by Patrick C. Ryan
(7/26/97)
(Sino-)Tibetan shared early developments with languages which would also be derived
from the Proto-Language:
A) F and F[H] became
W and W[H];
B) But, though NE and N[H]E
became LY and
LHY in most PL-derived languages, in (Sino-)Tibetan (as in Altaic
and Uralic) they developed into ny {see 5a) below};
1) PL aspirated obstruents were de-aspirated non-initially in (Sino-)Tibetan; and even
initially, were de-aspirated when not followed by a glide;
a) PL P[H], PF[H], T[H], TS[H], K[H], and
KX[H] became (Sino-)Tibetan p, *pf, t, ts, k,
and *kx when initial and glideless (from C+A);
or when non-initial; *pf
was simplified to p; *kx was simplified to
k;
b) PL P[H], PF[H], T[H], TS[H], K[H], and
KX[H] remained (Sino-)Tibetan ph(y), *pfh(y), thy
(see Special Note below), tsh, kh, and *kxh when initial with either
a y-glide or w-glide (which subsequently disappeared); *pfh(y) was simplified
to ph(y) (see Special Note below); *kxh(y) was simplified
to kh(y) (see Special Note below);
2) PL glottalized obstruents were de-glottalized and voiced in (Sino-)Tibetan:
a) PL P[?], P[?]F, T[?], TS[?], K[?], and
K[?]X, became early (Sino-)Tibetan *b, *bw, *d, *dz,
*g, and *gy;
1)) Palatalization (from C + E) further modified
the voiced obstruents: *b/bw[y]* both became by (see
Special Note below) initially but b non-initially ;
*d/dz[y]* both became *dy (see Special Note below)
initially but d non-initially ; *g/gy[y]*
both became gy initially (see Special Note below) but g
non-initially;
2)) Non-palatalized (Sino-)Tibetan *b/*bw, *d/*dz,
and *g/gy became b, d, and g
in all positions except *dz[w], which was simplified to dz
initially only;
3) As seen above, Late PL affricates merged with the corresponding stops in (Sino-) Tibetan;
4) PL spirants are de-aspirated in (Sino-)Tibetan; unaspirated spirants are voiced;
a) W[H] becomes early (Sino-)Tibetan
hw, which was de-aspirated to w, merging
with w from W; S[H]
becomes (Sino-)Tibetan s and S
becomes (Sino-)Tibetan z except S/S[H]O
, which becomes zh /sh/ or sh
/ç/; X/X[H] become sh
/ç/;
5) Aspirated PL N[H]A and N[H]O
are de-aspirated, and become (Sino-)Tibetan l;
a) PL N/N[H]E becomes (Sino-)Tibetan
ny initially but n non-initially;
b) PL M/M[H]E become (Sino-)Tibetan
my initially but m non-initially;
M/M[H]A/O become (Sino-)Tibetan m in all
positions; Q/Q[H]E become (Sino-)Tibetan ny
initially but q (/ng/) non-initially;
Q/Q[H]A/O become (Sino-)Tibetan q (/ng/) in all
positions (but Q once becomes g, and
Q[H] once becomes k);
6) The PL voiceless laryngal stop, ?
(/?/), becomes (Sino-)Tibetan (0);
7) The PL voiceless laryngal fricative, h (/h/),
remains h initially but becomes (0) non-initially in (Sino-)Tibetan but may be responsible for aspiration of an initial obstruent
in #184;
8) The PL voiced pharyngal fricative, $, becomes
/j/, written y in (Sino-)Tibetan but may
occasionally become (0) medially (#87 and #179?);
9) The PL voiceless pharyngal fricative HH (/hh/)
remains in (Sino-)Tibetan as H but has been weakened to h
occasionally (#110, #205) and once appears as (0) initially (#30) ;
10) PL R/R[H]O become (Sino-)Tibetan
l;
11) PL R[H] was de-aspirated to Late PL
*R;
a) Late PL *R from PL R/R[H]E/A
becomes (Sino-)Tibetan r and an anticipated *ry is
not found for *RE;
12) Palatalization was retained initially wherever possible; it appears in (Sino-)
Tibetan as a y-glide; velarization, on the other hand, the w-glide, was lost.
(Sino-)Tibetan
The notation of the roots discussed above follows the orthography of Sarat Chandra Das in
his "A Tibetan-English Dictionary", 1995 (reprint of 1902), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers.
(Sino-)Tibetan Phonemes:
k, kh, g, q (/ng/),
c (/tsh/), ch (/tsh+h/), j (/dzh/), ny,
t, th, d, n,
p, ph, b, m,
ts, tsh (/ts/+/h/), dz,
w,
zh (/zh/ or /sh/), z,
H (/hh/),
y,
r, l,
sh (/sh/ or /ç/), s,
h, a ( for /?/)
i, i:, e, e:, a, a:, o, u, u:
In Alexander Csoma de Körös, Grammar of the Tibetan Language, p. 6, several combinations of
consonants are mentioned which are pronounced differently than written.
This is an ancient characteristic, which has eluded the writing system in some cases: e.g.
Tibetan sa-cha, "place", is composed of the classifier sa- + cha, which represents PL
P[?]FE+HA (= early (Sino-)Tibetan *byah), equivalent to IE -bh, a suffix forming place-names.
The following table illustrates what I believe to have been the phonetic developments from
initial palatalized obstruents which sometimes occur spelled phonetically.
| WRITTEN | PRONOUNCED | PRONOUNCED (2) | EXAMPLES |
| by | /dZ/, written j | /tS/, written c | #44 (?), #67, #68 |
| dy | /dy/ = /dZ/, written j | . | #12, #161 |
| gy | /dZ/, written j | . | #44 (?), #46 |
| (s or d) + py
or phy |
/tS/, written c
or /tS[h]/, written ch |
/S/, written sh | #71, #72, #73, #74, #99 |
| ty
or thy |
/ty/ = /tS/, written c
or /thy/ = /tS[h]/, written ch |
. | #25, #34, #38, #82 |
| ky
or khy |
/ty/, written c (?)
or /tyh/, written ch (?) |
. | no examples identified spelled with c or ch |
OF SELECTED CLASSIFIERS
m
H
b
b
d-
g
r
(?)
s(a)
l-
h
to investigate these phonological correspondences in detail, see the
TABLE OF PL / IE / (SINO-)TIBETAN
CORRESPONDENCES
Combinatory Modifications
for modifications of the vowels and consonants in combination, see the
the latest revision of this document can be found at
HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/Athens/Forum/2803/comparison.SINO-TIBETAN.10_phonology.htm
Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little
Rock, AR 72204-4441* (501)227-9947
PROTO-LANGUAGE@WorldNet.att.net
