# The paths to rhotacization in Tangut, with new evidence from Qiangic

Mathieu Beaudouin

► To cite this version:

Mathieu Beaudouin. The paths to rhotacization in Tangut, with new evidence from Qiangic. Jonathan P. Evans. New Discoveries in Tibeto-Burman Linguistics: Honoring the Legacy of Academician Jackson T.-S. Sun, Language and Linguistics Monograph Series 69, pp.143-184, 2025, 978-626-7616-05-5. hal-05506291

HAL Id: hal-05506291

https://hal.science/hal-05506291v1

Submitted on 14 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# The paths to rhotacization in Tangut, with new evidence from Qiangic*

Mathieu Beaudouin

University of Cambridge

Since Nishida (1964), the term RHOTACIZATION refers to a feature characterizing a set of syllables in Tangut phonology, specifically those in the second and (most of the) third minor cycle. Beaudouin (2023a) synthesizes previous research, describing this set as the outcome of a merger involving three historical “r” sounds: preinitial *r-*, medial *-r-*, and coda *-r*. To date, only the development of *-r* into rhotacization has supporting evidence based on an allophonic realization /Vr/ [Ṽ], as observed in Geshiza Horpa (Honkasalo 2019). However, no similar evolutionary pathway has been established for the other two historical “r” sounds. Additionally, Tibetan and Chinese transcriptional data suggests that some preinitial “r” sounds might indeed have been (at least slightly) realized, challenging the unity of this rhotacized class. This paper addresses these two challenges in a tripartite way. First, it explores the phonological status of the second and third minor cycles through a thorough analysis of their internal distribution, and of their transcription in Tibetan and Northwest Chinese. Second, it recalls the three documented origins of these syllables by summing up comparative evidence from previous studies. Third, it draws from allophonic processes documented in Qiangic languages to investigate how these distinct segments could merge into one autochthonous category. A pattern of monosyllabicization appears, shedding light on some overlooked phonotactic and distributional constraints.

**Keywords:** Tangut phonology, phonetics, rhotacization, rhotics, monosyllabicization

## 1. Preliminary background

Tangut is an extinct Sino-Tibetan (or Trans-Himalayan) language that began to be reconstructed in the early 20th century, following the discovery of documents written in the Tangut script by European researchers, military personnel, explorers, and diplomats. Among these documents, rhyme dictionaries, homophone compendia, a Chinese-Tangut glossary, and transcriptions into Tibetan and from Sanskrit formed the basis for the earliest phonological reconstructions

<footnote>* To Professor Jackson T.-S. Sun, whose pioneering work on Gyalrongic languages has made this research possible and deeply meaningful.</footnote>
(Morisse 1904; Ivanov 1909; Nevsky 1926). These sources remain essential to contemporary research on the language.

Over the past century, numerous reconstruction systems have been proposed. Among these, the system developed by Gong Hwang-cherng (henceforth GHC; Gong 2003) is currently the most widely referenced in Europe and China.<fnref n="1" /> GHC's framework draws extensively on the influential earlier analyses of Sofronov (1968) and Nishida (1964; 1966). More recently, new proposals have emerged that refine or revise aspects of Tangut phonology in light of comparisons with contemporary languages spoken in Sichuan (Gong 2020, 2022; Beaudouin 2023a, and the present study).

Although Tangut is not as conservative as some other Gyalrongic languages, it is of particular significance because it is attested through a substantial corpus of datable documents. These sources offer historical insights into the phonology and structure of a Sino-Tibetan language during the medieval period, an advantage not shared by closely related languages, for which no comparable written records exist. Tangut also sheds light on synchronic correspondences with other medieval languages, such as Tibetan, Northwest Chinese, and liturgical Sanskrit. This section introduces key background information necessary for engaging with the analyses presented in this paper.<fnref n="2" />

## 1.1 Tangut phonology

The Tanguts were quite thorough in their absorption of Chinese cultural productions, as they built rhyme dictionaries that borrowed the same tools.<fnref n="3" /> The *Wénhǎi* comprises two volumes, one for each tone, in which homophonous characters are grouped according to identical syllabic structures (initial + rhyme). These are further arranged into larger rhyme groups (105 in total,

