [Chinese language and writing].1* The latter is the only regularly appearing periodical on linguistics. Its more recent issues over the last several years have been of high quality.

10 Chou Fa-kao; Parts 1, 2 and 3 appeared in 1961,1962 and 1959 respectively. 11 Dobson, 1959 and 1962. 12 Forrest, 1948. 13 Karlgren, 1949. 14 Usually spelled as Pinyin ' Yuyan Yanjiu', ' Yuyanxue Liutcong', and 'Zhongguo Yuwen' respectively. 8 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

3. PHONOLOGY

3.1 The Background of Ancient Chinese studies

The Chinese written language is well known to be morphemic in nature. The graphs with few exceptions stand for morphemes of one syllable each. Apart from the monosyllabic character of the graphs, they convey very little phonetic information when considered synchronically since even the preponderant type of Chinese character which includes recurrent partials as 'phonetic' components is based on the language of over two thousand years ago. Ancient texts are read with the modern pronunciation of the graphs, which of course varies according to dialect, and because of this, the reader is usually unconcerned with and indeed is quite unaware of the sounds of the ancient language. The reconstruction of the phonology of various periods could be accomplished by the usual techniques of comparative linguistics and internal reconstruction, using the modern dialect forms as a basis, yet this seem- ingly obvious procedure has never been completely and methodically carried out. (Chinese usage commonly has 'dialect' in a loose as well as in a more precise sense. Loosely used, it refers to regional speech which should properly be called 'language', such as Mandarin, Wu, Hakka, etc. Stricter usage refers to Mandarin dialects, the Peking dialect, etc. When old varieties of Chinese come into question, however, the data is often insufficient to determine whether it is language or merely dialect differences that are involved. Reconstruction from modern forms should proceed step by step from smaller to larger groupings with proto-Chinese as the ultimate construct). One reason is that well-based synchronic studies of the dialects have only very recently been attempted, but we can hope that soon there will be sufficient good data for this to be possible. However, the chief reason why reconstruction from the base of the living language has not been done is because we possess relatively complete data of an entirely different kind on a form of Chinese dating from 601 A.D. which is very strongly correctable with the modern dialects. This is what Karlgren calls Ancient Chinese and what has also been more appropriately named Middle Chinese by some authorities.15 It is the language of the Ch'ieh-yiin, T'ang-yiin, and Kuang-yun tradition where the words are arranged by tone and finals into a large number of 'rhyme categories'. Homophones are grouped together with a fan-ch'ieh spelling consisting of two characters: one character to represent the initial and the other to represent the final. These rhyme books do not in themselves separate out the initials from the finals, but there is a traditional list of initials belonging with the Chieh-yun tradition.16 By about the end of the T'ang dynasty or the beginning of Sung, we find the CKieh- yiin material appearing in the form of 'rhyme tables' listed now according to the initials and further specified into four 'divisions' according to the vowel quality of the rhyme and the presence or absence of a 'medial' element which may occur between

15 By French scholars generally, and recently by Pulleyblank. 16 Conveniently listed in Martin, 1953. pp. 13-4. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 9 the initial and the nuclear vowel of the final.17 This tradition includes the further specification of the finals as being unrounded or rounded (the latter having a medial of high back quality) and also as belonging either to an 'inner series' nei chuan or an 'outer series' wai chuan which further characterize the finals according to vowel quality; the former comprising in general the higher vowel qualities, and the latter including the lower vowel qualities.18 The CWieh-yiin tradition as embodied in the rhyme tables certainly represents a later stage, perhaps dating to about 1000 A.D., but most phonologists including Karlgren have not hesitated to take the rhyme table evidence into account when reconstructing the CKieh-yun Language.19 The foregoing summary of the rhyme books shows that although the Chinese authors of the rhyme books lacked a notation in terms of purely phonetic symbols, nevertheless there was a highly developed system of classification with a specialized terminology long before Karlgren and his predecessors undertook to interpret these rather formulaic cate- gorizations in terms of phonetic symbols. The assignment of phonetic values made use of data from the modern dialects, but was made primarily to fit the distinctions of the rhyme books. The reconstruction also gave great weight to the forms of Chinese loanwords in Sino-Japanese, Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese. Foreign borrowings and transliterations of Sanskrit Buddhist terms were also of great importance in reconstructing the phonetic values of the rhyme categories. The important point of all this discussion is not to belittle this impressive achievement but merely to emphasize once again that this reconstructed language is only indirectly and incompletely based on living language as exhibited in current dialect forms. The modern dialect forms used by Karlgren are usually the character readings as pronounced in the various dialects and in some cases these differ markedly from the genuine spoken forms.20 Karlgren believes that his Ancient Chinese is the genuine protolanguage from which all modern dialects are descended with the exception of the Min (Fukienese) dialects. Kennedy's contrary opinion is worth quoting: "It has to be recognized as a general weakness in Karlgren's evaluative work that it is so precariously based in modern dialects. The dialect glossary which forms Part IV of the Phonologie chinoise lists an impressive 26, of which, however, the first four are

17 See Martin, 1953, p. 24. 18 Lo Ch'ang-p'ei, p $$ Shih Nei Wai Chuan ["On the Meaning of nei and wai Groups"], CYYY 4.209-26 (1933), reprinted in Selected Works of Lo Ch'ang-p'ei on Linguistics, 1963, pp. 87- 103. Also see tables in Chao, 1940, pp. 232-3, and Martin, 1953, p. 38. 19 Karlgren, 1954, p. 217; Wang Li's chapter on rhyme tables, p. 121 of Han-yii Yin-yiin-hsueh, 1957. 20 See the forms registered in the list of dialect forms in Vol. IV of Études sur la phonologie chinoise (Leyde et Stockholm, 1915-26), and in Analytic dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese (Paris, 1923). Here are many cases where certain dialect forms with irregular correspondences to the Ancient Chinese forms are pointed out by Karlgren and many cases of divergence between literary readings and popular forms, especially in the Min dialects. Willem A. Grootaers has pointed out many cases where the popular words in Mandarin dialects differ from the standard reading pronunciation. See Grootaers, 1943, and his "Linguistic geography of the Hsiian-hua region, Chahar province", CYYY 29.59-86 (1957). 10 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN non-Chinese, and the last sixteen are Mandarin. The Wu dialects are given only one representative, Shanghai, ... there are questions concerning whole series of sounds. When the word for 'mountain' is archaic san, T sae, C san, but Mandarin shan, it is evidently showing a strong Mandarin bias to give shan for ancient Chinese. This bias may be there in the Kuang-yiin, which is after all the organized phonological system with which we have to work; and if two varieties of initial sibilant are shown in that system in minimal contrast, we are bound to distinguish them. But it will not seem very convincing to set up the formula for Tangsic as sae * < anc. shan < arch. san. At best, then, the current evaluation of ancient Chinese must be described for ancient northern Chinese, with another system for ancient southern Chinese, yet to be determined. Before assuming two separate systems, however, it is prudent and pertinent to inquire whether any modifications suggested by southern dialects can be made in the accepted sound-values for ancient Chinese without disturbing the phonological system shown in Kuang-yiin."21 Karlgren, moreover, asserts that Ancient Chinese is "essentially the dialect of Ch'ang-an in Shensi; during the lapse of the T'ang era it became a kind of Koiné, the language spoken by the educated circles in the leading cities and centres all over the country, except the coastal province of Fukien."22 In a footnote to this passage he adds: "It stands to reason that the lowest strata of the population in various provinces to a large extent preserved their vulgar dialects and that traces of these 'pre-T'ang' dialects are still discernible in various t'u-hua vernaculars." The equating of Ancient Chinese to any one dialect is very much a disputed matter. For instance, E. G. Pulleyblank in his important article "The consonantal system of Old Chinese"23 says "It may be that no one dialect in A.D. 600 retained all the distinctions made by the Ch'ieh-yiin but we may feel reasonably sure that all the distinctions were to be found currently in some variety of cultivated speech." In this he shows close agreement with Karlgren. Nonetheless, Pulleyblank positively rejects the assumption that Ancient Chinese was based on the dialect of Ch'ang-an. Rather he says that it reflects mainly the speech of educated people from the lower Yangtze region, and in this he is following Lo's observations that one particular Ch'ieh-yun contrast in finals was only observed in poetry by men from this very region.24 Perhaps this is not enough to prove the case for the lower Yangtze region, but Pulleyblank's next remarks are convincing in excluding the Ch'ang-an dialect as forming the basis of Ch'ieh-yun: "That the standard at the beginning of the seventh century was not that of Ch'ang-an is evident from the marked change in the system of transcribing Sanskrit sounds that

21 Kennedy, 1952, Item I, especially Lg. 28 pp. 459-60 (1952) or Selected works, pp. 188-9. T stands for Tangsic and C for Cantonese. 22 Karlgren, 1954, p. 212. 23 Pulleyblank, 1962-3. _ 24 Lo Ch'ang-p'ei ij] fj & M ft R PJf W it "Ch'ieh-yiin yii yii chih Yin-chih chi ch'i so Chti Fang-yin K'ao" ["On the values of the Ch'ieh-yiin rhymes yii and yii and the Ancient dialect on which their distinction was based"], CYYY2 (1931). Reprinted in Selections, pp. 1-21. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 11 becomes apparent from the end of the seventh century onward when the Ch'ang-an dialect did become the standard."25 The disagreement with Karlgren's views that bears the most weight is not so much the question of which one dialect forms the basis of Ancient Chinese but rather the belief that it was an artificial construct, a kind of 'overall system' based on many dialects. This is indicated very strongly by the preface of the Chieh-ytin itself26 and can be inferred from the complexity of the phonological system and the large number of multiple pronunciations that occur for some characters when there is no corresponding meaning difference. This view, shared by the majority of Chinese phonologists, is very well expressed in Samuel E. Martin's The phonemes of Ancient Chinese where he says that "Others feel the material to be more 'homogenized'—ec- lectic in nature, a sort of standardized national literary language normalized by the compilers."27 Denlinger, in "Chinese Historical Linguistics: The road ahead", shows how Wang Li regards the composition of the Ch'ieh-ytin: "The editors used synchronic distinctions to reveal diachronic patterns ... They would consult each other. Do you pronounce these characters alike or differently in your dialect? When they were different in any representative dialect, they made distinctions in 'Ancient Chinese'. When they found distinctions in ancient pronunciation, they would search until they found an equivalent distinction in a current dialect. Thus 'Ancient Chinese' had the maximum number of distinctions possible on the basis of the dialects con- sulted ... In other words, all the contemporary natural dialects were less complex than the imposed 'standard' language."28 As more work is done on the subject, it becomes increasingly clear that Ancient Chinese is not based on any one spoken dialect and may not even be strictly based on divergent dialect material of any one time.29 Poetic rhymes of the T'ang dynasty constantly violate the Ch'ieh-ytin 'rhyme' categories, pointing to a much simpler phonological system.30 Since the Ch'ieh-ytin is constituted on such a wide dialect base, it is not surprising that the modern dialects correlate as well as they do with its phonological system. Of course a good correlation also exists with Karlgren's Archaic Chinese since this is largely a backwards pro- jection of his Ancient Chinese reconstructions. Actually we can be confident of the validity of much of the Archaic Chinese reconstructions since these 'projections' so largely coincide with other phonological data which are deducible from synchronic materials. Thus the construct 'Ancient Chinese', notwithstanding its syncretic nature and certain artificialities, is indeed of very considerable value if one wishes to use it working either forward or backward in time. At any rate, Ancient Chinese is so very

25 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 64. 26 Martin, 1953, p. 4-5. See below, note 104 on Yen Chih-t'ui. 27 Martin, 1953, p. 4. 28 Denlinger, 1961, p. 5. 29 Martin, 1953, p. 18. 30 See Kennedy, 1954, especially Wennti 6.5-6 (1954) or 'Selections' p. 230, on t'ung-yung. The rhymes of many T'ang poets show an even greater latitude, going outside the t'ung-yung indications of the Kuang-yun. 12 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN firmly established in the Chinese phonological tradition that one can hardly operate without it. The danger that has always to be borne in mind is that in such a system there are irrelevancies and redundancies that may not be reflected in any modern dialect, and that above all may have no place in the reconstruction of earlier stages of the language. The chief point made by Denlinger in "Chinese historical linguistics: The road ahead" is that two kinds of phonological tradition have developed in China. The Ch 'ieh-yiin-Kuang-yun tradition described above is the prime example of the 'school of classical etymology', the standardizing tradition which Denlinger characterizes as appearing in times of strong, centralized governmental authority. In contrast with this is the 'vernacular rhyme school' which appears when the government is weak, as in the conquest dynasties. A well-known example of the latter type is the Yiian dynasty rhyme book Chung-ytian Yin-yun, dated 1324, in a form of Ancient Mandarin ancestral to the modern language of Peking. Whether one follows this hypothesis of a strong relationship between weak government and the appearance of vernacular rhyme books or not, there is no doubt that throughout Chinese history phonological works which closely reflect the living language do appear from time to time and can be of great help in establishing the value of sounds ancestral to those in modern dialects. We can hopefully look forward to a day when our reconstruction of a real proto-language on the basis of current and old dialect forms will enable us to separate out some of the dialect mixture in the Ch'ieh-yun tradition. The Ch'ieh-ytin tradition is so strong that many studies of a primarily descriptive nature have long sections relating the Ch'ieh-y iin-Kuang-y tin phonological system to the synchronic system of a modern dialect or group of dialects. One of the best of these is the detailed study of the dialects of Hupei done by Chao and others.31 Another interesting study is Egerod's "TheLungtu dialect"32 but here the colloquial Minlayer is so far removed from the Ancient Chinese system that the historical section mostly consists of special statements of the correspondences. There is also, happily, a tendency now to try to interpret Ancient Chinese in terms of modern dialect reflexes instead of the other way around, or to point out the necessity for a variety of old Chinese dialects. Excellent examples of the latter procedure are P. Demiéville's "Archaïsmes de prononciation en Chinois vulgaire",33 Kennedy's "The voiced gutturals of Tangsic"34 and his "Ancient -an -on and the J-bomb".3S Another example is Hashimoto Mantarô's article on the Bon-Shio dialect of Hainan.36 A recent dialect study that brings contemporary evidence to bear on an Ancient Chinese distinction

31 -It W iSi fR ^ Hu-pei Fang-yen Tiao-ch'a Pao-kao ["Report on a Survey of the Dialects of Hupei"], Special Publication of Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 2 Volumes (Shanghai, 1948). 32 Egerod, 1956. See also the review by R. A. Miller in J AO S 77.250-3 (1957). 33 Demiéville, 1950. 34 Kennedy, 1952, Item I. 35 Kennedy, 1955. 36 Hashimoto, 1960, second item. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 13 not hitherto attested in a living Chinese dialect is Chin Yu-ching's "Yi-wu-hua-li Hsien Shan Liang She San-ssu-teng tzu te Fen-pieh" ('A distinction in the two finals groups Hsien and Shan between Third and Fourth Division words in the speech of Yi-wu').37 Unrelated to historical reconstruction but of some interest is Wang Yu- te's study "The lexicostatistic estimation of the timedepths of the five main Chinese dialects".38 Comparing the forms of Peking, Suchow, Canton, Meihsien, and Amoy and using Swadesh's list and formula, there is a timedepth of about 1700 years between Peking and Amoy, the two most divergent linguistic types. Using another formula would carry this timedepth even further, to about 2450 years! At any rate, this kind of study serves the valuable purpose of underscoring the great differences among the dialects. Chinese is, in fact, far from being the monolithic entity implied by its name. It is from the point of view of the modern dialects alone, at least comparable in its complexity of membership and age to the Romance branch of the Indo-European family.

