Stray loanword gleanings from twon Ancient Chinese fictional texts

Cahiers de Linguistique Asie …, 2001

en français: on a étudié la stratification des emprunts lexicaux faits par le hani de Dazhai, une langue tibéto-birmane, au chinois. Les principes de l'analyse (principe de cohérence, principe étendu de cohérence) sont exposés dans une partie méthodologique. Deux grandes couches d'emprunts au mandarin du sud-ouest, l'une constituée d'emprunts contemporains au dialecte mandarin de Lüchun, l'autre datant de l'introduction de la pomme de terre et du tabac, sont distinguées. Des emprunts anciens (en nombre limité) sont identifiés, mais seulement une partie des correspondances phonétiques peut être dégagée. Deux termes:

Two recent comprehensive studies of the phonology of Old Chinese (i.e. the language of the early and mid Zhou periods) have independently proposed a root structure for the recon­structed language, which is characterized, among other things, by the presence of a contrast between ”loosely attached”, schwa-epenthetic presyllables (also termed ”iambic forms” or ”ciyao yinjie”, ”se­condary syllables”), and straightworward ”fused” cluster initials (Sagart 1999, Pan Wuyun 2000). Irrespective of the question whether all of these cluster types can be shown to be non-lexical, i.e. to represent genuine prefixation morphology or not, and igno­ring whether non-fused iambic types are metrically true ”sesquisyllables” or not, it is likely that the proposed syllable typology, so reminiscent of that of Austroasiatic languages (on which see Haiman 1998), is one of the sources of ”dimidiated” or lento compounds scat­tered throughout the pre-Qin edited literature (Behr 1994). Adopting Sagart’s (1999) model of syllable typology and reconstruction, I will try to find evidence for the proposed set of prefixes (*s-, *p-, *t-, *k-, *m-, *N-, ?*q-) in the rich docu­mentations of lento forms contained in Wang Guowei’s (1877-1927) Lianmian zipu, Li Weiqi (1985), and several other recent studies on the Huainanzi. Finally I would like to discuss the implications of these materials for a chronology of the rise and fall of prefixation in Old Chinese, and, if time permits, comment upon their bearing on the question of the origins of the Chinese writing system (cf. Boltz 2000/01). References: Behr, Wolfgang (1994), ”‘Largo forms’ as secondary evidence for the reconstruction of Old Chi­nese initial consonant clusters”, Paper presented at the 27ème Congrès International sur les Langues et la Linguistique Sino-Tibétaines, Paris, 38 pp. Boltz, William G. (2000/01). ”The structure of oracle bone characters”, Ms., Univ. of Washington, Seattle. Haiman, John (1998), ”Possible origins of infixation in Khmer”, Studies in Language 22 (3): 597-617. Li Weiqi (1985), ”Heyinci li”, in: Hunan Shifan Xueyuan Gu Hanyu Yanjiushi ed., Gu Hanyu lunji : 302-3018, Changsha: Hunan Jiaoyu. Pan Wuyun (1998), ”Han-Zangyu zhong de ciyao yinjie”, in: Shi Feng & Pan Wuyun eds., Zhongguo yuyanxue de xin tuozhan Hong Kong : City University of Hong Kong Pr. ——— (2000), Hanyu lishi yinyunxue, Shanghai : Shanghai Jiaoyu. Sagart, Laurent (1999) The Roots of Old Chinese (CILT; 184), Amsterdam & Philadelphia : J. Benja­mins.

… : Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in …, 1998

The present paper illustrates some of the major known morphological processes of Old Chinese-roughly, the language of the Chinese classical texts of the Zhou E dynasty (llth-3rd centuries BCE). To speak of morphological processes in Old Chinese may surprise some ...

2008

Chinese Transcription of Foreign Words Prior to the 19th Century Geoff Wade Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore Abstract Chinese languages have, since their emergence, been in contact with the languages of non-Sinitic peoples. The resultant language contact has meant both representation and borrowing of non-Chinese lexical items in Chinese languages. This article provides a number of vignettes showing how nonChinese languages have either represented or borrowed from non-Chinese languages over the last 2,000 years. The influences of Indic, Persian, Arab, and Mongol languages on Chinese and the way new lexical items were represented are addressed in a chronological format. This is followed by a brief examination of the attempts to formalize Chinese knowledge of foreign languages, culminating in the emergence of various vocabularies of foreign languages represented phonetically in Chinese characters. This was the format adopted when the Chinese began representing ...