<footnote n="1">¹ An alternative tradition of reconstruction persists in Japan, notably the system developed by Arakawa as in Kychanov & Arakawa (2006), which builds on Nishida's earlier work. These systems tend to rely more heavily on rhyme-based correspondences and incorporate the phenomenon of the “grades” less systematically than GHC.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² For introductions to Tangut phonology, see Jacques (2014) and Beaudouin (2023a: 151–180). For an overview in English, the introduction of Gong (2020), which focuses on the issue of the grades, is particularly useful. Given the influence of Chinese phonological categories on the Tangut tradition, familiarity with basic concepts of Chinese historical phonology — e.g., Baxter (1992) — may be beneficial. On the notion of grades (等 děng), see the detailed encyclopedia entry by Shen (2017).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ This adoption should be viewed as strategic and heuristic, as it conveyed power and legitimacy in the sociopolitical context of the time (see Solonin 2020). The dictionaries include the 莊薦 Jwir²ŋjow², Cn. 文海 Wénhǎi ('Sea of the characters') compiled in 1128 CE, the two 1132 and 1187 editions of the 龍虵 yie²lew², Cn. 同音 Tóngyīn ('Homophones') which organize onset groups numbered I to IX, and the 龍虵麤 yw²yie²we²bju¹ 五音切韻 Wùyīn qièyùn ('Qieyun in five sounds'). This presentation is based on the categories of the Wénhǎi, which has served as a foundational reference since the beginning of Tangutological research.</footnote>
without tone distinction). For each representative character of a given syllabic shape, the traditional Chinese system of反切fǎnqiè is used to indicate pronunciation, involving two other characters that respectively provide the onset and the rhyme. The rhymes themselves are classified into phonologically defined groups (cycles), and sets of cycles sharing broad vocalic properties are grouped by scholars into larger rhyme categories known as 攝shè.

Table 1 presents the Tangut rhymes as organized according to these categories (explained in detail below), while Table 2 reflects the sequencing logic of the Wénhǎi, showing the ordering both within and across rhymes.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** The Wénhǎi parameters of Tangut syllables</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">shè</th><th rowspan="2">Tone</th><th colspan="3">Major cycle</th><th rowspan="2">Minor cycle 1</th><th rowspan="2">Minor cycle 2</th><th rowspan="2">Minor cycle 3</th></tr><tr><th>Sub-cycle 1</th><th>Sub-cycle 2</th><th>Nasals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">1 (u)</td><td>1</td><td>1.01-1.04</td><td>1.05-1.07</td><td>/</td><td>1.58-1.59</td><td>1.75-1.76</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.01-2.04</td><td>2.05-2.06</td><td>/</td><td>2.51-2.52</td><td>2.69-2.70</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">2 (i)</td><td>1</td><td>1.08-1.11</td><td>1.12-1.14</td><td>1.15-1.16</td><td>1.65-1.67</td><td>1.77-1.79</td><td>1.93</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.07-2.10</td><td>2.11-2.12</td><td>2.13</td><td>2.58-2.60</td><td>2.71-2.72</td><td>2.84, 2.86</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">3 (a)</td><td>1</td><td>1.17-1.20</td><td>1.21-1.23</td><td>1.24-1.26</td><td>1.63-1.64</td><td>1.80-1.83</td><td>1.97</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.14-2.17</td><td>2.18-2.21</td><td>2.22-2.24</td><td>2.56-2.57</td><td>2.73-2.75</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">4 (i)</td><td>1</td><td>1.27-1.30</td><td>1.31-1.32</td><td>/</td><td>1.68-1.69</td><td>1.84-1.86</td><td>1.92</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.25-2.28</td><td>2.29</td><td>/</td><td>2.61</td><td>2.76-2.77</td><td>2.85</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">5 (e)</td><td>1</td><td>1.33-1.36</td><td>1.37-1.39</td><td>/</td><td>1.60-1.61</td><td>1.73-1.74</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.30-2.33</td><td>2.34-2.35</td><td>/</td><td>2.53-2.54</td><td>2.66-2.68</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">6 (ij)</td><td>1</td><td>1.40-1.42</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>1.62</td><td>/</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.36-2.37</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>2.55, 2.65</td><td>/</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">7 (iw)</td><td>1</td><td>1.43-1.46</td><td>1.47</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>1.87-1.88</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.38-2.40</td><td>2.41</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>2.78-2.79</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">8 (o)</td><td>1</td><td>1.48-1.51</td><td>1.52-1.53</td><td>/</td><td>1.70-1.72</td><td>1.89-1.90</td><td>1.94</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.42-2.44</td><td>2.45-2.46</td><td>/</td><td>2.62-2.64</td><td>2.80-2.81</td><td>1.95</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">9 (ow)</td><td>1</td><td>1.54-1.56</td><td>1.57</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>1.91</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.47-2.49</td><td>2.50</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>2.82-2.83</td><td>/</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** The Tangut dictionaries classes, from the first *shè* (u), first cycle, first rhyme (1.01), first initial (I), to the second *shè* (i)</caption><thead><tr><th>homophone 1<br>pu<sup>u</sup></th><th>homophone 2<br>pu<sup>u</sup></th><th>homophone n<br>pu<sup>n</sup></th><th>...</th><th>...</th><th>...</th><th>...</th><th>...</th><th>...</th><th>...</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>syllable 1 (same initial)<br>pu<sup>u</sup></td><td>syllable 2<br>p<sup>h</sup> u<sup>u</sup></td><td>syllable n<br>C<sub>n</sub>u<sup>u</sup>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>rhyme 1<br>-u<sup>u</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td>rhyme 2<br>-u</td><td>rhyme n in -u-<br>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>cycle 1 “major”<br>Cu-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>cycle 2 “first minor”<br><sup>v</sup>Cu-</td><td>cycle n in -U-<br>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>shè 1<br>-U-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>shè 2<br>-I-</td><td>shè n...</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
The term “cycles,” originally introduced by Sofronov (1968: 77), refers to a recurring sequence of vowel classes inferred from the structure of Tangut rhyme books. Rather than grouping all syllables with similar phonetic shapes into a single continuum, the compilers of the rhyme dictionaries identified three distinct sets of syllables that were treated separately — likely because their phonological features were considered too divergent to be integrated with the rest. These are now known as the three minor cycles.