3.2 From Ancient Mandarin to Ancient Chinese

There have been several recent studies on Ancient Mandarin and on particular features of the linguistic history of Mandarin. The development of Ancient Chinese -p, -t, and -k was the object of a study by Forrest in 1950: "The Ju-Sheng tone in Pekingese".39 In 1962, HughM. Stimson wrote a brilliant article: "Ancient Chinese -p, -t, -k endings in the Peking dialect".40 It has always been difficult to account for the way the Ancient Entering Tone syllables were redistributed into the present four tone categories. Stimson has resolved most of the problem by setting up four ancestral 'strains', one of these is identified as the inherited strain and the others as borrowings, one of which can be labelled as 'literary'. Stimson is also the author of an excellent study "Phonology of the Chung-yuan Yin Yiin",41 the Ancient Mandarin rhyme book discussed above in connection with Denlinger's article. Stimson analyzes the material phonemically. It is based on his Ph. D. dissertation42 which in addition to the synchronic analysis, traces the relationship between this work and Ancient Chinese, on the one hand, and current Mandarin, on the other. Stimson's latest study, (which appeared while this chapter was in proof) is ''The Jongyuan In Yunn: a guide to Old Mandarin Pronunciation' (Far Eastern Publications, Sinological Series N.12, New Haven, 1966) which develops from his earlier researches and presents the whole work with his reconstructions for Ancient Chinese and Old Mandarin, with the modern

37 Chin, 1964. 38 Wang Yu-te, 1960. 39 Forrest, 1950. 40 Stimson, 1962, first item. 41 Stimson, 1962, second item. 42 The Chung Yuan Yin Yiin: A study in an early Mandarin phonological system Yale University Ph. D. Dissertation (1959). 14 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

Peking transcription and English glosses ; it will certainly prove to be a most useful research aid. Also for the Yuan period, we have M. A. K. Halliday's The language of the Chinese "Secret history of the Mongols"j43 an excellent description of this lengthy colloquial text. He concentrates on the grammar and lexicon, but includes a section dealing with transcription and Yiian phonology. One of the foreign writing systems widely used at this time for transcribing Mongolian and Chinese was the hPhags-pa script. In this script was written the Meng-ku Tzu-yiin in 1308 A.D. The phonological system of the Chinese revealed in this work is plainly conservative in comparison to that of the Chung-yiian Yin-yiin written only a very few years later, and is therefore assigned by Denlinger to the 'school of classical etymology'.44 Great interest has been shown in recent years in the writing systems of this period, as exemplified in Marian Lewicki's La langue mongole des transcriptions chinois du XIV siècle. Le Houa-yi yi-yu de 1389;45 Louis Ligeti's "Le Po kia sing en écriture 'phags-pa" j46 and in Pa-ssu-pa Tzu yii Yuan-tai Han-yii ['hP'ags-pa letters and Yuan Dynasty Chinese] co-authored by Lo Ch'ang- p'ei and Ts'ai Mei-piao.47 Lo has also dealt with this subject in a short article: "Lun Lung Kuo-fu te 'pa-ssu-pa Tzu ho Ku Kuan-hua' " [On Dragunov's "hP'ags-pa letters and Ancient Mandarin"].48 Spoken Chinese of the Yiian dynasty is also reflected in two Korean handbooks described by Yang Lien-sheng in his article "Lao Ch'i-ta P'u T'ung-shih li Yii-fa Yiï-hui" ["A study of the grammar and vocabulary as found in Lao Ch'i-ta and P'u T'ung-shih, two old Korean textbooks on colloquial Chin- ese"].49 Denlinger tells us that occasional differences in two spellings in Lao Ch'i-ta reflect colloquial versus standard pronunciations which are analogous to the differences between the phonology of Meng-ku Tzu-yiin and Chung-yuan Yin-yiin.™ When we go somewhat further back in time we find other valuable materials that throw light on early colloquial phonology. The P'ing-shui rhymes may be a case in point.51 Another very likely fruitful target for research would be the investigation of the heavy layer of old Northern Chinese elements in the Wu dialect of Hangchow, which was the capital of Southern Sung from 1127 A.D. The court had removed thither from the former capital, Kaifeng, after its fall to the barbarians in 1116, and one would therefore expect a large influence from the Kaifeng language.52 Chou Tsu-

43 Halliday, 1959. 44 Denlinger, 1961, p. 3. 45 Lewicki, 1949. 46 Ligeti, 1956. "Le po kia sing en écriture h'phags-pa", AO H 6.1-52 (1956). 47 Lo and Ts'ai, 1959. 48 Lo, 1959. 49 Yang Lien-sheng, 1957. 60 Denlinger, 1961, p. 4. 51 Denlinger, 1961, p. 6. The rhymes were reduced to 107 by application of the t'ung-yung principle. See also Wang Li, Vol. 1, p. 58 (1957). 62 Y. R. Chao, M ft ^ fg- W % "Hsien-tai Wu-ytt te Yen-chiu" ["Studies in the Modem Wu-Dialects"], Tsing Hua College Research Institute, Monograph No. 4 (Peking, 1928). See p. xiv of the English introduction. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 15 mo has written an interesting study entitled "Sung-tai Pien-Lo Yii-yin K'ao" ["An examination of the sounds of the Pien-Lo region in the Sung period"]53 based on Shao Yung's tables which represent colloquial Chinese of the Loyang area in the eleventh century. These tables, although somewhat reminiscent of the Sung rhyme tables of the Kuang-yiin tradition, nevertheless diverge so much in organization and terminology from the latter that we must infer from them a very different language indeed.54 For a yet earlier period, many of the colloquial writings discovered at Tun- huang have provided a rich source of information ; among them is the genre of popular songs, pien-wen, many of which are rhymed, dating from the last centuries of the T'ang dynasty. A succinct account of the phonology of these rhymes is given by P. Demiéville in a bibliographical abstract55 of an article by Sakai Kenichi: "Tonko hembun no ôinji ni mirareru oninjô no tokushoku" ("Phonological characteristics manifested in the Tun-huang Pien-wen"). Many of the Ch'ieh-yiin distinctions are not observed in this verse; final -p, -t, and -k, and final -m, -n, and -ng are indiscriminately rhymed, and sometimes syllables with the final stops even rhyme with those that have final nasals. Comparative tables in Sakai's article show a very considerable measure of similarity between the rhymes of the pien-wen and those of the Chung-yiian Yin- yiin, which is certainly unexpected for such an early period. How much of this to attribute to a difference of dialect is uncertain, but Lo had long ago demonstrated that the T'ang dialects of Northwestern China, recoverable in large part from Tun- huang materials and including much data from Tibetan transliterations of Chinese and Chinese renderings of Tibetan, did indeed differ very much from the Ch'ieh-yiin phonology and already showed marked characteristics of the present dialects of this region.56 Recently, Lo's materials have been ably supplemented by the work of Barna Csongor in his articles : "Chinese in the Uighur script of the T'ang-period",57 "Some more Chinese Glosses in Uighur script",58 and "Some Chinese texts in Tibetan script from Tun-Huang".59 Forrest, in The Chinese language, gives a good general account of dialect variations in Ancient Chinese times. These are often relevant to the systematic phonology of the large number of loanwords from Chinese in Japanese, Korean, and Vietna- mese. Only the latter of these three borrowing languages is itself a tone language, and in tones, as in consonants and vowels, the correspondences show great regul- arity. The layer of loanwords in Japanese known as Kan-on is in its phonology close

63 Reprinted in Chou Tsu-mo, 1957 p. 189-235. 541 am grateful for Prof. E. G. Pulleyblank's interesting observations on Shao Yung's phonological tables, made in his Seminar on Chinese Phonology during the 1964 summer session of the Linguistic Institute, Linguistic Society of America, at Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 55 Item 544, p. 265 of Revue Bibliographique de Sinologie, No. 4: année 1958 (Paris—La Haye, 1964). See Sakai, 1958. 56 Lo Ch'ang-p'ei, Jf 3l fô ÏÎMt if- T'ang Wu-tai Hsi-pei Fang-yin [The Northwestern dialects of Tarng and Five Dynasties], CYYY Monograph A 12 (1933). 57 Csongor, 1952. 58 Csongor, 1954. 69 Csongor, 1960. 16 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN to the standard Northern tradition, and in one feature, the representation of CKieh- yün nasal initials, it is especially close to the language of Ch'ang-an and other North- western dialects in the eighth century. Sanskrit borrowings from the eighth century tell us that CKieh-yün m-, for instance, was a homorganic nasal stop [mb-] except in syllables with nasal finals when it was [m-]. In Kan-on the reflex is b-. In the Go-on layer of borrowings, which are of more popular origin, and were borrowed somewhat earlier from various of the Wu dialects, the reflex of CKieh-yün m- was m- rather than b-. The standard language of today and most of the dialects also have kept the value m- in such items, as have Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese.60 In Southern Min reflexes of ancient nasals have an allophonic distribution resembling that of Ch'ang- an, but it is not at all likely that there is any close ancestral relationship here. Forrest is wrong when he ascribes the Ch'ang-an type of dialect as the ancestor for the learned level in Min (his T'ang-min) since the ancient nasals have the same reflexes in both the colloquial and learned layers.61 In 1957 Günther Wenck published Die Phonetik des Sinojapanischen, Volume 3 of his thorough and careful study1 Japanische Phonetik.'.62 The whole work has been reviewed by Martin; of particular interest are Martin's pointed remarks on the problem of loanwords in Japanese.63 Turning now to Sino-Vietnamese, Wang Li in 1949 completed a very interesting study entitled "Han-Yüeh-yü Yen-chiu" ["A study of Sino-Vietnamese"] which appears in his "Collected works on the history of the Chinese language. There seems to have been little new work done on Sino-Korean, but just received is "Ch'ao- Hsien-yü chung te HanTzu-Tz'u" ["Chinese words in Korean"] by Ch'en Chih-fan,65 which includes tables of the initial and final correspondences of Korean forms with Ancient Chinese categories. However, by far the best and most complete account of Sino-Korean (which appeared while this chapter was in proof) is Konö Rokuro's 'Chosen kanji-on no genkyü' ('A study on Sino-Korean') which appeared in four parts in Chosen Gakuhö; Part I: 31.1-47 (1964), Part II: 32.48-115 (1964), Part III: 33.116-161, and Part IV: 35.162-208 (1965). (Refer here to footnote 87 and accompanying text.) Before leaving the subject of the evidence of modern forms, native and foreign, as it may be applied to Ancient Chinese, I would like to add that we can expect much more of similar data as more good descriptive work is done. Even so, however, some dialect data such as the Fukienese forms of Chinese, cannot be matched except in part with the CKieh-yün categories. They point, rather, to a proto- language of considerably greater antiquity. Another such case seems to be the position of the Hsiang dialects of Hunan which in their great divergence in phonology 60 Forrest, 1948, p. 158-68. See "Ancient Chinese and Sino-Japanese" in Karlgren's original Grammata Serica BMFEA 12.65-89 (1940), which deals very capably with both Kan-on and Go-on. 61 Bodman, Spoken Amoy Hokkien, on the initial phonemes, pp. 182-4. Published by the Govern- ment Federation of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Vol. 1 (1955); Vol. 2 (1958). 62 Wenck, 1957. 63 Martin, 1959 review of Wenck, especially p. 37. 84 Wang Li, 1958, p. 290-406. 65 Ch'en Chih-fan, 1964. The othe works referred to in this article have not been available to me. See also Kono, 1939, and Martin, 1953, p. 30 for Kono, 1951. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 17 from Ancient Chinese are of exceeding interest. An excellent description of the Shuang-feng dialect appears in Han-yii Fang-yen Kai-yao by Yuan Chia-hua (and others) where it is accompanied by rather full remarks on the historical correlations.66

3.3 Studies on the CH'IEH-YUN System

Karlgren had completed his work on the phonology of Ancient Chinese and Archaic Chinese as well by the time of the publication of his well-known and extremely useful Grammata Serica. Script and phonetics in Chinese and Sino-Japanese*1 in 1940. This book is the standard reference for his reconstructions of both periods. In 1954 he issued his Compendium of phonetics in Ancient and Archaic Chinese,68 which is the most convenient exposition of the methods by which he arrived at his reconstructions. The system he established earlier has hardly changed an iota, but there is occasional reference to the contrary views put forward by other scholars. In 1957 Grammata Serica Recensa appeared, an improvement over the former version in that the tones of items in Ancient Chinese were included and the definitions refined by philological work he had done in the interim.69 The first major work criticizing Karlgren's Ancient Chinese reconstructions and suggesting important refinements in his system was Chao's "Distinctions within Ancient Chinese",70 an article which is one of the classics of the literature. Chao dealt with the data as a system and discussed such important points as the nondistinctiveness of Karlgren's k- and kj- initials, and the lack of distinction after labials of k'ai k'ou or ho k'ou (absence or presence of a -w- or -u- medial); he gave an explanation in phonetic terms between 'pure' type IV finals (such as Karlgren's -ien) and the mixed finals of type III/IV (Karl- gren's -iari), and took up the problem of the minimal contrast in a small number of words between forms like ia and ta with type II finals and ti and ti with type III and type IV finals which are almost in complementary distribution. Chao suggested improvements in the vocalism of certain finals, i.e. kisi for kjei, and he went deeply into the conditions under which initial labial stops and the nasal became dentila- bialized (resulting in Mandarin /- and w-), greatly contributing to the ultimate solu- tion of this problem. Chao put the contrasts and distinctions into clear perspective: his approach was phonemic but he introduced no resymbolization. Years later, Martin did just this, basing himself on Karlgren's reconstructions as modified by Chao. His

66 Yuan Chia-hua and others fX. fg" 77 H Wt 1c Han-yii Fang-yen Kai-yao (Peking, 1960). See especially the introduction to the Hsiang dialects on p. 103, and the sections on historical correlations of the Shuang-feng dialect, pp. 117-22. 67 Karlgren, 1940. Also see the review of this: Chao, 1941. 68 Karlgren, 1954. 69 Karlgren, 1957, and his "Glosses on the Kuo feng Odes", BMFEA 14.71-247 (1942); "Glosses on the Siao ya Odes", BMFEA 16.25-169 (1944); "Glosses on the Ta ya and Sung Odes", BMFEA 18.1-198 (1946); "Glosses on the Book of Documents", BMFEA 20.39-315 (1948) and "Glosses on the Book of Documents II", BMFEA 21.63-206 (1949). 70 Chao, 1940. 18 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN monograph "The phonemes of Ancient Chinese" is the first thoroughgoing attempt to analyze Ancient Chinese in terms of modern phonemic concepts. Martin represents Karlgren's contrast of voiceless and voiced aspirate initials as one of voiceless and voiced aspiration, thus /th/ rather than d(. He vastly simplifies the vowel system in an analysis reminiscent of Hartman's for Mandarin,71 setting up two medials /i/ and /uI and six nuclear vowels, one of which /*/ is a high vowel with both front and back allophones.72 Egerod's review of Martin73 brings up many interesting points with some suggestions of his own, especially regarding the nature of the so-called 'primed finals'. Despite differences in matters of interpretation, the system of Karl- gren, Chao, Martin, and Egerod are all based on a largely identical understanding of the Ch'ieh-yiin data. Those to be described below are in a very important feature different, because their systems all take account of a distinction that was ignored by Karlgren, although Chao was aware of it as a problem. A new trend in Ch'ieh-yiin studies was ushered in with the appearance of Paul Nagel's 'Beiträge zur Rekonstruktion der Ii Ts'ieh-Yün-Sprache auf Grund von w. Ü Ch'en Li's tj] fj ¿5 Ts'ieh-Yün-K'au' in 1941 ;74 although it was to be several years before Chinese linguists working along much the same lines took note of Nagel's work. Nagel largely followed the methods of Ch'en Li, a nineteenth century Cantonese scholar, in arriving at a large number of distinctions in both initials and finals purely from the evidence of the linkage into 'chains' of the initial and final fan-ch'ieh spellers instead of taking for granted the number of initials as given in the later rhyme tables, and even increasing the number of rhymes over those set out in the Ch'ieh-yiin. Lu Chih-wei followed a similar procedure in his "Shih-ni Ch'ieh-yün Sheng-mu chih Yin-chih ping Lun T'ang-tai Ch'ang-an chih Sheng-mu" ["A new attempt to reconstruct the initials of the Ch'ieh-yiin with notes on the initials of the Ch'ang-an dialect of the T'ang dynasty"] which came out in 1940.75 Of greater importance was Nagel's discovery of a strong correlation between the ch'ung-niu (fan-ch'ieh doublets) and their reflexes in Sino-Vietnamese (with weaker traces of the distinction elsewhere). The ch'ung-niu phenomenon refers to the different placement in the rhyme tables of certain Ch'ieh-yiin finals with phonetically front nuclear vowels after velar and labial initials only. As an example, Ch'ieh-yiin words, which Karlgren reconstructs as kiän or piän all belonging to the rhyme -iän, sometimes appear in the rhyme tables under Division III, sometimes under Division IV. In Sino-Vietnamese, the reflexes of the Division III items with labial initials also show labials, but those placed in Division IV have palatal initials. Sino-Korean shows a different treatment of words with velar initials depending on their rhyme table placement. This same discovery also led to a

71 Hartman, L. M., "The segmental phonemes of the Peiping dialect", Lg. 20.28-42 (1944). 73 Martin, 1953, p. 31. 73 Egerod, 1955. 74 Nagel, 1941. 75 Lu, 1940. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 19 re-examination of the conditions for dentilabialization in the Chinese dialects. For example, Chao had separated Karlgren's -iau final into two: iau and jew.76 Den- tilabialization occurs with the first final but not with the second. The second final occurs only with velar and labial initials, and in the rhyme tables this second final is always placed under Division IV, while the first final, which is distributed after all types of initial classes is always placed under Division III. The recognition of the validity of the ch'ung-niu distinctions was a great advance in Ch'ieh-yiin studies and resulted in a reconsideration of the phonetic values of the vowels and the general phonological system of Ancient Chinese as a whole. Using this new data, Nagel made several changes in Karlgren's vowel reconstructions, assigning front values to the nuclear vowels placed in Division IV and more back values for those placed in Division III. He carried back the distinctions into new reconstructions for Archaic Chinese as well. In many cases his reconstructed values for the earlier period agreed closely with those Karlgren had reconstructed on the basis of quite different evidence. Unaware of Nagel's work, Chou Fa-kao in 1948 published "Kuang-yiin Ch'ung niu te Yen-chiu" ["Studies on the fan-ts'ie doublets in Kuang-yiin"],77 and Tung published "Kuang-yiin Ch'ung-niu Shih-shih" ["A preliminary study of the fan-ts'ie doublets in the Kuang-yiin"],78 both scholars drawing conclusions very similar to those of Nagel. In the same year Chou also published "Ku-yin chung te San-teng Yiin chien Lun Ku-yin te Hsieh-fa" ["On the finals with medial i in Ancient Chinese"]79 when he first became aware of Nagel's article, and presented a system of transcription somewhat different from Nagel's. In 1954 Chou presented a revised system of transcription based on phonemic principles in his "Lun Ku-tai Han-hua te Yin-wei" ["A study of the phonemes of Ancient Chinese"]80 which was largely stimulated by the appearance the previous year of Martin's The phonemes of Ancient Chinese. He naturally took issue with Martin on his not having used the ch'ung-niu data nor having fully determined the conditions for dentilabialization. Chou's analysis makes further changes in Karlgren's reconstructions beyond those depending on the ch'ung-niu phenomenon. Chou's article can be considered the logical endpoint of the studies done by Nagel, Tung, and himself which make use of more knowledge of the Chieh-yun distinctions and which culminate in a phonemic analysis based on the fuller data. This sequence of works also owes much to the keen observations expressed in Chao's article and Martin's application of the phonemic principle. Lu Chih-wei in his phonological studies has pursued a very independent path that has led him into devising his own formulations that are often strikingly at variance