2006

2003

The roots of the notorious European preoccupation with the origins of speech, language and lingui­stic diversity ever since the nascent Renaissance enlightenment (cf. Borst 1957-63, Gessinger & Rahden eds. 1989 for monumental, Eco 1993 for succinct overviews) have commonly been sought in the rejection of the Biblical master narrative of the Genesis. Within the Judeo-Christian tradition, this rejection led to an ever increasing urge to reinstate a creative power behind language, during a period when God became moribund and eventually died, but when none of the readily available an­tique concepts of nature or of a linguistically autonomous homo faber were felt fully adequate to fill in the meta­phy­si­cal chasm God had left behind. Absent this theological background and its later political repercussions in the justification narratives of the European nation states, it is little wonder, then, that questions about the origin of language — al­though occasionally touched upon by pre-Qin and early Medieval scholars outside the realm of Bud­dhist philosophy of language, struggling with problems of reference, the arbitrariness of the lin­gui­stic sign, linguistic diversity and language change etc. (cf. Behr 2004, 2005) — never re­ceived any substantal interest in China before the Late Imperial period. In my talk, I will try to trace the major developments leading from Dai Dong's 戴侗 (fl. 1241-1275) emphatic assertion of the pri­ma­cy of the spoken over the written in his Origins of the six scripts (Liushu gu 六書故), through state­ments on language origins encountered in the paratexts of the mainstream Qing evidential research scho­lars, down to the first sustained "Theory on the origin of language" (Yuyan yuanqi shuo 語言緣起說) in Zhang Taiyan’s 張太炎 (1868-1936) Guogu lunheng 國故論衡 of 1910. Spe­cial focus will be given to 17th century universalist conceptions of linguistic com­petence, gar­nered from the fragments of Liu Xianting’s 劉獻廷 (1649-95) Xin yun pu 新韻譜 and the in­tro­duc­to­ry fascicle of Pan Lei’s 潘耒 (1646-1708) Lei yin 類音. If time permits, I will finally open a wider comparative perspective on the treatment of language ori­gins in pre- or non-Judeo-Christian traditions beyond China and Europe, in order to assess the ar­gu­ment which holds that it is the structure of the Chinese language itself or its writing system, which impeded interest in a central question of European anthropology.

JSEALS (The Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society), 2018

This paper evaluates Chinese lexical data in Shorto’s 2006 Proto-Mon-Khmer reconstructions to prevent misapplication of his reconstructions, which in a few dozen instances are based on problematic data that affect or even refute his reconstructions. First, Shorto notes about 20 Chinese items to consider for their comparable semantic and phonological properties. While several are probable Chinese loanwords spread throughout the region, a majority of these are unlikely to be Chinese as they are either Wanderwörter seen in multiple language families with undetermined origins or, in most cases, simply partial chance similarities, and these latter items can thus be removed from consideration in Proto-Austroasiatic reconstructions. Second, Shorto also listed about 50 Vietnamese words as supporting data for proto-Austroasiatic etyma which are either (a) clearly Sino-Vietnamese readings of Chinese characters (about 20 instances) or (b) Early Sino-Vietnamese colloquial borrowings (about 30 instances). Many of those proposed proto-Austroasiatic reconstructions must be reconsidered due to the exclusion of these Sino Vietnamese items. While excluding such Sino-Vietnamese or Early Sino-Vietnamese items in some cases has no impact on those reconstructions, other exclusions result in slight changes in the reconstructed forms, and in several cases, proposed reconstructions must be entirely excluded as only Vietnamese and one other branch of Austroasiatic are available as comparative evidence. Finally, both the exclusions of proposed attestations (and the clarification of their actual origin) and the hypotheses of regional spread of Chinese words must be considered not only for Proto-Austroasiatic but also in comparative historical linguistic studies in the region.

T'oung Pao, 1996

Etymology, the search for the origin and the original "true" meaning of words, has always been popular both among the general public and among scholars. In trying to understand a foreign culture, this is a device which is often used. But there is always the danger of wild speculation, when one dissects the component parts of a word, of degenerating into the Western equivalent of chaizi. In fact, etymology is a study full of pitfalls into which even serious scholars may be lured, and sound research is indispensable. On the origin of modern Chinese vocabulary, both loanwords and neologisms which were used to translate words from Western languages, not much research has been done, apart from Wolfgang Lippert's Entstehung und Funktion einiger chinesischer marxistischer Termini. Der lexikalisch-begrifjliche Aspekt der Rezeption des Marxismus in japan und China (Wiesbaden, 1979). In China, a revision of Gao Mingkai and Liu Zhengtan's study on loanwords Xiandai Hanyu wailaici yanjiu (Peking, 1959) was published by Mai Yongqian and Shi Youwei as Hanyu wailaici cidian (Shanghai, 1984). However, this dictionary, though useful as a reference for loanwords, is not always reliable and points to the need for further research. This has been clearly shown by Dr. Masini's most interesting dissertation. His study describes the formation of loanwords and neologisms in its historical context, tracing the earliest or early appearance in Chinese texts of many modern words. In this way this book is a history of translation into Chinese, both from historical and linguistic points of view. Part 1 "Language and history from 1840 to 1898" discusses the history of translation, starting with the 17th century Jesuit translations, but concentrating on the first translations by 19th century Western missionaries, Lin Zexu and Wei Yuan, translations done at the Tongwenguan, diaries by the first Chinese diplomats and