In Gong Hwang-cherng’s reconstruction system (Gong 2003), which builds on the features (rhotacization, tenseness) first outlined by Nishida (1964: 58–67), the four cycles are distinguished as follows: the major cycle (plain vowels), first minor cycle (tense vowels), second minor cycle (rhotacized vowels), and third minor cycle (primarily lengthened-rhotacized vowels), which revises Nishida’s earlier suggestion of tense-rhotacized vowels for this last set. In the present study, I follow GHC’s classification, with the exception of the first minor cycle, which I interpret as involving vocalic preinitials, following the proposal in Beaudouin (2023a), and the third minor cycle, for now reconstructed with geminate initials (see second paragraph below).

The number of *shè* (攝) varies across the literature. Nishida’s use of the term roughly corresponds to Sofronov’s cycles. Jacques (2014) identifies eleven *shè*, including nasal vowels as a separate category. By contrast, Beaudouin (2023a) considers the nasal rhymes (attested only in Chinese loanwords and absent from the native phonological system) as part of a broader macro-vocalic category, resulting in a smaller inventory. I follow Beaudouin’s eight-vowel classification but distinguish between -o and -ow, yielding a total of nine *shè: u, i, a, i, e(j), ij, iw, o, ow*, corresponding to the ordering sequence referenced above.<fnref n="4" />

Another relevant feature of Tangut phonology concerns the internal division of the major cycle into two sub-cycles. This distinction is motivated by the repeated occurrence of identical grade sequences within the major cycle — typically spaced three or four rhymes apart — despite showing no consistent differences in Chinese transcription. These sub-cycles appear not to have been considered sufficiently distinct to warrant full cycle status, yet their consistent alternation suggests a phonological distinction. In GHC’s reconstruction, the first sub-cycle involves plain vowels, while the second features lengthened vowels — a hypothesis that has

