Proto-Hmongic or Proto-Miao ( Chinese : 原始苗语 ) is the reconstructed ancestor of the Hmongic languages .
20-543: In China, the first comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Hmongic (Proto-Miao) was undertaken by Wang Fushi (1979). Wang's 1979 manuscript was subsequently revised and published as Wang (1994). Ratliff (2010) includes reconstructions of Proto-Hmong–Mien , Proto-Hmongic, and Proto-Mienic . Below are some rime mergers in Proto-Hmongic, in which the first part of the Proto-Hmong-Mien rime is preserved. On
40-823: A B.A. in English from Carleton College in 1968, an M.A.T. in English Education from University of Chicago in 1970, and a Ph.D. in Linguistics from University of Chicago in 1986, with a dissertation entitled The Morphological Functions of Tone in White Hmong . She currently serves as an associate editor for the historical linguistics journal Diachronica . She is co-founder of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society along with Eric Schiller . This biography of
60-563: A precise Proto-Hmong-Mien form cannot be easily reconstructed due to mismatches between the tonal categories, rimes, or onsets. Some examples of irregular correspondences between Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic: Proto-Hmong%E2%80%93Mien language Proto-Hmong–Mien (PHM), also known as Proto-Miao–Yao (PMY; Chinese : 原始苗瑶语 ), is the reconstructed ancestor of the Hmong–Mien languages . Lower-level reconstructions include Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic . Ratliff (2021) estimates that
80-851: Is reconstructed as *hmʉŋ in Proto-Hmongic by Ratliff (2010), while Mien is reconstructed as *mjæn in Proto-Mienic. In comparison, William H. Baxter and Laurent Sagart (2014) reconstruct the Old Chinese name of the Mán 蠻 ( Nanman 南蠻, or southern foreigners) as 蠻 *mˤro[n]; additionally, Sidwell & Rau (2015) reconstruct the Proto-Austroasiatic word for 'person' as *mraʔ. Proto-Hmong–Mien shares many lexical similarities with neighboring language families, including Austroasiatic, Kra-Dai (Tai-Kadai), Austronesian, and Tibeto-Burman (Ratliff 2010). Martha Ratliff (2010:233-237) lists
100-510: The Automated Similarity Judgment Program (ASJP), however, ASJP is not widely accepted among historical linguists as a sufficiently rigorous method to establish or evaluate relationships between language families, since it only makes use of 40 basic vocabulary items. Reconstructions of Proto-Hmong–Mien include the following. In China, the first comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Hmongic (Proto-Miao)
120-860: The Hmong-Mien numerals from 4-9 and various culture-related vocabulary have been borrowed from Tibeto-Burman. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman (abbreviated as PTB) forms provided below are from James Matisoff (2003). Additionally, Paul K. Benedict (1987) notes that Proto-Hmong–Mien contains loanwords from an unknown Tibeto-Burman language or branch, which Benedict refers to as Donor Miao-Yao . Benedict (1987:20) believes that these Tibeto-Burman loanwords predate Hmong-Mien's contact with Old Chinese. Some numerals that Benedict (1987) reconstructed for Proto-Donor Miao-Yao are given below. Guillaume Jacques (2021) notes that there are Tibeto-Burman parallels for various Hmong-Mien words that are found specifically in rGyalrongic and neighboring Qiangic languages . These include
140-423: The Proto-Hmong-Mien rime was open or closed. For example: Qo Xiong has - u for words developed from Proto-Hmong-Mien forms with closed rimes, while Qo Xiong words developed from Proto-Hmong-Mien forms with open rimes have - ə . Ratliff (2010) reconstructions only one final nasal for Proto-Hmongic. *-n/*-ŋ are in complementary distribution with each other, with *-n occurring after front vowels. Other than as *-ŋ,
160-810: The Proto-Hmongic final nasal can alternatively be reconstructed as a single *-N. Taguchi (2022) proposes that nasal codas in open rimes in Proto-Hmongic are historically derived from nasal initial consonants. Ostapirat (2016) proposes velarized initials in Proto-Hmongic, which are not reconstructed by Ratliff (2010) and others. Qo Xiong retains distinct initial reflexes for forms developed from Proto-Hmongic *m.l- (> Qo Xiong n -) versus *m.lˠ- (> Qo Xiong mj -). Taguchi (2023) also suggests that Ratliff's (2010) Proto-Hmongic *k- and *q- are in fact secondary developments from Proto-Hmong–Mien *kr- and *k-, respectively. Ostapirat (2016) also revises Ratliff's uvulars (*q-, etc.) as velars (*k-, etc.). Some Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic forms are cognate with each other, but
180-633: The Proto-Tai forms also have close parallels with Proto-Austronesian . Kosaka (2002) lists many lexical resemblances between Kra-Dai and Hmong-Mien languages, and proposes that they form part of a larger Miao-Dai language family. Many lexical resemblances are found between the Hmong-Mien and Austronesian language families, some of which are also shared with Kra-Dai and Austroasiatic (Ratliff 2010). Proto-Austronesian (abbreviated here as PAN) and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (abbreviated here as PMP) reconstructions are from Blust (n.d.). Ratliff notes that
