 So the things to deal with in this presentation is the initial constants of all Chinese compared to those of generic languages. Actually, the original topic is kind of too vague, so I decided to focus on the mythology part. So this is one of the goals of this talk. And because Guillaume Jacques has done a similar presentation some 10 years ago, so here the other goal is to show how little progress has been made during this decade. I'll be presenting the things you might have known before, and I hope there are still new things. And I will present some comments on the flexence of our system of all Chinese. So first I would like to talk about Jeroenic languages. So Jeroenic is a group of languages in the sign Tibetan family. They're spoken mainly in Zhingawa Prefecture in Si Fan province in China. So there are three sub-branches in Jeroenic, Jeroen, Kroshtia and Hopa. There are four Jeroen languages, Situ, Jakug, Zodun and Zbu. Many of you may be familiar with Situ or even Jakug, thanks to Yihong here. And Zbu is currently studied by Gongxun there. He's now collected data from several dialects. And Kroshtia is now the subject of my PhD thesis. I'm working now on a cold Kroshtia dialect, namely Wubsid, which is in red, on hand out. And I also possess data from several other dialects, Siyuewu dialect, Guanyinxiao dialect, et cetera. And then Hopa, there are at least three Hopa languages, Staus, Dostoe, Geshi. Actually Hopa is fancied by a lot of scholars working on Jeroenic languages, so there are actually a lot of articles on it. Jeroenic languages exhibit template morphology, that is to say that every verb is with a chain of epics, in our case prefixes, and every prefix has its own predetermined slot that no one can change. So here in table one, you can see the verbal template of Wubsid Kroshtia. We've got inflectional prefixes, derivational prefixes, and so on. So what do these mean to the initial system? Let's have a look at the derivational prefixes in the middle. They are mostly continental in Kroshtia. So they are consonants, but consonants with grammatical functions. So they are materials to make complex clusters. Actually Kroshtia has the most complex consonant cluster system, and signed into that, too, probably. So every scholar who has studied Kroshtia has to test it more than 300 consonant clusters in each dialect, and some words even have a cluster of five consonants. You can see these examples at the beginning of section two with examples of four or five consonants consecutively. So, for example, in Guanyin Tao, you've got an example with five consonants, which is good, which means to German it, and in Wübsi, you've got something like Einstein instead. So just take a quick look at what we do. So the most important thing is, especially in verbs, nearly every consonant has a function. For instance, in one A, R is reciprocal, and N is auto-infective, and the Z there is causative, infixed between the stem, and the Y here may be a historical prefix, too. So nearly every constant in the cluster actually means something. And in one B, this exact example is how six prefixes can come together to form a finite verb. He didn't cause me to kill myself for his sake. Having seen all these examples, let's turn to some old Chinese forms. In two, example two, reconstructed by Maxine Sagar, I actually, I randomly picked several examples with complex clusters. So what I want to share with you is how Germanic languages help all Chinese out when we're in doubt. So I want to talk mainly about parallel morphology between Germanic and Chinese. So some of you may have the same feeling as I do. When you open a book like old Chinese reconstruction, when it comes to morphology, you may find prefixes there, proposed there are somewhat ad hoc. A lot of prefixes have too many functions. Some of the functions are undetermined. Actually, ideally, I think in a reconstruction, if we got one thing right, we got everything right. If the phonology of the current reconstruction reflects exactly the monotone of my ancestors, it must be indubitably correct morphology-wise. But if we just looked at Chinese alone, we might not have many insights about morphology. So maybe we should now turn to related languages that preserve a certain amount of morphology to do the comparative work. In Maxine Sagar 2014, we have already seen how the authors looked at better German comparativism. They say the fact that some Tibetan languages have such and such an ethics with such and such a function is merely suggestive but cannot be decisive for reconstructing the morphology of all Chinese. I thoroughly agree with this point, but even if it's only suggestive, it's still seductive. If we find anything with nearly the same appearance and function, then it will be a strong piece of evidence that our reconstruction is right. So it surely makes us more confident. Okay, let's get down to business. First, I would like to talk about the tea prefix that we have seen earlier this afternoon. The pre-initial tea, tea as a pre-initial, is reconstructed to account for a number of sierchium series that showed its evidence. For