# Old Chinese reconstruction: 樓



## Arabus

Hello,

What is the sound of 樓 in Old Chinese according to Baxter, Sagart, Schuessler, or Pulleyblank?


----------



## fyl

Hi, I know a website that may be helpful http://www.eastling.org/oc/oldage.aspx
Just input the character in the blank and click 查询.
According to this website, the reconstructions by 高本汉, 李方桂, 王力, 白一平, 郑张尚方, 潘悟云 are lu, lug, lo, c-ro, g·roo, [g]roo respectively.

It seems 白一平 is the Chinese name of Baxter, and the others are a different group of linguists from your list. The website does not seem to have Sagart, Schuessler and Pulleyblank's reconstructions...


----------



## Arabus

Thank you.

The latest reconstructions by Baxter & Sagart are available online, but they do not include this character 樓.

I guess that Pan Wuyun and Zhengzhang Shangfang are recent enough? They both give similar reconstructions, so this seems to be the most reliable reconstruction provided on eastling.org.


----------



## Ghabi

Hello. I think it's better to avoid words like "most reliable" when talking about Old Chinese reconstruction, which is a very controversial subject, where every detail has been debated and is still being debated. Pan Wuyun and Zhengzhang Shangfang belong to the same "reconstruction school" as Baxter and Pulleyblank, if we may put it this way (Pan actually co-translated a work of Pulleyblank into Chinese).


----------



## Skatinginbc

樓蘭 was the Chinese transliteration for Kroraina in the Han Dynasty; that is to say, 樓 was used to transliterate the sound /kro-/.  《說文解字》 describes 樓's pronunciation as 洛矦切 (i.e., 落侯切), which would render *kə.rˁo or *kro if based on Baxter-Sagart's Old Chinese reconstruction (落 *kə.rˁak + 侯 *ɡˁo ==> *kə.rˁo).


----------



## Ghabi

There were no _fanqie_ spellings in the original _Shuowen_. They were added by later (Song Dynasty) scholars, and are not used to describe Old Chinese.


----------



## Arabus

Skatinginbc said:


> 樓蘭 was the Chinese transliteration for Kroraina in the Han Dynasty; that is to say, 樓 was used to transliterate the sound /kro-/.  《說文解字》 describes 樓's pronunciation as 洛矦切 (i.e., 落侯切), which would render *kə.rˁo or *kro if based on Baxter-Sagart's Old Chinese reconstruction (落 *kə.rˁak + 侯 *ɡˁo ==> *kə.rˁo).



This is great. Thank you.



Ghabi said:


> There were no _fanqie_ spellings in the original _Shuowen_. They were added by later (Song Dynasty) scholars, and are not used to describe Old Chinese.



Do you mean that we can't reconstruct the sound of 樓?

Skatinginbc made a great point when he cited 樓蘭. As far as I know, the word Kroraina was read from an ancient text discovered in Xinjiang. If 樓蘭 = Kroraina, then this shows that the first character must have sounded close to *kro.

I am actually interested in the word 樓煩, which is the name of an ancient Hu people mentioned several times in Chinese records. It appears that 樓煩 was a Mongolic tribe. The name 樓煩 can't be Mongolic if it begins with /*r-/, because Mongolic words do not begin with r-, but if 樓煩 was something like /*kə.rˁo ban/ then this may very well be a Mongolic name.


----------



## Ghabi

Using ancient transliterations for reconstruction is always iffy. There are too many uncertain factors.

The character 樓 belongs to the 婁 phonetic-series, which contains /l/-initial characters like 樓縷鏤螻, but also the velar-initial characters 窶 (/g/) and 屨(/k/). If ones wants to argue for a /kr/ or /kl/ initial consonant cluster, I think this is a better argument. (But don't forget there is also the character 數, which has an initial s- and a final -k!)


----------



## Arabus

Thanks for the information Ghabi.

My knowledge in Old Chinese is very limited, but I know that Baxter in 1992 differentiated between two types of the Old Chinese initials *br- and *gr-. According to him, one type became l- in Middle Chinese, and the other became b- and g-. What you say about the 婁 phonetic-series makes me think that it contains words from both types. Now I wonder what the difference between these two types was? Perhaps the initials that became l- in Middle Chinese were originally *gə.r-. The pre-initial *gə- fell off in MC and the initial r- became l- as usual. The other type of initials was perhaps *gr-. In this type the initial *r- was absorbed by the pre-initial *g- and became g-. I am not sure about this so if somebody knows what the current theories are please correct me.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Ghabi said:


> Using ancient transliterations for reconstruction is always iffy.


