 in terms of the structure of the lectures as presentations. So first one about methodology, then one about the phonetic meaning of the Chinese script, like what phonology is inside the Chinese script, which is using my technical jargon, you know, shi sheng connections as transposers and then using middle Chinese, which you just sort of get off the shelf as the imposer, right? So now I'm going to actually go through in the way I sort of promised to imposers in the chronological order. So we start with cognates and early loans, cognates and early loans. So in chronological order of the availability of the, you know, the source in question, we have trans-similane cognates, so things like Tibetan, Burmese, you know, jargon, sign of Tibetan languages or trans-similane languages, if you like. Then we have loans used by facts and cigar. I want to present those are at least what they presume to be and I think they're generally right, all Chinese loans into other Asian languages, for instance, into Vietic languages or into Monk Yen, so on. Then I'll mention some loans not mentioned by them. And so now let's do it. Okay, so one methodological question is, is it appropriate to use cognates in other languages to reconstruct all Chinese? So, I mean, I'll just give you an example the word feminine, sorry, the word woman, which we've seen worded by Pengo, new Christopher Beckwith, I think reconstructs as way not. Okay, and you kind of, well, like let me ask you, can you tell something about Christopher Beckwith's ideas of the external relations of Chinese? What do you mean you did this? Yeah, exactly. So I think there's this risk that it's a genuine risk of let's call it overfitting, right? Which is that like, if you think Chinese is an Indo-European language, then you will want the word for woman to be Guena. Yeah. And because the evidence is scanty and ambiguous, it may be the case that a strong case can be made that the old Chinese word for woman is Guena, but I think we see that this is a dangerous risk that's kind of overfitting. So some people would say, we shouldn't look at external coordinates at all, right? We should only reconstruct Chinese based on Chinese evidence. So that's an opinion. But I think it's fine to take inspiration from coordinates, right? Like in a sense, if I can argue on the basis of Chinese evidence alone, that the old Chinese word for woman was Guena, then that will be an interesting finding, right? And we'll have to scrutinize my moves very carefully. But I think if it turns out that I'm here, we can sort of agree with Papa, right? We can find our hypothesis wherever we want. We can do drugs. We can throw darts at the wall or something. If we can then make a good case for it based on Chinese internal evidence, then maybe it was okay. It turns out to have been okay, right? But the other thing I would say is, yeah, so what I don't think we should do is we shouldn't let coordinates change our overall idea of the phonology or the kind of tactics, right? If there's some distinction, like between final R and final L, that you could say, well, Chinese has final J where Tibetan has final L and final R, for example, then it would be wrong to reconstruct the distinction in Chinese based on the Tibetan evidence a lot, right? We shouldn't add new distinctions using external evidence. So that's my feeling. Take some inspiration from looking around, but don't add new distinctions using external evidence. But what you can do is if there's a distinction you already made, but because of, let's say, conditioned mergers in the history of Chinese, you can't tell based on Chinese evidence alone what the Chinese reconstruction should be. I think it's fine to go with the version that makes external comparisons look better, right? Imagine that we're talking about, let's say, Sanskrit, right? So we know Sanskrit collapses E and O and A, so proposing that at some moment in the history of Indo-Aryan or something, that there's an E based on Greek evidence, that's fine, right? So I think that's where external evidence can be used is to resolve ambiguities in the reconstruction where, but not adding new, now I'm realizing there's all sorts of problems with my comparison with, it would be something like, and I don't know if this is the case. In principle, you can tell in Proto-Indo-Aryan, whether Proto-Indo-Aryan had E, A, or O based on the comparison of just a vest and a Sanskrit. Is that the case? I don't know, you tell me. But then suppose for a certain word, there isn't an a vest in the pocket. Yeah, well, then why not go look at what it has? And then it would still, I think that would be justified. Okay. So, now I'm ready. Distinctions that come on the basis of Chinese evidence be proven to have existed, but- Yeah, exactly. In a certain word, you don't know. Exactly, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, I mean, I'm thinking of one thing in particular, which is medial R. So, and I actually don't know the finality well enough to really say this, but let's say, I think this is right. Let's say, ha and pra can be distinguished very clearly. Yeah. But that, let's say, kra and ka can't, that they merge. Yeah. So, if there's a given word, so the way back from the cigar right there is with the R in parentheses to say, look, in this phonological environment, the kra and ka merge. So, we don't know whether it had a medial R. I would say, well, look, if the vet has a medial R, just go with that, right? Cause you're not actually adding any information to it in a sense that possibility is already there. Yeah, it's, you can think of it almost as just a typographical cleanup. Yeah. But the first thing I'm going to say, it has to do with some of the vaccines you are don't impose, which comes back to something you're talking about yesterday, which are, what are the sources of retroflection or of certain kind of vowel cramping, too? So, it's not medial R, but some people, including me, think maybe a prefix R was also a source of retroflection. So, John Shuiya, you know, I think Laifang wrote this article comparing Yaroan Pagans of old Chinese, and they argue that from a hit-transit-in-land perspective, we should posit a pre-initial, if you like, R and that that is one source of retroflection in Chinese. And it's not their idea. It goes back to the Polly-Blandry program. Lots of people want to sort of talk about this. So, here are pages of C-R. So, we have in old Chinese to descend with grub, and then the drop-off coordinate is ungrub. So, we can say that the R has been, the place of the R as a medial in old Chinese has been confirmed by looking at the drop-off coordinate. And then here's another one. So, this is a flaw where C-Chongse has ungrub. So, again, it seems to confirm the medial R. And then here's another one. This one is to defeat, which maybe is coming with this to break in C-Chongse. Again, it confirms the R, yeah, so. But there are cases instead, where the R-R-B-Wangri's point of view is being a format. So, if I filled with these old Chinese reconstructions, that in cigar would have been reconstructed prana, but I think let's reconstruct prana fam because here C-Chongse has prana fam, yeah. What does it mean? It's a language. Well, what are you saying, like, where's more about it? It's in Sichuan, yeah. So it's a Giao-Wang language for that matter. And Situ is, there's a bunch of Situ's, yeah. So Situ is the kind of biggest, let's call it dialect, continuum in the Giao-Wang area. I think this is, you know, the Giao-Wangness that's out there will