instance, the crane to be read with the phonetic claim, vein of water. So if you wanted to derive a Zhizu character in middle Chinese, you must want to reconstruct a tea pre-initial there to account for the sound change to drub, for instance. Some of the tea pre-initials are considered only part of the stem, some of them prefixes. There are two tea prefixes in all Chinese according to the book. It forms first, it forms intransitive verbs and for instance, to kut, to go out, come out and to nip, to fear, something like that. And it occurs in inalienable nouns. Just see the examples in example three. So these are some examples of inalienable nouns with the tea prefix. So this is what we are seeking. Actually, in Zheringek languages, we do find a similar prefix. For instance, in Japug, there is a prefix for indefinite or generic possessor for inalienably possessed nouns. And the indefinite possessive prefix has two variants, du and de. The distribution is actually lexically determined. So we can see the examples in four. In four A, de is the indefinite possessed noun prefix. Dezhe means oneself and you can substitute with other prefixes of possession. With R in four B, you have azho, which means myself and nezhe, you and in four D, azhe, third person singular, himself. In five, you've got more nouns. So notice that the word for elbow is cognate to Chinese, the grub drub. In Japug, it's this grub. And you can also find traces in troste, in six. Verk means fist and zbiak, which probably comes from tbiak plate and denak sos, so that's it for the T prefix. And then section five, anti-causative and causative construction. Maybe some of you still remember in 2012, there has been a debate in the journal Language and Linguistics. Meizulin, 2012 was the first album, that journal, and Sagarpaksda, 2012, the second. It was about the famous voicing alternation in old Chinese. Actually Meizulin calls that voicing alternation is due to an S prefix to an intransitive voiced base. The S prefix was causative and the voiced consonant. Well, Sagarpaksda think that it was an N, capital N prefix added to a transitive voiceless base and reconstructs the S pre-initial for other purposes. It is nearly undoubtful that Meizulin was wrong if we just take a look at journalic languages, but let's have a look at the Chinese examples given in Paxton and Sagarpaksda, they're a construction first. So in example seven, to defeat Prats and to sever defeat, Prats later became Brats with the voiced consonant and debt to bend, to break, transitively, and debt to bend, intransitively, and the famous to see, gans, and gans to appear. The Japook list is in table two. We can see that the intransitive counterpart parts are pre-nasalized. This looks so much like the Paxton-Sagarp construction and it's even productive in Japook. I'd like to draw your attention to the last word in table two. Khtar, to disperse, comes from Tibetan khtar. But it's intransitive counterpart, and dar is not a Tibetan loan word, so it is actually invented inside the Japook language. Table three are the examples in Zbujarong, provided by Gongxin, also with pre-nasalization of the anticorrected counterpart. In table four, you've got a list in Wubzik cross steps. Even though the intransitive counterparts are not pre-nasalized, we're confident that voice stops in cross steps come from pre-nasalized stops. There is a sound change to account for this, a change shift. So the direction must be from a voiceless to a pre-nasalized verb, which later became a voiced, a verb voiced initial. Therefore, the reconstruction of Baxter's cigar does make sense from a Zbujarongic point of view. And now what about the S causative? Baxter's cigar lists some examples of causatives with an S prefix in example eight. Now hand out. Dung to rise and stung to lift up, and not to speak frankly and not to complain to accused and dung to match and stung to estimate and to see, to look, and to show. So we can see they do have them, the S does have them causative function. So a sibling causative is present in a lot of sound-dependent languages in jarongic as well. The S causative in cross step is somewhat very complicated. There are a lot of morphophonological processes leading to really complex consonant clusters. If we look at the Surya-Udalaic of Trostya, here in example nine, you have clusters like shh, something like that. Strasva, it's nine, eight. So yeah, actually two of the four examples in Baxter and cigar are still a little bit doubtful. But there are some scouts to complain to accused and to shows, actually there is some suffix S there. So which one is the causative? The prefix or the suffix, or both. So actually you may leave it to Giyongchuk tomorrow to see what happens with the final S. And then the normalization part. Amongst jarongic languages, only jarong, the jarong language, preserves the oldest normalizing strategy. Normalization is used mainly in relative constructions. Jarong dialects use different prefixes to indicate the function. For instance, in Japuk jarong, Gu denotes the S or the A. Go, the P, and serve the other leaf. Additionally, a K-based prefix