Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals

Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals Nathan W. HILL LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS MONOGRAPH SERIES 53 Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Dialect, Phonology, Transcription and Text Edited by Richard VanNess Simmons and Newell Ann Van Auken Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 語言暨語言學 專刊系列之五十三 漢語與漢藏語研究：方言、音韻與文獻 史皓元 方妮安／編輯 中央研究院語言學研究所 2014 Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 167-178 2014-1-053-010-000248-1 Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals Nathan W. Hill School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Conrady, Li and others have noticed the Tibetan sound changes * z > dz and * ź > ǰ, but there is also evidence for the changes *dz > z and *ǰ > ź (first noted by Schiefner). After presenting the evidence for *dz > z and *ǰ > ź respectively, this paper considers the other origins of ź, namely *lʲ and *rʲ. Finally, an attempt is made to establish the relative chronology of the changes proposed. Key words: Tibetan phonology, sound change, affricates, fricatives 1. Introduction A paper of W. South Coblin’s from 1976 stands as the seminal contribution to the study of Tibetan verbal morphology. The decades since his treatment have seen only a few minor suggestions for revision (cf. Beckwith 1996, Hill 2010:xv-xxi, Jacques 2012). In gratitude to Coblin’s work on the Tibetan verb and his contribution to Tibeto-Burman comparative linguistics more generally, I here offer one such adjustment to the sound laws proposed in his study.1 2. Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan zTaking note of a Tibetan verb paradigm such as dzin (present), bzuṅ (past), gzuṅ (future), zuṅs (imperative) ‘take’,2 Li Fang-Kuei proposed that - when proceeding a 1 2 Coblin has published three philological studies of Old Tibetan texts (1990, 1991b), including the most comprehensive and authoritative work on Old Tibetan inscriptions (Li & Coblin 1987). He has undertaken three lexical studies of Old Tibetan words (1987, 1991a, 1994), and a number of studies on the use of the Tibetan alphabet to transcribe Tang dynasty Chinese (1995, 2002, 2006, 2009). I transliterate the Tibetan alphabet as follows: k, kh, g, ṅ, č, čh, ǰ, ñ, t, th, d, n, p, ph, m, b, ts, tsh, dz, w, ź, z, , y, r, l, ś, s, h. For Burmese I follow the Library of Congress system, with the exception that I use ḥ to mark the visarga. I take reconstructions of Old Chinese from the charts made available by William Baxter and Laurent Sagart on the homepage of the Centre de recherches linguistiques sur l’Asie orientale. Nathan W. Hill fricative, lateral, or rhotic, gave rise to an epenthetic dental stop (Li 1933:149). August Conrady also assumed this sound change, without explicit discussion (Conrady 1896:59). I have previously referred to this change as ‘Li’s first law’, but rather than crediting two laws to Li (as in Hill 2011:446-447), it is more elegant to amend ‘Li’s first law’ to ‘Conrady’s law’ and ‘Li’s second law’ to simply ‘Li’s law’. * * * * * s- > ś- > z- > ź- > r- > ts-, e.g. √so ‘nourish’, present * so > tsho č- (= tś), e.g. √śad ‘explain’, present * śad > čhad dz-, e.g. √zug ‘plant’, present * zugd > dzugs ǰ- (= dź), e.g. √źo ‘milk’, present * źo > ǰo dr-, e.g. √ri ‘write’, present * ri > dri3 The inherent plausibility of this suggestion is such that R. K. Sprigg independently came upon exactly the same analysis (1970).4 Making use of this and other laws Coblin reconstructs the history of the paradigm dzin, bzuṅ, gzuṅ, zuṅs ‘take’ as follows (1976:58): * * * * zuṅd, bzuṅ, *d-zuṅ, zuṅs ziṅd, bzuṅ, *d-zuṅ, zuṅs (u > i) zind, bzuṅ, *d-zuṅ, zuṅs (-ṅd > nd) zind, bzuṅ, gzuṅ, zuṅs (d- > g-) dzind, bzuṅ, gzuṅ, zuṅs (Conrady’s law) If the formulation of the sound change * z- > dz- is correct, one would expect the Tibeto-Burman cognates of Tibetan words with initial z- also to begin with z-; instead, they generally begin with dz- or ts-. Tib. za ‘eat’ : Bur. cāḥ ‘eat’ cf. Loloish *dza² (Bradley 1979:354-355, #629), Japhug Rgy. ndza ‘eat’,5 Ch. 