to chē or to jū ： literary misreading and historical reconstruction hongyuan dong the george...

To chē or to jū ：Literary Misreading and Historical Reconstruction

Hongyuan DongThe George Washington University

Washington, DC 20052

"To chē or to jū" by HDong 2

車• The common pronunciation is chē; the

alternative pronunciation jū is restricted.• 閉門造車 bì mén zào jū (some speakers)• 車 jū in Chinese chess (all speakers)

January 16, 2015 at WMU


Representative Previous Studies

• Shi, Jianguo 时建国 (1997). On the pronunciation jū of the character 车 ( 说车字的“居”音 ), Journal of Studies of Language and Writing 语文研究 4: 36

• Meng, Pengsheng 孟蓬生 (2002). A Textual Study on the Ancient Pronunciation of 车 (“ 车”字古音考 ). Journal of Ancient Books Collation and Studies 古籍整理研究学刊 3: 46-49



Shi (1997): jū is a misreading

Explanation of Names 釋名 , a Chinese dictionary from around 200 CE:

“In ancient times 車 was pronounced like 居 (jū: to sit, to reside), to mean that a vehicle is where a person stays when travelling. Today the pronunciation of 車 is closer to 舍 (shè: abode), to mean that the vehicle is like an abode when travelling.”

“ 車，古者曰車，聲如居，言行所以居人也。今曰車聲近舍，車，舍也，行者所處若居舍也。”




• The quoted passage says:– the pronunciation was similar to 居 , but not exactly the same.– this pronunciation was ancient.

• But a later scholar Wei Zhao 韋昭 (204-273) mistook “similar” to be “the same”:

“ 車 was pronounced as 尺奢 (chē) in ancient times, and the pronunciation as 居 started to appear since the Eastern Han (25-220) ”

“ 車，古皆音尺奢反，後漢以來始有居音。”January 16, 2015 at WMU



• Thus according to Shi (1997), Wei Zhao not only misunderstood the meaning of “similar”, but also misunderstood which pronunciation was older.

• After Wei Zhao, most scholars would regard 居 as an alternative pronunciation of 車




In the Qieyun (601), which later was expanded and became an official dictionary for literary pronunciation for the imperial examinations in the Tang and Song dynasties.

“ 車 is to be read as 昌遮 (chē), and the meaning is 居 (jū: sit, reside)”

“ 車：昌遮反，居。”




• According to the preface of the Qieyun, the pronunciations of all the characters were debated among eight influential scholars, and they decided whether the pronunciation was correct or not and wrote down what they thought was correct.

• These scholars did not think the pronunciation 居 was correct, but it can be used to explain the meaning of 車 .

• But later versions of the Qieyun, e.g. Guangyun in the Song Dynasty (11th century) gave two pronunciations.



Comments on Shi (1997)

• In the Kangxi Zi Dian, only the pronunciation of jū was given.

• It seems that the pronunciation jū of 車 had been endorsed as the standard of literary pronunciation.

• This also explains why in idioms like 閉門造車 the pronunciation jū is used.




• Shi’s (1997) explanation is in line with Wang Li’s reconstructions of Old Chinese (OC) and Middle Chinese (MC).

• Thus according to Shi (1997) ,the pronunciation of 車 was never the same as that of 居 .


Old Chinese Middle Chinese Modern Chinese

車 ȶhia (Initial 昌 rime 魚）

tɕʰia( 昌，麻，開三）

tʂʰɤ (chē)

居 kia( 見、魚）

kio( 見，魚，開三 )

tɕy(jū)



• Thus according to Shi,the pronunciations are:

– 車 ȶhia > tɕʰia > tʂʰɤ– 居 kia > kio > tɕy

• They are similar in Old Chinese in that they rime. But they are not the same.



Meng (2002): jū represents the ancient pronunciation

• Meng (2002) uses phonetic cues in Chinese characters.

• For example: the character 枯 in the Laozi was written as 𣒞 in the version from the Mawangdui Silk Texts dated from before 168BC

枯𣒞 kū 古 gǔ 車 chē

• Thus it suggests that in ancient times 車 might have had a velar initial, e.g. kh




• 輿 yú and 車 chē were originally the same word but developed in different directions 轉注

• 輿 yú and 弋 yì had the same initial in Old Chinese ：

– In documents from Han, the character 弋 was used to transcribe the “lek” in “Alexandria.

– Thus according to Fang-kuei Li, this initial was like the r- (as the “t” in later) in Old Chinese.




• By combining evidence like these, the initial of 車 in Old Chinese was reconstructed as khr

• Therefore according to him, both 車 and 居 started as homophones in Old Chinese, and they developed into chē and jū eventually.



Comments on Meng (2002)

His analysis is convincing, and is in line with Li’s (1980) reconstruction of Old Chinese. He mixed Li’s and Wang’s systems:


Early OC Late OC MC Modern Chinesekria車

ria > ɕia tɕhia tʂʰɤkia kio tɕy

OC MC Modern

kia 居 kio tɕy


Comments on Meng (2002)• The use of phonetic cues in Chinese characters is convincing.

• It did show that 車 might have had an initial k or kh in OC, which is a step forward from Shi (1997).

• However, the changes ria>ɕia, and ɕia>tɕhia are not convincingly motivated.

• From the unaspirated k to the aspirated tɕh, where did the aspiration come from?

• No consideration of Modern Chinese dialects pronunciations, which should be the basis of reconstruction.



Zhengzhang (2003, 2013)

• Zhengzhang’s (2003, 2013) Old Chinese Phonology uses comparative methods with data from Tai and Tibeto-Burman languages.