76 Chao, 1940, p. 225. Since these two finals constitute separate rhymes they are not technically 'doublets', although they can be regarded as having a parallel type of contrast in the medials. " Chou, 1948. This and the following article originally appeared in 1945 in a mimeographed volume Liu T'ung Pieh Lu, Lichuang. 78 Tung, 1948. See footnote 77. 79 Chou, 1949. 80 Chou, 1954. 20 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN with those of more conservative scholars. As early as 1939 in "San-ssu Teng yii So-wei Yti-hua" ["Third and fourth classes of initials and yodization"]81 he put forward a new hypothesis that handled the ch'ung-niu data quite differently from the way mentioned above. First he followed Maspero in setting up all the 'pure' Division IV rhymes with a nuclear vowel of low front quality (-en for Karlgren's -ien, etc.), assuming that only later was this diphthongized so as to fall together with Karlgren's type ian when occurring with Division IV items. He then posited a difference in the medial of Division III and IV items, a short lax glide -i- for Division III and a high front value for Division IV: the contrasts were represented then as -ien and -ien respectively (for which Karlgren had -ian with no distinction in medial). This view, and variations upon it, has gradually come to prevail among most linguists who concern themselves with the problem. Since there was no rhyme distinction for such items in the Ch'ieh- yiin, it is more satisfying to ascribe the contrast to a difference in the medial. Any differences in vowel quality in the two environments can then be considered as allophonic and it allows for the possibility of a lesser number of vowel phonemes. Lu's 'Ku-yin Shuo-liieh' (' The phonology of Ancient Chinese')82 completes his analysis of the Ch'ieh-yiin language which he uses as a basis for his reconstruction of Old Chinese which is also dealt with at length in this monograph. In 1948 another article, Wang Ching-ju's 'Lun Ku Han-yii chih O-chieh-yun' ('The medial i in Ancient Chinese)',83 deals with the same problem in connection with the Sino-Vietnamese evidence and comes to conclusions very similar to those of Lu, bringing into consideration also the distribution of initial classes with these medials. The most complete recent study devoted entirely to the Ch'ieh-yiin is Li Jung's 'Ch'ieh-yiin Yin-hsi' {'The phonological system of the Ch'ieh-yiin') which appeared in 1952.84 Instead of Karlgren's ian, he writes ian and jdn for the distinctions in Divisions III and IV, ascribing the difference to the medial. In his exposition he follows the work of Karlgren and Chao in detail, but his reconstructions differ in several points. For instance, where Karlgren and others have -au he posits -u on the basis of Chinese transcriptions of Sanskrit, although the modern Chinese dialects all have diphthongs as reflexes of this final. It seems more reasonable to posit a value to account primarily for the present Chinese sounds and assume that -au was the closest thing in the Chinese system of finals at this time to Sanskrit u. We turn now to consider some of the Japanese contributions which have been of importance in the study of Ancient Chinese. Kono Rokuro deals with the problem of the medials in 'Chosen Kanjion no Ichi Tokushitsu' ('A characteristic of the phonology of Sino-Korean words').85 In 1962 he made an English translation with notes of his own of Arisaka Hideyo's 'Karlgren-shi no Yoonsetsu o Hyosu' ('A

81 Lu, 1939. 82 Lu, 1947. 83 Wang Ching-ju, 1948. 84 Li Jung, 1952. 85 Kono, 1939. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 21 critical study on Karlgren's medial i theory') which had originally appeared in Arisaka's book of collected works 'Kokugo On'inshi no Kenkyu' ('Studies on the phonetic history of Japanese)'.86 Arisaka's view is that the Division IV medial was i, and the medial of Division III was the retracted and centralized i. (Kono has an interesting note on Sino-Korean here. He regards it as containing several strata, but reflecting mostly the kind of old Northern Chinese of T'ang time observable in the phonological system of Hui-lin's 'I-chieh Ching Yin-i'.81 Mineya Toru in 'Inkyo no Sanshito ni tsuite' ('On Division III and IV of the Yun-ching'), rather than ascribing the distinction to the medials, interprets the doublets as having different initial phonemes: ki- for Division III and kji- for Division IV.88 In "Chuko Kango no inbo no taikei"89 ["An attempt to interpret the Ts'ie-yiin finals"], a phonemic study, he sets up five nuclear vowels, the semivowels /i/ and /u/, and treats the 'pure' Division IV words identically with Karlgren, i.e. /-ien/; for Karlgren's -ung and -uong he has /AUT)/ and /ocui]/ which enables him to treat the problematical Division II rhyme as Iauq/. (Forrest had earlier arrived at a similar explanation for the Division II rhyme only.)90 In 1960, Mizutani Shinjo in "Bongo no 'sorisha' boin o arawasu Kanji" ["The Chinese characters representing the Sanskrit retroflex vowels"],91 in connection with the view that Sanskrit vowels in the neighborhood of retroflex consonants were phonetically retroflexed, points out that for a-colored Sanskrit vowels with retroflexion the Chinese representations have Division II finals, and that for a Sanskrit retroflexed i, Chinese has Division III (with Division IV for nonretroflexed /). A bold but intriguing inference from this data would suggest that the Division II vowel quality differed from Division I by the added feature of retroflexion and that Division III differed from Division IV in the same respect. This is an explanation that would apply after all types of initial classes and could explain Karlgren's t and ts type initials as the retroflex allophones of dental initials of type t- and ts- which in the rhyme tables occur only as Division I and Division IV. This explanation could not account for the rare contrasts like Chao's ta and ta with Division II vocalism, but these might, as Martin suggests, be assigned to "some coexistent or subsidiary phonemic system".92 Lo and Martin had previously assigned the feature ofretroflexion occurring with Division II and Division III finals to the initials.93 Referring it to the medial could at the same time assign the a-type vocalism in Division II as an allophone of the Division I vowel /a/ (and perhaps to /a/ as well to account for the

86 Arisaka Hideyo, jig- ^g- fj <7) ffi % Kokugo On'inshi no Kenkyu (Tokyo, 1944). New edition, 1957. 87 Arisaka, 1962, Kono's note on p. 74. On Hui-lin see Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 70 under 1. 88 Mineya, 1953. 89 Mineya, 1956. 80 Forrest, 1948, p. 154. 91 Mizutani, 1960. 92 Martin, 1953, p. 15, including his footnote 24. 93 Lo Ch'ang-p'ei, 1® igf {it % "Chih Ch'e Ch'eng Niang Yin-chih K'ao", CYYY 3.121-57 (1931). Reprinted in Selections, pp. 22-53. Martin, 1953, table on p. 16. Karlgren, 1954, refers to the matter on p. 226, and Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 69, under 9. 22 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

Ch'ieh-yUn contrast of an and an as /an/ and /an/) after all types of initials and reduce the number of initial classes by eliminating the two retroflex series before Division II and Division III finals. Mizutani himself does not draw quite the same sweeping conclusions from the data. Only two of the Chinese Division II finals regularly transcribe Sanskrit e and a in the neighborhood of retroflex consonants; these are the Ch'ieh-yUn -it and rhymes, (Karlgren-Chao ai and az"). This is not surprising considering that Sanskrit syllables are preponderantly of the CV (consonant-vowel) formula, so we should not expect the Chinese Division II rhymes with consonantal finals (such as -an, -at, etc.,) to appear often in these transcriptions. It is, however, odd that the Division II Jft rhyme, (Karlgren's -a), as well as the Division I gf rhyme, (Karlgren's -a) should both be used in apparently random fashion for Sanskrit non- retroflex a, and that the Chinese Division II -a does not represent Sanskrit a in its retroflex allophone. Perhaps the retroflex feature of Division II finals was once more general, originally characterizing all such finals, or alternatively, there are other sources, not involving retroflection, for some of the Division II finals. (See footnote 166 and the accompanying discussion in this text). Another very stimulating article which has the merit of discussing the problem within the context of the Ch'ieh-yUn phonology as a whole, and relating the question of retroflex initials to actual forms in modern dialects, is G. B. Downer's 'A problem in Chiehyunn Chinese'.94 He suggests that the mixed Division II and III rhymes like -kng and -ivng after the retroflex sibilants were not distinguished by 'medial yod', there being no contrast of Karlgren's types svng and sivng, and that furthermore Karlgren's Divi- sion III type rhymes like siang could be reanalyzed as sang. The latest work dealing at length with Chinese phonology is E. G. Pulleyblank's "The consonantal system of Old Chinese".95 His term 'Old Chinese' is equivalent to Karlgren's 'Archaic Chinese', but the early pages of Pulleyblank's study deal exclusively with the Ch'ieh- yUn language and set the stage for his researches into the language of the older period. Although he has drawn widely from the work of other scholars, his system, he says, "as a whole is new" and it is presented as a 'system'. His presentation is very useful, apart from his own contributions, as a study of the work already done on 'Middle Chinese'. Individual points are perhaps contestable, but Karlgren's summary dis- missal96 of Pulleyblank's analysis is unjustifiably severe. It would take too much space to discuss all of Pulleyblank's reconstructions for this period in detail, but two of his views on the initials deserve mention. Transcriptional evidence suggests to him that Karlgren's two initials z and dz" should be revised to /j/, an affricate, and /z/, a spirant, (which reverses Karlgren's values.) The two initials are differentiated in the Ch'ieh-yUn system, but since other old rhyme books frequently confuse them, and since the reflexes of both initials are the same in all modern dialects, there is considerable doubt that such a distinction existed phonemically in any one old

94 Downer, 1957. 96 Pulleyblank, 1962-3. 96 Karlgren, 1963, p. 19. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 23 dialect.97 Lu and A. G. Haudricourt also have interesting observations on these Ch'ieh-yiin initials.98 There have been a number of general articles recently on the nature of the Ch'ieh- ytin. Chou Tsu-mo has written "Ch'ieh-yiin te Hsing-chih ho t'a te Yin-hsi Chi-ch'u" ["The nature of the Ch'ieh-yiin and its phonological basis"].99 He concludes that it represents a sixth century language, preponderantly based on Northern dialects. Sakai Kenichi, in a review article, 'Saikin no Kango On'in Kenkyu—Setsuin no Kiso Onkei ni kansuru Ronsô" ["Recent studies in Chinese phonology—arguments over the basic phonological system of Ch'ieh-yiin"],100 discusses a number of works on the subject. Wang Lien-tseng writes on the textual history of the Ch'ieh-yiin and its successor rhyme books, pointing out differences in the number and order of rhymes, in the fan-ch'ieh spellings, and in the number of characters included in various versions, fragmentary and otherwise. The variant fan-ch'ieh spellings are sometimes of phonological importance but are more often mutually equivalent. This article, "Un dictionnaire phonologique des T'ang: le Ts'ie yun corrigé et complété de Wang Jen-hiu",101 stresses text-critical and line-of-descent problems, and as such is very useful. In closing this section on the phonology of the Ch'ieh-yiin, it is pertinent to refer once again to Denlinger's "Chinese historical linguistics : The road ahead". He says: "Not much more in the way of refinement or correction can be done with 'Ancient Chinese' as a system".102 While it is certainly true that the points of contrast in the system are well understood, it does not seem possible that the last word has already been said when one reflects upon all the possible phonetic and phonemic interpretations that various scholars have put forward for the CONTENT of these contrastive points. But there can hardly be any doubt that the work of recent years has greatly advanced our knowledge.

3.4. Phonology of the Period between Ancient Chinese and Archaic Chinese

Karlgren's Archaic Chinese roughly covers the period from 800 B.C. until the beginning of the Han Dynasty in 206 B.C. Between the latter date and Ancient Chinese of 601 A.D. is a long stretch of over 800 years upon which too little work has been done, yet it is a period of vital importance for the history of the language with a rich body of data to be investigated. To be sure, this material lacks the formal organiza-

97 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 67-9. 98 Lu, 1947, p. 20 and Haudricourt, 1954, p. 355-6. 99 Chou Tsu-mo, 1963. 100 Sakai, 1963. 101 Wang Lien-tseng, 1957. 102 Denlinger, 1961, p. 2. 24 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN tion of the Ch'ieh-yiin tradition: except for the Yii-P'ien103 there are no extant rhyme books for this period and the kind of phonological remarks that crop up in commentaries are often very difficult to interpret. Chou Tsu-mo gives his own explanations of some of these in his "Yen Shih Chia Hsiin Yin-Tz'u P'ien Chu-pu" ["Annota- tions to the chapter on sounds and words of Mr. Yen's 'Family instructions'"].104 Yen Chih-t'ui, who was a consultant to the compilers of the Ch'ieh-yiin, makes many observations in Chia Hsiin on current dialect differences between North and South and frequently discusses the references to pronunciation made by the ancients in commenting upon the Classics. For the latter part of this period, we still have fan- ch'ieh spellings, but these are usually incorporated in commentaries of a later date. The early fan-ch'ieh need to be studied as individual systems since we cannot expect that the Ch'ieh-ytin principles will all hold for the earlier periods. Fan-ch'ieh spellings are first noted in the late Han period (which ended in 221 A.D.) and were soon widely used.105 Their use to indicate pronunciation of rare characters or special readings of characters of course preceded their systematic use in rhyme books. In the second and third centuries A.D. before the invention of fan-ch'ieh some authors indicated pronunciation by yin-hsiin, 'sound glosses'. One word was glossed in terms of another with identical or similar sound, often with only the most tenuous semantic connection. This principle is best illustrated in Liu Hsi's Shih Ming which I described in A linguistic study of the Shih Ming, initials and consonant clusters.106 It is possible to recover many of the features of the phonology of the paired words: one such is the continued existence at the end of the third century A.D. of certain consonant clusters which are known to have been characteristic of the Pre-Han phonology. In Hsu Shen's Shuo-wen Chieh-tzu of 121 A.D., there is occasional phonetic information over and above that supplied in the analysis of the graphic components of the characters, where one word is said to be 'read like' another word.107 Lu has described

103 See Martin, 1953, p. 1. Karlgren relied to some extent in reconstructing Ancient Chinese also on the fan-ch'ieh of Lu Te-ming in Ching Tien Shih Wen, see p. 8 of the introduction to Grammata Serica (1940), and points out certain differences in Lu's fan-ch'ieh system. Lo used evidence from Ching Tien Shih Wen and Yii P'ien in setting up the early value yi- for Karlgren's ji- initial. See Lo'spaper"^ J| # £ " # fcty + ¡^J K ^ S U " 'Ching Tien Shih Wen' he Yuan Pen 'Yu P'ien' Fan Ch'ieh chung te Hsia Yii Liang Niu" ["The two initials hsia and yii in the fan-ch'ieh of 'Ching Tien Shih Wen' and the original version of 'Yu P'ien'"], CYYY 8 (1937) and reprinted in Selections, p. 117-21. He also deals with the same problem in Lo, 1951. My lecture notes from a course taken with Lo in 1946 at Yale record Lo's opinion that Yii P'ien represented the Wu dialect pronunciation. 104 Chou Tsu-mo, 1943, reprinted 1957, pp. 75-89. Chou Fa-kao has recently published a fully annotated edition: Yen Shih Chia Hsiin Hui Chu, CYYY Special Publication 41 (Taipei, 1960). See especially pp. 118-26. 106 Wang Li, 1935, 1956 reprint pp. 108-9 and footnotes 2, 3 and 4, p. 112. Li Fang-Kuei, in his review of Serruys, 1959, says of the fan-ch'ieh in Fang Yen: "The fan-ch'ieh, generally attributed to Kuo P'u, the first commentator on the Fang-yen, were added three centuries later than the book itself and have not been seriously studied or evaluated". JAOS 79.309 (1959). 106 Bodman, 1954. See especially pp. 1-2 and 6-10. 107 Martin, 1953, p. 1. Martin's transliteration should read tu-ju, but this is equivalent to the more common tu-jd, as in the title of the following study by Lu. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 25 this in "Shuo-Wen Chieh-Tzu Tu-jo Yin-ting" ["A phonographical study of the Tu-jo notations in the Shuo-Wen"].108 The type of character known as the phonetic compound originated long before Hsu's time, and had gradually become the most common type by then. In Shuo-wen the characters are analyzed by their components, but what is identified as the phonetic element by Hsu is not always recognized as such by conservative scholars like Karlgren unless the resemblance of the sound of the whole character is sufficiently close to that of the 'phonetic'. It seems that Karl- gren has actually been too conservative in some cases in his exclusion of certain characters from a phonetic series, but the decision as to what to include in any one hsieh-sheng series is somewhat subjective and we cannot expect complete agreement among all scholars on such a matter. For instance, Karlgren separates AL 'to stand, set up', GS 694 a-d *gliap!lidp from \±f. 'place of rank', GS 539a *giwed/jwi-; actually the character without added radical regularly occurs in Chou inscriptions in the meaning of 'place of rank'. The phonological difference between the two items is only somewhat more divergent than that between A 'to enter', GS 695 a-d *ni9pjniidp and F*J the second reading of GS 695 e-g *nwdblnuqi- 'interior, inside', which he puts correctly in the same phonetic series.109 The variant forms in both cases stand in the same kind of morphological relationship. Of course not every compound graph contains a phonetic element. The very divergent items GS 1087 a-d, *tiog 'broom' GS 1001a *b'iug 'woman, wife' and 570a *kiwar 'return' all occur in the early inscriptions with the same graph, that for 'broom' without added radical; there is no evidence here for a hsieh-sheng series. On the other hand, Karlgren may have been bold in including GS 1087f, sog 'to brush, sweep' in the same series with 1087a 'broom'. The alternation in the initials of the words for 'broom' and 'sweep' is very rare in other phonetic series, and here we may rather have 'broom' only as a semantic component in the word 'sweep' with no phonetic relationship involved. P. A. Bood- berg in "Some proleptical remarks on the evolution of Archaic Chinese"110 and P. L.-M. Serruys in various of his writings111 rely heavily on the authority of the Shuo- wen even in cases where the phonetic resemblance is slight or disputable. Pulleyblank seeks far wider hsieh-sheng connections than does Karlgren, but when he does this he is at least working within a phonological hypothesis and looks for phonetic parallelism in his examples, as in the following, where he postulates a set of labiovelar initials: "(this) will allow us to take into account certain hsieh-sheng connections indicated by the Shuo-wen which are normally regarded as too remote" and cites several examples, of which the following is the first:112 IS M. Kiwe < Kwab, said to be phonetic in M. bie < bad. We must not exclude the possibility that even when Hsu is wrong historically there may have been enough phonetic similarity in his mind to suggest such hsieh-sheng connections. 108 Lu, 1946. 109.Tung, 1948, second item, p. 115; Pulleyblank 1962-3 p. 98, p. 233. 110.Boodberg, 1937. 111 See especially his article "The study of the Chuan chu in Shuo wen", CYYY 29.131-95 (1957). ^Pulleyblank, 1962-3, pp. 97-8. 26 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