咀 dzjoX < *dzaʔ (0046u) ‘eat’ Tib. zam ‘bridge’ : Lahu coᵥ ‘bridge’ < Loloish *dzam¹ (Bradley 1979:330-331, #393),6 Japhug Rgy. ndzom ‘bridge’ 3 4 5 6 On the paradigm of this verb see Hill (2005). Such instances of epenthesis are far from unknown in the world’s languages (e.g. Old English thunor > English thunder). To save space lists employ the following abbreviations of language names: Burmese (Bur.), Old Burmese (OBur.), Chinese (Ch.), Kurtöp (Kur.), Rgyalrong (Rgy.), Tibetan (Tib.). Matisoff cites a Burmese word cam ‘bridge’ (2003:253), but I am unable to confirm this word in Judson (1893) or Myanmar Language Commission (1993). 168 Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals Tib. ziṅ-cha ‘quarrel, dispute’ : Bur. cac ‘war, battle’, Ch. 爭 tsreang < *m-tsˤreŋ (0811a) ‘strife, quarrel’ Tib. zin ‘be consumed’ : Ch. 盡 dzinX < *Cə.dzinʔ (0381a) ‘exhaust (v.)’ Tib. zil ‘dew’ : Bur. chīḥ ‘dew’ < Lolo-Burmese *ʔ-dzi² (Matisoff 2003:187) Tib. dzug, btsug, gzug, tshug ‘plant’ : Bur. cuik ‘erect, set upright, plant’ (Matisoff 2003:362, 529) Tib. dzud, btsud, gzud, tshud ‘insert’ : Jingpho džút ‘be pierced’ (Matisoff 2003: 529) In addition to this comparative evidence, Tibetan internal considerations weigh in favour of *dz- > z-. Although plenty of Tibetan words begin with tsh-, essentially no Tibetan word begins with dz-. This asymmetrical distribution suggests that there may have once been words that began with *dz, in which this initial subsequently changed into another sound. Tibetan zoṅ ‘merchandise’ is such a word; it is self evidently related to the verb √tsoṅ ( tshoṅ, btsoṅs, btsoṅ, tshoṅs) ‘sell’. If zoṅ derives regularly from *dzoṅ the relationship between these two words is that of voicing alternation. Without the law *dz > z the relationship is more difficult to account for. In light of such evidence it would be preferable to analyze the root of dzin, bzuṅ, gzuṅ, zuṅs ‘take’ as √dzuṅ rather that √zuṅ. A look at the paradigm of another verb suggests a strategy for proposing such an analysis. Again following a proposal of Li’s (1933:146, §15), Coblin reconstructs the future of dzug, btsug, gzug, tshugs ‘plant’ as *gdzug. In a more general discussion of lenition in Tibetan, Anton Schiefner earlier offered this same explanation for the derivation of future stems in voice alternating verbs (1852:364). The sound law *gdz- > gz- may be invoked in the analysis of dzin, bzuṅ, gzuṅ, zuṅs ‘take’, yielding the future stem *gdzuṅ. The imperative is arrived at through the law that Anlaut dz- becomes z-, as the comparative data presented above suggests (i.e. *dzuṅs > zuṅs). In order to account for the past stem the parallel law *bdz- > bz- becomes necessary. Comparative data also support *gdz > gz- and *bdz > bz-. Tib. gzan ‘to wear out, hurt, waste’ : Ch. 殘 dzan < *dzˤan (0155c) ‘injure, remnant’ Tib. gzig ‘leopard’ : Rgy. kəʃtʃək ‘leopard’ (Matisoff 2003:135) Tib. gzim ‘sleep’ : Ch. 寢 tshimX < *tsʰimʔ (0661f) ‘sleep’ Tib. bzaṅ ‘good’ : Ch. 