– Cognate words from Burmese:ka (elephant-drawn cart 象輿 )khjaa (spinning wheel for making yarn 紡車 )

• He also modified –r- to -r- (2nd deng) and –l-



Zhengzhang (2003, 2013)

Thus according to him, the development of 車 from OC to MC is :

車 khlja > khja > tɕhia >tʂʰɤ車 kla > kɨʌ >tɕy居 ka > kɨʌ >tɕy



Comments on Zhengzhang (2003, 2013)

• The palatalization from khj >tɕh represents a better account than Meng’s (2002) rj >ɕ >tɕh

• The use of cognate words from Burmese is even more convincing than Meng’s (2002) use of Chinese characters

• However the palatalization of velar stops might not be the only possible path of change.



New data: Chinese dialects• In most modern Chinese dialects, the initial of 車 is related

to chē:

– tʂʰ Beijing, Ji’nan, Xi’an, Hefei– tsʰ Taiyuan, Wuhan, Chengdu, Suzhou, Wenzhou, Changsha,

Nanchang, Meixian, Xiamen, Chaozhou, Fuzhou, Jian’ou– tɕʰ Yangzhou– tʃʰ Guangzhou, Yangjiang

• This is consistent with MC initial 昌 tɕh

• No trace of the original kh can be found• But the evidence is strong for the existence of kh



New data: Chinese Dialects

Thus it seems ok in Zhengzhang’s analysis:

khlj > khj > tɕh


tʂʰ

tsʰ

tɕʰ

tʃʰ



• However in Shuangfeng, Hunan, the pronunciation of 車 is tho.

• This is more in line with Wang Li’s theory.

• Transforming Wang’s theory into Li Fang-Kuei’s terms:

thj > th seems very reasonable • Axel Schuessler (2007) lists Written Tibetan theg-pa (vehicle)

as a semantically related word January 16, 2015 at WMU



Thus if originally it was th:

thj > tɕh

thJanuary 16, 2015 at WMU

tʂʰ

tsʰ

tɕʰ

tʃʰ



Now we have a dilemma:

– Chinese dialects show that there might have been a stage when it was th, instead of kh, and in fact there is no trace of kh in Chinese dialects anymore.

– But evidence strongly shows there was kh in OC

– But Zhengzhang’s velar palatalization theory cannot account for why Shuangfeng has th.



My proposal

• Some characters in the 昌 initial class in MC might have come from OC khl by way of thl.

khlja > thlja > tɕhia > tʂʰɤ

• New considerations: – Chinese dialects; – comparative reconstruction, – recurrent sound patterns.



kl- > tlin Germanic

Juliette Blevins and Sven Grawunder’s (2009) *KL > TL sound change in Germanic and elsewhere: Descriptions, explanations, and implications. Linguistic Typology 13-2:

• Some German Dialects: – Klaus [tlaus], glaubst [dlaupst] (Saxony)

• Some English Dialects:– cloth [tlot] clean [tlin] (Welwick, Yorkshire)



kl- > tlin Germanic

This also occurred in American English in the New England area in the 18th and 19th centuries. Blevins and Grawunder (2009) mentioned the following:

“The letters cl answering to kl are pronounced as if written tl; clear, clean are pronounced tlear, tlean. Gl is pronounced dl; glory is pronounced dlory.”

Preface of the 1st edition of Noah Webster’s Dictionary (Webster 1828)



kl->tl- is a recurrent sound pattern



Explanation of kl->tl-

• Phonological explanation– Coarticulation– Perception similarity

• Structural explanation– Lack of kl- /tl- contrast



Back to Chinese

• In Zhengzhang’s (2003, 2013) system, there is no tlin OC.

• Therefore structurally, kl->tl- is well motivated.

• Phonolgocially, it is a recurrent sound pattern.

• Thus kl->tl- is a highly likely sound change.



My proposal again

Motivation:– The existence of t- in Chinese dialects– The evidence for k- in OC– The recurrent pattern as kl->tl-

Thus by positing kl->tl- we can solve the t/k dilemma mentioned earlier.



My proposal

khlj- > thlj > thj- > tɕh

th (shuangfeng)

kh/khl (Burmese)


tʂʰ

tsʰ

tɕʰ

tʃʰ


My proposal

• The word for “porridge 粥” is zhōu. The MC initial is 章 , i.e. tɕ, the unaspirted version of 昌 (the initial of 車）

– Shuangfeng is tiu– Chaozhou is kiok

• As in the case of 車 / 輿 , 粥 / 鬻 yù indicates a –l-

• Now we have another example of kl-/tl- alternation, which happens to be preserved in modern dialects.



My proposal: conclusions

• The earliest pronunciation of 車 is khlja, which gives us the reading qū in modern Chinese.

• Note that according to Meng (2002), in Jingdian Shiwen (Textual Explanations of classics and canons) circa 582-589, 車 has a third pronunciation 丘於 , which would be qū. This is inline with the aspiration of the initial kh.

• But this pronunciation did not become popularJanuary 16, 2015 at WMU


My proposal: conclusions

• The earliest pronunciation khlja was similar to 居 ka because they both had a velar stop initial, and the same vowel.

• khlj became palatalized via thlj

• Some characters in the MC 昌 initial category came from velars via dentals, as well.

• The pronunciation of jū is a literary misreading.

• A more correct reading should be qū in terms of sound change.



Thank you very much!


Your comments are welcome. My email address is:

[email protected]

to chē or to jū ： literary misreading and historical reconstruction hongyuan dong the george...

Documents