We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
The purpose of the present somewhat desultory notes may be said to be twofold: firstly, to emphasize the necessity of comparing the word stock of one Indo-Chinese language with that of another by word families only, secondly, to make a preliminary investigation into certain variations of a particular type within such families, as there are here certain anomalies of which very careful note will have to be taken in any comparative work along these lines.
page 625 note 1 This has already been very clearly stated by Karlgren, , “Word Families in Chinese,” Bull, of the Mus. of Far Eastern Antiquities, No. 5, Stockholm, 1934, p. 9Google Scholar, quoted hereinafter as K.WF.
page 625 note 2 See, for instance, Dragunov, , OLZ., 1931, Sp., 1088–1089Google Scholar.
page 626 note 1 For the Chinese connections here see K.WF.; H. 26–44, and JRAS., 1936, pp. 415–416.
page 627 note 1 “Tibetisch-Chinesische Wortgleichungen,” Mit. d Seminars f. Orient. Spr., Bd. xxxii (1929), Berlin, 1930, Abt. 1, p. 162Google Scholar. This work I shall hereinafter quote as “Wortgl.”
page 627 note 2 Assimilation is sometimes clearly the cause of an aberrant final. A well-known example is mdzub-mo thumb, beside mdzug-gu, in a family with guttural finals (cf. “Language”, JLSA., iv (1928), p. 278 (No. 4))Google Scholar. There can be but small doubt here that mdzub owes its final -b to the influence of the following suffix. At other times associative interference has probably been at work, but the forces involved are obscure and each case will need special treatment by itself.
page 627 note 3 With these, Simon (Wortgl., p. 162) would include snabs mucus, which gives us a good example of how assemblies uncontrolled by families in related languages may go astray, even under the best of judgment. snabs, we shall see below (No. 33) belongs with another family entirely, but from Tibetan alone this would never be apparent.
page 628 note 1 The entries, as far as possible, follow the order -g, -ṇ, -O; -b, -m, -O; -d, -n, -r, -l, -s, -O. The assemblies must not be regarded as necessarily correct in all particulars. In some cases there are other possible alignments which I have indicated in the footnotes.
page 628 note 2 Cf. K.WF., A. 266–275.
page 629 note 1 Cf. K.WF., A. 35–7, 330–1.
page 629 note 2 Cf. K.WF., A. 266–275.
page 629 note 3 Cf. K.WF., A. 27–8?
page 629 note 4 Cf. K.WF., B. 150–189.
page 630 note 1 Related to No. 50 with dental finals. Cf. K.WF., B. 20–5.
page 630 note 2 Cf. K.WF., B. 295–301.
page 630 note 3 Cf. K.WF., B. 112–128, 569–571. Cf. No. 10 inf.
page 631 note 1 Cf. K.WF., B. 112–128, 569–571, and cf. No. 9 sup.
page 631 note 2 Cf. K.WEF., B. 64–84.
page 631 note 3 Cf. K.WF., D. 188.
page 632 note 1 Cf. K.WF., D. 62–71?
page 632 note 2 Cf. K.WF., D. 89–94.
page 632 note 3 Cf. K.WF., D. 1–23, 24–7.
page 632 note 4 Cf. K.WF., D. 60–1.
page 633 note 1 Cf. K.WF., I, 1–20.
page 633 note 2 The underlying sense here may be one of “succession” or “series” (of events or actions). Cf. Lepcha góm, a-góm series, chain, train, continuity, whence: toṅ góm a step, a stride (lit. foot (toṅ) step), a-dyaṅ góm a step, a pace (lit. foot (a-dyaṅ) step), kă-góm a stride.
page 635 note 1 Cf. K.WF., K. 79–84.
page 635 note 2 Cf. K.WF., K. 16–19.
page 636 note 1 On the Kachin side it is possible that nya, šă-nya, and čyă-nya belong with T. mńen-pa flexible, pliant, supple, soft, as their final affinities are uncertain. Cf. Burmese ńan.
page 636 note 2 Cf. K.WF., K. 87–90?
page 636 note 3 Also (?): ạp'ra-va, P. ạp'ras to kick, to jerk (as the legs); pra-ba, id.; ạp'ras-pa stroke, blow, kick.
page 637 note 1 Cf. K.WF., E. 153–162, and JRAS., 1936, pp. 404–5.
page 637 note 2 Cf. K.WF., E. 114–123.
page 637 note 3 Also (?): gud separation, solitude, seclusion (> CT. loss, damage), gun loss, damage.
page 638 note 1 Cf. K.WF., E. 138–144.
page 638 note 2 See JRAS., 1936, p. 408. Jäschke (Die, p. 358) notes ạp'yil-ba to wind, to twist, as a form of ạk'yil-ba. Note, however, K. p'yil to go round, to encircle, windlass, capstan.
page 638 note 3 Cf. K.WF., G. 24–34?
page 639 note 1 Cf. K.WF., E. 238–246.
page 639 note 2 Related to No. 7 with guttural finals.
page 640 note 1 Cf. K.WF., F. 46–7.
page 640 note 2 Cf. K.WF., G. 40–5.
page 640 note 3 Cf. K.WF., F. 100–102. It is possible that the Tibetan and Kachin families here assembled are distinct and that the only relative that Kachin has in Tibetan is ša flesh, meat. The position remains in doubt.
page 641 note 1 Cf. K.WF., F. 150–3.
page 641 note 2 Cf. K.WF., F. 243–6.