臧 tsang < *tsˤaŋ (0727f’) ‘good’ A Tibetan translation of the the Léngqié shīzī jì (楞伽師資記) discovered in Dunhuang cites the Guān pǔxián púsà xíngfǎ jīng (觀普賢菩薩行法經) under the title dzaṅskhyab-gyi brtag-pa i chos-gyi yi-ge, in which the deity Samantabhadra (普賢 pǔxián) is referred to as dzaṅs-khyab rather than the expected Kun-tu-bzaṅ-po (IOL Tib J 710, 169 Nathan W. Hill f. 52, l. 4, cf. dri guṅ skyabs mgon che tshaṅ 2010:99). The equation of dzaṅs-khyab and Kun-tu-bzaṅ-po makes clear that dzaṅs renders the word bzaṅ ‘good’; this variation between dz- and bz-, encountered outside the verbal system, helps to reinforce the conviction that an affricate is original in this word, as the Chinese cognate confirms. The sound change *dz- > z- elucidates a number of points discussed in other scholars’ work in Tibeto-Burman linguistics. James Matisoff (2003:588) reconstructs *(d)zil ‘dew’ in Tibeto-Burman in order to account for Tibetan zil ‘dew’ and LoloBurmese *ʔ-dzi². He appears to regard the loss of -l in Lolo-Burmese as regular sound change, but to regard the variation between *dz- and *z- as ‘allofamic’. This example shows the danger of positing such variation; Matisoff has mistaken regular sound change for proto-variation. The Tibetan sound change *dz > z- also clarifies some issues in the reconstruction of Old Chinese. Writing about the Chinese word 爭 tsreang < *m-tsˤreŋ (0811a) ‘strife, quarrel’, on the basis of Tibetan ziṅ-cha ‘quarrel, dispute’ and dziṅ ‘to quarrel, contend, fight’, and (citing Li 1933:148) Zev Handel suggests the Tibetan root appears to be ziṅ, with the affricate of dziṅ arising under the influence of the prefix -. ... Assuming that the Chinese and W[ritten]T[ibetan] forms are cognate, it seems possible that the original Chinese stem is *siŋ, with affrication to *tsiŋ under the influence of a prefix r-” (2009:199 bold in original, Tibetan transcription adjusted). In fact the Tibetan root is √dziṅ, directly comparable to Chinese 爭 tsreang < *m-tsˤreŋ (0811a) ‘strife, quarrel’, without further need to reconstruct a Chinese prefixed form *r-s-. In a similar case, Axel Schuessler proposes the Old Chinese consonant cluster *k-s(changing to Middle Chinese tsʰ-), based on such comparisons as Tibetan gzim ‘sleep’ and Old Chinese 寢 tshimX < *k-simʔ (0661f) ‘sleep’, both deriving from TibetoBurman *k-zim (2002:158). In this case also, there is no need to amend the Chinese reconstruction; as Walter Simon realized (1929:179, no.263), it is Tibetan which has innovated, changing *gdzim to gzim. These three examples from the work of Matisoff, Handel, and Schuessler demonstrate the widespread implications the suggestion *dz- > z- may have in Tibeto-Burman linguistics. 3. Tibeto-Burman *ǰ- > Tibetan źOn the grounds of symmetry it would be convenient to propose a sound change of *ǰ- to ź-. Coblin follows Simon (1929:30) and Li (1933:144) in proposing the changes *gǰ- > gź- and *bǰ- > bź- in order to account for a verb such as ǰib, bźibs < *bǰibs, gźib 170 Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals < *gǰib, ǰibs ‘suck’ (Coblin 1976:49). The Anlaut ǰ- in the imperative of this verb is what leads Coblin to see it as part of the stem. There is however disagreement among lexicons as to whether the imperative should be ǰibs or ǰibs (Hill 2010:96-97). Given the overall rarity of Tibetan words beginning with ǰ-, ǰibs is probably not correct.7 Just as the connection of the word zoṅ ‘merchandise’ with √tsoṅ ‘sell’ ( tshoṅ, btsoṅs, btsoṅ, tshoṅs) ‘sell’ suggested the change *dz > z-, the connection of the noun źal-ce ‘suite’ with the verb √ǰal/čal ‘weigh, asses, judge’ ( ǰal, bčald, gźal, čhold) (Dotson 2007:35 note 39), argues in favour of a change *ǰ > ź-. In addition, the spelling of the word khul-źo ‘crib’ as khu-lǰo in the Old Tibetan Chronicle (PT 1287 line 