<footnote n="4">⁴ The sequences are reconstructed as *u, i/e, a, i/ɔ, ij/ej, ij/ɔj, iw/ew, o, ow* in GHC’s system. The diminution of the vocalic inventory is due to the uvularization framework proposed by Gong Xun (2020), which I follow as explained below in this section.</footnote>
since been challenged (Sun & Tai 2012). Gong (2022) proposes prenasalized syllables instead, whereas Beaudouin (2023a) reconstructs geminate or fortis onsets.<fnref n="5" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Correspondences between Nishida, GHC, GX, and MB systems</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Nishida</th><th>Sofronov</th><th>GHC</th><th>GX</th><th>MB</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Major cycle sub-cycle 1</td><td>CV</td><td>CV</td><td>CV</td><td>CV</td><td>CV</td></tr><tr><td>Major cycle sub-cycle 2</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>CΥ</td><td><sup>n</sup>CV</td><td>C:V</td></tr><tr><td>First minor cycle</td><td>CV</td><td>hCV</td><td>CV</td><td>CV</td><td><sup>v</sup>CV</td></tr><tr><td>Second minor cycle</td><td>CV<sup>r</sup></td><td>rCV</td><td>CV<sup>r</sup></td><td>CV<sup>r</sup></td><td>CV<sup>r</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Third minor cycle (partly)</td><td>CV<sup>r</sup></td><td>rCV</td><td>CV<sup>r</sup></td><td>(<sup>n</sup>CV<sup>r</sup> ?)</td><td>(C:V<sup>r</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>First grade</td><td>/</td><td>(CV)</td><td>CV</td><td>CV<sup>g</sup></td><td>CV<sup>g</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Second grade</td><td>/</td><td>(C<sup>V</sup>)</td><td>CiV</td><td>C<sup>v</sup>V<sup>g</sup></td><td>C<sup>v</sup>V<sup>g</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Third grade</td><td>/</td><td>(Ci<sup>V</sup>)</td><td>CjV</td><td>CV</td><td>CV/C<sup>j</sup>V</td></tr></tbody></table>

The set of phonological features discussed above is summarized in Table 3, which presents correspondences with earlier proposals by Nishida and Sofronov (both of whom predate GHC), as well as more recent reconstruction systems currently under development.<fnref n="6" /> Some of Sofronov’s reconstructions are placed in parentheses, as they incorporate the grade distinctions, but in a less systematic manner than GHC.

One final parameter of Tangut phonology to consider is the system of grades. These phonological categories, inferred since Hashimoto (1963) through comparison with Chinese, serve to classify syllables within the rhyme sequences found in the dictionaries. Each cycle typically follows a fixed grade order: Grade I → Grade II → Grade III → Grade IV. Since the work of Gong (1994), who demonstrated that Grades III and IV are in complementary distribution, Tangut is generally understood to have three phonological grades.<fnref n="7" /> GHC locates the contrast between grades at the medial position of the syllable: Grade I features no medial, Grade II includes a medial -i-, and Grade III a medial -j-.

<footnote n="5">⁵ GHC’s hypothesis of vowel length has been convincingly refuted by Sun & Tai (2012) and Gong (2022). Gong’s proposal of prenasalization (Gong 2022), while promising, leaves unexplained several rhymes (e.g., 1.21, 2.18, and 1.57) and presents difficulties when applied to some Tangut transcriptions od Sanskrit. It also poses challenges when compared with evidence from Tangut’s closest relatives, the Horpa languages. I adopt Beaudouin’s (2023a) hypothesis of geminate onsets, which is grounded in the homorganicity of preinitials in Horpa cognates and accommodates all relevant rhymes.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ GX refers to Gong Xun, and MB to Mathieu Beaudouin.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Miyake (2012), however, does not adopt this analysis and continues to treat all four grades as distinct.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4.** Gong Hwang-cherng and Gong Xun's reconstructions for Tangut grades</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Non-palatalized</th><th>Palatalized</th><th>GHC</th></tr><tr><th>(CV)</th><th>(CiV)</th><th>(CjV)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Grade I</td><td>Grade II</td><td>Grade III</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">uvularized</td><td>non-uvularized</td><td>GX</td></tr><tr><td>(CV<sup>g</sup>)</td><td>(C<sup>g</sup>V<sup>g</sup>)</td><td>(CV)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

As in Chinese historical phonology where Grade III syllables outnumber those of the other grades combined, Tangut Grade III syllables account for approximately half of the total syllabic inventory. Given that GHC reconstructs Grade III with a palatal medial -j-, this implied a disproportionately high frequency of this palatal element in the language's phonological system. To address this imbalance, Gong (2020) proposed a reinterpretation of the Tangut grades. In his system, Grade I is reconstructed with uvularized syllables, Grade II with uvularized syllables featuring a pharyngealized onset or medial, and Grade III as comprising plain, non-marked syllables (see Table 4).<fnref n="8" /> Beaudouin (2023a: 231–232) supports the general uvularization hypothesis, offering corroborative reflexes in closely related languages. However, he retains palatal allophony for Grade III and proposes a different analysis for Grade II, suggesting the presence of a liquid medial -t-, mainly derived from an earlier *-r-*. This study adopts that model. The distinctions among systems discussed here are summarized in Table 3 above.<fnref n="9" />