maybe tell me I'm wrong about this. But like, chop book, cross chop, these are kind of relatively small geographically distinct Giao-Wang varieties, whereas Situ kind of is like dramatic or something, you know. So then there's various types. There's rock bar at Situ, and chop say Situ, and whatnot. OK, and then here's eyebrow. So chop book has this Situ, so I think maybe the R is also at the beginning in old Chinese. And then we have face. So here again is chop book. I try to use chop book because, you know, Giao chop has been working on chop book so much that I think it's kind of the best known Giao-Wang language. So when there was a chop book cognate, I only give that one. But when there was not, then I give one to the other way. These are all from their article, yeah? And then in this case, to seal or to raw, I put this one in French because, again, you can't tell based on Chinese whether it had it at all. But here I'm arguing, if it had the R, it should be at the beginning rather than in the medial. So in order to improve the comparison with Tibetan of Fu and Jopo Mu Fu. And for the other cases, that French and Sagrada are to follow and be rule free? In, I think so. But I would have to double check, which is I'm sometimes a little sloppy about all of their conventions because they have lots of, they have parentheses, they have brackets, they have pointing brackets, which are all telling you kind of their emotional relationships with their reconstruction. Like, oh, in this case, it might be this or it might be something else. Or in this case, it could be there or not there. And personally, I feel like I prefer to put our cards on the table and say, I think this is it. Because partly, I think for the philosophical reason, no reconstruction is secure. So I think you should love your children. And they should say, no, I think it is and are. And that's why I run R there, right? No, well, yeah, yeah. Another question I'd like to ask is, are these syllables where the effects of the medial are if you see them or not? This is actually correct. So that is, so I'm going to say for current purposes, if it's not in parentheses, then it would have an effect. And if it is in parentheses, then it wouldn't have an effect. But if you were going to torture me if I was wrong or something, I would want to double check them, right? No, well, yeah. Third question related. Yeah. So reconstruction with the preceding R or medial R, that's, I think, well, we would be very happy. But some kind of vowel effect from preceding R that would be a little bit, we'd be very happy. Would be weird, wouldn't it? Yeah. That's a good point. And I will keep that in mind. In these cases, yeah, it's the A E is the vowel effect. Yeah, it was suspecting me, yeah. But there is actually some of this. So I think it's only in, actually, I think here, too, it would have been something else if it weren't. And then would it become two more, I think it, well, it becomes thin, right? There it is. Yeah, but it's these inns, I think, would be, or something, if the R had been. Yeah, that's what I meant. Yeah, the vowel would have been different. Yeah. I think in, yes, now that I look at them carefully, in all trade, I can tell you that the vowel has been different if the R had been. And perhaps the R was originally an issue and then it spoils for something to get in the vowel, well, maybe. I mean, if you would just want to say, look, no, don't use C2, don't use jarron to move your Rs around in cases where it affects the vowel. I think that's a very sensible suggestion. But I would also be, yeah, OK, with kind of, I mean, the way I would do it is sort of say, at some point, retroflection, sorry, the, let's say, roticity of it was a syllable of the feature of the syllable. That's, I think, basically, at a certain point in Chinese historical phonology, kind of a lot of stuff should be, like, AB distinction should be seen as having at the whole syllable level. So we can sort of say, plus A minus A if you want to make the AB distinction, and then you could say, sort of, plus R minus R, something like that. This is an approach that I think people have been using with Congress. And I don't know. And then it's a question of, are you comfortable with formulating things in that way? That has to do with sort of how you feel about phonology in general, right? Which I think is a good point that a pre-initial, we might expect to affect the vowels less than a medial. OK, so by just plugging along, here we have shell in Chinese and bark in C, C, and then I'll say that the missing final K is a problem, but it's a problem in general. It's not a problem in Chinese. So yeah, and here are examples where Chinese is ambiguous, but I think the external cognates can make us think that there was no medial R, right? So here we have mother's brother, so sometimes uncle. And a boo would look better than boo for when Karen is a boo in Batman or a boo in Steve Rockwell. So it says this player, in this case, Batman and cigar countenance the reconstruction of an R, although they don't propose it. And I would say, based on these external cognates, let's not reconstruct an R. I mean, I would basically actually say, if we're never sure, in any instance where it's ambiguous between something being there and not being there, the default should be to not being there. Just that's my aesthetic. But anyhow. And then here is Ben, so again, the job doesn't have an R. And then here is Benny, so I think hook compared to very nicely with hook in Ben and hook in Steve Rockwell. But print would not compare quite nicely. OK, so that was it for using external cognates to move R's around or to delete them. Now let's look at how long are used by Faxer and cigar. So starting with Viettel, OK. So other than Vietnamese, these languages are all really undocumented and understudied. So if any of you don't know what to do with your lives, let me encourage you to work on documenting endangered Vietic languages. There's maybe between a half dozen of them and they're all really well fully understudied. So they use the pre-initial K in Bro to reconstruct this K here. So they think the old trainings were for Ben, had a K. And basically, the argument is, it's very simple, is it a coincidence that Malai in Bro have a word for bed and that the old trainees were for bed is at least some kind of loan relationship. And all good things come from China. So it must be that the poor Malai in Bro got their beds from the central kingdom. But then how do we explain the presence of this K? Well, you could say, oh, they added it. It's some kind of noun classifier or something like that. But Faxer and cigar say, well, maybe it was already in the loan. That's their approach to looking for evidence of complicated initials in these languages. As far as I know, these examples are exhausted. Which is to say, Faxer and cigar only use this one piece of data from Bro to reconstruct this K in this one example as far as I know. So then in such, they use it for the two cases. So again, bed, though actually it's sort of strengthening our hypothesis in bed, had a K. And then also in land. OK. So I met in Pong, what's also K's. So in the word for hammer and in the word for meat. And in Malang, Kapong. And apparently, this Malang is different than the first one. I don't know anything about Vietnam. So in this case, it's again that. So I think, let's say there, we can at least say that lots of the other minority languages have some kind of K engine word for bed. That's similar otherwise to Chinese