43) also supports *ǰ > ź-. The sound change *ǰ > ź clarifies the inflection of verbs which have an imperative with Anlaut ź-, such as √ǰog ‘cut, hew’ ( ǰog, bźogs < *bǰogs, gźog < *gǰog, źog < *ǰog). Coblin, invoking Conrady’s law, instead suggests that the root is √źog and the present stem ǰog may be reconstructed * źog (1976:68). But, having accepted the validity of the changes *dz > z and *ǰ > ź (hereafter referred to together as ‘Schiefner’s law’), it is tempting to speculate that at one point in Tibetan pre-history no roots began with z- or ź-. 4. Three origins of ź Although for some words ź- < *ǰ-, Old Tibetan ź- also has other origins. The source of ź- to have received most attention is *lʲ- (Benedict’s law, cf. Benedict 1939:215, Hill 2011:445). The following examples present the evidence for the change *lʲ > ź-. Tib. bźi < *blʲi ‘four’ : OBur. liy ‘four’, Chi. 四 sijH < *s.li[j]-s (0518a) ‘four’ Tib. źiṅ < *lʲiṅ ‘field’ : Bur. lay ‘field’, Chi. 田 den < *lˤiŋ (0362a) ‘field’ Tib. źo < *lʲo ‘yoghurt’ : Japhug Rgy. tɤ-lu ‘milk’ Tib. gźi < *glʲi ‘ground’ : OBur. mliy ‘ground’, Chi. 地 dijH < *lˤej-s (0004b’) ‘ground’ Tib. gźu < *glʲu8 ‘bow’ : OBur. liy ‘bow’, Chi. 矢 syijX < *l̥ ijʔ (0560a) ‘arrow’ There are also grounds internal to Tibetan for such a reconstruction (Gong 2002[1977]: 391-392). 7 8 Perhaps the most common such word is ǰo-bo ‘lord’, however three pieces of evidence demonstrate that originally this word was rǰo-bo. First, it is spelled thus in PT 1287, ll. 28-29. Second, no words begin rǰo- in Classical Tibetan. Third, this word is quite clearly related to rǰe ‘chief’, which confirms the cluster rǰ-. The word is spelled gźi in an Old Tibetan version of the Rama story (IOL Tib J 0737/1 line 168, cf. de Jong 1989:115). 171 Nathan W. Hill Tib. gźogs < *glʲogs ‘side of the body’ : Tib. logs ‘side’ Tib. bźeṅ < *blʲeṅ ‘rise’ : Tib. laṅ ‘rise’ On the basis of the comparison of Tibetan źag ‘day’ with Chinese 夜 yaeH < *N.rak-s (0800j) and Old Burmese ryak ‘day’ it is further possible to posit *rʲ- as an origin of Tibetan ź-. 9 Since Tibetan ź- has three potential reconstructions, as a working hypothesis it is judicious to assume that all examples of Tibetan ź- are innovative and that Tibeto-Burman should not be reconstructed with ź-. Whether z- similarly has lateral and rhotic origins in addition to *dz- remains to be seen. 5. Relative chronology of sound changes Conrady’s law suggests that * z > dz- and * ź > ǰ-. But, there is also substantial evidence for Scheifner’s law, namely *dz- > z- and *ǰ- > ź-. Two strategies are available to reconcile the evidence for both Conrady’s and Scheifner’s laws. First, one could reject the proposals * z- > dz- and * ź- > ǰ-. Such a revision of Conrady’s law however would not be elegant; it is odd to accept the changes * s- > tsh- and * ś- > čh- but reject the changes * z > dz- and * ź > ǰ-. Also, one would have to suppose that - somehow blocked the softening of voiced affricates. Rather than the unconditioned changes *dz > z- and *ǰ > ź-, it becomes necessary to specify the conditioned changes *#dz-, *gdz-, *bdz- > #z-, gz-, bz- and *#ǰ-, *gǰ-, *bǰ- > #ź-, gź-, bź- (where # indicates a word break). Second, instead of rejecting * z- > dz- and * ź- > ǰ-, one may suggest that Li’s law occurred after Schiefner’s law had already completed. This explanation does lead to the inelegance of sound changes being directly undone, viz. * dz- > * z- > dz-, * ǰ- > * ź- > ǰ-. Fortunately, there is independent evidence to suggest that the second explanation, i.e. that Li’s law applied after Schiefner’s law, is correct. The following comparisons between Tibetan and Kurtöp make clear that the change *dz > z- had occurred already in the language, proto-Bodish, which is the ancestor of these two languages. Tib. za ‘eat’ : Kur. zù ‘eat’ (Hyslop 2011:56) Tib. zuṅ ‘pair’ : Kur. zòn ‘two’ (Hyslop 2011:58) Tib. zam ‘brdge’ : Kur. zàm ‘bridge’ (Hyslop 2011:152) Tib. zur ‘corner’ : Kur. zur ‘edge’ (Hyslop 2011:283) In contrast, as Michailovsky and Mazaudon point out that the change *lʲ- > ź- had not 9 Although he accepts these comparisons, Jacques rejects this proposal (2013:296-297). 