Since the phonology of Archaic Chinese on the one hand and Ancient Chinese on the other is in each case based on the interpretation of synchronic data with more or less full information of a systematic kind, the phonology of intermediate periods on which we have less full information is naturally often taken to represent stages of transition between the two extremes which are relatively well known. It is fortunate that the linguistic material for such intermediate stages is sometimes sufficient to support such a view. The Shih Ming data are helpful in suggesting some of the features of the Late Han phonological system,113 but the rhymes of various poets that can be placed as to time and dialect are perhaps of greater importance. Wang Li's study "Nan-pei Ch'ao Shih-jen Yung Yiin K'ao" ["A study of Ancient Chinese vowels from the rhyming of poets of the fifth to sixth Centuries"]114 is of great interest. For Han poetic rhymes we now have Volume I of the magnificent study by Lo Ch'ang-p'ei and Chou Tsu-mo Han Wei Chin Nan-pei Ch'ao Yiin-pu Yen-pien Yen- chiu (A study of the development of the rhyme-groups in Han, Wei, Chin, and the six Dynasties)115 which traces phonological change in general from Archaic Chinese through the Han in terms of the traditional categories of the Ch'ing phonologists, and where possible gives specific statements on the phonology of dialects as revealed in the poetic rhymes. This book is very ably commented upon by N. G. D. Malm- qvist in an article 'On a recent study of Han phonology'.116 Malmqvist also treats the same kind of data along similar lines in his monograph 'Han phonology and textual criticism'.117 Serruys in a lengthy review of the book by Lo and Chou has much of interest to contribute to the subject of Han Dynasty phonology and evidence of the Han dialects.118 Although Pulleyblank's reconstructions are for Middle Chinese and Old Chinese primarily, he has many statements throughout his paper on the phonetic values he posits for Han time; an example is the series *-*}h, *-nh, and *-mh corresponding to the older *-ns, and *-wis.119 The study of loanwords and transcription of foreign place-names can be of great value in determining features of the pronunciation of various periods, but to be really useful the phonology of both donor and borrowing languages should be well understood, and the number of borrowed words sufficiently large so that regular correspondences in sound can be set up. These conditions are found in the Kan-on and Sino-Vietnamese strata of borrowings from T'ang dynasty Chinese as well as in the systematized Chinese transcriptions of Sanskrit in various Buddhist works,120 but these ideal conditions are seldom encountered for the Han period; yet ironically it is in this very period that large-scale contacts with outside regions, especially Central Asia,

113 Bodman, 1954. 114 Wang Li, 1936, reprinted in Collected Works, 1958, pp. 1-59. 115 Lo and Chou, 1958. 116 Malmqvist, 1961. 117 Malmqvist, 1963. 118 In Monumenta Serica 20.394-412 (1961). 119 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 231. 120 A recent example is in the two large tables following p. 164 in Li Jung, 1952. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 27 begin to be of importance. Pulleyblank says : "... It became apparent that there was a great need for a more adequate reconstruction of sound values in order to interpret correctly the Chinese transcriptions of foreign words ... In particular I have attempted to check the results of internal reconstruction by the external evidence of the transcriptions of foreign words from the earliest period at which they become available."121 Countering this, Karlgren in "Loan characters in pre-Han texts" says : "This is a very risky method. On the one hand, they are sometimes based on pure Sanskrit, sometimes on strongly Prakritized forms learned in Central Asia ... details in the ancient Chinese pronunciation cannot be ascertained through them, for the well- known reason that the Chinese equivalents have mostly been chosen in an unsystem- atic, careless and approximate way."122 An added danger might be mentioned here: namely, the tendency in the Chinese writing system to semanticize graphs originally used purely for rendering of foreign sounds. Although it is obvious that interpretation of Chinese transcriptions is fraught with hazards, it is certainly worth attempting. It can never, however, be made the chief basis for reconstruction. Another study involving transcriptions for a somewhat later period is R. Stein's "Le Lin-yi".123 Interesting comments on Han-time loanwords in Vietnamese are to be found in Wang Li's study of Sino-Vietnamese124 and in Haudricourt's article "Comment reconstruire le chinois archaïque".126 One of the most convincing cases for loanwords from Chinese is Li Fang-kuei's famous article' "Some old Chinese loan words in the Tai languages";126 he deals here not with isolated items, but with a borrowed system of calendrical signs. The time of this borrowing is not certain, but it can hardly have been later than Han, and is conceivably earlier. Janusz Chmielewski has contributed two interesting articles on borrowings : "The problem of early loan-words in Chinese as illustrated by the word p'u-t'aoand "Two early loan-words in Chinese".128 The Chinese dialects of Han time according to Fang Yen129 by Serruys appeared in 1959. It deals with the work Fang Yen, a collection of dialect words attributed to Yang Hsiung (23 B.C. — 18 A.D.); an understanding of Serruys' work is aided by reading his "Note on Archaic Chinese dialectology"130 and "Chinese dialectology based on written documents"131 which appeared subsequently. He has also written several articles dealing with the etymology and dialect forms of individual words.132 Serruys' study of Han dialects is closely linked with work on the graphic analysis of Shuo-wen m Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 63. 122 Karlgren, 1963, pp. 18-9. 123 Stein, 1947. 124 Wang Li, 1958, pp. 357-81. 125 Haudricourt, 1954, p. 358, pp. 360-4. 126 Li Fang-Kuei, 1945 ; also see Egerod, "The eighth earthly branch in Archaic Chinese and Tai", Oriens 10.296-9 (1959). 127 Chmielewski, 1958. 128 Chmielewski, 1961. 129 Serruys, 1959. 130 Orbis 9.42-57 (1960). 131 Monumenta Serica 21.320-44 (1962). 132 See the bibliography in Serruys, 1959. 28 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN and the paronomastic definitions in Shih Ming133 from which he draws sweeping phonological conclusions. As a student of Boodberg, he is strongly influenced by the latter's work on dimidiated binoms.134 Since his approach is so much that of a linguistic geographer of the Neolinguistics school, he is primarily interested in the reconstruction of individual words rather than in a phonological system; his belief that Karlgren's Archaic Chinese system is more like that of Han time and that a completely different Archaic Chinese system should be developed primarily based on Shuo-wen is far from the mainstream beliefs of historical linguists and has been strongly criticized in various reviews of his book on Fang Yen?35 Downer's review, which is particularly trenchant, makes the strongest statements from the point of view of a modern linguist in the descriptivist tradition. From the standpoint of Serruys' classification of the dialect areas and his rightful stressing of the importance of the spread of dialect items as a part of cultural borrowing in general, however, Serruy's book is very valuable. His copious notes on the work of various scholars in the field are also very useful. Since this is a synchronic study, he should not be criticized for not giving any correlations with modern dialects, although a few such remarks would have been desirable. What he has to say about the relationship of Han dialects and the Han time standard language is important and well done. As has been mentioned already, a reconstruction based on good data from all modern dialects would place the time of the proto-language well anterior to the Ch'ieh-yun period, and probably well into the Han Dynasty. The present Min dialects have many conservative features and are apparently based on an old dialect quite different from those which contributed in the main to Ancient Chinese. In the present state of descriptive studies, we cannot tell much about what traces of Han dialects, other than those which were ancestral to Ch'ieh-yun, still remain in dialects of the modern period. One might surmise that the modern Hsiang dialects, so divergent from other forms of Chinese, may still preserve features of the ancient language of the Hsiang area spoken in the southern part of the old Ch'u state; the Hsiang dialect and the speech of contiguous areas appears from the Fang Yen evidence to have been quite different already in Han times.136

3.5 The Phonology and Morphology of Archaic Chinese

As in the case of Ancient Chinese, Karlgren had completed his Archaic Chinese system before 1940 when his Grammata Serica appeared. Chao reviewed it in 1941.137 The part of Karlgren's "Compendium of phonetics in Ancient and Archaic^Chinese"

133 See footnote 111 above, and his long article: "Notes on the study of the Shih Ming—marginalia to N. C. Bodman's 'A linguistic study of the Shih Ming"', Asia Major (New Series) 6.137-99 (1958). 134 Boodberg, 1937. 135 Downer, 1960, Li Fang-kuei, 1959 and Ogawa Tamaki, 1960. 136 See footnote 66 above, and Serruys, 1959, p. 175 and p. 234. 137 Chao, 1941. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 29 dealing with the latter period superseded the introduction on the phonological system when "Grammata Serica Recensa" came out in 1957, but this was a restatement, not a new treatment. In referring to his methods for reconstructing the older phase of the language, Karlgren says: "Our materials for the language of early Chou is (sic)... mainly of two kinds: the rimes in Shi king and other early texts; and the phonetic loan characters, whether used unaltered (s.-c. kia tsie) or elucidated, mostly in Han time, by the addition of a "radical" (s.-c. hie sheng)."13s In an article published in 1956, 'Cognate words in the Chinese phonetic series',139 Karlgren says: "The invention of the radical trick was made quite early, as a few cases in Yin and early Chou inscriptions show, but it was only rarely applied in the early part of the Chou dynasty. In fact, radicals occur with some frequency only in the last centuries of the Chou era... In the bronze inscriptions of the early Chou centuries this phenomenon (borrowed characters, kia tsie, without radicals) is almost the rule ... if there is a radical, there are great chances that it was not there originally but was added in late Chou time or (sometimes) even in Han time." In an earlier work, Karlgren assumes the invention of most of the phonogram characters at the Royal Chou court, thus assuring that they were also principally based on one dialect at about the same time. He says: "In the first place, although a character may have been invented provincially, not in Chou, it is of course not eo ipso certain that the dialect on which it was based differed from that of Chou on this very phonetic point ... In the second place, even if we do not assume identity of pronunciation between the peripheral dialect and that of Chou, there is still a fact which reduces the risk considerably: the parallelism between dialects ...". He admits of some possibility of cases where there is a risk of a wrong reconstruction where phonological categories between dialects did not correspond.140 Serruys would allow for far greater diversity. He says: "The regional factor as a cause of the differences in the Hsh (hsieh-sheng) principles and their application ... was disregarded by Karlgren. This situation of disintegration (of Chou political control) lasted for centuries—that is, long enough to expect the script to become different in the various cultural centers."141 Lu in Ku-yin Sho-liieh ascribes much of the variation within a phonetic series to dialects, and suggests that the addition of a radical was mainly to express differences in sound rather than to avoid confusion of meaning, although the latter factor came into prominence later. He makes the good point that some of the multiple readings of characters do not have to mean a difference in an Archaic Chinese dialect; instead a dialect difference could have arisen at a later period some time before Ancient Chinese.142 In general, however, since the reconstruction of the older phonology was only partly based on the evidence of the script, and these other data accord quite well with Karlgren's as-

138 Karlgren, 1954, p. 271. 139 Karlgren, 1956, p. 3. 140 Karlgren, "On the Script of the Chou Dynasty", BMFEA 8.157-78 (1936), especially pp. 175-6. 141 Serruys, 1959, p. 27 and footnote 12 on p. 262. 142 Lu, 1947, pp. 79-83. 30 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

sumptions derived from the evidence of the script, it does not seem that differences attributable to time or place of character origins are of enough importance to affect the general framework of his system. The rhymes of the Shih Ching, dating between about 800 B.C. and 600 B.C., have long been studied, and Karlgren acknowledges his indebtedness to the work of the Ch'ing phonologists in his own researches on the part of the phonological system revealed in these poetic rhymes. What the early phonologists established was, like the case of the Ch'ieh-yiin, a system of contrasts. The problem was then to try to arrive at phonetic values for the points in the system, starting with the values for Ch'ieh-yiin Chinese. In many respects there is a very close relation between Karlgren's reconstructions for both the initials and the rhymes and the Ancient Chinese rhyme table divisions. As an example, all Ch'ieh-yiin Division I and Division IV type initials are carried back to Archaic Chinese with no change (except that Ancient Chinese y- was reconstructed as Archaic g'-); many of the rhymes of Division I and III and some of IV are found unchanged from their Ancient values, and most of the initials appear in the same shape for both periods. On the other hand, rhyme evidence made it necessary to assign different values in many categories to the nuclear vowels, especially to those that were placed in Division III in the later rhyme tables. On the whole, the Archaic Chinese reconstructions are based somewhat more on the hsieh-sheng than on rhyming, but the rhyme evidence helps to confirm the evidence from character structure. For instance, Karlgren set up voiced final stops -b, -d, and -g for what were open syllables in the later language to account for the alternation of such syllables in phonetic scries with Ancient Chinese -p, -t and, -k, and there are some cases where both voiced and unvoiced stop finals rhyme, particularly when the tone category of the former was ch'ii-sheng. Reconstructions of the initials were of course only based on the hsieh-sheng data. Clusters like kl-, pi-, and si- were set up to account for the interchange within phonetic series of Ancient /- with k-, p- and §-. Another important method used in reconstructing the Archaic values is from the variant 'readings' of characters in Ancient Chinese. When a character varies in pronunciation it is sometimes because one character may stand for different spoken words that are phonetically similar, the chia-chieh category; and the principle here is exactly parallel to words in a phonetic series, except that in the latter, radicals have been added which distinguish the words. Other cases of double or multiple readings are due to morphological variations in related words, although here it was also common to distinguish the words that were related by the addition of radicals to some of them. (As a converse of the above, we occasionally find two different characters representing one and the same word. This may sometimes be taken as indicating a provincial origin for some characters.) The range of phonetic variation in related words is roughly of the same order as variation within any hsieh-sheng series. To put it differently, some of the words in a phonetic series may actually be related, whereas others are only resemblant in their sounds. We shall revert later to what some of these variations may have signified morphologically; Karlgren in "Cognate words in HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 31 the Chinese Phonetic Series"143 states very well what kind of phonological variation occurred. His earlier very important study "Word families in Chinese"144 had set up large numbers of potentially related forms where the range of phonetic variation sometimes exceeded that normally found in a phonetic series. Some of the best of the more strictly related 'word families' were chosen to illustrate the principle in Karlgren's semipopular "The Chinese language". The possibility that some of such variation can be ascribed purely to dialect differences is well worth considering.145 One of Karlgren's more recent phonological studies is "Final -d and -r in Archaic Chinese"146 which defends his own Archaic Chinese reconstructions against the view expressed by Malmqvist in a more phonemic treatment "On Archaic Chinese dr and a

143 Karlgren, 1956. 144 BMFEA 5.5-120 (1933). 145 See Bodman, 1950, p. 343 and 345. 146 Karlgren, 1962. 147 Malmqvist, 1962. 148 Karlgren, 1963. 149 Karlgren's various "Glosses", see footnote 69. 160 Tung, 1948, second item. 151 Tung, 1954. 162 Lu, 1947. 163 Lu, 1948. 32 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN two types of open syllables seems less reasonable typologically than one with no open syllables, but a system like Wang Li's is equally reasonable typologically, and perhaps more representative of what kinds of syllable structure are found in an inventory of world languages. Wang Li's system is also characterized by a distinctive vowel or diphthong for each rhyme category. Commenting on this in "An interpretation of the vowel systems of Old Chinese and of written Burmese", Pulleyblank says: "Karlgren and the majority of those who have come after him have felt it necessary to reconstruct for many of these rhyme classes not a single vowel but a congeries of supposedly similar vowels ... The values which Wang Li gives for his head vowels are also, in my view, very judicious ... "154 Rai Tsutomu has written three papers on Archaic Chinese finals : "Jôko Hango no Kô'on Imbi ni tsuite" ["On the guttural finals in Archaic Chinese"],155 "Jôko Chugokugo no Imbi ni kansuru Nisan no Mondai" ["Two or three problems regarding the finals of Archaic Chinese"]156 and "Jôko Chugokugo no Zetsuon Imbi Shobu no Bunbu Mondai" ["On the classification of the finals in *-n, *-d, *-t in Archaic Chinese"]167. In the first of these, he sets up a contrast in finals between ordinary velars and postvelars, the latter being interpreted either as labiovelars or as uvulars. In 1954, Haudricourt published his well-known "Comment reconstruire le chinois archaïque' \158 He is able to suggest several improvements in Karlgren's reconstructions for both Ancient and Archaic Chinese from evidence of Chinese dialects, Sino-Vietnamese and older Chinese borrowings in Vietnamese, and Thai borrowings. He proposes a group of voiced spirant initials rather than Karlgren's unaspirated voiced stops, d, d, and g. Most noteworthy of all is his hypothesis dealing with the ch'ii-sheng tone category where he posits an -s suffix based on Old Chinese loans into Vietnamese.159 Thus to represent the relationship between Karlgren's d*âk 'to measure', and dcâg- 'a measure' (the latter of which is ch'ii-sheng), Haudricourt posits dâk for the verbal and dâks for the nominal forms respectively. The verbal form here is considered the base form and the nominal form is judged to be a morphological derivative marked by -s, and it is this -s which characterizes all forms which are later in ch'ii-sheng. This idea was taken up by Forrest in his 1960 article "Les occlusives finales en chinois archaïque" where he equates it with the -s suffix of Classical Tibetan.160 Pulleyblank believes that traces of forms in Archaic -ts, which developed by Han times to -s, must have survived very late, at least into the third century A.D. A good many of the examples from transcriptions that he gives in support of this theory are very credible.161 Following the -s hypothesis, one can account best for the merger of ch'ii-sheng labial and dental finals which had

