 Okay, so now on to morphological speculation. So Baxter and Cigar reconstructs seven morphological affixes. The prefixes S, capital N, M, T, K, and infix R and suffix S. Yeah, okay. Okay, so first type pre-initial. Now, for morphological reasons. So all researchers appear to concur that S had a causative function in all Chinese. I think I sent out this handle article, but I certainly can if I didn't. And then Baxter and Cigar propose this causative function, valence increasing on verbs. And they also have a prefix that derives circumstantial nouns, so nouns of place, time or instrument from verbs using this S prefix. And they employ etymological arguments in favor of an S prefix origin of the following middle Chinese initials. And I, I don't know, maybe I will read them. So S, S, R, Z, T, S, T, S, R, T, S, H, and T, S, R, H. Okay. So the valence increasing S. We have things like ton, rise of steam. So to rise intransitively and stung to lift up to save to present to. We have knock to speak frankly and snucks to complain or to accuse. It's not so obvious that that's valence. No, it is, it is valence increasing isn't it. Yeah, it's not really causative but it's valence increasing. We have tongue to match or have a value or rank with and stung to estimate so to determine the value of, you know, G to look and ski to show. Okay, good. Nice. We have a circumstantial noun prefix S. So we have rock to go against or reverse, and then snow rock, the first day of the month, when the moon changes from waning to waxing. So like the thing that reverses or the, the, the, not the thing that reverses even now would be the moon, the occasion where the thing reverses. Yeah. We have strong to penetrate and slow wrong window, the place where light penetrates, but notice that there's this are invicts that, you know, is left on account for, and it, I hope it's just cleared everyone I like we don't know that these things are pronounced right. It's the middle Chinese relationships in terms of semantics and phonetics that are being explained by the supposition that you have an S prefix and the, the sound change in question. Right. And then, you know, these sound changes in question are buttressed by the station evidence we looked at earlier, but these are examples are morphologically motivated, even if, as you see on the first one on the slide that sometimes they also coincide with with station evidence. Right. Okay, now continuing on with circumstantial noun prefix. Yes. So we have mung to flee to disappear to die. And the song morning, or burial. So, you know, an institution or an object associated with death. But notice that the first one flee to spirit type B, and the second one is type A. So it's not, you know, in this case, it's not just an S prefix is also a change from type B to type A. And that's kind of quite interesting. There are, you know, other examples of let's say, morphologically related words, one of which is type a one of which is type B. But which suggests that at some level in history, the, the type AB distinction was segmental. Yeah, I think that's what it suggests to me at least. They don't have any explanation for this kind of alternation, but do flag it in the book as like, kind of, I don't know the frontier of etymological research in Chinese is to really systematically look at these alternations. But for our purposes here, it's just a let's say a confounding factor in the, the analysis of the, the S circumstantial prefix. And then we're not talking about loose pre initials, you know, here now, but I just want to throw it in there because also this this circumstantial use of the S prefix that this example of to take or use let and the handle of a plower sickle, an instrument for holding or an instrument for taking select in their reconstruction. And those are those are all of the their examples of circumstances now in prefix S. Yeah. Okay, so now we're going. We're sort of setting up the, oh, look, it's, you know, there, these are the, the kinds of morphological relationships or semantic relationships for which we posit these morphological relationships. And now we're going to look at it from the phonological perspective. So on the basis of etymological arguments backster and cigar reconstruct as TS and as TSH will say as origins of of s. So let's look at it. So as TS. We have set joint of bamboo and sit, which is knee. So, you know, looks like they're etymologically related and maybe knee has an S prefix. I will mention that, that this word meaning joint, including of the body, it has very good sign of Tibetan cognates, but without, you know, or those cognates I know of don't have an S prefix, not that that argues against an S prefix in Chinese I don't think it really does. And in a very early moment, this is one of the earliest sound changes. It and it merge and they merge as it, if you if you just look at these middle Chinese, your temptation would be to reconstruct it as, you know, sit, and that would be totally fine. That's like totally fine in their system. And I even think actually I even think in the surging. Generally speaking, you can't distinguish it and it, you know, either because they're just aren't enough rhymes or because the sound changes already happened. So this is a really tricky one to to distinguish, and they do it based on Sheshang series. And the next one claw, which is true, and then scratch has has an S initial and you scratch with claws. So this might be the valence increasing one. But these are not without difficulty. So knee is not an instance of valence increasing or circumstantial noun. And then they also mentioned that this this this are, you know, it doesn't come up in scratch, the our media. Okay. So now the aspirate version. We have a clear line and star, which they had him a lot at sorry, etymologize to that which is bright. And they acknowledge that there's again this difficulty that the type that the one is that be in one step. Okay. This proposed pair of cognates