172 Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals yet occurred in proto-Bodish (1994:553). Tib. źiṅ ‘field’ : Kur. Lleŋ ‘field’ (Michailovsky & Mazaudon 1994:553) Tib. źim ‘tasty’ : Kur. Llembu ‘tasty’ (Michailovsky & Mazaudon 1994:553, cf. Hyslop 2011:531) Tib. bźi ‘four’ : Kur. ble ‘four’ (Michailovsky & Mazaudon 1994:553, cf. Hyslop 2011:53) Tib. gźu ‘bow (n.)’ : Kur. Llimiʔ ‘bow (n.)’ (Michailovsky & Mazaudon 1994:553, cf. Hyslop 2011:42) Since Japhug Rgyalroṅ tɤ-lu ‘milk’ confirms that Tibetan źo ‘yoghurt’ should be reconstructed *lʲo (Jacques 2008:128), the change * ź- > ǰ- must have occurred after the change *lʲ > ź- in order for the present stem of the verb ‘to milk’ ( ǰo, bźos, bźo, źos) to turn out correctly, i.e. Li’s law (* ź- > ǰ-) took place after Benedict’s law (*lʲ- > ź-). The effected sound changes must be ordered as follows:1. Schiefner’s law, 2. Benedict’s law, 3. Conrady’s law.10 Reconsidering the verb ǰog, bźogs, gźog, źog ‘hew’ it becomes clear that both analysis in terms of the root √ǰog and analysis in terms of the root √źog are valid, but refer to different moments in history. * ǰog, *bǰogs, *gǰog, *ǰog * źog, bźogs, gźog, źog (Schiefner’s law) ǰog, bźogs, gźog, źog (Conrady’s law) Similarly reconsidering the verb dzin, bzuṅ, gzuṅ, zuṅs ‘take’ both analysis in terms of the root √dzuṅ and in terms of the root √zuṅ are valid for different moments in history. * * * * * 10 -dzuṅd, *b-dzuṅ, *d-dzuṅ, *dzuṅs zuṅd, bzuṅ, *d-zuṅ, zuṅs (Schiefner’s law) ziṅd, bzuṅ, *d-zuṅ, zuṅs (u > i) zind, bzuṅ, *d-zuṅ, zuṅs (-ṅd > nd) zind, bzuṅ, gzuṅ, zuṅs (d- > g-) dzind, bzuṅ, gzuṅ, zuṅs (Conrady’s law) While this article was in press, I came to decide that the order is in fact 1. Schiefner’s law, 2. Conrady’s law, 3. Benedict’s law, and that ǰo, the present stem of the verb ‘to milk’, is an analogical development (cf. Hill 2013). 173 Nathan W. Hill One should bear in mind however that the prefixes -, b- and g- may not have come into vogue until after Schiefner’s law took place. A fresh look at the verb dzug, btsug, gzug, tshugs ‘plant’ draws attention to the fact that voicing alternation was already a part of the Tibetan verbal system before Schiefner’s law occurred. * -dzug, *b-tsug, *d-dzug, *tsugs * -zug, btsug, *d-zug, tshugs11 (Schiefner’s law) * -zug, btsug, gzug, tshugs (d- > g-) dzug, btsug, gzug, tshugs (Conrady’s law) Voicing alternation in the Tibetan verbal system is quite old. 6. Conclusion The investigation conducted here permits several conclusions about the history of the Tibetan verbal system. Voicing alternation was a feature of the verbal system from very ancient times. Before the breakup of proto-Bodish voiced affricates softened to their corresponding fricatives (*dz -> z- and *ǰ- > ź-, i.e. Schiefner’s law). Subsequent to the break up of proto-Bodish further examples of ź- sprang from the palatalization of laterals (Benedict’s law *lʲ- > ź-). Even later, epenthetic dentals appeared between - on the one hand and fricatives, rhotics, and laterals12 on the other hand (Conrady’s law). Tibetan as attested in the earliest records has both the voiced affricates dz- and ǰ- and the voiced fricatives z- and ź-; they are nearly in complementary distribution (with the affricates after r- and - and the fricatives elsewhere). An earlier unattested stage of the language would have had voiced fricatives and no voiced affricates. In a yet older stage of the language this situation was reversed with no voiced fricatives but only voiced affricates. 