words. Whoops, it's weird, but OK. So this one and then here. So chopsticks and slips for grilling. So I don't know why this is the sort of thing that they don't they don't say very much about it. But so here they say there is some prefix, but they don't actually reconstruct it as a T, even though they give evidence of there being a prefix, this T form in Malang, Kapong. And I don't know why don't they reconstruct it as a T. Do they know something about the historical phonology of Malang, Kapong? I don't know. You have to ask them. Oh, that's what I'm going to say there in the slide. OK. And then they most rely on the very interesting language. And there's no need to talk to all of the ones. But in case these are the examples from the group where they think there's a lot of Chinese that in group has a K prefix and that probably a group got that from there being a prefix in Chinese. And then so far, I've only shown you K prefixes. And so let's show you some key prefixes as well. These ones, again, are group. And that's going to guard K pre-initial T in group. This suggests a pre-initial S. And they find out that group lacks pre-initial S. So they basically think Chinese had what scrums for sword. And then now this borrow has begun in group. But I don't know. I understand if that's possible. If you don't have a pre-initial S, you might borrow pre-initial S as a T. But it would also work if you borrowed a pre-initial T as a T. So I'm not sure why they resist the urge to re-increase it. Because they showed no similar hesitation with the Ks and Ts and so forth. I presume that there are other theory internal reasons that they want these to be Ss. Pre-initial T exists in their system. Yeah, we haven't seen any pre-initial Ts. But they do exist in their system. So that's not why they're hesitant. And then we also get pre-initial M in group. OK, that was it for the minority languages of Vietnam. And now on to Vietnamese. Vietnamese doesn't preserve these nice constant clusters. So that's sad. But they do preserve R and L and Baxter and cigar cake. Spiritization in Vietnamese has eminence for an erstwhile pre-initial. And that's the main thing that we're going to look at. OK, so first of all, it's R and L. And we've looked at R's and L's before. So hopefully this will start to make you feel a little better. So R in old Chinese is from L in middle Chinese. And you can start to convince yourself of that by looking at these examples. So we have L in middle Chinese that H should have been large. And then that goes back to Rai in old Chinese. And you see it's Rai in Vietnamese. So it's very similar. So yeah, they confirm R, R's. And then here they have Vietnamese confirmed L, where in middle Chinese, we have initial yuh. And remember this, in type B syllables, L's become yuhs. And then Vietnamese confirms that L. So I think this is, I don't know, quite this is solid. The proposal I offered yesterday about reconstructing R and L really do feel like they're being backed up here by Vietnamese. And now, one thing that is an issue here is Vietnamese orthography. So whenever the letter in Vietnamese seems sufficiently distant from what it's representing in IPA, I give it. And also there's North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese can be different. So I give it South Vietnamese. And this is all following back students of R, right? But so the point here is they're spherentized. So it's a fricative. And they see that as evidence that there was some pre-initial, right? That basically, Vietnamese lose the pre-initials. But the former presence of the pre-initials is still indexed by the fact that Vietnamese has spherentized. And the Vietnamese does this, of course, in inherited vocabulary, what language is in Vietnamese, then? Austroasiades, is that right? So inherited vocabulary in Vietnamese, these pre-initials become spherentization. So they think the same thing happened. Basically, the loans were early enough that they had the constant clusters. And then the loans also spherentized when the constant clusters were lost. So in any case. And that happens when there is gold in their reconstruction. So the thought, you can understand as a shaw. That was actually the background of my question. So you would like this pre-initial to come in? Yeah, exactly. Maybe it was. Yeah. And then they, I forget exactly, but I think they put a thought when they think the pre-initial has a morphological meaning. But I forget. Is there also something where it's more closely attached? Yeah, they have loosely attached. Closely attached, loosely attached. But closely attached means without a shaw. And loosely attached means with a shaw. OK, that makes a little sense. So, yeah, OK. So then in this case, it's before a key, right? And then here, these little walls and so on. I don't want to sort of, it's all right, finding a hard balance. Like I don't want to just sort of say, oh, look, there's lots of evidence. Well, I'm going to be very tedious if we went through everything. So in any case, you can see that there's here is a sub. So it's spherentized. Now, why does Vietnamese distinguish? This is a genuine question of my part. Type A before, you know, type A and type B here, but not before key, but not before it. So, yeah, you just notice that. Here it is. So, and there's like, there's a B example, there's an A example, but with the keys, we get a different development in the B. I think that's weird. Sorry. Sorry. OK, yeah. So let's go through this in. Let's make sure I'm starting with what I like. So capital CT in type A syllables becomes a Z. And capital T in, well, yeah. So the thing is, notice that the Vietnamese spelling is different. Yeah. So here the Vietnamese has a D and here the Vietnamese has a GI. Now, they both pronounce Z in Southern Vietnamese, but that's a recent development. So in any case, they, and in both cases, they spherentize. So like, yeah, they spherentize, but the behavior is different. I mean, I presume, but this is in the Vietnamese is to our biology. But I presume this one, like, the. And then. So this is creating some violence, creating some physical. It's a the. So I think this one was a the. And then this one, well, I don't know, it's not going to be a gamma because gamma is G, but it's, it's, it's, I think it's a powerful, like a, like, or something. Yeah. So there's, there's this distinction that C. T. In IV syllables is a job. And in a syllable is the, and like that, you know, I'm just saying like, that's something that I noticed when I was reading a book. And it seems like it's great. I mean, it doesn't really affect their reconstruction system or anything, but it seems worth noting that. Yeah. So, you know, capitals, you know, like a cluster before a T in their, it's development in Vietnamese behaved differently in type A and type B syllables, but a cluster before he didn't do that. Yeah. And that's. Oh yeah. So, so. I'm all point out that it means that, like, that the A, B distinction was at the time that these bars have to be in means, it was salient enough that it was borrowed as some difference in being a means, but I think that's also very interesting and can kind of give us some sort of. Evidence kind of more evidence into how is, how was type A and I be syllables different at that time. Yeah. Okay, so we did that. They asked, yeah, is that it brings, because we asked outside, why did it, so and so. Yeah. So maybe the difference in A and B types of in Chinese in general. In Chinese in general, like, like would so develop the same A and B