would not be so compelling, I would say because of the semantics right it's like, okay, star is the thing is bright, I guess, but not all stars are brighter. It just seems a little far fetched to me. But there are, there are dialect, some in dialect supports and initial TSH in the word for star. So that suddenly makes it go from seeming like quite speculative to I think a very strong proposal. Okay. Now, we have this other cluster we're just going through the clusters. And on the basis of the following pairs of words, you know, they reconstruct, I don't want to pronounce it, but as QHR as one source of SR. So place. And, and place. So without further discussion, this derivation, you know, to me it looks kind of unconvincing, but notice this line from the Ode's. We're, we're chopping trees and we say we chop trees, yeah, where the, the, the first character is used for the chopping sound. And then it's quoted in, in the entry for the characters war, the second character in the show and get to with, you know, the second character in place of the first character. So this suggests that, you know, let's say that that that at one point, these two characters had very similar readings. Or at least that both of them were were were sounds that could be used for the sound of hacking at wood. Yeah. So, I think that philological evidence bolsters the idea. Okay, now one of the, you know, I don't know, one of the more complicated proposals SMT goes to Z. So they think, as evidence of that you have place to place something. And then this mat, so a place for putting things. And you need the M in order to get the voicing, right. Yeah, that's why you need the M there for net phonologically speaking, but they do not account for a morphological function of the M prefix, or the R in fix. In the word for place. So, yeah, so then moving on. We've already looked at this example, but the point here is that this relationship between look see and show. And I've used for this sound change of S G to show in type B syllables, and I believe only before front vowels. Okay. Now, we have this pair. And this one is a little more tricky right because you, you, you have to pause this intermediate step. So ascend is is tongue, and increase is thumb. And then they propose that this initial, because we know it's etymological related to a ton initial began life as stuff. And then something similar here where there are two readings of this character, one that means blame and one that means demand payment, and the one that means blame, pretty straightforwardly goes back to track. But the one that means demand payment straightforwardly would go back to. But then they think, well, because they have a lot of connection, maybe better to take that even further back to the wreck. Okay. But I'll just say that from my perspective the derivation from blame to demand payment is is not obviously the case of a valence increasing. Okay. Moving along. So we have S before a voiceless are. We have pluck and reap. And you have colorful and color countenance where you have these connections between saw and Sarah. Now I will just point out that this is a, you know, there's a lot going on in these examples, and the same a lot is going on in both of them. So, so the origin which they reconstruct, for as from such a is type a has a voiceless initial and has a glottal stop. Whereas the initial readings have our type B and have a final K. So they admit that they have no idea what's going on here, but it may be some kind of dialect variation. And I will mention here that there are other cases of etymological relationships between final K words and final well stop words. And I think that is something that generally speaking needs more work done. Okay. Now. Yeah, so S th goes to throw. So here we have push away and urge. So, do he and three. And then I would also say that, you know, if they only have one example of this like, oh, ST changes to TS, then it would seem very ad hoc and very silly, right. You see that there are a lot of these kinds of connections in different manners of articulation. So it seems like a pretty, you know, it seems like even if they're particular phonetic solution is not right. Definitely the phenomenon is real. Yeah. Okay. Now, yeah, onto pre initial capital N. And in some ways this is the both the simplest and the most controversial. Maybe maybe actually it's most controversial because it's the simplest because then it means everyone can understand what we're arguing about. There are. Alternations in middle Chinese like a tested in middle Chinese between transitive and intransitive verbs. Generally speaking and all the examples on this slide. They're written with the same character but they're not always written with the same character. If that's a kind of question of history. Yeah. So we look at the first one so we have the reading can meaning see and the reading and which remember go probably or most certainly goes back to a G. So let's just say again, meaning up here so we have can again see appear. So we have pay bay defeat suffer defeat. We have quay. Quay destroy be destroyed we have one gotten to and one be cut into and chat bend break and jet bed. So, and that's transitive and intransitive band right then something and for something to bend. So, so this much I want to I want to really emphasize everyone agrees on it's just a fact right if you if you look at middle Chinese readings. You have two readings and two meanings of these characters, and they have this relationship where the the voiceless is transitive and the voice is intransitive. Now I'll just say for those of you who care but if you don't you can kind of turn off your brain for a few seconds. So basically on this question is made to Lynn, who thinks that the, the voiced form is original. And it is made voiceless from an S prefix, and he points to the fact that there are lots of S prefixes to make positives into better Berman languages. So we've seen Baxter and cigar also