Ratliff (2021) estimates that 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.[1]
In earlier studies, the date of proto-Hmong-Mien has been estimated to be about 2500 BP by Sagart, Blench, and Sanchez-Mazas (2004),[2] as well as by Ratliff (2021:247).[1] It has been estimated to about 4243 BP by the
Automated Similarity Judgment Program (ASJP),[3] 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.[4]
Reconstructions
Reconstructions of Proto-Hmong–Mien include the following.[5]
Herbert Purnell (1970)[6] is the first comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Hmong-Mien, Proto-Hmongic, and Proto-Mienic.
Wang Fushi & Mao Zongwu (1995)[7] is the first comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Hmong-Mien by Chinese scholars.
Chen Qiguang (2001)[8] reconstructs Proto-Hmong-Mien based on 15 datapoints: Hmu (Yanghao 养蒿), Qo Xiong (Layiping 腊乙坪), Hmong (Dananshan 大南山), Xijia (Shibanzhai 石板寨), Pa Hng (Gundong 滚董), Younuo (Huangluo 黄落), Dongnu (Qibainong 七百弄), Nunu (Xishan 西山), She (Xiashuicun 下水村), Jiongnai (Longhua 龙华), Pana (Xinle 新乐), Iu Mien (Dapingjiang 大坪江), Kim Mun (Yanyuan 烟园 in
Qiongzhong County 琼中县, Hainan), Biao Min (Shuanglong 双龙), Zao Min (Daping 大坪). A revised reconstruction was later published as Chen (2013).[9]
Wu Anqi (2002)[10] reconstructs approximately 100
Swadesh list items for Proto-Hmong-Mien.
Martha Ratliff (2010) is the first comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Hmong-Mien by a Western scholar since Purnell (1970).
Li Yunbing (2018)[12] reconstructs Proto-Hmong-Mien initials and finals, which are listed separately.
In China, the first comprehensive reconstruction of
Proto-Hmongic (Proto-Miao) was undertaken by Wang Fushi (1979).[13] Wang's 1979 manuscript was subsequently revised and published as Wang (1994).[14]
Proto-Mienic (Proto-Mjuenic; reconstruction excludes
Biao Min and
Zao Min) has been reconstructed by Luang-Thongkum (1993).[15] A comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Mienic has been published by Liu (2021).[16]
Ratliff (2010)
Martha Ratliff (2010) used 11 criterion languages for her reconstruction.
Proto-Hmong–Mien has the following syllable structure (Ratliff 2010:10):
(C) C [j/w/l] [i̯/u̯] (V) V C (C)T
Ratliff (2010) does not reconstruct vowel length for either Proto-Mienic or Proto-Hmong–Mien; in contrast, Li (2018) reconstructs vowel length for both.[12] Even though Mienic languages usually have vowel length, Ratliff ascribes this to areal features that were borrowed after the breakup of Proto-Mienic.[17] Neighboring languages with vowel length include
Yue Chinese and
Zhuang.
Ostapirat (2016)
Ostapirat (2016)[11] 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).[18]
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.[19]
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 the phonological reconstruction of Proto-Hmong–Mien and suggests a classification based on lexical evidence rather than phonological sound changes.[20] Rimes are simplified, while nasal codas in open rimes in Proto-Hmongic are posited to have derived from historical nasal initial consonants.[21] 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.
Vocabulary
Below are some words roughly belonging to the semantic domains of agriculture and subsistence from Ratliff (2004),[22] with the Proto-Hmong-Mien and Proto-Hmongic reconstructions from Ratliff (2010), and Old Chinese reconstructions from
Baxter & Sagart (2014)[23] 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 is reconstructed as *hmʉŋA in Proto-Hmongic by Ratliff (2010), while
Mien is reconstructed as *mjænA in Proto-Mienic. In comparison,
William H. Baxter and
Laurent Sagart (2014)[24] 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.[25]
External relationships
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 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.
Austroasiatic
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).[26]Proto-Austroasiatic (PAA) reconstructions are from Sidwell & Rau (2015).[25]
Ostapirat (2018:116-117)[28] lists compares the following basic vocabulary items in Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic.
Proto-Palaungic as reconstructed by Sidwell (2015) has also been reconstructed.[29]
Further lexical resemblances between Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic are listed in Hsiu (2017).[32]
Kra-Dai
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).[33] Many of the Proto-Tai forms also have close parallels with
Proto-Austronesian.
Kosaka (2002)[27] lists many lexical resemblances between Kra-Dai and Hmong-Mien languages, and proposes that they form part of a larger Miao-Dai language family.