page 641 note 3 Cf. K.WF., F. 63–7. It is possible that K. tså, mă-tså, and šă-tså do not belong here, but rather with T. gtso-bo highest in perfection, most excellent (of its kind).
page 642 note 1 Cf. K.WF., G. 24–34, and No. 60 below.
page 642 note 2 Cf. No. 59 above.
page 642 note 3 Cf. K.WF.. H. 54–7.
page 643 note 1 Of. K.WF., H. 111–134.
page 644 note 1 Cf. K.WF., F. 247–250, H. 141–2. This and the next three families are very confusing. They all appear to belong together at base, as is indicated by the various collocations of the type mči-ma ạp'yi-ba, etc., where the families are used together as though one. Probably the form ạp'yin-pa liver, of the Berlin Gzer-Myig (Francke, v., Asia Major, vol. i, p. 287)Google Scholar is something more than a homophone, and indicates recognized relationship (present in the scribe's mind) between this word and ạp'yin-pa to tear out, of the present family. See footnote to No. 71.
page 644 note 2 Cf. K.WF., F. 48–49. See note to No. 68.
page 644 note 3 Cf. K.WF., F. 147–9 ?. See note to No. 68. The basic idea here seems to be that of “ejection” (ejected matter). mĉi-ma (welling forth:) tears, may belong here. Cf. the Chinese family quoted.
page 645 note 1 See note to No. 68. Possibly the basic meaning here is “that which is torn out” (pointing to very early hepatoscopy in Tibet?).
page 645 note 2 Cf. K.WF., H. 26–44.
page 646 note 1 Note also K. mya to be torn, to be ragged, a-mya to tear, to lacerate, to maul, čyă-mya torn, ragged. These, however, may belong with T. dmyal-ba to cut up.
page 646 note 2 Cf. K.WF., H 94–110.
page 647 note 1 See above, Nos. 38, 41, 49, 62, 63, 66, and 43, 47, 54, 67, 75.
page 647 note 2 As e.g. in čen-ba ~ čel-ba to run, han ~ hal the causative infix, k'anba ~ k'al-bato think, na-ton ~ na-tol nose, pun-ba z pul-ba to tie. to bind, sa-gon ~ sa-gol (Beng. ghōṛā?) horse, etc. This -n ~ -l and also an -r ~ -l alternation likewise come out strongly in the Bodo and related languages of Assam, notably in Garo, Båṛå, and Kachari: G. pān ~ bol tree, Mikir in-čin, G. šil iron, G., K. sān, G. sāl sun, G., K. šur, G. šil iron, K. bi-bār, G. pārr, bi-bal flower, K. bār, G. lam-pār, bāl air, and others. Note also Tibetan far exchange, barter, G., K. p'āl to sell.
page 648 note 1 As e.g. T. rgan-pa, M. a-hal old, T. mton-po high, M. ma-tol summit, etc.
page 648 note 2 Wortgl., pp. 183–4.
page 648 note 3 Outlines of Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Morphology, London, 1929, p. 19Google Scholar, n. 1. This will be abbreviated hereafter as “Outlines”.
page 648 note 4 Wortgl., p. 185.
page 650 note 1 It should be noted here that it must have been at a very early time indeed when Tibetan first placed the basic roots of what are now its word families in the final -n, and -r, and -l classes. This is shown by the very great comparative rarity of alternations between -n and -r in the same family (for examples, see Nos. 53 and 64 in the preceding pages, and JRAS., 1936, p. 415, No. 22, and p. 406), and the almost total absence, so far as I am aware, of -n ~ -l and -r ~ -l alternations of similar type (for -r z -l see No. 38, sup.). In other words this move must have taken place while the root was still single and alone, and free of prefixes, which were only added to it in mobile fashion as required (cf. Outlines, p. 53). Though at other times families in -n and -r, -n and -l, or -r and -l may approach each other fairly closely in both form and meaning, I do not believe that any such cases involve alternations between these finals. Such families seem to me to be altogether too evidently distinct (v. JRAS., 1936, pp. 407–408, and (for a contrary view), K.WF., p. 36).
page 652 note 1 By this I, of course, mean -s standing alone as final, or following a vowel as a suffix. We have no knowledge as to the existence of a -ds or -ts combination in Chinese at some very early time. It is, of course, just possible that a suffixed -s of this nature is at the bottom of the -d: -t differentiation in Archaic Chinese.
page 652 note 2 JRAS., 1936, p. 402.
page 653 note 1 Wortgl., p. 183, and No. 312.
page 653 note 2 K.WF., E. 8.
page 653 note 3 Cf. also e.g. Simon No. 320, T. ạp'ral Ch. 
piwən to divide (K.WF., H. 38). The Chinese family here, I believe, belongs with an entirely different one in Tibetan (v. JRAS., 1936, p. 415, No. 22) where a Tibetan -n Ch. -n equation is present. For the Tibetan and Kachin relatives of T. ạ'ral-ba see above No. 75.
page 654 note 1 From Tibetan alone one, of course, gets a fairly clear impression of the origin of this word from the fact of its carrying the sense of “opening”, “gap”, “vacancy”, in such combinations as Ka ạigebs-pa to shut an opening, Ma skoḥ-ba to fill a vacancy, etc., but the family as still extant in Kacbin is lacking.
page 655 note 1 JRAS., 1936, pp. 404–5.
page 655 note 2 See No. 38 sup.