I think transliterations are good instruments for testing explanatory  power of a reconstruction.  The Chinese conventions dictate that /k/ in  /kr/ shall be reflected in transliteration (e.g. Ukraine > 烏克蘭, Sanskrit krakucchanda > 俱留孫 or 迦羅鳩餐陀).  It would be a violation of the convention if 樓 in 樓蘭 represents  only /r/ rather than /kr/.  That does not necessarily mean that 樓 was  pronounced *kr- in the Han Dynasty.  Many clustered or disyllabic words  were morphologically atrophied into non-clustered, monosyllabic ones  during the Late Old Chinese period (e.g., 籠 *_k.rˁoŋ_ > *_rˁoŋ_; 螺  *_k.rˁoj_ >   *_rˁoj_; 籃 *_k.rˁam_ > *_rˁam_; 蠟 *_k.rˁap_ > *_rˁap_; 闌 *_kə.rˁan_ > *_rˁan_; 落 *_kə.rˁak_ > *_rˁak_).   And it is this historical phonology that, I believe, enables 樓 to  represent /kr/.  Some of the words in the 婁 phonetic-series developed  multiple readings, for instance, 屨 and 鞻 OC *_kros > _MC*_kǐu_ (俱遇切, _k_-retained) or MC *_ləu_  (洛侯切, _k_-atrophied).  The voiced /g-/ in Baxter-Sagart's  reconstruction is not an element that can be atrophied and thus has its  reflex in Middle Chinese (e.g., 耆 *_ɡrij_ > *_ɡij_;窶 OC *_groʔ_ > MC *_gǐu_).  In other words, 樓 probably did not start with a /*g-/ in Old Chinese; otherwise, it would have been reflected in its Middle Chinese pronunciation.    


Arabus said:


> The  name 樓煩 can't be Mongolic if it begins with  /*r-/, because Mongolic  words do not begin with r-.


Pulleyblank  argued against the hypothesized Altaic origin of Xiongnu with the same  line of argument.  Approximately 9% of Xiongnu words in the  Western Han records start with a liquid initial.


----------



## Arabus

How do Baxter and Sagart tell if the pre-initial was *kə- or *k-?


----------



## Skatinginbc

They inferred it from other Sino-Tibetan languages (e.g., Lakkia) and then compared it against other Proto-Chinese languages (e.g., Proto-Min).  For instance, 溺 *_kə.nˁewk-s_ "urine" vs. Lakkia /kji:w/ "urine".  It was reconstructed as having a loosely attached pre-initial *_kə- _because the *k- is not reflected in the Proto-Min, which has a /*n-/ for 溺.  Had it been reflected in the Proto-Min (e.g., /*nh-/), they would have reconstructed it as having a tightly attached pre-initial *_k_-.  Anyway, their theory can be found in William H. Baxter, Laurent Sagart (2014) Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction, Oxford University Press.


----------



## Arabus

Thank you Skatinginbc for the information.

Can we suppose that 樓 was /*kə.rˁo ban/, or do we have to suppose it was /*k.rˁo ban/ because of the other words in the 婁 phonetic-series?

I understand that the 婁 phonetic-series contains words with original *kr-/*gr-, but what about words with original *kər-/*gər-? Can they be found in this series?


----------



## Skatinginbc

To reconstruct an atrophied element requires lots of comparative  research and a great deal of luck.  樓 is a very common word and yet  Baxter & Sagart decided to leave it blank.  Why?  Apparently they  haven't found good enough evidence to support any reconstruction yet.   All I can say is: The probability of having a pre-initial *k- or *kə- is  greater in 樓煩 than in 樓蘭 because the former denotes a tribe that already  had contact with China during the reign of 周成王 (ca. 1042BCE-1021BCE) whereas the latter first appeared in the works of 司馬遷（ca. 145BCE－86BCE).  They are 900 years apart.


----------



## Skatinginbc

I now feel confident that 樓 was probably pronounced *_kə.rˁo _in the Qin language 秦言 (I don't know about General Old Chinese, though).  The Qin word for 'spider' is 樓蝥(方言: 關而西秦晉之間謂之樓蝥), in which 樓 actually corresponds to Tibeto-Burman words for 'spider', for instance, Sorbung _kʰəràan_/_kʰràan_, Deori _mo-kora_, Rongpo _ma-kRa_, Sunwar Kiranti _mā:-krā:_, Kham _'ma-kara:_, Magar _ghāruāT_, Ersu Qiangic _kɑrɑ_, Queyu Qiangic _bu-kara_, Nyagrong Minyag rGyalrongic _ˊkara_, to name just a few.  Thus 樓蘭 'Kroraina' was probably a transliteration based on the Qin pronunciation 秦言 rather than General Old Chinese pronunciation 雅言.

樓蝥, like 布穀, might have involved metathesis for the sake of a 'meaningful transliteration'.


----------



## skating-in-bc

第35屆金馬獎最佳男主角 洛桑群培 (_blo bzang choe 'phel_) 的 "洛", 藏文書寫為 _blo_ (照 Old Tibetan 的發音書寫), 可是現代藏語發音為 /lo/, /b-/ 不發出聲.  

中國西藏自治區的 珞巴族 (Lhoba 'southerners'), 其藏語原名為 _klopa _(照 Old Tibetan 的發音書寫, 意思是 'barbarians, primitive people'), 現代藏語發音為 _lopa_, /k-/ 不發出聲.

上古 "樓" *_kro _變成漢朝之後的 *_ro_, 前面的 _k- _音不見了.  這過程就像古藏語 _klo_ 變成現代藏語 _lo_, 前面的_ k- _音不見了. 

漢語與藏語發展過程之相似, 十分有趣, 故提出來與大家分享.


----------