Austronesian
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.).[34]
Lexical resemblances with
Austronesian and Kra-Dai
Proto-Hmongic *kɛŋB 'I, 1.SG'; PMP *-ku 'my'
PHM *mu̯ei 'thou, 2.SG'; PAN *-mu '2nd person'
PHM *mi̯əu 'you (plural), 2.PL'; PAN *-mu '2nd person'
PHM *təjH 'to die'; PAN *ma-aCay
PHM *dəjH 'to kill'; PAN *pa-aCay
PHM *m-nɔk 'bird'; PMP *manuk
Lexical resemblances with
Austronesian and Austroasiatic
PHM *klæŋ 'insect, worm, maggot'; PAN *qulej 'maggot'
PHM *tɛmX 'body louse'; PAN *CumeS, PMP *tumah 'clothes louse'
Tibeto-Burman
Ratliff notes that 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).[35]
Additionally,
Paul K. Benedict (1987)[36] 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.
*pliA 'four'
*praA 'five'
*truk 'six'
*znis 'seven'
*hryat 'eight'
*t-guA 'nine'
*gup 'ten'
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 the words for 'snow' (cf. Jiangdi Mien bwan5), 'scold' (Proto-Hmongic *qeC), 'walnut' (Proto-Hmongic *qlowC), and 'bamboo' (Proto-Hmong-Mien *hləwX).[37]
^
abRatliff, Martha (2021). "Classification and historical overview of Hmong-Mien languages". The Languages and Linguistics of Mainland Southeast Asia. De Gruyter. pp. 247–260.
doi:
10.1515/9783110558142-014.
ISBN9783110558142.
^Sagart, Laurent, Roger Blench, and Alicia Sanchez-Nazas (eds.) (2004). The peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
ISBN0-415-32242-1.
^Cf. comments by Adelaar, Blust and Campbell in Holman, Eric W., et al. (2011) "Automated Dating of the World's Language Families Based on Lexical Similarity." Current Anthropology, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 841–875.
^Taguchi, Yoshihisa (2021). "Historiography of Hmong-Mien linguistics". The Languages and Linguistics of Mainland Southeast Asia. De Gruyter. pp. 139–148.
doi:
10.1515/9783110558142-008.
ISBN9783110558142.
^Purnell, Herbert C., Jr. 1970. Toward a reconstruction of Proto-Miao-Yao. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.
^Wang Fushi 王辅世, Mao Zongwu 毛宗武. 1995. Miao-Yao yu guyin gouni 苗瑤语古音构拟. Beijing: China Social Sciences Academy Press 中国社会科学出版社.
^Chen, Qiguang 陈其光. 2001. Han-Zang, Miao-Yao tongyuanci zhuanti yanjiu 汉藏、苗瑶同源词专题研究 [A comparative study of Chinese and Miao-Yao]", pp.129–651. Vol. 2 in the series:
Ting Pang-hsin 丁邦新 & Sun Hongkai 孙宏开 (eds.), Hanzangyu Tongyuanci Yanjiu 汉藏语同源词研究 [A Study of Sino-Tibetan cognate vocabulary]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe 广西民族出版社.
ISBN9787536340343.
^Chen Qiguang [陈其光] (2013). Miao Yao yuwen [苗瑶语文]. Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House [民族出版社].
ISBN9787566003263
^
abLi, Yunbing 李云兵 (2018). Miao Yaoyu bijiao yanjiu 苗瑶语比较研究 (A comparative study of Hmong-Mien languages). Beijing: The Commercial Press 商务印书馆.
ISBN9787100165068.
OCLC1112270585.
^Wang, Fushi. 1979. Miaoyu fangyan sheng yun mu bijiao 苗语方言声韵母比较 [The comparison of the initials and finals of the Miao dialects]. Unpublished manuscript. Beijing.
^Wang, Fushi 王輔世. 1994. Miaoyu guyin gouni 苗语古音構擬 / Reconstruction of Proto-Miao Language. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA) / Ajia Afurika Gengo Bunka Kenkyūjo 國立亞非語言文化硏究所.
^Ratliff, Martha. 2007. "
Contrastive Vowel Length in Mienic: Inheritance or Diffusion?" In SEALS XIII Papers from the 13th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2003, edited by Iwasaki Shoichi et al. Canberra, Australia, 223-229. Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.
^Ratliff, Martha (2004). Tapp; Michaud; Culas; Lee (eds.). Vocabulary of environment and subsistence in the Hmong–Mien proto-language.
Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. pp. 147–165. {{
cite book}}: |work= ignored (
help)
^Ferlus, Michel. 1991. Vocalisme du Proto-Viet-Muong. Paper presented at the 24th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Thailand, 7–11 October 1991.
Ratliff, Martha (2004). Tapp; Michaud; Culas; Lee (eds.). Vocabulary of Environment and Subsistence in the Hmong–Mien Protolanguage.
Chiang Mai,
Thailand: Silkworm Books. pp. 147–165. {{
cite book}}: |work= ignored (
help)
Sergei Starostin; G. Bronnikov; Phil Krylov (1998).
"Database query to Chinese characters". The Tower of Babel (Starling online). George Starostin. Retrieved 2011-04-09. (multiple entries)