think there's a good comparison to be made between that evidence into better Berman and a phenomenon in Chinese, but the phenomenon in Chinese that they're pointing to is this thing we've seen before which is all the places they reconstruct an S prefix for which is to say so Baxter and cigar reconstruct an S cause of everyone agrees there's an S cause of prefix Baxter and cigar reconstruct a different situation as an S cause of prefix. So they have to if you like they also want to but they have to explain these alternations in a different way. Yeah, sorry, I just have a small question that isn't it possible that this kind of became productive later on, let's say like in late old Chinese, the voice voiceless opposition got kind of grammatical perceived as being a way to create intransitive verse from transitive or vice versa, and that therefore some of these words could actually be secondary is this. I don't know if there is some evidence for this maybe not. But I would think that this is something that would very easily once in the language that would very easily become productive, because that's something you might need to do in terms of new transitive or intransitive words on one route. Yeah, I mean that sounds fine to me, but but but sort of two points. One is the phenomenon has to have an origin point. Yeah, which I mean you'll agree with both of these points. The phenomenon has to have an origin point which is to say some of these examples will be old and will have some explanation. And then also I would say that, although this is kind of probably the most common. Let's say syllable internal morphological happening in Chinese. Yeah, which is as really uncontroversial that something more logical is going on here. It's not that common. You know, it's not like it's not clear to me that there was ever a moment where you could really apply this across the board you could take any verb and make it transitive by by divorcing it or any verb and making it in transit by voicing it. So, which is not to say let's say that that's that some examples might be secondary, you know, just to return to something I said on the first day, we can make new strong verbs in English, based on analogy, right. But it's not, you know, you wouldn't be comfortable, you know, so, so even though it's productive in some sense, you know, we can make new strong verbs we do make new strong words, it's not very productive. So, you know, it's not very into wishing about this is like, hmm, most of the cases are probably inherited, even if some of them are secondary, because it never becomes a super widespread phenomenon. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. So, how do Baxter and cigar. Explain these. They saw. So just a sort of historical excursus. It proposes that the Chinese is in 1993. What I have on the slide I would have thought was 1999 but maybe in that no it's an early paper 1993 yet propose that Chinese in transitive voicing prefix must have been some kind of nasal. I mean it's not a crazy idea right nasal oftentimes voice things, but still needs to be proposed. What it proposes it based on the high tone men voiced initial in the Chinese loan word be cracked, which, and this, you know, you have to ask the moment people about this, but a high tone voiced initial in men. That's the last proto Yao pre nasalized voice initial. So, let's just put it differently. In this word be cracked, which is here it's the it's the very last thing on this slide. There's evidence that when this word was borrowed into men. It had a nasal on it. So that's the kind of starting point for cigar of proposing that the voicing alternation you see here has to do with a nasal prefix. I think this is the right place to do it that in the meantime, a lot more evidence inside to better Berman has come up, particularly in the galeronic language family, they have a kind of very productive, anti passive voiced nasal prefix. And importantly, they also have a causative with an S prefix so in in galerong you can like I'm this side stylized but in galerong you could have like a verb to to let's say let's try it with Ben. Yeah, you can have Bend is something like, let's say it's penned is the verb and then you can have and would mean to become bent and you would have spend would mean to make someone bent and something like that. So they have both in galerong used for the same things that backs on cigar propose old Chinese for. Now, you might think if you're, you know, a critic of this kind of line of thinking well you know is it a coincidence that John worked very closely with Laurent cigar and the job works on galeronic and so is are we reading Chinese through sort of galeronic colored lenses, and I would, I would argue that historically speaking, that is not correct, like, it's almost the seems to be the opposite backs from cigar proposed as for one thing, and they proposed a prefix and for one thing based entirely on Chinese data, and then it turned out that they were living languages that that exhibited both of those very robustly, which is kind of, you know, maybe even great evidence that they were right in terms of it's like the discovery of luringials and he tied or something which is to say like something theory driven turned out to exist in the real world. Okay. In any case, here's the same slide you saw before but now with old Chinese provided in the backs of cigar system. So, you know, basically, it's what you expected to see, which is to say, the, the, the transitive is voiceless, and the transitive has had a this nasal prefix added to it. So that's how they reconstruct these alternations. Now, just moving along with this this nasal prefix. It also does some work for them with laterals so basically, you know, capital and are we saw this actually already in the shicheng evidence slide. Capital and are would merge with L and then L would develop into middle Chinese as it would. Anyhow, yeah, so it becomes young and type B symbols and done type