154 Pulleyblank, 1963, pp. 201-2. 156 Rai, 1953. 166 Rai, 1957, first item. 157 Rai, 1957, second item. 158 Haudricourt, 1954. See also footnote 125. 159 Haudricourt, 1954, p. 357 and 364. 160 Forrest, 1960. 161 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 217. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 33 occurred by the time of the Shih Ching. Whereas Karlgren's formula has -db" falling together with -dd\ with the Haudricourt formula the merger can be attributed to assimilation of -dps to -ats, merging with original -ats. Pulleyblank has gone a step further than Haudricourt in attributing the origin of all tones in Chinese to the loss of final consonants: he sets up -R and -8 for later p'ing-sheng and for later shang- sheng.162 This is consistent with his view that in Archaic Chinese all syllables were of the closed type. The scheme looks well typologically, but the evidence is rather too scanty to be convincing. The ju-sheng (stop final) category in Ancient Chinese has been traditionally regarded as a fourth tone in the series of nasals; thus syllables ending in -m have three tones and the one type ending in -p is classed as the fourth tone of the -m finals. Kennedy, in "Tone in Archaic Chinese", after discussing a number of opinions, suggests that -k could be the ju-sheng of -g as well as of -ng.163 Egerod, in 1957, postulates a series of voiced spirant finals occurring in all three tones: p'ing-sheng, shang-sheng and cKii-sheng; he would have a series of voiced stop finals that occurred only with cW ii-sheng, and the series of voiceless final stops that remained as the ju- sheng category.164 In all these various explanations, it can be seen that the reconstruction of tones and types of syllable finals are intimately tied together. S. E. Yakhontov has written a very interesting paper: "Consonant combinations in Archaic Chinese" which attempts to relate the occurrence of clusters with -/- with Ancient Chinese Division II vocalism. The paper deals with all of the kinds of consonant clusters that Karlgren assumed, but makes the special point that Ancient Chinese I- initial items very seldom have Division II vocalism, and when k- and l- items in Ancient Chinese both occur in a phonetic series, very few of the &-words have Division I vocalism, but many k- items have Division II finals. This suggests to him that a form like kan in Ancient Chinese owed its Division II vowel to the presence of medial -I- in the earlier period, i.e. presupposing *klan. Yakhontov supposes that a reconstruction like klak (as in which was Ancient Chinese kak, Division I, is wrong; he thinks that the character originally stood for the different word Ift, Archaic klak and Ancient Chinese kvk, which belongs to Division II.165 Whether this is justified or not is problematic, since there are many other cases where Division I vocalism occurs in words with k- (and other initials alternating in Ancient Chinese with /-). At any rate, it is quite true that Division II vocalism after /- is extremely rare. Also, it may well be premature to ascribe all Division II vocalism to an -/- medial. The supradental initials like ts- and s- in Division II syllables (contrasting with type ts- and s- in Division I) are called for in the Ch'ieh-yun system and have special reflexes in Peking and some other kinds of Mandarin as well as in Sino-Viet- namese. In other Mandarin dialects, and generally in Wu, these initials show no 162 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, pp. 212-33. 163 Kennedy, 1952, third item. Especially pp. 145-6 of Selected Works. 164 Egerod, "The eighth earthly branch in Archaic Chinese and Tai", Oriens 10.296-9 (1957). Especially see p. 298. 165 Yakhontov, 1960. See especially p. 2 and p. 5. Also Pulleyblank, 1962-3, pp. 110-1. 34 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN difference from those of Division I; in Min the situation is the same, and in addition, the finals of many categories show the same reflexes as for Division I vocalism. There may quite naturally have been later mergers to account for some of these reflexes, but it is perhaps suggestive that 'to kill', Karlgren's sat, seems to be genetically related to Tibetan gsod-pa (perfect bsad) 'to kill', Kachin sat 'to kill', gasat 'to fight', and many other similar forms widespread in Tibeto-Burman languages where there is no trace of a 'medial'. Pulleyblank also cites some cases of transcriptions with initials of type s- and ts- where there seems no evidence for a medial and where the syllables are of later Division II type.166 Loanwords from Chinese sometimes provide excellent evidence for former clusters, although there is often no clear clue as to the date of borrowing. It is perhaps just as reasonable to assume borrowing during the Han rather than at an earlier period. Wu Tsung-chi in "Wu-ming Chuang-yxi chung Han-yii Chieh-tzu te Yin-yiin Hsi- t'ung" ["The phonology of the Chinese loan-words in theZhuang language of Wu- ming"]167 lists the following Chuang items as borrowings from Chinese:

CHUANG KARLGREN ARCHAIC DIVISION plan n 'volume' * pwdn: 'id.' I kla H 'withered' fé k'o 'id.' I klong A 'cave' £ k'ung 'hollow' I k'ung 'hole' I klong n 'beehive' ?L k'ung-. 'empty' I klau j 'ball' M g'idg 'id.' III klian t 'roll, scroll' & kiwan: 'to roll' III m kiwan- 'scroll' III

Karlgren's reconstructions and the Division identification have been added here. It is interesting to note the large number of words in Division I and to see that the Division III words have two correspondences. The last example seems to point to a complex medial -li-. In"Miao-yii chung te Han-yii Chieh-tz'u" ["Chinese loanwords in the Miao language"], it is said that the Chiating dialect represents Chinese medial i after labials as a lateral. Strange as it may be, it is probably not of historical importance since the words represent modern cultural items like 'militiaman' and 'postage stamp'.168 Although Boodberg and Serruys are advocates of setting up complex consonantal clusters, basing such interpretations on data from Shuo-wen, Shih Ming, Fang Yen and such sources, and making use of the dimidiation hypothesis, their clusters are largely set up on an ad hoc basis for the particular characters with which they are

166 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 128. 167 Wu Tsung-chi, 1958. 168 Ying Lin, 1962. See p. 225. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 35 dealing, and there is not much importance given to them as illustrations of patterning within a phonological hypothesis. Pulleyblank, in his work on initial clusters, attempts to place them within a phonological system, and in doing so, has assumed more types of clusters than have his predecessors. He draws heavily, to be sure, on the Shuo-wen and on Han dynasty transcriptions, which despite a certain amount of risk, has, nevertheless, been productive of valuable insights in a good many cases. However, he proposes so many new, and sometimes radically different solutions, that his best points are often hard to pick out from the more disputable ones. Although in many places Pulleyblank allows for dialect variation, especially if this is reflected in transcription, a remark he makes on the alternation of O- (zero initial) and k- in the modern Fukienese dialects where these correspond to his Middle Chinese fi- and to his Old Chinese fi- and g-, is somewhat unclear since he seems to give too much weight to what appear to be exceptions to the correspondence rules. He says: "until some explanation can be found for such cases, we must look upon the Min evidence for distinguishing between Old Chinese g- and fi- as rather uncertain". The exceptions should be noted, of course, and perhaps can be explained some day when we have better knowledge of how to separate out the various forms as being either learned or popular in origin. It is preferable to emphasize the fact that this double representation of Old Chinese fi- in the modern Min dialects is the strongest evidence we have, since it is based on synchronic data, for positing such an Old Chinese contrast as his g- and fi-.169 Yakhontov, in a two-part article, "Fonetika kitaiskogo yazyka i tysyacheletiya do n.e.", has convincingly demonstrated from the evidence of Shih Ching rhymes that, with dental finals, we must assume an Archaic Chinese contrast between the types *-on and *-wan, both of which had merged by Ancient Chinese into -uan. The *-on type appears with all types of initials, but does not rhyme with Archaic *-&n. The *-wan type occurs only (or almost so) with labiovelar initials, so by analyzing the rounded component as belonging to the initial, it can be reanalyzed as belonging with the *-an final; words of the latter type rhyme together but not with the *-on type.170 This had also been Pulleyblank's original position: like Yakhontov he argued for a diphthongization of *-on to -uan, etc.; this view had the additional advantage of matching the distribution of vowels with dental finals and that of vowels with velar finals.171 However, in his article "An interpretation of the vowel systems of Old Chinese and of written Burmese", Pulleyblank follows a completely different line which would, like current phonemic analyses of Mandarin, drastically reduce the vowel inventory, singling out as distinctive two contrasting features of tongue height: a and a. This not only entails changing -*on in Old Chinese to *-wan, but necessitates setting up many new combinations of the two nuclear vowels clustering

169 Pulleyblank 1962-3, pp. 86-7. See Bodman, 1954, p. 54 and especially the note on Gloss 520, p. 131. 170 Yakhontov, 1959-60. 171 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 142. 36 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN with preceding and following semivowel components. 'Pure' Division IV syllables like his earlier ken would be revised to kein, and the order of clustering in Division II would be reversed in Old Chinese, a type *kaln (*karn) yielding Middle Chinese kain.™ Pulleyblank not only sets up clusters with -/-, and relates /- to Tibeto-Burman *r-, but also clusters with -6-, an interdental spirant, which he relates to Tibeto-Burman */-. He also goes further than Karlgren in positing clusters with s- before all kinds of initials. One noteworthy type is st-, which is one source of ts-, merging with original is-.™ In his st- type of cluster, he often sees a prefix s- comparable to Tibetan s- which has a causative or transitivizing function. This is very suggestive in pointing to some old stage of Chinese with active morphological processes similar to those in Classical Tibetan; this is a very promising approach, but it cannot yet be said with any degree of assurance whether this type of process existed productively as late as the time of the Shih Ching language, or whether clusters like st- were already at this time merely relics from a yet earlier period, when the morphological component was still productive. The dialects of Archaic Chinese have been the subject of some attention. Todo Akiyasu in "Juko Hango no Hogen—Toku ni Shu-Shin Hogen no Tokushoku ni tsuite" ["On the special features of the Chou-Ch'in dialect"]174 discusses the special rhyming features of poems in the Shih Ching pointing to -m in certain rhyme categories which in most of the Shih Ching belong to -ng rhymes. Serruys also refers to the same phenomenon.175 Forrest, in "Researches in Archaic Chinese", where he compares Archaic Chinese forms with Tibetan, concludes that the Chinese reflexes of the Sino-Tibetan cognates point to three major Archaic Chinese dialects which differ in their finals, particularly when the Tibetan forms end in labials.176 Although a certain proportion of Forrest's examples may eventually prove to be well-founded, he does not operate within a strict phonological framework and does not establish rules of regular correspondence. One feature of Archaic dialects seems well established and is given a convincing treatment in Pulleyblank's "Studies in Early Chinese Grammar". This is a variation of velar with dental finals in certain rhymes which point to an original velar final after a high front vowel of type *-ing, *-ik. It is possible that Hakka, which represents such items with final -n and -t, preserves this feature

172 Pulleyblank, 1963, pp. 207-9, and pp. 211-4. The new approach to the vowels and medials for both Old and Middle Chinese, foreshadowed in the above pages, has been further elaborated; the new views were presented in Pulleyblank's seminar already mentioned in footnote 54 above. 1,3 Pulleyblank had published his st- hypothesis without being aware of my own unpublished work on the same subject. I presented a paper entitled "Clusters of type *st- in Archaic Chinese" before the Linguistic Society of America at the annual meeting of the Society in New York, December 29th, 1958. The matter was also referred to in my unpublished paper: "Observations on Proto-Chinese morphology", an abstract of which is to be found on p. 593 of Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-31,1962 (The Hague, 1964). 174 Todo, 1954. 175 Serruys, 1959, pp. 18-21. 176 Forrest, 1961. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 37 from an Archaic dialect.177 There is still much left undone on the nature of dialect variation from the oldest times down through the Han; if many such features can be sorted out, we can be sure that the reconstruction of the proto-language can be made more secure, and the resulting phonological system may even be simpler than it would appear to be now. A word must be said now more specifically about comparative linguistic studies in the Sino-Tibetan field. This field is still in its infancy since we lack descriptive data of any worth on most of the Tibeto-Burman languages, of which there are hundreds of members whose classification into subgroups has just begun.178 Practically all of the work comparing Chinese with the Tibeto-Burman languages has dealt with the Classical Tibetan comparisons only. Of course it may turn out that there is a specially close connection between Tibetan and Proto-Chinese, but it seems more likely that Proto-Chinese will be found rather more comparable to a more extended group of Tibeto-Burman languages of which Classical Tibetan is only one member. We shall, however, deal here only with the work that involves Chinese comparisons and leave aside all studies, regardless of their value, that omit Chinese from consideration. Early studies by Robert Shafer are: "The vocalism of Sino-Tibetan",179 "The vocalism of Sino-Tibetan: Part 2. consonantal finals",180 "Problems in Sino-Tibetan phonetics",181 and more recently, "The Initials of Sino-Tibetan".182 Much more sophisticated in a structural linguistic sense are Paul Benedict's articles: "Semantic differentiation in Indo-Chinese",183 "Studies in Indo-Chinese phonology",184 "Tibetan and Chinese kinship terms",185 and "Archaic Chinese *g and *i/".186 The latter is especially interesting in suggesting the Tibeto-Burman correspondences to Karlgren's Archaic gi- and di- initials, which are only reconstructible before his 'yod'. Walter Simon has a short article entitled "Tibetan so and Chinese ya 'tooth' "187 where he posits a most complex proto-form to account for both the Tibetan and Chinese words. He casts further abroad in "A Kottish-Tibetan-Chinese word equation"188 to suggest a possible remote connection between Kottish (of the Yenisei area in northern Siberia) and Sino-Tibetan. Even more far-ranging is Shafer's "Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan"189 which links language groups in America and Asia following up an hypothesis once voiced by the eminent linguist Edward Sapir. Shafer's article was followed shortly

177 Pulleyblank, 1960, pp. 61-5. 178 Robert Shafer, "The classification of Tibeto-Burman languages", Word 11.94-111, (1955). 179 Shafer, 1940. 180 Shafer, 1941. 181 Shafer, 1944. 182 Shafer, 1950. 183 Benedict, 1939. 184 Benedict, 1940-41. 185 Benedict, 1943. 186 Benedict, 1948. 187 Simon, 1956, second item. 188 Simon, 1956, first item. 189 Shafer, 1952. 38 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN by a note written by Morris Swadesh "Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan" where he sums up the correspondences and suggests a tentative reconstruction of the initial types.190 It is extremely doubtful that such far-flung relationships can ever be PROVED by the comparative method; at best they are inspired guesses, and too often quite uninspired. Recently Kamil Sedlácek, who has worked both in Chinese and in Tibetan, has written "Existierte ein Lautgesetz in zusammengesetzten Anlauten des Proto-Sino- Tibetischen'191 and 'Signs of partial phonetic reversion in Tibetan"192; both articles discuss correspondences which in addition to Chinese and Tibetan include examples from other Sino-Tibetan languages, Thai, and even Mon-Khmer and Austronesian. The languages, it is true, are all spoken in Asia. There is no attempt here even to set up a hierarchy of subgroups; forms seem to be adduced for comparison regardless of linguistic grouping. It is obvious that such an undiscriminating picking and choosing is the precise antithesis of modern scientific methodology in linguistics. That Chinese and Tibetan belong together is generally assumed, although the formal proofs are just beginning to appear. It is still a matter of very great doubt whether Chinese and the Tai languages have any genetic connection although cultural borrowing between the two language groups is indisputable. Most modern linguists would deny a genetic relationship. It is my opinion that the Sino-Tibetan grouping is a valid one, and the establishment of cognates and regular correspondences will be of great aid in refining the reconstructions made from the internal evidence of Chinese alone. The comparative and historical methods in conjunction will best enable linguists to reconstruct a proto-language on a firm basis of realistic data. Evidence from internal linguistic data can too often be interpreted in a great variety of ways. The evidence from outside languages, or a proto-language like Proto-Tibetan when it has been reconstructed, might sometimes be able to throw light on dialect variations within Archaic Chinese; this could be the case if two Archaic dialects (in the looser use of the term) had different correspondence rules with Proto-Tibetan. It has been convenient to allude to morphological features from time to time because they have helped to elucidate phonological features. It is now time to concentrate on the morphology proper, and discuss the possible function of the phonological alternations. The most important study on this subject is Downer's "Derivation by tone- change in Classical Chinese". He says: "WangLih ... interprets tonal contrast as a system of word-derivation, with words in pyng, shaang, and ruh as basic forms, and the corresponding chiuhsheng words as derived". Speaking on the date of this derivational process, Downer says: "the likelihood is that it took place in late Archaic, possibly Chyn, times. Indeed, it may be the latest of the morphological processes of word-derivation in the Archaic language, since it occurs in the early commentaries in such large numbers and with such regular semantic correlation, in this way markedly different from most other phonetic contrasts, which may represent remnants of