for infinitives. In Toptun jarong, you have nearly the same prefixes. So in example 10, I'll list how these prefixes work in Toptun jarong, with the verb ndze to eat. Gndze means he who eats, and gandze, that is eaten. Sun zi, eating place. And gandze to eat, eating, something like that. So now let's have a look at the old Chinese K prefix. Bexter in cigar describes the K prefix as the arriving non-finite verbs that can be read as nouns. For instance, ui, ghost. It is probably common with to ui, or inspiring, and ui, to fear, to threaten. And kpang, square basket, it may, the original meaning might be something square, so it is related to fang, square. And maybe kru, the seized father, it is related to ru, to be old. So these K prefixes seem to be some kind of S-A normalization or the infinitive, gandze in jarong. Maybe they're cognates. So now 6.2, the oblique S. Oblique can mean several things. The surrounding environment, the instrument, the time, moment, the recipient, et cetera. We should look at some japuk examples first to make it clearer. In example 12, fsyt means to talk to. No, to talk, actually. And if you add an oblique S prefix, you have ssyt. It means the one to talk to, the recipient. And yi means to plant. If you've got isey, it means the time to plant. And yi means to come. Isey means the place to come. So if you look at the old Chinese examples given in Bexman's Sagao 2014, you will find it amazing that this one's exactly the same. Nrak, to go against reverse, sngrak. First thing you can learn originally when the moon changes from wain to waxing. And hong, to penetrate. Shrong, a window where light penetrates. And mong, to flee, to disappear. And sngmong, morning, burial. And finally, luk, to take to use. Slih, a handle of plow circle, which originally meant instrument of holding. So the reconstruction is convincing both phonology-wise and morphology-wise, according to our Germanic languages. And now let's come to the normalization. There are a lot of the normal prefixes in Germanic languages with different degrees of productivity. They have different functions, as you can find in table five and table six with japuk jarong and huomzi trothers. Our task now is to see that all Chinese had similar prefixes. First, 7.1, denominal capital N. I found three representative examples in example 14, guang, a long time, and guang, to be old, to be used. And guing, to be even, uniform, which probably is derived from an unattested base, guing, which probably meant cycle. And the third example, I like this one, guang, right, and guang, to be yellow. And in 15 and 16, we have jarong examples with the n-denominal prefix. I think n-denominal is the most productive in jarongic language, maybe. And 7.2, the denominal m. So this m-prefix differs from the capital n-prefix in that it has different reflexes in proto-mean and Vietnamese, et cetera. That is to say, a nasal, other than the capital n, must be reconstructed for those examples, but we don't know which. We could have opted for something like n1 and n2, but it might make us feel more comfortable with an actual bilabial. And the bilabial seems to be the most reasonable one since in jarongic phonology, the capital n and the bilabial m are distinct pre-initial morphemes, phonemes, sorry. In jarongic, an n-denominal derives transitive verbs with body part or intransitive verbs of position. You can see the examples. In 17, merziap, merzh bap, carrying shoulder and merku, to be happened before, and mahtil, to be in the middle. And according to Beksan Sagar, der-en-denominal derives volitional verbs. As in 18, you can derive from leipos to transnet and poison duks to poison and preys to cover or mapray to cover oneself with. And buks back. Well, here we've got a body part. And we've got some verbs to turn the back on. And maybe you can add tsang and tsang and trao, something like that, go to morning audience at court. And maybe n-tsmoks together, to bring together, which might be related to the bed and talk, the plural marker. So these are the n-pics. But whether it is related to gyakrut or to gyaryon m is still doubtful. And then the denominal s. I've got one example here, but there may be many more. So this one is from the now position to arrange in order to order, to order, something like that. In 20, you have some examples of denominal s in wubzikra steps. So just take a quick look. And now, what about the n-pics r in old Chinese? They could also be denominal, as in 21, you've got la, you have to remove, something like that. Its cognate could be found in gyakrut with an r-based denominal prefix, deriving mainly intransitive verbs. But the old Chinese forms we found are mostly transitive to remove something, to store something. On the third one is intransitive. So are they related? I'm not sure. Unfortunately, I failed to find examples in troste. So now in section 8, I would like to talk something about typology. In a language such as troste with long initial clusters, the consonants are strictly aligned, we cannot change their positions. But this may not be the original look. The fact that they are so well aligned is