syllables. I think it would in general. Yeah. Then why are we selecting the reason for that? It's not that. Let's say the only reason why I compare the development to the development. So is because that seems natural, right? But, but let's actually just make them up, right? Like, yeah, they, they paralyze us. Yeah. Okay. But like, there's all sorts of things like, like, I mean, for instance, L's change into D and type A syllables and young type B syllables, but they both end up as L in big weeks, right? So I would say this is the only case we've seen Vietnamese keeping track of the type AB distinction. And so I think, you know, maybe I overplay the contrast between the time that's up, but it's more like it with initial time. So I think that Vietnamese is keeping track of type A versus type B, which shows you that what would you give us information both about the dating of the, of the existence of the contrast and about what it's genetics would have been at that time. I do have a question for the gamma and Vietnamese. Yeah. So it's like, I see different pre initials being proposed. We can have an S, we can have an M. I just kind of confused if, you know, we have other evidence that sort of supports, we have different pre initials or, you know, how do we get the difference? Yeah, that's, that's, you're exactly right. Those differences come from other evidence, right? From, from the only thing Vietnamese tells you is there was some pre initial or there was not. So if back since there are like, if in these reconstructions, they, there is an S or T or K or whatnot, it's because there's other evidence they're bringing to bear. And, and, you know, in a sense, maybe to stick with a kind of heuristic thing, I should have reconstructed them all as capital C. But I thought, well, I might as well show you their actual instructions in this, in this case. So could the pre initials in the Vietic languages, like a later development, like across all the Vietic, Vietic languages instead of a trace, you know, when the, when the word is being borrowed into language is loaned into language from Chinese. Could it be like developed individually, like later, just within that language family? Certainly if it had some morphological meaning in Vietic, right? Like if, if I don't know if, if the bed example is in Rup, all furniture starts with initial K, you know, maybe they, they put K prefix onto the borrowed word for bed, you know, these things happen in the world. The trouble is there's like, there's like two short articles about Rup. Yeah. So this is where I think we really need, in order, you know, like, you know, not to mention that these languages are worth studying their own rights, but for reconstructing old Chinese, we really need better documentation and better study of the minority languages in Vietnam. So now just picking up from there, Rup is interesting. And this is a little bit, again, because of the orthography of Vietnamese, it's kind of making it to follow, if you like, I think, because you say, oh, well, what's going on? Like R doesn't look like a spirantized S. Yeah. But Z does. Yeah, maybe. So in any case, they take the correspondence between an S in Middle Chinese and an R in Vietnamese, which is pronounced as a Z in Hanoi. They see that as evidence of lost prefix before an S. And you can understand the logic behind it because something must have, in this case, if we just go with the modern Vietnamese pronunciation, something must have voiced the S. So that kind of factor would be this lost prefix. Now, I don't really think about Vietnamese, I mean, I don't know any more than you basically see here. I did check some handbooks and whatnot when I wrote my book. But I think, you know, it would be maybe worth asking, what's the history of this R in Vietnamese. But in any case, now I've told you that they say this. And also, apparently, in her inherited vocabulary, sort of, you know, I don't know, something like X, also develops into this R, which is pronounced as a Z. Okay. So, yeah. So this shows that three initials have a vowel. But the Vietnamese is not an input kind of language, but that's what we're going to see in some part. Because otherwise, X, that's what it means. Yeah. And this means that our three initials, in fact, have a vowel. Yes, that's pretty cool. That's, I mean, as was touched on last time, we actually distinguish types of free initials from loose free initials, and the loose free initials had a vowel and then type free initials, they think wouldn't have a vowel. And one kind of, it's not to blame them, but one sort of thing that we can worry about from a near Bermarie perspective is, is they see this as basically a meaningless distinction, right. So, somewhere, I think it might be in his 1999 book, Cigar said it sort of imagines that a, a word, let's say it's, you know, what was bed was something like, because yeah, that each word would have two variants, so, and actually, yeah. And, you know, as we, from a near Bermarie perspective, you don't like that you don't like choice to just, you know, merrily come and go. But actually stuff like this does happen in Southeast Asia, a fair bit. And then, you know, I think that the tools that we use in the business, except for the sound change and analogy will work, but it ends up being quite tricky, right. So, and then, you know, it's tricky just in the analysis of modern languages in Southeast Asia, let alone, you know, trying to look at 1200 BC. So, but I think that's something we should look at actually, or just sort of always keep in the back of my mind that if these shawas are coming and going, then that's a problem. So, you know, you and I actually has worked a little bit recently about thinking of kind of looking at what the phonotactics of a kind of full Chinese syllable, which is to say one with two thousand, it would have been and thereby potentially predicting kind of which of these types versus the use fair means happen. We did this in an article that just just came out, maybe in diacronica about the admission, I think, and the treatment of old Chinese is straight at the end in the fight sort of off the cuff way. But I think it's a very promising approach that he outlines there. Okay, so then we also have a V for P and let's say to put it precisely a V and in Vietnamese were fine with P and middle Chinese. Then we take back to a cluster of something with in all Chinese. So that's I think the last of our discussion of loanwords in Vietnamese. So now we move on to loanwords in Okay, so again, back to our primarily used to posit nasal prefixes. Now they if I if I hope I remember the detail right, they distinguish this capital N prefix, which is something that would take on the place of articulation of the following stuff. Which has its meaning. And then an M prefix, which stays an M, regardless of what comes after it. So, you know, as footnote, of course, these two would have been phonetically indistinguishable before labels. So they make this distinction, you can't recover that distinction from money and loans, but you can see, oh, there was something nasally here. So let's just look at these examples. We have the word for tree, whether middle Chinese has a job, which would go back to a duh. But then for the point man has this. Right. So that looks like probably the dog actually goes from the dog. Yeah. Then we have pillar where China, where middle Chinese says a dog, which would go back to a job. And then one man has the job. So they think that the alternative was actually from the draw, right. This