190 Swadesh, 1952. 191 Sedlácek, 1962. 192 Sedlácek, 1964. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 39 earlier derivational processes, their productive life long past".193 It seems largely in response to Downer's article that Karlgren wrote "Tones in Archaic Chinese". He says, in conclusion: "the k'ii-sheng tone derivation was not an innovation in the course of the Chou era but, on the contrary, it was a primary, fundamental and essential feature in the earliest Arch. Chinese, attestable in our earliest literary sources".194 Downer treats the variation in terms of tone, which is indisputably its later manifestation; followers of the -s hypothesis for the origin of the ch'U-sheng would say that it was manifested at an early stage by the presence of a suffix -s; in either case we must isolate a derivational morpheme of a highly productive sort in Archaic Chinese. If one follows the -s hypothesis, this is then an example of a morpheme shape that is in size less than that of the syllable. Since it occurs only bound to the 'base' form, it contrasts with the infinitely large class of monosyllabic morphemes with lexical meaning, most of which are free forms. The difference in meaning between the basic and derived forms is quite diverse. The commonest kind is where the basic form is verbal and the derived is nominal in meaning. The derived form, when it occurs as the first part of a compound, suggests to Downer that, in some such cases at least, the derived form marks subordination to the second term.195 The only general meaning that can be ascribed to this morpheme is that of 'derivation'. Pulleyblank has commented on the morphological nature of a prefix s-, an infix -/- and a suffix -s as follows: "There are very many words which are obviously cognate which turn out to be related through medial -/-. The question requires inten- sive treatment in relation to the other morphological devices such as variation between voiced and unvoiced initial, prefixed s- ... and the falling tone (i.e. suffixed -s, .. ,)".196 Certainly the reconstruction of complex initial clusters acquires new significance if some of the components of the clusters have a morphological function. Even if the productive nature of such elements is dubious for Archaic Chinese, their existence at this period as part of the phonology points strongly to their morphological nature at an earlier stage of the language. There is another type of bound morpheme, called a prefix by both Wang Li and Chou Fa-kao,197 that occurs fairly commonly in the Shih Ching. Wang Hsien makes it the subject of an article "Shih Ching chung ken ch'ung-yen Tso-yung Hsiang-tang Yu-tzu-shih, Ch'i-tzu-shih, he Szu-tzu-shih" ["The word-forms yiu Qi\ ), qi (S), si (Jiff) and si (JS) as equivalents for reduplicated forms in the Book of Odes"].198 As can be seen from the title, these bound morphemes are each represented by characters, so it is probable from this and the prosody of the poetry that they stand for complete syllables rather than for a single phoneme as in the case of the assumed s- or -/-. The disyllabic free forms seem

193 Downer, 1959, especially p. 259 and p. 266. 194 Karlgren, 1960, especially page 139. 195 Downer, 1959, pp. 267-8. 196 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 125. 197 Wang Li, 1957, pp. 203^1; Chou 1962, chapter on prefixation, from p. 202. 198 Wang Hsien, 1954. 40 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN to have the same meaning as do reduplicated forms, of the type termed descriptives in Chou's "Reduplicatives in the Book of Odes".199 Another type of alternation is represented by such forms as Pulleyblanlc's reconstructions M. miar) < *may 'lose, not have' and M. miou < *mâ% 'not have' (Karl- gren's Archaic miwang and miwo) which Pulleyblank ascribes to dialect mixture, but which might just as well, in my opinion, express an alternation between forms with an open syllable and forms with a suffixed nasal.200 Long ago Maspéro in "Préfixes et dérivations en chinois archaique"201 attacked Karlgren's views on the nature of initial clusters with -/-, saying that the / should be regarded as the root initial and that the preceding element was in fact a prefix in many cases; however, he could not establish any morphological function for such prefixes. This view and several others on the nature of clusters are discussed at some length in my study on the Shih Ming. There seems no reason to believe that all initial clusters contain a prefix or an infix.202 The case for morphological variation is always best when there is only one phonological alternation involved in the related items. Karlgren dealt with the stricter re- lations in most of his examples in "The Chinese language" ; these were further discussed in my review of this book.203 He does the same in his "Cognate words in the Chinese Phonetic Series" where his examples are mostly drawn from words that are written with the same character or which occur in one phonetic series. He allows considerably greater phonetic latitude in many of the examples in "Word families in Chinese", but these groupings were intended to present potentially related forms as a basis for future comparative work. One interesting type with variation in the vocalism may point to traces of a kind of ABLAUT in Chinese, parallel to the systematic vowel alternations that exist in Classical Tibetan, notably in the Tibetan verb morphology. Pulleyblank gives a convincing array of this kind of alternation as in : M. dam 'speak about' M. dam 'speak, converse' M. dam' 'keep in mouth' M. d<\m' 'devour' and many others.204 In other cases dialect variation may be a better explanation. The word for 'three' in Karlgren's Archaic form is sam, for which the regular Ancient Chinese reflex would in his system be sâm, but it turns out to be sâm instead. The phonemic shape of variants of the substitutes, including personal pronouns and some deictic elements, has been attributed by Karlgren to vowel differences which he calls a remnant of a Proto-Chinese inflectional stage. In the later classics ^t ngo appears predominantly in the meanings 'I, my' and fâ ngâ predominantly in the meanings 'me'. But Tung would reconstruct ngâg and ngâ respectively where the difference

199 Chou Fa-kao, 1963. 200 Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 233. 201 Maspéro, 1939. 202 Bodman, 1954, Chapter 3 "Clusters with /", pp. 40-65, especially pp. 42-45. 203 Bodman, 1950. See footnote 145 above. 204 Pulleyblank, 1963, p. 220. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 41 rests in the presence or lack of a final consonant.205 Kennedy, on quite another tack, in "Tsai Lun Wu Wo" ["Are-examination of the Classical Pronoun Forms ngu and ngo"] attributes the difference to the prosodic feature of stress, saying that the second form had the louder stress.206 Karlgren has had the last word (since Kennedy is not alive to rebut him) in a note on the problem in "Tones in Archaic Chinese".207 It has been known for a long time that one character may sometimes represent two morphemes. These are the so-called fusions such as Anc. tsiwo which is either a contraction of f/x or of $5, Anc. tsi + .iwo or tsi + iwo. The first man to deal with the problem fully and systematically was Kennedy in his famous two-part article "A study of the particle Yen: A. Its meaning. B. its Form",208 followed several years later by "Another note on Yen",209 Since some fusions suggest that stress factors may have been important, Kennedy's interest in prosody was a closely connected matter. This appears in his article "Metrical 'irregularity' in the Shih Ching" which proves that particles, and many of the commonest pronouns and coverbs (prepositions), were likely to fall in a metrically unstressed position, and conversely, that lines of irregular length were likely to contain such unstressed forms.210 Quite a spate of studies have since appeared on other fusions—a very interesting one is J. W. F. Mulder's "On the morphology of the negatives in Archaic Chinese",211 which was greatly stimulated by Kennedy's prior article: "Negatives in Classical Chinese".212 It is possible to isolate two series of negatives, one with initial p-, and one with initial m- which Kennedy distinguishes as denying identity versus denying existence respectively. Moreover, the finals of some of the negatives have a correlation with words that assert identity or existence. The most obvious set of this nature includes the copula diwar and the corresponding negatives piwar and miwsr.213 In two semipopular but extremely witty and penetrating articles, "The monosyllabic myth"214 and "The butterfly case"215, Kennedy once and for all disposes of the widely held belief that Chinese is an exclusively monosyllabic language. It is certainly true that most MORPHEMES both now and in ancient times are of one syllable, and it is equally true that in Archaic Chinese each syllable is represented by one graph. Since we lack much data on ancient prosodic features like stress and juncture, it is impossible to set up phonologically based words except perhaps for restricted cases as in the cHii-sheng derivations, and the word-unit has mainly to be set up by syn-

206 Bodman, 1950, p. 342. 206 Kennedy, 1957. 207 Karlgren, 1960, pp. 140-1. 208 Kennedy, 1940. 209 Kennedy, 1953. 210 Kennedy, 1939. 211 Mulder, 1959. Contains many references to other work on the morphology of fusions. 212 Kennedy, 1952, Item 2. 213 Kennedy, 1952, Item 2, conclusion; see Mulder, 1959, p. 262 who also cites a similar conclusion in the work of other scholars. 214 Kennedy, 1951. 215 Kennedy, 1955. 42 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN tactic criteria. There is no doubt that Archaic Chinese words also seem preponderantly to have been monosyllabic and that the number of polysyllabic words has greatly increased during the course of the history of the language.216 There is a category of disyllabic words, which include a great number of names for insects, whose syllabic components cannot be identified as occurring in other items, and which hence must be regarded as disyllabic words. Kennedy parodies the fissioning of such forms into separate lexical components, as if 'cricket' could be analyzed as containing 'cric' and 'ket' and then calling the resultant 'cricket' a 'synonym-compound'. He fears that such a process, due to the nature of the writing system, has been a constant source of false etymologies throughout the history of the language. A related factor is the tendency to 'semanticize' elements in loanwords as in k'u-li' 'coolie', written as 'bitter strength', from Hindi kulï. One of the overt morphological processes common in Archaic Chinese and later is reduplication. Both complete and partial reduplication is common. Some cases of insect names are to be ascribed to the latter type as the word for 'spider', Karlgren's tidg-tio, still a common word as in Mandarin chih-chu and Amoy ti-tô, called an 'alliterative binom'. The 'rhyming binoms' constitute an important class of descriptive words which function as adverbials and predicatives. Proponents of dimidiation ascribe many of either type as arising from the splitting of an original monosyllable with an initial cluster into two syllables, so that k'u-lung 'hole', for example, is taken back to *k,lung. In discussing this example, Chmielewski in "Remarques sur le problème des mots dissyllabiques en chinois archaïque"217 attributes the splitting into two syllables as a dialect phenomenon, since there also exists the undimidiated form k'ung as a reading for the single character 'hole'. To account for the two modern forms, k'ung and k'u-lung, one does indeed have to assume two routes in the trans- mission of such items, and a contrast in handling between popular and literary forms. To assume that all rhyming binoms had such an origin, however, is to say that the old language did not have descriptive words of the 'pell-mell' type. Kennedy's attitude is expressed in the following quotation where he discusses a binom he represents as HWANG-MWANG with English analogies in roly-poly, ducky-lucky, henny-penny: "If one will pursue the investigation further with Professor Boodberg, he will discover that our original word here is HMWANG ... The theory that HWANG-MWANG resulted from the break-up of HMWANG is one to which I have not rushed, but am being dragged. Until I am dragged the whole way, I protest that we are not forced to reconstruct rpoly and dlucky for the proto-Mother-Goose language".218 Advocates of dimidiation are forced to hypothesize, if they are consistent, all sorts of clusters: not only kl- but also lk-, and so on, according as to whether rhyming binoms of either the kang-lang or the lang-kang type occur. R. A.

216 Chmielewski, 1949, and review of same: Bodman, Lg. 27.204-6 (1951). 217 Chmielewski, 1957, especially pp. 436-7. 218 Kennedy, review of Herlee Glessner Creel, Literary Chinese by the inductive method, Volume III J AO S 73.27-30 (1953), reprinted in Selected Works, pp. 489-96; see particularly p. 492. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 43

Miller, who is also a specialist in Tibetan, and a former student of Boodberg, has consistently argued for the possibility of such clusters, as in his review of Todo Akiyasu's article "Hyogenron teki On Inron no Kokoromi" ["An attempt at phonology as expressionism: morphological impressionism as expressed by the compound initials [kl], [tk], [pi]"] and elsewhere.219 Todo gives further examples in his article "Hoo to Hiren ni tsuite", ["On Feng-huang and Fei-lien"].220 Perhaps this vexing problem will some day be clarified by the discovery of convincing cognates in other languages.

4. SYNTAX

We have grammatical studies like Halliday's "The language of the Chinese 'Secret history of the Mongols'" and Gerty Kallgren's "Studies in Sung time colloquial Chinese as revealed in Chu Hsi's Ts'uanshu",221 as well as abundant T'ang materials from Tunhuang as sources for grammatical studies of later periods of the colloquial language, but interest focuses mainly on the grammar of the classical period of the literary language. Karlgren, in many of his older works, and years later in 'Ex- cursions in Chinese Grammar'222 has, by studying lexical items and particularly the use and selection of particles and function words, been able to characterize texts or groups of texts as to date and often as to dialect. He has repeatedly made the point that texts should be studied with their individual characteristics in mind, and shows that the language of the various Classics differs in details of this nature and to a large extent must be based on genuine spoken usage; it is only by about Middle Han that a stereotyped and artificial style based on older writings comes into common use as a frozen literary medium. Nevertheless, the grammar of wen-yen, literary Chinese, is generally treated as if there were no important differences in the Classical period. The grammar of wen-yen has been extensively written about. Some very competent and useful recent studies are: Han-yti Wen-yen Yii-fa Kang-yao [Outline of the grammar of literary Chinese] by Hsia Hsiang;223 Han-yti Wen-yen Yii-fa [A grammar of literary Chinese] by Liu Ching-nung;224 Chung-kuo Wen-fa Yao- liieh [An abridged grammar of Chinese] by Lii Shu-hsiang;225 and Wen-yen Yii-fa [A grammar of literary Chinese] by Yang Po-chiin.226 Malmqvist in commenting on the books by Yang and Liu says "These two works have been written in full accord- ance with the principles of modern linguistics, ... both grammars can be highly re- commended even to beginners."227 Dobson also comments briefly on the same two ^Miller, 1954; also see Miller, 1956, p. 272 and p. 284. 220-Todo, 1959. 221, Kallgren, 1958. ^.Karlgren, 1951. 223 Hsia, 1961. 224 Liu, 1958. 226 Lii, 1942, reprinted 1957. 226 Yang Po-chUn, 1955. 227 Malmqvist, 1960, p. 253; he notes he will fully review the two books. 44 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN books. Of Liu's work, he says : "The grammatical system is a traditional one. Word classes recognized are 'full words' (divided into three classes, nouns, verbs and adjectives) and 'empty words' (divided into five classes, substitutes, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and modal particles). In this system, nouns, for example, are defined as 'names of people or things'. Procedure in description is from word to sentence ... ".228 On Yang's book, Dobson says: "He 'works back' from the grammar of modern standard Chinese to that of 'Literary Chinese' ... The book is frankly pedagogical in intent but its description is perhaps the clearest exposition of the state of linguistic thinking in China in the matter of grammar today. The attribution of words to word classes is taken as primary. The overriding criterion in such classific- ations is 'meaning' ... Syntactical units are 'words' (simple, complex and port- manteau, i.e. allegro forms), 'word groups' (classified by processes of formation), and 'sentences' ... A sentence has a subject and a predicate. Classes among sentences are set up by the nature of the predicate into judgmental (predicate contains shih or wei), existential (predicate contains yu or wu), descriptive (predicate contains an adjective) and narrative (predicate contains a verb)".229 Also primarily serving a pedagogical end is 'Structural analysis of Literary Chinese (Preliminary Version)' by Harold E. Shadick and Wu Hsin-min.230 Shadick is now writing a completely new version on this subject. Wang Li's book "Han-yu Shih-kao" and Chou Fa-kao's "Chung-kuo Ku-tai Yii-fa", two very useful works already mentioned, both devote many pages to syntax. Wang Li's presentation is fairly brief and pedagogical in intent, giving translations of the more difficult wen-yen examples. Chou's presentation is much more detailed and contains many more references to previous treatments, including a great many comments of Western scholars. A recent paper of Chou's, "Word classes in classical Chinese"231 briefly sets out his most important findings. He says: "There are two major types of sentences in Classical Chinese, the narrative sentence and the determinative sentence ... The kernel of the predicate of the narrative sentence is called the 'narrative' ... The kernel of the second part of the determinative sentence is called the 'determinator'." He sets up cross-cutting categories of listable and unlistable words and full or empty words. (Word here is used to mean a syntactically determined word). 'Unlistable and full' forms include the noun, defined as a word which cannot be used as a 'predicative' (or only rarely so). Narratives are further classed into verbs and adjectives. The former can take a noun as object, the latter is usually the modifier of a following noun. 'Listable and full' forms are: substitutes (pronouns and demonstratives), numerals, classifiers, localizers, and auxiliary predicatives. 'Listable and empty' are : adverbs, connectives, prepositions, interjections, and particles.

228 Dobson, Bibliography 568 of Revue bibliographique de sinologie, 4: année 1958. 229 Dobson, Bibliography 567 of work in footnote 228. 230 Shadick and Wu, 1950. 231 Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-31, 1962, pp. 594-8. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 45

An interesting and brief treatment of a limited corpus is given by Isabella Yiyun Yen in A grammatical analysis of Syau Jtng. The structure is presented in terms of immediate constituents; construction types are described: endocentric (coordinate and subordinate), conjunctive, and exocentric (predicative, equational, and directive). The distribution of morphemes is discussed and form-classes of noun, verb, and particle are established.232 In Part III of Chung-kuo Ku-tai Yu-fa, the volume on substitution, Chou Fa-kao gives a detailed treatment of pronouns and demonstratives, including question words. The interesting variant forms of pronouns so characteristic of Classical Chinese are described in Volume I under morphology. Wang Li in the second volume of Han- yii Shih-kao places his substitutes under various word-class categories in the section on morphology. Another study is Huang Sheng-chang's "Ku-Han-yu te Jen-shen Tai-tz'u Yen-chiu" ["A study of the personal pronouns of Old Chinese"].233 The studies mentioned above all work to the end of classifying words in form classes. Kennedy and Dobson go about the analysis differently, each in his own way. In 1956, Kennedy published "Word-classes in Classical Chinese" in WenntiP4 The article, as it now appears in Selected works of George A Kennedy, has been en- larged by the addition of material from an unpublished manuscript, "Introduction to the grammar of Mencius". He says, in his first paragraph: "The project had pro- ceeded on the assumption that word-classes can and must be defined before the relation between words can be grammatically treated. It has now reached the conclusion that in the final analysis word-classes cannot be defined, hence that Chinese grammar must start from different premises. This may appear to be the view that most sinologists have held all along ...". Later he says that the task of the grammarian must then be to classify functions. A very similar approach is reflected most strongly in Dobson's two books: Late Archaic Chinese—a grammatical study235 (abbreviated to LAC) and Early Archaic Chinese—a descriptive grammar236 (abbreviated to EAC). These two books, and the lengthy comments on them made by several reviewers, will conclude this section on syntax. These books have been generally welcomed as a great contribution to the study of Chinese grammar, but the criticism on certain of Dobson's points has been quite outspoken. In LAC, Dobson says: "The principal variety in the linguistic material of LAC as it has survived is the variety of distribution, and the sets of distribution in which the morpheme occurs ... The observation and classification of forms of distribution are, therefore, the main divisions of this analysis. Thus, a morpheme in distributions may be said to have a grammatical quality since it then shares in a class with other morphemes similarly distributed .. ,".237 In EAC he says: "In the model constructed for the analysis and description of LAC

