It has been suggested (Coblin 1986:40) that PTB *d-wam ‘bear’ can be compared with Chinese xióng 熊 jung. Coblin reconstructed PST **dwjəm > OC *gwjəm. It seems more prudent, however, to presume that the root was simply PST *wəm
PST tswan ‘perforate’ Chinese ‘to bore, perforate, penetrate’ 鑽 ùtson > tsuân > zuān [G tsuan, B tson] PTB *tswan > WT mtshon ‘any pointed or cutting instrument’
PST *lwi ‘river’ Chinese ‘water’ 水 ìhluj÷ > świ > shuǐ [G hljədx, B h[l]juj÷] PTB lwi & lwəy ‘flow, stream’
PST sum ‘three’ Chinese ‘three’ 三 səm > sâm > sān [G səm, B sum] PTB *g-sum ‘three’
PST *Kᵂa- > OC Kᵂa-, WT Ko- PST Kᵂə- > OC Kᵂə-, WT Ko- PST -aKᵂ > OC -aKᵂ, WT -o(g) PST -ua- > OC *-ua-, WT -o-
PST PTB OC (B) OC (G) *Kwan > Kwan Kᵂan *Kᵂan *Twan > Twan Ton *Tuan *Kwaŋ > Kwaŋ Kᵂang *Kᵂang *Twaŋ > Twaŋ Tong *Tung *Kon > Kon Kon *Kᵂan *Ton > Ton Ton *Tuan *Koŋ > Kuŋ Kong *Kung *Toŋ > Tuŋ Tong *Tung
A final note on the dental-initial roots: It has been suggested (Coblin 1986:40) that PTB *d-wam ‘bear’ can be compared with Chinese xióng 熊 jung. Coblin reconstructed PST dwjəm > OC gwjəm. It seems more prudent, however, to presume that the root was simply PST wəm, as not all TB languages show the effects of prefixal d-. With Baxter’s reconstruction of xióng 熊 as w(r)j/um, the comparison looks quite good. On the strength of the comparison I would reconstruct OC ìwəm. (This is in contrast to Baxter’s reconstruction of *w- in many of the roots in §5.2, where the comparative evidence favors the reconstruction of an OC velar stop initial.) As far as Chinese and PST are concerned, then, this root should not be considered as having a dental initial.
The last set of PTB roots has initial *h-. We might expect initial h- to pattern with velar initials in terms of correspondence with Chinese, so that PTB hwa- would correspond to OC ha- or xa- and go back to PST *hwa-. However, I have not found any Chinese cognates of these PTB roots.
In Baxter’s reconstruction, the OC vowel system is more similar to that of PST. The vowels *o and u remain distinct from wa and w. This similarity cannot, however, be taken by itself as evidence that Baxter’s system is more accurate. In deciding which approach to OC vowel reconstruction is correct, the crux of the matter remains the interpretation of Shījīng rhyming evidence. In terms of my PST system and Gong’s OC system, PST kwan and kon would have merged first to kwan, and then developed to OC kan. In Baxter’s system the merger never occurs, leading to two distinct OC forms Kan and Kon which rhyme only imperfectly in the Shījīng. Both proposals involve plausible phonological developments. Since the MC reflexes of these syllables are identical, Baxter’s proposal can only be confirmed if one accepts the statistical arguments made in Baxter (1992) which demonstrate that there are distinct rhymes in -an and *-on. If one accepts Baxter’s arguments, it would be possible to retain Gong’s system by distinguishing OC syllables *kan and kuan (Baxter’s o elsewhere corresponds to Gong’s ua), and arguing that the two finals -an and -uan tend not to rhyme. Such a tendency could be explained by arguing that, for example, Gong’s ua was realized [uø]. But this revision to Gong’s system still would not resolve all the problems if we accept his PST reconstructions. The contrasting OC syllables kan and kuan would both be reflexes of PST kwan, since Gong does not reconstruct o as part of his PST vowel system. There is no conditioning factor for this split. This problem can ultimately be traced back to Gong’s reliance on Tibetan comparisons. In summary, I believe that on balance the evidence pertaining to the reconstruction of medial *-w- in PST favors Baxter’s OC reconstruction; for this reason, I have for the most part adopted Baxter’s vowel system. Listed below are the developments proposed in this chapter, as ordered rules. Baxter’s and Gong’s reconstructions are also provided, but it should be noted that the ordered rules as formulated here cannot be reconciled with Gong’s system.