seems quite straightforward, right. Is everyone feeling okay with this? Yeah. So then it's first where it is, you know, possibly the J, the both of them. Yeah. Yeah, possibly. Yeah. That's not something. The only thing I know about AB distinction in China is that the Chinese dealers in type A syllables come out as new dealers. So, so that's just a fact about evidence of that type AB distinction in Fong Mian, in Chinese loan words into pro Fong Mian. I don't know of anyone commenting about what you just noticed. And so that would make it good. I mean, you're unlikely to do the assignment, I suspect. But for the paper, for someone to do is look at, you know, explore this hypothesis further is, is, is type B under certain conditions. Reflected as parallelization in Fong Mian. Okay. So then, what, so then we have this key. Actually, here's an example about this time. I mean, this is a case of hope with the dealer and all Chinese, and then it comes out of the new dealer in Fong Mian. But that's not the point here. The point is this is not this is what we're trying to definitely not be a friend for now. It's new dealer or not. But so here, you know, the kind of first pass and old Chinese would be good. And then we think that it probably ultimately is from I, yeah, you're not getting the K here. I mean, the Q, you would expect a Q here from this. We can start and I think the reason that they don't stop here is probably a morphological argument. But anyhow, we know we're only worried about the moment. And then the last one is Dustin. So, yeah, so, so we're in jail. And this drug. So once again, you know, a nasal. One thing I'll just say as a kind of user of their book, they get these reconstructions from Martin Ratliff, who is the person who is reconstructed from the end. And her book, I don't find very usable as a non mom and specialist. So, and then like accommodation personally not very usable. And then just using her reconstructions off the shelf starts to make me worried, right, because like, because I'm not able to intuitively, obviously verify that these reconstructions are correct. So then, you know, if there's any possibility they're incorrect, then that would of course mean that our use of them is also incorrect. So I mean, that's hard to read. As far as you're getting actually use it well convincing or no, it's just it's it's there's a tendency in let's say I'll say it's a better permanent linguistics, but apparently also internal linguistics for me to have a book about historical phonology, where I present a bunch of sound loss in like a 10 page essay right in the front. And then just have a huge work list and say sort of like, Well, those are my sound changes and there's the evidence. Yeah. And I don't find that easy to use. I don't find that because then it's asking me to, you know, Yeah, with, yeah, yeah. And I'm slightly, you know, over playing because they do have like index numbers or it'll be like, you know, P changes into fc 2563122. You know, but it's just not how I find historical linguistics and you know, in my book, I sort of overdid it in the other direction for this reason, because every time I propose a sound change, I give all of the examples now, like right there on in that paragraph. Yeah. Because I would like it as a reader, if we move more in that direction in Asian, you know, historical linguistics. It is why we're doing it because the structure for the moment. It's flawless, right. Yeah, yeah. And you want to reach back to I know. 500 BC or when you want to get with this. Yeah, maybe let's let's say let's say 500 BC, maybe a little bit before then. Yeah. I mean, I'll say that the thing that I like to, you know, to experience as a reader of historical linguistics is kind of a recipe is the way I talk about it, right. It's like, okay, I want to reconstruct pro-Indo-European. So, you know, start with Sanskrit, and then check the vowels in Greek, and check the little original inside. And basically there you go, right. Yeah, that's that would be sort of my recipe for each for Indo-European. And sometimes you wouldn't get, you know, all the way there with those three steps. But it certainly beats saying, you know, start with Albanian and then look at Welsh. Yeah. So, so that's that tradition isn't there in, in, in, in Asian linguistics, we sort of love all our children equally. So, so you, you sort of say here's a sound change. It should be this in this language and this in this language and this in this language. Don't look at the appendix. Yeah. And so that's, you know, I don't know that I didn't sort of intense, you know, go on this side about the sort of working practices is a discipline, but I do feel, you know, and I don't know that maybe, that maybe one shouldn't fetishize the achievements of Indo-European linguistics, but I do think that a certain amount of practice has been established, some of it good, maybe some of it bad, but figuring out, you know, what's been helpful and what hasn't is, I think it's very helpful to, to, to gear ourselves towards the conventions of the wider discipline, right. And even things like, which I also did my book paragraph numbers, I think is very nice, right, because historical linguistics writing is incredibly dense. And so being able to refer to paragraph numbers is also really useful. And then actually another example of this kind of just, you know, while I'm rambling about scholarly conventions is the, is the index verb forum, right, like this is another practice we don't have in Asian linguistics. So it's just so, you know, where, you know, if I'm working on Tibetan, and I want to know, like, look for certain cognates in some of the book or something, it's, you know, good luck. Yeah. And I can understand why every time you write about, you know, Chinese, you don't want to compile a list of Bernese words that you happen to mention in passing, but it's an extremely useful practice. So, and yeah, that's, that's enough sort of so far. But that's what I mean about her book being hard to use. Yeah. And they ask, well, can we date these language contents or do you have to enjoy more? Yeah, I mean, sort of, I'm prepared to answer this question, which is about the dating of contacts with different languages. But Hongmian would be very early. The, it's clear that, let's say the, the rightful owners of China are the Hongmian. Yeah. And the Chinese have been sort of pushing them southeast, and their population has gotten, you know, isolated and scattered. If you just look at a map of where Hongmian is spoken, it's pretty clear that, you know, they've been there a long time. Yeah. And then also in mythology, the kind of the other of early Chinese identity are the, the Hongmian, I think, yeah. So, so they've been there a long time. And then Vieta could be a little later, but still quite early. And let's, I mean, I don't know, think of it this way. I think in both cases before the Hongmian, right? And I think that's, you know, for, for my sort of rule of thumb purposes, a lot of things matter about, is it before the Hongmian or the Hongmian? Yes. And then another place they find evidence for nasals, both with a slightly different, you know, correspondence, which is why it has its own slide, is initial, well, initial L of some kind, Chinese, having a modern environment comes out as a block in the program of Hongmian. And actually, this is the place where like, is that, you know, I would like to kind of know what the evidence for the B is, does it really need to be reconstructed, you know, and