## 1.2 Tangut and its relatives

Building on the link — established for nearly a century — between the Tangut script and the Western Xia dynasty (1038–1227), the earliest researchers of the language already sought its potential genetic affiliations.<fnref n="10" /> Laufer (1916), for instance, looked to languages belonging to

<footnote n="8">⁸ GX's proposal recalls the distinction between so-called A and B syllables in Old Chinese, particularly as framed by Norman (1994), where non-pharyngealized B-type syllables underwent palatalization in Middle Chinese, while A-type (pharyngealized) syllables did not. The parallels between Tangut and Chinese grade systems, however, fall outside the scope of this paper, particularly regarding the correlation between rhotacization and the Tangut grades. These questions are addressed in a forthcoming study (Beaudouin & Honkasalo under review) focusing on the status of Grade II in Tangut.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ While Nishida's reconstructions happen to align in part with these later distinctions, he was not explicitly aware of these classes at the time of his 1964 work. His system has nevertheless served as a major point of reference for subsequent research.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ This connection was first proposed by the Qing scholar Zhāng Shù 張澍 (1781–1847), who in 1804 identified a Western Xia-era name on a stele bearing a Tangut inscription.</footnote>
what are now classified as subgroups of the Burmo-Qiangic branch (notably Naish and Loloish languages) and proposed a “Si-mo-lo” family that included Tangut. Since Sun (1962), Tangut has generally been classified within the Qiangic branch. Qiangic was later challenged as a valid genealogical group by Chirkova (2012), who argued that many of the shared features among its members were better explained by areal convergence and typological tendencies. More recently, though, Qiangic has gained a firmer historical-comparative foundation (Jacques & Michaud 2011; Jacques & Pellard 2021), although gaps remain, highlighting the importance of continued documentation of its member languages.

As the third earliest attested Sino-Tibetan language after Chinese and Tibetan, Tangut has occasionally been used in broader comparative work (e.g., Gong 2007).<fnref n="11" /> Gong (2011), for example, based his argument for the existence of a palatal medial (yod) in Proto-Sino-Tibetan partly on its reconstruction in Tangut Grade III. However, broad comparative reconstruction may not be the most immediate priority for Tangut studies, given the availability of closely related, and in many cases more conservative, languages. These relatives not only offer a more stable basis for historical comparison but can also illuminate aspects of Tangut phonology itself. In particular, languages from the Horpa subgroup of Gyalrongic provide a promising line of evidence for refining Tangut reconstructions.

Jacques (2014) was the first to publish a monograph comparing Tangut with another Gyalrongic language (Japhug), identifying numerous sound correspondences, reconstructing a pre-Tangut stage, and establishing a comparative approach that has since been expanded by his students. Gong (2020) was among the first to use living Gyalrongic languages to refine specific aspects of Tangut phonology, including Grade III and the major cycle's second sub-cycle features. Lai et al. (2020) proposed a classification of Tangut as a West Gyalrongic language, while Beaudouin (2023a; 2023b) developed the hypothesis that Tangut belongs to the Horpa subgroup, offering the first preliminary reconstruction to explicitly integrate Horpa data. That work draws heavily on Geshiza, the most thoroughly documented Horpa lect to date (Honkasalo

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Tangut predates Burmese by roughly half a century: the earliest securely dated Tangut document, the *Record of the Guazhou Trial*, dates to 1069 or 1070 CE (in comparison, the earliest dated Old Burmese inscription, the Myazedi inscription, was written in 1113 CE). Some undated Tangut documents may be even older (a point that is relevant for the present study): the Tangut script is traditionally said to have been promulgated in 1036 CE by Li Yuanhao (see *Book of Song* — 宋史 Sòng Shǐ, 夏國上 Xiǎguó shàng), though it might also have been conceived earlier by his father Li Deming (see *Book of Liao* — 遼史, Liáo Shǐ, 西夏外紀 Xīxià wài jì). Thanks to the desert environment of Khara-Khoto, Tangut survives in thousands of documents totaling millions of words, whereas Old Burmese is known mostly through stone inscriptions — the attestations that survived the humidity of the Pagan region.</footnote>
2019). Beaudouin & Honkasalo (2023) offer a tentative internal subgrouping that situates Tangut in relation to Central and Eastern Horpa varieties. Finally, Honkasalo et al. (2025) reconstruct Horpa preinitials using this revised Tangut model and propose an immediate pre-Tangut stage through comparison with Tangut’s Tibetan transcriptions.