200-1143: The breakup of Proto-Mienic. Neighboring languages with vowel length include Yue Chinese and Zhuang . Ostapirat (2016) revises various reconstructed Proto-Hmong–Mien consonant initials proposed by Ratliff (2010). He suggests that many proto-initials are in fact sesquisyllables , in line with Baxter & Sagart's (2014) Old Chinese reconstruction and Pittayaporn's (2009) Proto-Tai reconstruction. Examples include reconstructing *m.l- and *m.r- where Ratliff (2010) reconstructs *mbl- and *mbr-, respectively. Hmong-Mien presyllables are further discussed in Strecker (2021). Ostapirat (2016) also reconstructs velarized initial consonants (*Cˠ-) where Ratliff (2010) reconstructs -j- or -w-. Similarly, Norquest (2020) also reconstructs velarized initial consonants for Proto-Kra–Dai . Additionally, Ostapirat revises Ratliff's uvulars (*q-, etc.) as velars (*k-, etc.), and her palatals as either alveolars or palatals. Below are some reconstructions from Ostapirat (2016) compared with those of Ratliff (2010). Taguchi (2023) discusses several revisions in
220-416: The following 23 criterion Hmong-Mien languages. Martha Ratliff 's 2010 reconstruction contains the following phonemic inventory. The full set of Proto-Hmong–Mien initial consonants is (Ratliff 2010: 31): The 3 medial consonants are *-j-, *-l-, and *-r-. The 6 final stop consonants are *-p, *-t, *-k, *-m, *-n, and *-ŋ. The Proto-Hmong–Mien vowels are (11 total) (Ratliff 2010: 108): Proto-Hmong–Mien has
SECTION 10
#1732772890640240-543: The following basic vocabulary items in Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic. Proto-Palaungic as reconstructed by Sidwell (2015) has also been reconstructed. Further lexical resemblances between Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic are listed in Hsiu (2017). Many lexical resemblances are found between the Hmong-Mien and Kra-Dai language families, although the tones often do not correspond (Ratliff 2010). Proto-Tai (abbreviated here as PT) reconstructions are from Pittayaporn (2009). Many of
260-628: The following lexical resemblances between Proto-Hmong–Mien (abbreviated below as PHM) and other language families. Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic are provided if the Proto-Hmong–Mien form is not reconstructed. Many lexical resemblances are found between the Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic language families (Ratliff 2010), some of which had earlier been proposed by Haudricourt (1951). Proto-Austroasiatic (PAA) reconstructions are from Sidwell (2024). Other Austroasiatic parallels listed by Kosaka (2002:94) are: Ostapirat (2018:116-117) lists compares
280-416: The following syllable structure (Ratliff 2010:10): (C) C [j/w/l] [i̯/u̯] (V) V C (C) Ratliff (2010) does not reconstruct vowel length for either Proto-Mienic or Proto-Hmong–Mien; in contrast, Li (2018) reconstructs vowel length for both. Even though Mienic languages usually have vowel length, Ratliff ascribes this to areal features that were borrowed after
300-594: The other hand, Proto-Hmongic retains some Proto-Hmong-Mien rime distinctions, whereas Proto-Mienic has merged the rimes. The Proto-Hmongic tonal category C is derived from Proto-Hmong–Mien final *-k, while tonal category D in Proto-Hmongic is derived from Proto-Hmong–Mien finals *-p and *-t. Below are some examples of Proto-Hmongic tone C corresponding to Proto-Mienic tone D and Proto-Hmong-Mien final *-k. Although Proto-Hmongic does not have explicitly reconstructed final stops (i.e., *-p, *-t, *-k), Pa-Hng and Qo Xiong have vowel quality distinctions that correspond to whether
320-496: The phonological reconstruction of Proto-Hmong–Mien and suggests a classification based on lexical evidence rather than phonological sound changes. Rimes are simplified, while nasal codas in open rimes in Proto-Hmongic are posited to have derived from historical nasal initial consonants. Taguchi (2023) also suggests that Ratliff's (2010) Proto-Hmongic *k- and *q- are in fact secondary developments from Proto-Hmong–Mien *kr- and *k-, respectively. Below are some words roughly belonging to
340-659: The semantic domains of agriculture and subsistence from Ratliff (2004), with the Proto-Hmong-Mien and Proto-Hmongic reconstructions from Ratliff (2010), and Old Chinese reconstructions from Baxter & Sagart (2014) for comparison (note that the Old Chinese forms are not necessarily cognate with the Hmong–Mien forms). Terms for domesticated animals and non-rice crops are usually shared with Chinese, while vocabulary relating to hunting, rice crops, and local plants and animals are usually not shared with Chinese. The ethnonym Hmong
360-413: The split between Hmongic and Mienic had occurred before 2500 BP, since the Old Chinese words 鐵 tiě ‘iron’ and 下 xià ‘descend’ were both borrowed separately by Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic. In earlier studies, the date of proto-Hmong-Mien has been estimated to be about 2500 BP by Sagart, Blench, and Sanchez-Mazas (2004), as well as by Ratliff (2021:247). It has been estimated to about 4243 BP by
380-404: The words for 'snow' (cf. Jiangdi Mien bwan ), 'scold' (Proto-Hmongic *qe ), 'walnut' (Proto-Hmongic *qlow ), and 'bamboo' (Proto-Hmong-Mien *hləwX). Martha Ratliff Martha Ratliff is an American linguist and Professor Emerita at Wayne State University . She is a leading specialist in Hmong–Mien languages and also notable for her reconstruction of Proto-Hmong–Mien . Ratliff earned
400-479: Was undertaken by Wang Fushi (1979). Wang's 1979 manuscript was subsequently revised and published as Wang (1994). Proto-Mienic (Proto-Mjuenic; reconstruction excludes Biao Min and Zao Min ) has been reconstructed by Luang-Thongkum (1993). A comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Mienic has been published by Liu (2021). Martha Ratliff (2010) used 11 criterion languages for her reconstruction. Wang & Mao (1995) base their Proto-Hmong–Mien reconstruction on
#639360