11 12 Aspiration is not phonemic in Old Tibetan. Aspirates appear in Anlaut position and nonaspirates appear in other syllable positions (cf. Hill 2007). In the case of laterals subsequent metathesis and loss of - has obscured this change (i.e. * l> * dl- > * ld- > ld-), as one sees in a paradigm such as ldog, logs ‘reverse’ (cf. Li 1933:149). 174 Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals References Beckwith, Christopher I. 1996. The morphological argument for the existence of SinoTibetan. Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8th-10th, 1996, Vol. 3, 812-826. Bangkok: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya. Benedict, Paul K. 1939. Semantic differentiation in Indo-Chinese. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 4.3-4:213-229. Bradley, David. 1979. Proto-Loloish. London: Curzon Press. Coblin, W. South. 1976. Notes on Tibetan verbal morphology. T’oung Pao 62:45-70. Coblin, W. South. 1987. A note on Tibetan mu. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 10.1:166-168. Coblin, W. South. 1990. A reexamination of the second edict of Khri-srong-lde-btsan. Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, ed. by Lawrence Epstein & Richard F. Sherburne, 165-185. Lewiston: E. Mellen Press. Coblin, W. South. 1991a. Notes on Old Tibetan rje-blas. Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Géza on his Seventieth Birthday, 63-110. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. Coblin, W. South. 1991b. A study of the Old Tibetan Shangshu paraphrase, Part I & Part II. Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2:303-322; 111.3:523-539. Coblin, W. South. 1994. An Old Tibetan variant for the word ‘fox’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17.2:117-119. Coblin, W. South. 1995. Two notes on the London: Long Scroll. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 58.1:104-108. Coblin, W. South. 2002. On certain functions of 'a-chung in Early Tibetan transcriptional texts. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 25.2:169-184. Coblin, W. South. 2006. Two notes on Tang-time transcriptions of Chinese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 29.2:137-139. Coblin, W. South. 2009. The phonetic values of the Tibetan letter r in Tibeto-Chinese transcriptional texts from Dunhuang. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 32.2: 103-106. Conrady, August. 1896. Eine indochinesische Causativ-Denominativ-Bildung und ihr Zusammenhang mit den Tonaccenten. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz. Dotson, Brandon. 2007. Divination and law in the Tibetan empire: the role of dice in the legislation of loans, interest, marital law and troop conscription. Contributions to the Cultural History of Early Tibet, ed. by Matthew Kapstein & Brandon Dotson, 3-77. Leiden: Brill. 175 Nathan W. Hill Gong, Hwang-cherng. 1977. The Classical Tibetan y and its related problems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica 48.2:205-228. Reprinted in Collected Papers on Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 379-399. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, 2002. Gong, Hwang-cherng. 1995. The system of finals in Proto-Sino-Tibetan. The Ancestry of the Chinese Language, ed. by William S-Y. Wang, 41-92. Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California. Reprinted in Collected Papers on Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 79-124. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, 2002. Handel, Zev. 2009. Old Chinese Medials and Their Sino-Tibetan Origins: A Comparative Study. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. dri guṅ skyabs mgon che tshaṅ. (ed.) 2010. Laṅka i mkhan po daṅ slob ma i mdo. Dehradun: Sroṅ btsan dpe mdzod khaṅ. Hill, Nathan W. 2005. The verb ‘bri ‘to write’ in Old Tibetan. Journal of Asian and African Studies 68:177-182. Hill, Nathan W. 2007. Aspirate and non-aspirate voiceless consonants in Old Tibetan. Language and Linguistics 8.2:471-493. Hill, Nathan W. 2010. A Lexicon of Tibetan Verb Stems as Reported by the Grammatical Tradition. Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hill, Nathan W. 2011. An inventory of Tibetan sound laws. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (Third Series) 21.4:441-457. Hill, Nathan W. 2013. Relative ordering of Tibetan sound changes affecting laterals. Language and Linguistics 14.1:193-209. Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2011. A grammar of Kurtöp. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene. Jacques, Guillaume (Xiàng Bólín 向柏霖). 2008. Jiāróngyǔ yánjiù 嘉絨語研究 [Study on the Rgyalrong Language]. Běijīng: Mínzú chūbǎnshè 民族出版社. Jacques, Guillaume. 2012. An internal reconstruction of Tibetan stem alternations. Transactions of the Philological Society 110.2:212-224. Jacques, Guillaume. 2013. On pre-Tibetan semivowels. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76.2:289-300. de Jong, Jan Willem. 1989. The Story of Rāma in Tibet: Text and Translation of the Tunhuang Manuscripts. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Judson, Adoniram. 1893. Burmese-English Dictionary. Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing Burma. Li, Fang-Kuei. 1933. Certain phonetic influences of the Tibetan prefixes upon the root initials. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica 6.2:135157. 176 Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals Li, Fang-Kuei, and W. South Coblin. 1987. A Study of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press. Michailovsky, Boyd, and Martine Mazaudon. 1994. Preliminary notes on languages of the Bumthang group. Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Vol. 2, 545-557. Fagernes: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. Myanmar Language Commission. 1993. Myanmar-English Dictionary. Rangoon: Department of Myanmar Language Commission, Ministry of Education, Union of Myanmar. Schiefner, Anton. 1852. Tibetischen studien. Mélanges asiatiques tirés du Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 1:324-394. Schuessler, Axel. 2002. Tenues aspiratae im Altchinesichen. Und folge nun dem, was mein Herz begehrt: Festschrift für Ulrich Unger zum 70. Geburtstag, Vol. 1, ed. by Reinhard Emmerich & Hans Strumpfeldt, 155-164. Hamburg: Hamburger Sinologische Gesellschaft. Simon, Walter. 1929. Tibetisch-Chinesische Wortgleichungen, ein Versuch. Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen an der Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin 32:157-228. Sprigg, Richard Keith. 1970. Vyajñanabhakti, and irregularities in the Tibetan verb. Bulletin of Tibetology 72:5-20. 177 Nathan W. Hill 從藏緬語族中的 *dz- 到藏語中的 z-： 關於此音變的幾點建議 內藤丘 倫敦大學亞非學院 孔好古和李方桂曾提出藏語發音中存在的轉變 * z > dz 以及 * ź > ǰ， 但是也有證據表明存在另一音變 *dz > z 以及 *ǰ > ź。本文首先分別列舉出有 關 *dz > z 和 *ǰ > ź 的證據，其次探討了 ź 的其他來源，即 *lʲ 或 *rʲ。最後， 本文嘗試構擬出一個有關音變發生的相對年表。 關鍵詞：藏語音韻學，音變，塞擦音，摩擦音 178