so on. But it's fine, you know, that kind of depends on the time. So anyhow, this is a correspondence where here they specify that we can tell it's an M, probably because it's not from organic in Hongmian. I don't think they, they also have evidence of, let's say, nula, which is saying all of the evidence of nasally things before L that comes from, where the evidence comes from Hongmian, is of M, but it's understandable why they feel confident to specify it's an M, because there's nothing particularly labial about an L. Yeah. Okay. So that was it for Hongmian. And now we look at Karada evidence. We're still, you know, as used by maximum cigar. So three initials in Latvia. So we have paper, which is shared in Middle Chinese. So we'll go back to Teh, but because of this chain in Latvia, they think that there was a chain in Latvia. And then Bandit, similarly, is stuck, I guess, in Latvia. So they think there was a chain in all Chinese. And then in Latvia, at least needle, they think there's a key prefix because there's a key in Latvia. And actually, this is one where you would say, why don't you just reconstruct the whole Chinese back to Teh? And the issue here is that Teh is polarized very early in the history of Chinese. So in certain conditions, you can't tell the difference between an old Chinese Teh and an old Chinese Teh on the evidence of Middle Chinese loan. And probably because of the Sheishan series, they're taking the show back to Teh. Now, here actually is a place where the date of the contact matters a lot, right? Because if the Teh had already changed, had already parallelized before the contact, maybe this Teh is just evidence of what the Chinese sounded like in time. And that we don't have a positive cluster. So I think there are things like that that we should think about separately. But in any case, this is what they pose. And then Kuro Kura later said this one example, Hitler, where Kuro Kura has an M prefix. And so they put that in prefix in double Chinese. So for the same way, there are two independent sources of evidence for their most sorry, God in the long-term. I'm going to say yes, although I've forgotten already what we had up there from the long-term. Yeah. There were several stages, but maybe I'm confused. Yeah. Yeah. That I was giving, you know, earlier I was giving all the intermediate stages just to kind of make it the thinking clear, right? And now I'm just telescoping over that. Yeah. But yeah, you would have to, right? Because you have a D in Middle Chinese. So you would reconstruct that back to a D-R in Middle Chinese. So then we have to say, well, that D-R gets small yet, man, but doesn't stick to Kuro Kura. Yeah. So that's certainly a D-T. Yeah. It gets quite some weight. These little guides, yeah. Yeah. And that's why I think they also need to be done, like almost it would be nice if there were a monograph just on old Chinese loans into neighboring languages of this type. Yeah. Because it is the sort of thing where like, I don't know how the proto-pra was arrived at, I don't know how the proto-mongan was arrived at. So it does, you know, there's no reason that any of it actually feels fishy, but sort of it ends up feeling kind of fishy in total because, yeah. Okay. So now on to loan wars not used by Backstream C-R. So this part should be, you know, in some ways more fun or more, at least more fresh. Yeah. Because if you've read Backstream C-R's book and you said, I need more loan birds. Yeah. Then here are some. Yeah. Okay. So first of all, some indoherent loans in the old Chinese. And I'm going to sort of, well, say there should be a paper coming out about this pretty soon, but it's been sort of in the oven long on time. And it's really Dieter Gunkl's insight. It will be a paper with me, Dieter and Honestelman, not in that order yet. But anyway, so let's look at them. One is horse where we think, and maybe you'll think we're crazy for this, that it comes from other ones, which, well, I won't go through all the details, but we think it comes from other ones. And that's, and this is an example where let's say, I'm perfectly happy to move the R to the beginning again. Like I've established a couple of days ago that I am perfectly, feel perfectly entitled to move around the Rs. So it will make my Arvons look better if I can do it here, but I don't think it really matters. But I will say that, like, for instance, in Tibetan, the one word for horse is among. So this word for horse is kind of there throughout the stage. This is what we propose in any case. And I will resist the urge to go into the details and just have it wet your appetite for our forthcoming paper. And then, oh, yes. Let's say if you believe, I'm trying to get the kind of epistemological steps right, right? So if you believe that the loan is real, then that would allow us to specify the place of the R in old Chinese and change back to the cigars reconstruction. So that's what I'm going to be sort of focusing on in the discussion, these new loans is how do these new loan proposal affect their reconstruction. Okay, so the other one is the charity word. So we think that comes from chocolate. And that proposal has been around for a long time. I think it's probably made it. So that doesn't actually allow us to change the reconstruction, but maybe it allows us to confirm their reconstruction. Something like that. Can I ask why in Chinese, and you can ask the way I can view the difference? Yeah, okay. Yeah, you may ask. Yeah, I'm not going to answer that. They didn't make that reconstruction looking at the inner area. But our feeling is that their reconstruction is already close enough to the inner area to make it look quite plausible. That's its source. But then also, you know, the charity and the horse come together, right? And they come together in archeological record. And they got them from European speakers. I mean, basically that, you know, in our view, I think I can say it that way. The archeological evidence is overwhelmingly strong in this case of who they got the horse and chariot from. And then the chariot where it looks just at face value really similar. And the horse where I think you have to, you know, be convinced by our discussion. I don't think that our one is obviously really similar for the month, but I think that it does work. Okay, so now all Chinese loans into to Karen. And here I'm relying on work of harnesses. So one is this word for 10,000, which back during the car, we construct having a free initial, but they are unable to specify which. But then if we look at Karen, it's clear that it has to be a T. So, so this is a loan from all Chinese into to Karen. It also looks a lot like the. Yes, and we think that's also bar from Chinese. Yeah, and that's why it looks really similar. And harness has an argument based on the historical technology of to Karen, why the proto-Turkish word can't be the origin of the parent has to do with the vowels. Yeah. So, two moon or something. You've got a vowel in there. We don't want, right? Neither in Chinese nor in to Karen. We want that vowel. Whereas you probably need it because probably proto-Turkish can say, come on. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I just, I just said that. So it allows us to specify that this pre initial was a P. Okay. There's his word. How do you feel. Which is crew in for Karen and Lou in all Chinese. And I think this and allow us to propose a way we have to be a loose. Okay. Otherwise we mess with the phenology. But maybe the, the old Chinese had a cake. Yeah. It seems like, you know, the, but Karen and the Chinese forms are close enough that there, there must be something going on here. But then also rice culture. You know, clearly I don't think he comes from the terrain base. Yeah. So anyhow, so that allows us again to, to add further specification to the old Chinese reconstruction. And then there's this, this one. So last month of the year or year and sacrifice. Now in this case, it looks actually like to Karen is telling us that the extra. Consonants that backs from cigar proposed maybe shouldn't be there. You know, now of course that's not the end of the story. Right. We would have to check why the backs from cigar proposed the initial in this particular word. And personally, I would say it's based on the Vietnamese. It's strong evidence that it's based on for men, which I'm not discussing at all. I think it's kind of weak evidence. And also maybe to Karen borrowed it after they'd already lost that constant. You know, there's a, there's still, it's not like, you know, we're declaring victory and, and we, you know, have destroyed their reconstruction or something like that. But I do think it's often the same. Of course. Stick. Stick into a layer that's actually convenient. Over reconstructing something. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that, that, or I guess I'm saying there's two possibilities here. One is that they were right. There was a constant there, but that constant was not there by the time the loan came into preparing. And then the other option is that they're, they're, they're seeing things. Yeah. Yeah. Or some reason this syllable, some effect applies that is the same as. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And I would say that that's a, there's, there's a concern or one way of putting what you're saying is there's a concern, I think in, in, in their approach. That it's too mechanical, right? Yeah. You see a phenomenon. You say this phenomenon is evidence of, of this thing we reconstruct. So we will reconstruct it. Yeah. Yeah. Discussed by. I will, I will send it to you. Okay. Yeah. I would, I would love to. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. Sorry. No, okay. I mean, I, let's say, I do think it's, there's no question that it's alone on train, right? Because they're, the meanings are too similar. Yeah. I think they're straight. Oh, okay. Yeah. Suggested. Yeah. Well, I think that's our last example of. The All Chinese perspective. So don't expect any, you know, wild fire, fire, firewood fireworks. Yeah. But this is the most exciting one that actually there's a talk online. So talk that on, it's given in Ireland. That it's online on my YouTube channel, where actually he discussed all these examples in great detail, but it's not the most impressive one. I'm not sure what's on the list. I'm not sure what's on the list. So I don't know. I don't know what's on the list, but it's kind of a fill all of me, but now this is one where. We're in presenting it now. The details of his talk come to my mind. Yeah. Where, and I think I'll just see what's on the next slide. Yeah. So faster and cigar reconstructed in this beautiful. means it couldn't have an R or not, the development would be the same either way. And we think it was a T, but maybe it wasn't. We think it was an A, but maybe it wasn't. We think it was a T, but maybe it wasn't. So not very confident on their part. But it means, of course, woollen fabric and the Turcarians were the wool suppliers of the Chinese at this time. And there is this word, Turcarian, that means forced cloth. And it comes from this... its etymology actually is like scratchy or something in Turcarian. And in any case, the Turcarian allowed us to specify that we don't need all those brackets and parentheses. In fact, it is cut. Okay. And then the honey word, which there's a small secondary literature about, I'm not emphasizing that it's small, it's actually large. Most of these words, there's no particular secondary literature that we have, but they were a little bit back and forth on the honey word. But in any event, yeah, the Chinese got honey from the Turcarians, and there you go. But in this case, it doesn't really affect the reconstructing. So like, because some southern language is saying, like a lot of the honey is like... Yeah, it's the same word. Yeah, it's the same word. I mean, in English, we have it as mead, right? And in Greek, it's... Yeah. And I mean, it involved quite a bit of Asian people. Well, yeah. So I mean, this is the honey word in Indo-European, yeah. The Indo-Europeans have honey, right? The Indo-Europeans have honey? Yeah. I think so. Yeah, maybe not this word. Oh, okay. Oh, you're right. Yeah. That would be meadow. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, right. Well, this is... Yeah. I don't know. But it becomes an Indo-European problem. Like where's the L? Where did you take the word from? Is it related to these other honey words? Yeah. All I care about right now is the Chinese honey. No, no, no. It's not open here. Yeah. It's just like, this is better for the Indo-European to reconstruct the honey more than 22. Oh, yeah. So we just reconstruct honey next to honey. Oh, okay. I see. I see. Something happened between Broglie and you and Mary. I see. Okay. I see. I see it. Yeah. But so the Chinese got their honey from the Trogarians. And they also got their word from the Trogarians. But, but like I said, it's not, I mean, this is really not a very exciting word. I think some people have occasionally tried to stick an L into it in the history of Chinese, but that's, it's the sort of thing that actually, I think now the increasing communication between, you know, you and us. Yeah. It helps us avoid this kind of thing when it's, when it's avoidable. Yeah. Okay. And then, and if you don't know what is, you're missing out because it's delicious. Yeah. So, yeah. It's a, it's a, it's like a powder. It comes from a plant. And if you're, especially if you're cooking Indian food, what you do is you put like three tablespoons of oil, get it really hot and then drop some. Ask the tea to just a pinch. It's really strong. It has a very strange flavor, but it's delicious. Because this is from, not from the fairy. So they think this. Okay. Well, let's talk. Well, let's talk about this one in some detail. Yeah. So what am I doing here with this old Chinese? I'm not reconstructing the word for Ask the Tita in Chinese. Yeah. They didn't have Ask the Tita in 1250 BC. Instead, what I'm doing is I'm back projecting the old Chinese for these two characters. Yeah. So, so it's like, if they hadn't had Ask the Tita in 1250 BC, this is how they would have said it. But it's, but for instance, I think it's clear, but I think if you just allow me to pretend that the word existed in perfect Karyan, I'm going to let you in the Karyan, despite about that. The other Karyan is, it's clear we need a veeler here and not even do that. Maybe. Maybe. I don't know. Yeah. Pardon? For sure. Yeah. But this would have probably been a veeler already by the time of the context happening. Yeah. So, so I think it might actually work. And I think one reason these sorts of things are important is not only to decide what's to reconstruct in old Chinese, but when to reconstruct what to kind of work out the actual absolute chronology of the phonological changes. The S may also be in the orange, and maybe they just borrowed the final chair. