Proto-Sino-Tibetan_language

Proto-Sino-Tibetan language

Proto-Sino-Tibetan language

Reconstructed ancestor of the Sino-Tibetan languages


Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) is the hypothetical linguistic reconstruction of the Sino-Tibetan proto-language and the common ancestor of all languages in it, including the Sinitic languages, the Tibetic languages, Yi, Bai, Burmese, Karen, Tangut, and Naga. Paul K. Benedict (1972) placed a particular emphasis on Old Chinese, Classical Tibetan, Jingpho, Written Burmese, Garo, and Mizo in his discussion of Proto-Sino-Tibetan.[1]

Quick Facts Reconstruction of, Lower-order reconstructions ...

While Proto-Sino-Tibetan is commonly considered to have two direct descendants, Proto-Sinitic and Proto-Tibeto-Burman,[2] in recent years several scholars have attempted to rename the group "Trans-Himalayan". In this case, Proto-Tibeto-Burman may be considered as equivalent to Proto-Sino-Tibetan if Sinitic is indeed not the first branch to split from Proto-Sino-Tibetan.[3]

Features

Reconstructed features include prefixes such as the causative s-, the intransitive m-, the miscellaneous b-, d-, g-, and r-, suffixes -s, -t, and -n, and a set of conditioning factors that resulted in the development of tone in most languages of the family.[4] The existence of such elaborate system of inflectional changes in Proto-Sino-Tibetan makes the language distinctive from some of its modern descendants, such as the Sinitic languages, which have mostly or completely become analytic.

Proto-Sino-Tibetan, like Old Chinese, also included numerous consonant clusters, and was not a tonal language.

Phonology

Benedict (1972)

The table below shows consonant phonemes reconstructed by Benedict.[1][page needed]

More information Plosive, Fricative ...

Peiros & Starostin (1996)

The reconstruction by Peiros & Starostin suggests a much more complex consonant inventory.[5] The phonemes in brackets are reconstructions that are considered dubious.

More information Plosive/Affricate, Fricative ...

Hill (2019)

The following tables show the reconstruction of Proto-Sino-Tibetan phonemes by Nathan Hill (2019).[6]

  1. The sibilant correspondences are simply presented according to their proto-Burmish outcomes, as no patterns could be found by Hill.[7]
  2. This consonant can only exist as a coda.
  3. This phonetic nature of this rhotic is unknown.

The consonants /p t k q ʔ m n ŋ l r j/ can take coda position, as well as the cluster /rl/. While Hill does not reconstruct /j/ as an initial consonant due to Baxter and Sagart's Old Chinese reconstruction lacking such a phoneme, he mentions that Jacques and Schuessler suggest a /j/ initial for some Old Chinese words due to potential Tibetan or Rgyalrongic cognates.[8]

More information Vowels, Front ...

Hill also claims that his reconstruction is incomplete, as it does not account for Tibetic palatalization, proto-Burmish preglottalization, Sinitic aspirates, and the Sinitic type A and B distinction of syllables.

Sound changes

Final consonant changes

In Gong Huangcheng's reconstruction of the Proto-Sino-Tibetan language, the finals *-p, *-t, *-k, *-m, *-n, and *-ŋ in Proto-Sino-Tibetan remained in Proto-Sinitic and Proto-Tibeto-Burman. However, in Old Chinese, the finals *-k and *-ŋ that came after the close vowel *-i- underwent an irregular change of *-k>*-t and *-ŋ >*-n. In Proto-Tibeto-Burman, *-kw and *-ŋw underwent a sound change to become *-k and *-ŋ respectively, while in Old Chinese those finals remained until Middle Chinese, where the finals underwent the same sound change.[9]

Furthermore, in Proto-Tibeto-Burman, the finals *-g, *-gw, and *-d underwent the following changes:

  1. *-d>*-y
  2. *-gw>*-w
  3. *-g>*-w when it follows the vowel *-u-
  4. *-g>*-∅ when it follows the vowel *a and *-a-.

Example of sound changes

Voiceless plosive finals

More information Old Chinese (Li Fang-Kuei) ...

Nasal finals

More information Old Chinese (Li Fang-Kuei) ...

Voiced plosive finals

More information Old Chinese (Li Fang-Kuei) ...

Liquid finals

More information Old Chinese (Li Fang-Kuei) ...

Vocabulary

Words which do not have reliable Sinitic parallels are accompanied by a (TB).

Social terms

More information English, Reconstruction by ...

Natural phenomena

More information English, Reconstruction by ...
  1. See also the dialectal 𤈦 /*m̥əjʔ/ and 燬 /*m̥ajʔ/.
  2. Chinese 月 /*[ŋ]ʷat/ is a descendant of another PST word, *s-ŋʷ(j)a-t.
  3. Unclear. The more common word is 星 /*s-tsʰˤeŋ/, which is possibly related to 清 /*tsʰeŋ/, in turn from PST *(t)s(j)aŋ.

Qualitative features of an object

More information English, Reconstruction by ...
  1. It is possible that *s-nak is a descendant of *s-maŋ ~ s-mak (whence OC /*m̥ˤək/).
  2. The more commonly used 白 /*bˤrak/ might be a derivation of it.

Verb stems

More information English, Reconstruction by ...

Numbers

More information English, Reconstruction by ...
  1. For Old Chinese notations in the Baxter–Sagart system:
    • Parentheses "()" indicate uncertain presence;
    • Square brackets "[]" indicate uncertain identity, e.g. *[t] as coda may in fact be *-t or *-p;
    • Angle brackets "<>" indicate infix;
    • Hyphen "-" indicates morpheme boundary;
    • Period "." indicates syllable boundary.

See also


References

  1. Benedict, Paul K. (1972), Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus (PDF), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-08175-7.
  2. Sagart, Laurent; Jacques, Guillaume; Lai, Yunfan; Ryder, Robin J.; Thouzeau, Valentin; Greenhill, Simon J.; List, Johann-Mattis (6 May 2019). "Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116 (21): 10317–10322. Bibcode:2019PNAS..11610317S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1817972116. PMC 6534992. PMID 31061123.
  3. van Driem, George (2007). "The diversity of the Tibeto-Burman language family and the linguistic ancestry of Chinese". Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics. 1 (2): 211–270. doi:10.1163/2405478X-90000023.
  4. Peiros, Ilia; Starostin, S.A. (1996). A comparative vocabulary of five Sino-Tibetan languages. Parkville, VIC: Univ. of Melbourne, Dept. of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. ISBN 9780732513504.
  5. Hill 2019, p. 211.
  6. Hill 2019, p. 234-235.
  7. Hill 2019, p. 216.
  8. Gong Huangcheng (龔煌城) (2003). 從原始漢藏語到上古漢語以及原始藏緬語的韻母演變 [Final changes from Proto-Sino-Tibetan to Old Chinese and Proto-Tibeto-Burman] (PDF). 古今通塞:漢語的歷史與發展. 第㆔屆國際漢學會議論文集語言組 (in Chinese). pp. 187–223. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-11-03. Retrieved 22 October 2023.
  9. Baxter, William H.; Sagart, Laurent. "The Baxter-Sagart reconstruction of Old Chinese". The Baxter-Sagart reconstruction of Old Chinese. Retrieved 10 August 2022.

Further reading


Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Proto-Sino-Tibetan_language, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.