because they must obey a certain sonority hierarchy, as in 23, to facilitate the pronunciation. The most sonorous consonants are placed in the outer slots, and the least sonorous ones are placed in the inner slots. That is probably why they now show a templative morphology. So there is a correlation between phonology and morphology. In old Chinese, however, the members of an initial cluster were interchangeable position-wise. For instance, in 24, s and m, and s and capital N can swap positions. The positions are not predetermined. So it seems that all Chinese had a layer of morphology. The most clear example, maybe 25, the base verb was don't to ascend. And then a causative, as is said, it makes it to mean to increase. And then an n prefix may be intransitiveizing and makes it to be double or to be in two storage. And next you may want to see the case of Cien covered design with an unknown base, an n prefix which makes it stative and then an s to make it transitive. It seems that the epics as added are only sensitive to the outermost epics. So I think that layer type of morphology was what proto-scient Tibetan should look like since it is harder to imagine a language to be born templateic, I think. In 8.2 I would like to talk about the tightly and loosely attached pre-syllables proposed once again. The difference between them is that a loosely attached pre-syllable is a half-syllable with a schwa in between. So I've heard a lot of criticisms pointing about so I would like to introduce them across the case. See examples in so first let's see the examples in 26. Actually the tightly attached pre-syllables and loosely attached pre-syllables have different reflexes in middle Chinese so the opposition must be reconstructed so this is already not to be criticised. And typologically from a general point of view it is also not weird. In cross-jab we have traces of something that can be regarded as tightly and loosely attached pre-initials. Please look at 27 the causative forms of so the base verbs here to suck in the mouth and blue to step both have a pre-initial servicing as M but they are intrinsically different. The causative prefix S is in-fixed between the nasal and the stall and in 27A it is fricked devised into an F sound and in 27B the nasal stays a nasal I suppose that the nasal that becomes an F with the causative prefix be tightly attached if we follow Paxton's sagas term and the one that stays nasal be loosely attached since it interacts less with the causative prefix therefore the most convenient way to reconstruct these two is also to pre-syllable with the schwa so there's nothing bizarre about this reconstruction and I will quickly make one more comment on the famous pharyngealization so very quickly for tight B syllables there are basically three approaches a medial yord long vowels or only plain constants opposed to pharyngealized type A syllables there are not much direct evidence for this pharyngealization Paxton's sagas have some indirect arguments for it in 29 one of them is from the description of an old the native Chinese without pharyngealization is outer and shallow and one with is inner and deep pharyngealized constants are more difficult to pronounce and another piece of evidence is that in some loanwords the source had no medial yord for instance for Buddha borrowed indirectly from Sanskrit Buddha which had no medial between the constant and the vowel so you can't really expect the old Chinese loanword had a yord so the yord must be rather late so if there is no yord for tight B we have to get something done with type A that is probably their prevented palatialization the contrast maybe observed might be observed in crossed up with certain rhymes but I'm not really sure C table 7 with the R rhyming crossed up the examples with pharyngealization in old Chinese have cognates in crossed up in R while those without pharyngealization have cognates in crossed up in E I really don't know if the phenomenon is genetically related or just a parallel of non related phenomenon I didn't have enough time to study carefully but one day in my life before I die I'll have to do that in 30 I would like to propose another indirect evidence for it we all know that in old Chinese there was a functional work Phu in modern Mandarin which was something like complementized at the beginning of the sentence there was a type B word so if we follow back to 92 we have something like biang in old Chinese but isn't it weird to have biang at the beginning of the sentence to introduce this clause if we look at French we have something similar because we always say bah bang in French so in French the etymology was biang it's clear meaning English well originally with a yacht in between and it became something without yacht so it is difficult to imagine that old Chinese Phu was originally biang therefore a bah reconstruction sounds more natural if you insist that naturalness is vital reconstruction so to some extent the current reconstruction is actually more natural and on the last page I got some potential conflicts between Chinese and Chinese languages these are for you to criticize