Weiter zum Inhalt

The Word for ‘Honey’ in Chinese, Tocharian and Sino-Vietnamese

Seiten 7 - 22

DOI https://doi.org/10.13173/zeitdeutmorggese.167.1.0007

According to a widely accepted etymology, Chinese 蜜 ‘honey’ (MChin. mjit, OChin. *mit) is a borrowing from the Tocharian etymon represented by Toch. B mit ‘honey’. Recently, Jacques (2014) has argued on the basis of evidence from Sino-Vietnamese and Lakkja that the Chinese word should rather be reconstructed as MChin. mit, OChin. *mrit. He suggests that this word was borrowed from another Indo-European word for ‘honey’ (related to Greek μέλι etc.) that is not so far attested in Tocharian, but might have had a form close to OChin. *mrit. In our view, Jacques' arguments do not stand close scrutiny: the Old Chinese word cannot have been *mrit and the traditional Tocharian etymology still provides by far the best explanation for the Chinese etymon.



1 Adams, D. Q. 22013: A dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 10).

2 Arisaka Hideyo 1962: “A critical study on Karlgren's medial i theory.” In: Memoirs of the research Department of the Toyo Bunko 21, pp. 49–75.

3 Baxter, W. H. 1992: A handbook of Old Chinese phonology. Berlin / New York (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 64).

4 Baxter, W. H. / L. Sagart 2014: Old Chinese. A new reconstruction. Oxford / New York.

5 Behr, W. 2001: Review of J. Ulenbrook: Zum Alteurasischen. Eine Sprachvergleichung. Bettendorf 1998. In: Oriens 36, pp. 356–361.

6 Buck, C. D. 1949: A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages. A contribution to the history of ideas. Chicago/London.

7 Ebert, K. 1997: A grammar of Athpare. München (LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics 1).

8 Ferlus, M. 1996: “Remarques sur le consonantisme du proto kam-sui.” In: Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 25, pp. 235–278.

9 Haudricourt, A.-G. 1968: “La langue lakkia.” In: Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 62, pp. 165–182.

10 Jacques, G. 2014: “The word for ‘honey’ in Chinese and its relevance for the study of Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan language contact.” In: WÉKwOS 1, pp. 111–116.

11 Jasanoff, J. 1978: Stative and middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 23).

12 Lán Qìngyuán 蓝庆元 2005: “Lājiāyǔ Hàn jiècí céngcì fēnxī 拉珈语汉借词层次分析 - An analysis of the Chinese loanword stratums in Lakkia language.” In: Mínzú Yǔwén 民族语文 6, pp. 1–9.

13 Lévi, S. / A. Meillet 1914: “Remarques sur les formes grammaticales de quelques textes en tokharien B. II. Formes nominales.” In: Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 18, pp. 381–423.

14 Liú Bǎoyuán 刘保元 2007: “Lājiāyǔ 拉珈语 [The Lakkia language].” In: Sūn Hóngkāi 孙宏开 Hú Zēngyì 胡增益 / Huáng Xíng 黄行 (eds.): Zhωngguó de yǔyán 中国的语言. Běijīng: The Commercial Press 商务印书馆, pp. 1307–1323.

15 L.-Thongkum, T. 1992: “A preliminary reconstruction of Proto-Lakkja (Cha Shan Yao).” In: Mon-Khmer Studies 20, pp. 57–89.

16 Malzahn, M. 2012: “Now you see it, now you don't – Bewegliches -o in Tocharisch B.” In: O. Hackstein / R. I. Kim (eds.): Linguistic developments along the Silk Road: Archaism and Innovation in Tocharian. Wien (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 834), pp. 33–82.

17 Máo Zωngwu 毛宗武 / Méng Cháojí 蒙朝吉 / Zhèng Zωngzé 郑宗泽 1982: Yáozú yǔyán jiǎnzhì 瑶族语言简志 [A sketch of the languages of the Yáo nationality]. Běijīng 北京: Mínzú Chūbǎnshè 民族出版社.

18 Maspero, H. 1912: “Études sur la phonétique historique de la langue Annamite: les initiales.” In: BEFEO 12, pp. 1–127.

19 Michailovsky, B. 2002: Limbu-English dictionary of the Mewa Khola dialect with English-Limbu index. Kathmandu.

20 Michaud, A. / G. Jacques / R. L. Rankin 2012: “Historical transfer of nasality between consonantal onset and vowel. From C to V or from V to C?” In: Diachronica 29, pp. 201–230.

21 Mineya Tωru 三根谷徹 1972: Etsunan kanjion no kenkyū 越南漢字音の研究 – Studies on the Sino-Vietnamese. Tωkyω 東京: Tωyω Bunko 東洋文庫.

22 Nagel, P. 1941: “Beiträge zur Rekonstruktion der 切韻 Ts'ieh-Yün-Sprache auf Grund von 陳澧 Ch'en Li's 切韻考 Ts'ieh-Yün-K'au.” In: T'oung Pao 36, pp. 95–158.

23 Napolskich, W. W. 2000: “Zu den Benennungen des Honigs in den finnischugrischen Sprachen.” In: UAJ N. F. 16, pp. 129–138.

24 Peyrot, M. 2012: “Tocharian ‘eat’ and the strong imperfect in Tocharian A.” In: O. Hackstein / R. I. Kim (eds.): Linguistic developments along the Silk Road: Archaism and Innovation in Tocharian. Wien (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 834), pp. 85–119.

25 Phan, J. D. 2010: “Re-imagining ‘Annam’: A new analysis of Sino-Viet-Muong linguistic contact.” In: Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies 4, pp. 3–24.

26 Pittayaporn, P. 2009: The phonology of Proto-Tai. PhD thesis, Cornell University.

27 Polivanov, E. D. 1916: “Indo-evropejskoe *medhu – obšče-kitajskoe *mit [Indo-European *medhu – Common Chinese *mit].” In: Zapiski vostočnago otdělenija imperatorskago russkago arxeologičeskago obščestva 23, pp. 263–264.

28 Pulleyblank, E. G. 1984 Middle Chinese: A study in historical phonology. Vancouver.

29 Pulleyblank, E. G. 1991: Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver.

30 Ringe, D. 1995: “Tocharians in Xinjiang: the linguistic evidence.” In: Journal of Indo-European Studies 23, pp. 439–444.

31 Ringe, D. 1996: On the chronology of sound changes in Tocharian. Vol. 1. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Tocharian. New Haven.

32 Sagart, L. 2004: “The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai-Kadai.” In: Oceanic Linguistics 43, pp. 411–444.

33 Sagart, L. 2005: “Tai-Kadai as a subgroup of Austronesian.” In: L. Sagart / R. Blench / A. Sanchez-Mazas (eds.): The peopling of East Asia. Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. London, pp. 177–181.

34 Schrader, O. / A. Nehring 1917–1923: Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Grundzüge einer Kultur- und Völkergeschichte Alteuropas. Teil I. A–K. Berlin.


Export Citation