232 Yen, 1960. 233 Huang, 1963. 234 Kennedy, 1956. 235 Dobson, 1959. 236 Dobson, 1962. 237 Dobson, 1959, pp. xxii-iii. 46 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

(which has also been used for EAC), distribution is conceived in a hierarchy of 'levels' in which a 'unit' at the 'lowest' level constitutes an element of a unit in the next higher level".238 The only type of word class thatDobson recognizes is the distinction between full and empty words for which he uses the terms 'plerematic' and 'cenematic'. At all costs he avoids any 'part of speech' categorization. He states: "The question as to whether Chinese 'has parts of speech' or whether the 'parts of speech exist' in Chinese, has been so lengthily discussed that it is important here to point out that such metaphysical problems are foreign to the spirit of scientific linguistics. The question is, 'Can these classes be usefully set up?'... We are not here dealing with eternal verities but with analytical and descriptive conveniences".239 In this connection, A. C. Graham, in a most valuable review article, "Observations on a new Classical Chinese Grammar", says: "Dobson shows successfully that the old question of whether Chinese has parts of speech is irrelevant to his enterprise. Within a particular sentence, it is useful to say that a particular word or syntagma (word- group, excluding customary word-groups) has verbal or nominal value. It is also useful to a lexicographer to notice that a word is confined to one value in all or most sentences, and may therefore be classified as a verb or noun; but for the grammarian this is merely a complication which would force him to speak of verbs acting as nouns and nouns as verbs."240 In concluding, Graham observes: "The basic weakness of the book {LAC) is that Dobson thinks in rigid categories and takes no account of the untidiness of languages. He assumes, for example, that the Chinese verb must have either tense or aspect ... If the accepted sense of a word refuses to fit his categories (or obstinately persists in fitting old-fashioned categories better), he alters it, and by way of evidence throws us half a dozen sentences which the alteration does not render unintelligible. However, this is a vice which often goes with the virtues of a system-builder.'Stimson in a review of EAC says, in regard to Dobson's approach to the problem of word classes, "The value of this kind of research is that it puts on a firm factual basis the traditional assumption that Archaic Chinese has no word classes beyond what Dobson calls cenematic and plerematic. It is the position that a word fills that imposes noun or verb quality upon it ... All the same, it is possibly more realistic to consider words intrinsically nouns or verbs. Perhaps a third category should also be set up, like Kennedy's ambs, showing formal characteristics of both nouns and verbs, and often translated into English as adjectives, adverbs, or intran- sitive verbs."242 Chang K'un, in "A grammatical sketch of Late Archaic Chinese", presents an outline of a revised grammatical system where he criticizes those of Dobson's points with which he disagrees. On form-classes, he says: "in discussing the form- classes of almost any language our attention is directed to their privileges of occur-

238 Dobson, 1962, p. xviii. 239 Dobson, 1959, p. xxiii, footnote 13. 240 Graham, 1959, p. 556. 241 Graham, 1959, pp. 570-1. 242 Stimson, 1963, p. 574. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 47 rence... a careful study of the distributional environment of forms does reveal a substantive-verb dichotomy... Definitely not all plerematic words in LAC are invested with both substantival and verbal functions. The mutual exclusiveness demonstrated by a small number of words warrants the establishment of substantives and verbs... Actually, the dichotomy between substantives and verbs can be established at the level of words. Among the criteria ... is the presence or absence of the negative huh ...: a plerematic word is acting as a verb if it is or can be negated by buh. Exceptions to this general statement, being so rare, can be listed almost exhaustively ... other environments would furnish criteria for a more refined classification within substantives and verbs."243 Dobson segments his analyzed texts into the 'piece' with the components 'lexics' (at once a graph, phonological unit, and grammatical unit, i.e. morpheme), 'words', 'syntagmas', 'clauses', and 'sentences'. Chang's summary of Dobson's 'word' and 'syntagma' units is quoted here: "A 'word' may be either a free morpheme (a simple word), or a compound of more than one morpheme (a compound word). Compound words differ merely in being customary associations of morphemes, in contrast to the spontaneous associations of syntagmas made as it were ad hoc. (An empirical observation is that compound words are characterized by specialization of sense, and as such are found as dictionary entries.) 'Syntagma' Dobson defines as a mean- ingful sequence of words ... The syntagma is a unit intermediate between word and sentence and is set up to account for distribution of the constituents of the sentence."244 Egerod, in a brief but pithy review, has this observation: "No clear distinction is provided between polysyllabic word and syntagma. Shiong-dih /older brother/younger brother/ 'brothers' and sha-ren /kill/man/ 'murder' are examples of words, tian-shiah 'under the sky' that is 'the world' and Her-dong 'east of the [Yellow] River' (place name) are examples of syntagma."245 Malmqvist, in a review article "Some observations on a Grammar of LAC'', which is a rather critical appraisal, says: "Hypotaxic compounds may ... be either determinative, in which case the modifying term precedes, or directive, in which case the modifying term follows, the modified term. The tactical processes employed in the formation of these compounds are identical with those employed in the construction of syntagmas (see 1.2.4). His distinction between compound words and syntagmas rests entirely on semantic criteria, a fact which is instrumental in obscuring the demarcation between the morphological and the syntactic levels of analysis."246 Graham's summary of Dobson's two classes of sentences in LAC says, in part, '(1) 'Verbal', the minimal form of which is a word verbal in value. (2) 'Determinative', the minimal form of which is a pair of terms both nominal in value... The verbal

243 Chang, 1961, pp. 306-7. 244 Chang, 1961, p. 300. 245 Egerod, I960, p. 174. 246 Malmqvist, 1960, p. 258. Also see Chou, 1963, pp. 252-3, Chou Fa-kao's review of EAC, where he would like to treat some of Dobson's syntagmas as compound words. 48 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN sentence may or may not have an agent. The agent is not a subject of which the verb is predicated, but merely one of several elements which may or may not be placed before the verb to determine it ... Dobson claims that the pronouns have special 'determinant' forms which determine both the verb as agent and the noun in syntagma (in terms of Indo-European grammar, are limited to the 'nominative' and 'genitive')."247 Here follows a discussion of pronoun variants where Graham shows that Karlgren's early study "On the authenticity and nature of the Tso Chuan",248 which discriminates three dialects according to use of pronouns, is surely justified. Dobson has been mildly criticized by most reviewers for not distinguishing such dialect layers in his LAC corpus, but the most severe objection, voiced by all reviewers, is the lack of a clear distinction between his two sentence types. Stimson says: "The distinction between the two kinds of sentences depends on the number of terms in the minimal form ... The trouble is that the minimal form of the determinative sentence is one term, not two, so the number of the terms is the same as in the verbal sentence."249 Chang says: "Furthermore, Professor Dobson's establishment of the determinative sentence is not fully warranted. In the first place, the so-called determinative sentences do not always consist of two terms; for instance, Lii yul 'Is this in accord with the law of propriety?' Lii yee. 'It is in accord with the law of propriety.' In the second place, the terms in the determinative sentence are not always nominal; the following expressions are verbal in nature: yeuan (yii) 'far,' jeou (yii) 'long,' ..,'.250 In his article, Chang outlines what he feels to be an irreducible core of units and construction types for Late Archaic Chinese. Egerod much more briefly states, in regard to sentence types, "A LAC sentence may consist of two members, Predicate] alone, or Sfubject] + Predicate] ... S as well as P may contain a V[erbal] member with or without extensions such as A[gent] and 0[bjects]. S is formally distinguished from A only with personal pronouns. S + P can constitute P in a further S + P construction".251 Egerod's next to last paragraph adds: "It seems to the reviewer that the writer of a LAC grammar could profitably begin his analysis and description with such overt categories as those established by erl, jy, yee, yii, jee, and the adverb- auxiliaries, and thence proceed to parallel covert constructions and lexical information of interest to the translator. In Dobson's exposition things which naturally go together have been separated as a result of the sentential dichotomy and other possible but unnecessary devices." Dobson's third book, a sequel to EAC and LAC, Late Han Chinese - a study of the Archaic-Han shift (Toronto, 1964), appeared while this chapter was in proof, too late for more than very brief mention here. He compares the LAC Mencius text with the Late Han paraphrase of Mencius by Chao Ch'i. On page 100 in his concluding chapter, Dobson says that the chief difference is that in the Late

247 Graham, 1959, pp. 556-7. 248 Goteborgs Hogskolas Arsskrift 32.3-65 (1926). 249 Stimson, 1963, p. 572. 250 Chang, 1961, pp. 302-3. 251 Egerod, 1960, pp. 174-5. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 49

Han paraphrase the LAC 'empty words' are greatly reduced and "suffer loss in role and meaning" while periphrastic constructions show a corresponding increase and "the 'full words' acquire enhanced significance", with a tendency for the LAC single word to be replaced by compound words. The book is very ably reviewed by Pulley- blank in Asia Major (new series) 12.115-19 (1966). Obviously Dobson's works, the first of their kind, have performed a valuable function, not only for their own original contributions, but for having elicited the kind of constructive criticism and comment so well exemplified in the reviews of his books. In closing this chapter, attention is called to a short paper by Chou Fa-kao, "Stages in the development of the Chinese language",252 which, unlike this account, proceeds in proper historical order, beginning with the earliest periods of which we have records.253 Stimson, in his review of EAC cited above, summarizes it so felicitously that I can do no better than quote him verbatim: "Chou divides Chinese into three main periods, primarily according to phonological evidence; Archaic Chinese had (-6), -d, -g endings alongside -p, -t, -k, and had initial clusters of the type pi-, tl-, kl-; Medieval Chinese (1st to 6th century A.D.) lost the voiced-stop endings and simplified the initial clusters; Modern Chinese is marked by the breaking off of the Mandarin dialects, which lost the distinctions of -p. -t, -k endings. These features of phonological change are roughly correlated to features of syntax and lexicon. Archaic Chinese shows a characteristic inversion of word-order in verbal sentences with pronoun objects: normally the order is subject-verb-object, but a pronoun object precedes the verb if the verb is negated, or if the object is an interrogative or indefinite pronoun. Medieval Chinese introduces a positive, unemphatic copula; and a special verbal construction, where the second in a series of two verbs shows the extent or result of the action of the first, replaces the Archaic causative use of the bare verb. Modern Chinese is characterized by peculiarities of the personal pronoun system, involving the development of a plural morpheme, sometimes contracted to a segment less than a syllable long.. .Chou's Middle Archaic period shows a merger of -b with -d, a proliferation of final sentence particles unknown in the Early period, and some new forms of the pronouns. Chou's Late Archaic period (200 B.C. to 100 A.D.) ... is characterized by an increase in the use of the numeral-classifier-noun construction and in the variety of classifiers; there was also an increase in the number of grammatical words similar to conjunctions and adverbs".254

252 Bulletin of the Visiting Scholars Association, China Branch, Harvard-Yenching Institute 1.2-5 (1961-2). 253 Examples of 'Oracular Chinese' occur in Ch'en, 1956. Chapter 3, "Grammar", is especially interesting, (pp. 85-134). 254 Stimson, 1963, pp. 568-9. 50 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following Selected Bibliography on Chinese historical linguistics contains all the items mentioned in the text of this chapter that have appeared since 1937. A great many more items can be found in Shafer's Bibliography of Sino-Tibetan linguistics, in two volumes. Rather large bibliographies head up each of Pulleyblank's articles. For the period preceding 1937, the reader may consult also the long bibliography at the end of Wang Li's Han-yii Yin-yün-hsiieh. A list of Karlgren's publications through 1954 is given in Else Glahn, "A list of works by Bernhard Karlgren," BMFEA 28.45-54 (1956). Goto Kimpei's "Postwar Japanese studies on the Chinese language", Monumenta Serica 20.368-93 (1961) gives very useful abstracts of each work. On page 368, he cites other bibliographies of Japanese writings on the subject. The abstracts in Volumes 1 to 4 of Revue bibliographique de sinologie are excellent, but only cover the period from 1955 to 1958.

Arisaka Hideyo, "A critical study of Karlgren's Medial / Theory", Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko (The Oriental Library) No. 21 (1962). Paul K. Benedict, "Semantic differentiation in Indo-Chinese", HJAS 4.213-29 (1939). , "Studies in Indo-Chinese phonology", HJAS 5.101-27 (1940-41). , "Tibetan and Chinese kinship terms", HJAS 6.313-36 (1943). , "Archaic Chinese *g and *d", HJAS 11.197-206 (1948). Nicholas C. Bodman, "Review of Bernhard Karlgren, The Chinese language", Lg. 26.339-46 (1950). , "A linguistic study of the Shih Ming — initials and consonant clusters", Harvard-Yenching Insitute Studies 9 (Cambridge, 1954). P. A. Boodberg, "Some proleptical remarks on the evolution of Archaic Chinese", HJAS 2.329-72 (1937). Chang K'un "A grammatical sketch of Late Archaic Chinese", (Review article on Dobson, Late Archaic Chinese), JAOS 81.299-308 (1961). Y. R. Chao, "Distinctions within Ancient Chinese", HJAS 5.203-33 (1940). , "Review of Bernhard Karlgren, Grammata Serica", Lg. 17.60-7 (1941). Ch'en Chih-fan fi g, IS # fg + Ü ^ ^ ["Chinese words in Korean"], ZGYW 132.392-406 (1964.5). Ch'en Meng-chia |M ^ Ê/k IÈ. fc* àË ["An Account of Oracular Texts from the Waste of Yin"], In ¿t "¿T ^ H f 'J ? M ['Archeology', Special Publication A] (Peking, 1956). Chin Yu-ching £ W m M 0§ S ^ Ol W M H E9 m M 9f JS'J ["A distinction in two final groups hsien and shan between Illrd and IVth Division words in the speech of Yi-wu"], ZGYW 128.61 (1964.1). Janusz Chmielewski, "The typological evolution of the Chinese language", RO 15.371-429 (1949). , "Remarques sur le problème des mots dissyllabiques en chinois archaïque", Mélanges publiés par VInstitut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises 1.423-45 (1957). , "The problem of early loan-words in Chinese as illustrated by the word p,u-t,ao,\ RO 22.7-45 (1958). , "Two early loan-words in Chinese", RO 24.65-86 (1961). HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 51

Chou Fa-kao Ml & ¡g, M U fi M W £ ["Studies on the/an-tt'/e doublets in Kuang-yün"], CYYY 13.49-117 (1948). , ^ M K -tJ] # ["Studies on the fan-ts'ie in Hsixan-ying's 'Yi-ts'ie Cing Yin- yi'"], CYYY 20.359-444 (1948). , £ if + W H ^ fi ^ ^ if W ^ fê ["On the finals with medial i in Ancient Chinese"], CYYY 19.203-33 (1949). , ["A study of the phonemes of Ancient Chinese"], CYYY 25.1-19 (1954). , + Hü "£f ft to ü ["A historical grammar of Ancient Chinese"]: Part 1 Syntax (1961) Sg H; Part 2 Morphology (1962) M Ü; Part 3 Substitution (1959), $ ft; Ü; CYYY Special Publication No. 39. , Stages in the development of the Chinese language Vol. 1 (1961-62) Visiting Scholars Association, China Branch, Harvard-Yenching Institute. , "Word classes in Classical Chinese", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, August 27-31, 1962, pages 594-8. , Review of Dobson, Early Archaic Chinese, HJAS 24.252-60 (1962-3). , "Reduplicatives in the Book of Odes", CYYY 34.661-98 (1963). , 41 Hi to Ü [Collected articles on Chinese language] (Taipei, 1963). , Jfl |Sr M [Sinology in America] (Taipei, 1964). Chou Tsu-mo Ml fffl M ft % IH "a fft m M ["Annotations to the chapter on sounds and words of Mr. Yen's Family instruction"], Fu-jen Hsiieh-pao 12 (1943), reprinted in: Öt H^ fj ftët HI [Collected papers on Chinese phonology] (Shanghai, 1957). , Il M M ft ~H a 4» H m M fè W — » ^ ** ["Some material on the pronunciation of the four tones in dialects of the T'ang Dynasty"], Yuyanxue Luncong 2.11-16 (1958). , -tJJ H M 'ÎÊ © ÎP Wf lï ["The nature of the Ch'ie-yün and its phonological basis"], Yuyanxue Luncong 5.39-70 (1963). Barna Csongor, "Chinese in the Uighur script of the T'ang-period", AOH 2.73 -122 (1952). , "Some more Chinese glosses in Uighur script" AOH 4.251-8 (1954). , "Some Chinese texts in Tibetan script from Tun-Huang", AOH 10.94-140 (1960). P. Demiéville, "Archaïsmes de prononciation en Chinois vulgaire", TP 40.1-59 (1950). Paul B. Denlinger, "Chinese historical linguistics—the road ahead", J AO S 81.1-7 (1961). W. A. C. H. Dobson, "A grammar of Late Archaic Chinese—a grammatical study" (Toronto, 1959). , "A grammar of Early Archaic Chinese—a descriptive grammar" (Toronto, 1962). 52 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN W. A. C. H. Dobson, "Late Han Chinese" - a study of the Archaic-Han Shift (Toronto, 1964). G. B. Downer, "A problem in Chiehyunn Chinese", BSOAS 19.515-25 (1957). , "Derivation by tone-change in Classical Chinese", BSOAS 22.258-90 (1959). , Review of Serruys, The Chinese dialects of Han time according to Fang Yen, BSOAS 23.165-7 (1960). Soren Egerod, Review of S. E. Martin, The phonemes of Ancient Chinese, Lg. 31.470- 7 (1955). , "The Lungtu dialect. A descriptive and historical study of a south Chinese idiom" (Copenhagen, 1956). , "The eighth earthly branch in Archaic Chinese and Tai", Oriens 10.296-9 (1957). , and E. Glahn, eds., Studia Serica Bernhard Karlgren Dedicata: Sinological studies dedicated to Bernhard Karlgren on his seventieth birthday (Copenhagen, 1959). , "A note on some Chinese numerals as loan words in Tai", TP 47.67-74 (1959). , Review of Dobson, Late Archaic Chinese, Acta Orientalia 25.173-8 (1960). R. A. D. Forrest, The Chinese language (London, 1948). New edition, 1965. , "The Ju-Sheng Tone in Pekingese", BSOAS 13.443-7 (1950). , "On certain Tibetan initial consonant groups", Wennti 4.41-56 (1952). , "Les occlusives finales en Chinois archaïque", Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 55.228-39 (1960). , "Researches in Archaic Chinese", ZDMG 111.118-38 (1961). A. C. Graham, Review of Dobson, Late Archaic Chinese, "Observations on a new Classical Chinese grammar", BSOAS 22.556-71 (1959). Willem A. Grootaers, "La géographie linguistique du chinois : Nécessité d'une nouvelle méthode pour l'étude linguistique de chinois", MS 8.103-66 (1943). M. A. K. Halliday, "The language of the Chinese 'Secret History of the Mongols'", Publication of the Philological Society 17 (Oxford, 1959). Hashimoto Mantarö ^ ^ fgj jfc ÊI5, "A contribution to the study of Chinese phonology (on Hainanese and Sino-Assamese)", Transactions of the International Con- ference of Orientalists in Japan 5.25-32 (1960). , "The Bon-Shio 0C H) dialect of Hainan: A historical and comparative study of its phonological structure, First part: The initials", G.K. 38.106-35 (1960). A. G. Haudricourt, "Comment reconstruire le chinois archaïque", Word 10.351-64 (1954). Hsia Hsiang JC f"] > 'M M X "S" fn '/i SI 3c ["Outline of the grammar of Literary Chinese] (Hong Kong, 1961). Huang Sheng-chang M Î: M> "è Ü to A # ft M ¥f ["A study on the personal pronouns of Old Chinese"], ZGYW 127.443-72 (1963.6). HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 53