a so this way they connect, for instance, to flow with to float or swim and the pendants of a banner or cap with pendants of a banner and exhausted with exhausted and covered with excess or licentious. Now, what you can say is the morphological meaning of kind of positive is not at all clear in these examples. But you know, what can you do it. They've posited a piece of morpho phenology, and it will get some work done here as well. And they find no reason to reconstruct this before voiceless resonance, which is interesting. Okay, and then we already saw in our discussion of shicheng series that you can reconstruct an M or a capital and when a veiler nasal kind of interferes into a a you veiler shicheng series. Well, here we have etymological arguments for the same type of change. And here, at least in the first one it's it works in terms of the morphological function that we are proposing for this and predicts. So to frighten and to scare and am sorry to be scared or related. And then maybe great and proper or refined are related. Yeah, and as I mentioned, we saw shicheng evidence for this proposal as well. Okay. So I can I, yeah, I'll just try and whiz through this M pre initial. So the morphological function of the and prefixes include making verbs volitional which we actually saw evidence for in when we were looking at these two character writings of words in the shicheng and a human body prefix and an animal prefix. Okay, so in terms of making things volitional. We have a bundle and then carry in the arms prop up support plants place upright put together be combined come together bring together and then warn and warn one or avoid. So their argument is so I mean this is a kind of be careful here right because the alternate the phonological alternation in middle Chinese is exactly the same that we saw in the case of the transit of intransitive verbs. It's just voicing, but when the voicing is kind of anti causative in meaning, they reconstruct and prefix, and when the voicing is volitional in meaning, they reconstruct an M prefix. I have reasons for distinguishing those that N and that M, but it's just to say that you know sometimes the the something to be on your toes about sometimes of in their system of phonetic difference is motivated entirely on a semantic basis. Okay, and then here just with with aspirates. I'll just look at the third one so earth and sacrifice to the spirit of the soil. The voiced initials and this one is even more sort of subtle, because the voicing effect of the prefix is unrecognizable when it acts upon voice roots. So let's say, if you want to caricature their behavior. If a character has two meanings, one of which is non volitional and one of which is volitional, they posit an M prefix purely on the basis of the volitional reading, you know, with no evidence of a phonetic difference, at least in principle, you have to be on guard against the risk. Yeah, so, so just to look at, let's say, for the first one, even and make even. Yeah, the only difference there is volition. Now, the in the second one year there are two readings. So it's not, you know, but that has to do with the tone, there's no reason to point a positive different initial. But for, but let's say, having kind of said, you know, this seems awfully speculative, which is certainly what some other reviews said in some cases they have they have other evidence like dialect evidence and loan word evidence for making this distinction. The question is, even if you can make the distinction in some cases, based on other evidence, does that permit you to to make the distinction. When the only evidence is, is semantic, and that's a kind of, you know, philosophy of science question that I think people could genuinely come down on different places with. So continuing. So, so we have this alternation before L. And this example is problematic, because the M doesn't seem to have an obvious function. And because the lateral is voiceless in one case and voice in the other case. Okay, and then I'll stop with the animal prefixes. You can have multiple readings of a character that refers to an animal so they point in particular to frog and to a certain kind of bird. And they think that, you know, this, this alternation can be explained with an M prefix. And then they also have it for fun, and for dear, and in the case of dear, there is evidence in in this, this booyang, which is, which is, I think a cradae, the language seems to have borrowed the Chinese word for dear and they borrowed it with an M prefix. So now kind of, yeah, there's evidence for this this M prefix and some animal names. Personally, I don't like. I feel uncomfortable with what's going on here because like well okay so you have a word for frog which was one act, which is a great word for frog. I'm going to stick an M prefix on it to make it more clear that it's a frog well then what's the difference between the two words for frog and it just I don't I don't quite. I don't feel comfortable with these animal prefixes and there's also body part prefixes in in sign or two and then I would like to see more parallels of them and actually there is, you know I really got into the into a sort of a tussle with, I mean privately with this was and he pointed out that there is some kind of a more theme in a lot of European animal names. So there, let's say there are analogical phenomena where you can kind of make words seem more similar to each other because they're semantically related. They can kind of lead to things that sort of look like you know animal morphemes, but but they're not derivational you know you don't say I like oh this is the frog is not an animal without the M and this is the frog that is an animal with the amp. So, so I feel kind of uncomfortable in this in this area, but let's say, once again, the evidence is real right these different readings of the character in middle Chinese are real and they need some explanation, and this is not a crazy explanation.