## 1.3 Purpose of this paper

This paper focuses on two categories traditionally reconstructed as rhotacized since Nishida (1964): the second minor cycle and the majority of the third minor cycle. To date, no study has systematically accounted for the full range of segmental sources that appear to have merged into these categories, as understood from the perspective of the rhyme dictionaries.<fnref n="12" />

Following a detailed examination of the distributional and reconstructional background of the second and third minor cycles — including a systemic phonological analysis (§2) — the paper turns to the segmental origins of these categories as revealed through transcriptional evidence and cognates in related languages (§3). Finally, I offer an account of the distinct historical pathways taken by rhotic segments in pre-Tangut, arguing that their convergence into a single phonological category is consistent with distributional patterns in the rhyme dictionaries and can be dynamically explained within a diachronic framework (§4).

## 2. Rhotacization in Tangut phonology

This section examines rhotacization in Tangut from both a historical and distributional perspective. Following an overview of how rhotacization was introduced as a phonological feature by Nishida (1964) (§2.1), I shall analyze the distribution of relevant rhymes in the rhyme dictionaries, explore their compatibility patterns, and offer a preliminary interpretation of their phonological significance (§2.2).

<footnote n="12">¹² I deliberately use the term “category” rather than “phoneme”. While the cycles and *shè* discussed in §1.1 are generally interpreted as phonological in nature, the classifications within Tangut rhyme dictionaries may not have been based exclusively on phonemic distinctions. For example, the compilers may have grouped together rhymes containing rhotic segments in various syllabic positions into a single non-phonemic category. Evidence from Tibetan transcriptions (discussed in §2), which suggest the presence of a preinitial *r*- in some Tangut forms, could initially support such an interpretation. However, the data presented in §4, which point to syllable-level allophony (potentially already stabilized by the time of the dictionaries), support an alternative view. The issue is ultimately also one of historical layering and dating. Although I follow the prevailing view that the rhyme dictionary categories are phonological in nature, it is methodologically important to remain open to alternative scenarios.</footnote>
## 2.1 The reconstruction of rhotacization

Among the reconstructed features of Tangut phonology, rhotacization has received comparatively little attention since it was first proposed by Nishida (1964). In contrast to features such as the major cycle's second sub-cycle (also called second-column distinction by Gong 2022), or Grade III — whose phonetic interpretation has been the subject of debate, both on typological grounds and in light of conflicting evidence from transcriptions (e.g., in Sanskrit *dhāraṇī*) — Nishida's proposal of a rhotic vowel nucleus (*Vr*) has been widely accepted with minimal controversy. This may be due to the convergence of evidence from different transphonographic sources: many Tibetan transcriptions of Tangut syllables include an overt segmental *r*, while the corresponding Chinese glosses do not consistently indicate rhoticity. When combined, the two sets of data suggest syllable structures that follow a Chinese phonological template while incorporating additional phonetic detail from the Tibetan forms. Before evaluating this rhotacized category in detail, it is useful to review how Nishida (1964: 63) first proposed it, in his own terms:

> 以下、平聲95韻および上聲80韻までのすべての韻類は、いずれも一つの子音をともなう韻母であったと推定したい。實際には、その子音がどのような性格のものであったかを、明らかにすることはできないけれども、チベット文字 -r を用いて表記された例があるために、かりに -Vr 形式をもって、すべての韻母を推定する。

> "All of the following rhymes up to No. 95 ping and No. 80 shǎng are assumed to have been rhymes involving the same single consonant. Directly speaking, it is not possible to determine the nature of the consonant, but since we can find examples written using the Tibetan character -r, we shall use the -Vr form to infer all the rhymes."