Gerty Kallgren, "Studies in Sung time colloquial Chinese as revealed in Chu Hsi's Ts'üanshu", BMFEA 30.1-165 (1958). Bernhard Karlgren, "Grammata Serica, script and phonetics in Chinese and Sino- Japanese" BMFEA 12.1-471 (1940). , The Chinese language: An essay on its nature and history (New York, 1949). (First published in Swedish under the title: Fr&n Kinas Spräkvärld, Stockholm, 1945.) , "Excursions in Chinese grammar", BMFEA 23.107-133 (1951). , "Compendium of phonetics in Ancient and Archaic Chinese", BMFEA 22.211-367 (1954). , "Cognate words in the Chinese phonetic series", BMFEA 28.1-18 (1956). , "Grammata Serica Recensa", BMFEA 29.1-332 (1957). , "Tones in Archaic Chinese", BMFEA 32.113-142 (1960). , "Final -d and -r in Archaic Chinese", BMFEA 34.121-27 (1962). , "Loan characters in pre-Han texts", BMFEA 35.1-128 (1963). George A. Kennedy, "Metrical irregularity in the Shih Ching", HJAS 60.284-96 (1939). (Reprinted in Selected Works; T.Y. Li, ed, 10-26.) , "A Study of the particle Yen A its meaning, B its Form", J AOS 60.1-22, 193-207 (1940). (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed., 27-56, 57-78.) , "The monosyllabic myth", JAOS 71.161-66 (1951). (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed. 104-118.) , "Voiced gutturals in Tangsic", Lg. 28.457-64 (1952). (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed. 183-98.) , "Negatives in Classical Chinese", Wennti 1.1-16 (1952). (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed. 119-134.) , "Tone in Archaic Chinese", Wennti 2.17-32 (1952). (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed. 135-150.) , "Another Note on Yen", HJAS 16.226-36 (1953). (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed. 199-212.) , "Ancient -an, -on, and the J-bomb", Wennti 6.81-93 (1954). (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed. 226-37.) , "The Butterfly Case", Wennti 8 (1955). (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed. 274-322.) , "Word-classes in Classical Chinese", Wennti 9.1-68 (April, 1956); (Reprinted in Selected Works, T.Y. Li, ed. 323-433.) , "15 ffe ^t fic" ["A re-examination of the classical pronoun forms ngu and ngo"], CYYY 28.273-81 (1957). Köno Rokurö Sf AEÜÜ&^f ["A characteristic of Sino-Korean"], GK 3.27-52 (1939). , J("A study on Sino-Korean"), Chosen Gakuhö; Part I: 31.1-47, Part II: 32.48-115, Part III: 33.116-161 (1964), and Part IV: 35.162-208 (1965). 54 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN Marian Lewicki, "La langue mongole des transcriptions chinoises du XIVe siècle. Le Houa-yi yi-yu de 1389" (Wroclaw, 1949). Li Fang-kuei "Some Old Chinese loan words in the Tai languages", HJAS 8.333-42 (1945). , Review of Serruys, The Chinese dialects of Han time according to Fang Yen, JAOS 59.309-10 (1959). Li Jung $ Ü, -tJJ Î! ia ["The phonological system of the Ch'ieh Yün"] (Peking, 1952). Li T'ien-yi, ed., Selected Works of George A. Kennedy (New Haven, 1964). Louis Ligeti, "Le Po kia sing en écriture 'phags-pa", AO H 6.1-52 (1956). Liu Ching-nung ^ H, '¡it fg- "a In ü [A grammar of literary Chinese], (Pe- king, 1958). Lo Ch'ang-p'ei Ü & fè, "Evidence for amending B. Karlgren's Ancient Chinese j to Y/\ HJAS 14.285-90 (1951). , iÜ to "b" lit ^ M discussion of Chinese phonology] (Peking, 1956). Lo Ch'ang-p'ei and Chou Tsu-mo MlTfê^llM. ^t 16 ^ îS 4b ^ 11 Sï ffi W ["A study of the development of the Rhyme-groups in Han, Wei, Chin and the Six Dynasties], Vol. 1 (Peking, 1958). Lo Ch'ang-p'ei and Ts'ai Mei-piao M 1f> ig M il A Jg G ¥ H 7C ft 'M 1& ["hP'ags-pa Letters and Yiian dynasty Chinese"] (Peking, 1959). , m M m 5*c W'A S B ¥ ÎP ÎT t IS' ["On Dragunov's hP'ags-pa letters and Ancient Mandarin"], ZGYW 79.575-81 (1959.12). The Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Linguistics and Philology, M ^ ro o I^É^ûÉ [Selected works of Lo Ch'ang-p'ei on linguistics] (Peking, 1963). Lu Chih-wei M J& H P9 Jg II % it ["3rd and 4th Classes of initials and yodization"], YCHP 26.143-73 (1939). Mmmmm^^.^-iûmMiBRM^m^m^ t"A new attempt to reconstruct the initials of the Ch'ieh-yiin with notes on the initials of the Ch'ang-an dialect of the T'ang dynasty"], YCHP 28.41-56 (1940). , 9£ M II + H9 M il ^ ® W -h Î9- ["Changes in initials in the period between the Shuo-Wen and the Kuang-yün"], YCHP 28.1-40 (1940). , tfe^M^ïtirîlrîË ["A phonographical study of the Tu-jo notations in the Shuo-Wen"], YCHP 30.135-278 (1946). , ÎT îf ["The phonology of Ancient Chinese"], YCHP Monograph 20 (1947). , II H ft ["The rhymes of the Book of Songs"], YCHP Monograph 21 (1948). Lü Shu-hsiang S $8, 4* M ü 3c Ifö [An abridged grammar of Chinese], (Pe- king, 1942), Reprinted 1957. Ma Hsüeh-liang and Lo Chi-kuang «-0J fj» M P9 IJ W 7C ["The main vowel of the rhymes of the Ch'ieh-yiin pure 4th Division"], ZGYW 121. 533-9 (1962. 12). HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 55

Otto Maenchen-Helfen," Are Chinese hsi-p'i and kuo-lo Indo-European loan words?", Lg. 21.256-60 (1945). N. G. D. Malmqvist, "Some observations on a grammar of Late Archaic Chinese", TP 48.252-86 (1960). , "On a recent study of Han phonology", TP 49.194-207 (1961). , "On Archaic Chinese 3r and ad", BMFEA 34.107-20 (1962). , "Han phonology and textual criticism", The Australian National University, Center of Oriental Studies, Occasional Papers No. 1 (Canberra, 1963). Samuel E. Martin, "The phonemes of Ancient Chinese", Supplement to JAOS 16 (1953) (Baltimore, 1953). , Review of Wenck, Japanische Phonetik, Lg. 35.370-82 (1959). Henri Maspéro, "Préfixes et dérivations en chinois archaïque", Memoirs de la Société linguistique de Paris 23.317-27 (1939). , "Le chinois" (in Les Langues du mondé), pp. 589-608 (Paris, 1952). , "Les langues tibéto-birmanes", Les langues du monde, p. 529-70 (Paris, 1952). Roy A. Miller, Review of Tödö, Hyögenron teki on inron no kokoromi etc., Lg. 30.430-31 (1954). , Review of, Bodman, A linguistic study of the Shih Ming, TP 44.266-87 (1956). , Review of Karlgren, Sound and symbol in Chinese, Lg. 40.102-8 (1964). Mineya Töru H iß H IH ^ K O X ["On the Illrd and IVth Divisions of the Yun-ching"], GK 22-23.56-74 (1953). , + "è Ü So © Iii # © M IS ["An attempt to interpret the Ts'ie-yün finals"], GK 31.8-21 (1956). Mizutani Shinjö & E )&, fg ft K ¿J If h ® fg-M M- ia © denasiliza- tion ÎÊ 'M ["The process of derealization of initial nasals during the T'ang Period"], Töyö Gakuhö 39.1-31 (1957). , RÉ • E M # © M if ["On the sound values of hsiao and hsia initials"], Töyö Gakuhö 40.41-090 (1958). , & fg © " y V # if £ ^ h 1" Ü ["The Chinese characters representing the Sanskrit retroflex vowels"], GK 37.45-55 (1960). J. W. F. Mulder, "On the morphology of the negatives in Archaic Chinese", TP 47.251-80 (1959). Paul Nagel, "Beiträge zur Rekonstruktion der -fcJJ fj Ts'ieh-Yün-Sprache auf Grund von B. Ch'en Li's ij] IM # Ts'ieh-Yün-K'au", TP 36.95-158 (1941). Ogawa Tamaki /h jl| M tëf, fa ^ Ii? X Cß 0 « © J& At ["A study of the differentiation of the pronouns ni and erh in Ancient Chinese and their sound changes"], GK 24.7-11 (1953). , Review of Serruys, The dialects of Han Time according to Fang Yen, MS 19.518-23 (1960). E. G. Pulleyblank, "Studies in early Chinese grammar", Asia Major (new series) 8.36-67 (1960). 56 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

E. G. Pulleyblank, "The consonantal system of Old Chinese", Part 1: Asia Major (new Series) 9.59-144 (1962), Part 2: id. 9.206-65 (1963). , "An interpretation of the vowel systems of Old Chinese and of written Burmese", Asia Major (new series) 10.200-21 (1963). , "Review of Dobson, Late Han Chinese", Asia Major (new series) 12.115-19 (1966). Rai Tsutomu ft 'It Ufr, Jr. Ü © Pß! ^ Ii % O ^ X ("On the guttural finals in Archaic Chinese"), Ochanomizu joshidaigaku jinbun kagakukiyö 3.51-64 (1953). , ± + M W CD fg (D $M # K M 1" & ["Two or three problems regarding the finals of Archaic Chinese"], Töyö Gakuhö 40.62-81 (1957). , • _L 4* m CD § # Ii M U CD & F4 n ["On the classification of the finals in *-n *-d *-t in Archaic Chinese"], Ochanomizu joshidaigaku jimbun kagaku kiyö 9.37-51 (1957). Sakai Ken-ichi # ßt — ft & K & ± & & U ±

Shao Jung-fen & gfc & fS £ * + W W & H £ Jf 3l tt B ft H % ["Alternate characters and divergent writings in the vulgar literature of Tun Huang and the dialect sounds in the Northwest in the Five Dynasties and Tang"], ZGYW 124.193-217 (1963.3). Shen Chien-shih ift ±, jff U g ^ ["The Kuang-yiin systematized by phonetics"], (Peking, 1945). Walter Simon, "A Kottish-Tibetan-Chinese word equation", CYYY 28.441-3 (1956). , "Tibetan so and Chinese ya 'tooth'", BSOAS 18.512-13 (1956). R. Stein, "Le Lin-yi", Han Hiue, Bulletin du Centre d'Etudes Sinologiques de Pekin 2 (1947). Hugh M. Stimson, "Ancient Chinese -p, -t, -k endings in the Peking dialect", Lg. 38.376-84 (1962). , "Phonology of the Chung Yuan Yin Yün", CHHP (new Series) 3.114-59 (1962). , Review of Dobson, Early Archaic Chinese, Lg. 39.567-774 (1963). , The Jongyuan In Yunn: a guide to Old Mandarin Pronunciation, Far Eastern Publications, Sinological Series No. 12 (New Haven, 1966). Morris Swadesh, "Note on 'Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan'", IJAL 18.178-81 (1952). Tödö Akiyasu B ^ Pfl it iE "sfr M ™ Ü © JR ["An attempt at phonology as expressionism: morphological impressionism as expressed by the compound initials [kl], [tk]. [pi]"], Chügoku gogaku kenkyükai kaihö 1.59-78 (1953). , • Jr. 1& iÜ fH © 77 If ["On the special features of the Chou-Ch'in dialect"], Töhögaku Ronshü (Memoirs of the Institute of Eastern Culture) 1.85-104 (1954). , ["Outline of the phonemic systems of Pekinese, Old Mandarin, Ancient Chinese and Archaic Chinese"], Nihon Chügokugakkaihö 4.1-24 (1954). , • 4* lirig- If 1J fft ["On the phonology of Chinese"], (Tokyo, 1957). , 'HM-tfiill-OVi: ["On Feng-huang and Fei-lien"], Töhögaku 18.104-11 (1959). Tung T'ung-ho U IU It 1! l£ ® # ["A preliminary study of the fan-ts'ie doublets in the Kuang-yün"], CYYY 13.1-20 (1948). , _h h1 fj ^ W) ["Tentative Archaic Chinese phonologic tables"], CYYY 18.1-249 (1948). , • + IH A. ["History of Chinese phonology"] § 26, Ser. 2 of Hsien-tai Kuo-min Chi-pen Chih-shih Ts'ung-shu) (Taipei, 1954). Wang Ching-ju I f^ in, Ifo £ M £ Ü ft if- ["The Medial i in Ancient Chi- nese"], YCHP 35.51-94 (1948). Wang Hsien £ .IS, ff S * SI S W ffl tö ^ ^ Ä ^ ^ *P Ä ["The word-forms yiu (W), qi (3t), si ($r) and si (®) as equivalents for reduplicated forms in the Book of Odes"], YYYC 4.9-44 (1954). Wang Li IE j], It Ü A iil lit # ["A study of Ancient Chinese vowels from 58 NICHOLAS CLEAVELAND BODMAN

the rhyming of poets of the fifth to sixth centuries"], CHHP 11 (1936). (Reprinted in : Collected works on the history of the Chinese language), pp. 1-59. , " '¡Ü ÎS So W IE ["A study of Chinese and Vietnamese"], in Collected works on the history of the Chinese language, pp. 290-406. , + HI a" IJ ^ ['Chinese phonology'], (Shanghai, 1935). Reprinted as: Ü fg- til. (Peking, 1956). —, ' 'M no it ffô [History of the Chinese language], 3 Vols. (Peking, 1957). , "31 Wt ife ffe M [Collected works on the history of the Chinese Language] (Peking, 1958). , Öt iio % 11 [Chinese phonology] (Peking, 1963). Wang Lien-tseng EE H", "Un dictionnaire phonologique des T'ang: le Ts'ie yun corrigé et complété de Wang Jen-hiu") TP 45.51-150 (1957). Wang Yu-te + ["The lexicostatistic estimation of the timedepths of the five main Chinese dialects"], GK 38.33-105 (1960). Günther Wenck, Japanische phonetik, Vol. 3: Die Phonetik des Sinojapanischen (Wiesbaden, 1957). WuTsung-chi £ £ fc, Ä 91 Ü + & f& it ^ M # IJ ^ M ["The phonology of the Chinese loan-words in the Chuang language of Wu-ming"], YYYC 3.25-70 (1958). S. E. Yakhontov, "Fonetika kitaiskogo yazyka i tysyacheletiya do n.e. (sistema finalei)", Problemy vostokovedeniya 2.137-47 (1959). , "Consonant combinations in Archaic Chinese", XXV International Congress of Orientalists, Papers Presented by the USSR Delegation (Moscow, 1960). , "Fonetika kitaiskogo yazyka i tysyacheletiya do n.e.", Problemy vostokovedeniya 6.102-15 (1960). Yang Lien-sheng H ® IS, ig £ # it ¥ Ä & tH M ["A study of the grammar and vocabulary as found in Lao Ch'i-ta and P'u Vung-shih, two old Korean textbooks on colloquial Chinese"], CYYY 29.197-208 (1957). Yang Po-chiin tla 16 1Î bo '7È [A grammar of literary Chinese] (Peking, 1955). Isabella Yiyun Yen, A grammatical analysis of Syàu Jïng, (= Pubücation 16 of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics) (Bloomington, 1960). Ying Lin M Wf 't* Öt îo ft ¡15] ["Chinese loanwords in the Miao languages"], ZGYW 115.218-29 (1962.5). Yii Min rôr ffc If & # ÏH & t£ M is M S U ± it $1 ["Word derivation in Archaic Chinese through the annexing of the suffix D"], YCHP 34.29-48, 315 (1948). , • iÉf Ü Ä ® &J Ü ît M si Jfe ["Sandhi in Archaic Chinese"], YCHP 35.29-50 (1948).