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that the, I was thinking that this final shell of our S. No, maybe. The S is quite the S stayed into the Hong Kong. So the S is around for a long time. The uvulars are definitely gone by the Hong Kong dynasty, whereas the S is still around. But I think there's what we can certainly say there's no question that the Chinese borrow out of the data from. Well, maybe from the code needs, but from the code needs over into the care. Yeah. So what did I say? Oh, yeah. So, oh, yeah. So this, I'm just, this is a simpler issue than the uvular view. So I focus on it. There's a change in the history of Chinese that probably happened in the war in state period of way. So we'll come vowel breaking. And this is evidence that we can date that vowel right after. Sorry. The vowel breaking would have happened in Chinese before the borrowing of the word for assets data in order for these two characters to have seemed suitable. Right. So, yeah. And then it also suggests that I had already changed the off, which actually, I think, I mean, let's say I want to be very careful about this. I think this comparison suggests that, but I actually think that this I have changed kind of between the Western on and the Eastern off. So it would be quite late actually for this sparring. But you know, and how I thought I would mention it. And then also, in some sense, it confirms the nasal plus stop rather than just straightforward nasal. So, you know, if we start with this, what we imagine is at some point, the QH changes into KH. And then this would have been a real nasal, but you see that in middle Chinese, there's no evidence of the uvulus or the velar at all. Yeah. So whenever this loan happened, we think maybe, you know, or it would be the best fit. Maybe the right way to put it, if the Chinese character was pronounced with a sort of pre-nasalized velar. Okay. And then this is just the citation before Honestess and making on this stuff. Okay. So now some more loans. So I've already mentioned that some of the things that this word for a barbarian military leader comes from is the same and confirms the uvulus. And it allows us to rule out the R in the second syllable if we believe it, right? Yeah. I didn't read about it some time ago, and there was some back and forth whether it existed or not. I don't know exactly whether this was still so much except more severely. Well, it's the, you know, let's just look at it in, I mean, from a Chinese perspective, as long as there are some barbarians around who are using uvulars in their word for, you know, in their kind of pun word, then it's fine, right? I don't care if it's from Proto-Mongolian or Proto-Unisan, right? As long as it's a uvuli. Yeah. He probably had some reason to... He did. Yeah. So, or positive base instead of the compound, which has a lot of uvulars in my position. Yeah, but for long-term, it ends with an N. Yeah, yeah. Well, we can read his article, right? It's there. I mean, there are some problems, and I actually talked to him about it right after he published it, because like this S model, but well, and then here's the next one, which is similar. So we have older... And... Yeah, that looks great. And it's the same character, right? So it also suggests that there was no R there. But actually, in this case, again, you don't have the N. But actually, internal Ns come go, right? Yeah. So this is a singular or something, yeah. Yeah. Well, anyhow. Well, Ns come and go. The world. Yeah. Except actually like the Afro-Aziac, this is what I've learned this week, the Afro-Aziac candidate, which is just none, is extremely stable. Yeah. It's about the first character. It means that when this language borrows old Chinese, and we can find the evidence from it, then it shows that they borrowed the R. So it's okay to let the R be put into the old Chinese. Exactly. Yeah, that's exactly right. Okay. So it's sort of like, if we can find the language that, back to the time, really close to the old Chinese, then they have really close relations, then we can borrow, then we can body guess that it is the sound of old Chinese. Yeah, I think the way I would put it, well, Leah, I'll try and talk it through, kind of quite specifically, right? We know that the Torcharians had this word for wool. It was crats. We know that the old Chinese had a word for wool that may have been crats. It may have been cats. It may have been cats. But there's reasons to think that they're the same word, because they mean the same thing in neighboring languages at the same time. But not only that, actually, I haven't gone into the philology. Honest has. And for instance, in the show in Jezeb, it says about this character that it's a woolen fabric that comes from the West. And there's quite a lot of philological circumstantial, indeed archeological evidence that the Chinese were getting from this particular thing, this kind of particular commercial commodity from the Torcharians at that time. But in terms of Chinese historical phonology, it allows us to specify that that R is indeed there and that K is indeed a K. Yes, sir. May I ask, have we looked at vowels? It was interesting to see that the Italian vowel corresponds to the Chinese vowel. I don't know if this is how we need vowels. So all Chinese have six vowels, so they would not have had an A at distinction. I mean, yeah, yeah. But we haven't talked about vowels. It's something I think we're not going to talk about, actually. I'm totally convinced by the six vowel hypothesis, but finding a clean way of presenting it, I have found it extremely difficult. I have a video online from the course I taught two years ago where I made my best effort at that point, but I don't have anything better to do yet. So although an amazing student of mine, actually has a paper coming out that maybe will help present clearly the six vowel hypothesis. What's the senior year? Well, pull up the practice. I think in this case, it's saying it could have been an E, but then the English vowel. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So in terms of their location, right? What does a bracket mean? Bracket means kind of we softly propose it's this. So here we softly propose that it's a K, but it is, but we would not object. This is what I would put it to someone saying, it's something else that leads to the same result in middle Chinese. Yeah. And then the thing that is kind of you have to be on your toes about is then, you know, you as the reader have to know what are the other options that would lead to the same result in middle Chinese in that syllable position. Yeah. I would actually, for us, I would be more practical to have, I don't know, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. And you can actually like, for any different context, Shin Bong wrote a piece of software that does this for a verminage where it takes the attestations, looks at them, applies all the known sort of phonology backwards, and then if there are eight possible reconstructions, it just spits out all eight. Yeah. And that is constantly maybe if you're printing these things out all the time. Yeah. But I think that explicitness is extremely helpful. Yeah. So, yeah. Well, we sort of, it could be well, it could be more like an half hour or more than half hour. I mean, it's not the kind of term that's, I mean, certainly not, it's just the pinnacle. Oh yeah. It's not. That was it. It's definitely not the process. It's definitely not squatting on set. Oh, okay. Yeah. So they're, you know, So they're the five canonical vowels and then if you like. Yeah. It's pretty. It's a lovely system. I think, yeah.