Nishida (1964) candidly acknowledged the tentative nature of his analysis of rhotacized syllables (henceforth *r*-syllables), which was based on a detailed examination of individual rhymes and their Tibetan transcriptions, many of which display rhotic segments either as preinitials or codas. Though the resulting account may now appear impressionistic, it was a significant advance and gained broad acceptance at the time.
Looking at the Tibetan transcriptions of Tangut, some scholars (e.g., Wolfenden 1931, 1934; Sofronov 1968) have argued in favor of the presence of preinitial consonants in Tangut. However, the discrepancy within the Tibetan data — where rhotic segments may appear as either preinitials or codas — and the absence of corresponding rhotics in the Chinese reconstructions may have led Nishida to interpret Tibetan *r* as a symbolic device to encode a phonetic reality that was difficult to capture through either system.<fnref n="13" /> Later, Arakawa (1999) demonstrated that certain Tibetan preinitials (mostly nasals) in fact functioned to indicate tonal distinctions in Tangut, providing some examples of non-segmental usage of Tibetan preinitials.

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Tangut characters with Tibetan and Chinese phonetic glosses</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Tangut</th><th colspan="4">Tibetan</th></tr><tr><th>Char<sub>num</sub></th><th>GHC</th><th>MB</th><th>pT</th><th></th><th>ZZZ</th><th>PPC</th><th>MSZ (&lt;*CSZ)</th><th>MC (QY)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>修3818</td><td>mjiyr<sup>2</sup></td><td>mèj<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>rme (13), me (1)</td><td>名</td><td>[miŋ]</td><td>myi~e~i, me (*mieŋ)</td><td>mjieng</td></tr><tr><td>鎔1543</td><td>mjor<sup>1</sup></td><td>mòr<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>rmo (2), rmu (1)</td><td>磨</td><td>[mwɔ]</td><td>'ba (*ma[mba])</td><td>ma</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>莽</td><td>[maŋ]</td><td>mo (*maŋ)</td><td>mangX</td></tr><tr><td>㯱1747</td><td>nur<sup>1</sup></td><td>nù<sup>rn</sup></td><td></td><td>rno (1), rnu (1)</td><td>娘</td><td>[ŋaŋ]</td><td>ŋau (*ŋ(i)aŋ)</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>㯱1204</td><td>njiyr<sup>2</sup></td><td>nèj<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>rne (1)</td><td>你</td><td>[ni]</td><td>ni</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>㯱0497</td><td>ŋewr<sup>2</sup></td><td>ŋiw<sup>rn</sup></td><td></td><td>riji (7), riji' (1)</td><td>宜則</td><td>[ŋɔj]</td><td>'gi (*ŋi[ŋgi]) + tsig, tcik~hā (*tsɔk)</td><td>ngok</td></tr><tr><td>㯱1602</td><td>ŋowr<sup>2</sup></td><td>ŋòw<sup>rn</sup></td><td></td><td>riŋo (4)</td><td>我</td><td>[ŋɔ]</td><td>'ga (*ŋɑ[ŋgɑ])</td><td>ngaX</td></tr><tr><td>㯱4871</td><td>ŋør<sup>1</sup></td><td>ŋi<sup>rn</sup></td><td></td><td>riji (2)</td><td>宜則</td><td>[ŋɔj]</td><td>'gi (*ŋi[ŋgi]) + tsig, tcik~hā (*tsɔk)</td><td>ngok</td></tr><tr><td>㯱0458</td><td>kor<sup>1</sup></td><td>kó<sup>rn</sup></td><td>*<sup>*rk</sup>-</td><td>rko (1)</td><td>光</td><td>[kwaŋ]</td><td>kwang (*kuəŋ)</td><td>kwang</td></tr><tr><td>㯱0270</td><td>kjiir<sup>1</sup></td><td>k:i<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>rki (2)</td><td>吃</td><td>[ki]</td><td>cp. 訵 kairä (*kir)</td><td>kj+t</td></tr><tr><td>㯱0467</td><td>tsjiir<sup>1</sup></td><td>ts:i<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>rtse (5), rdze (1), rtsi (1)</td><td>精</td><td>[tsiŋ]</td><td></td><td>tsjeng</td></tr><tr><td>㯱2698</td><td>tsjiir<sup>2</sup></td><td>ts:i<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>rtse (12)</td><td>精</td><td>[tsiŋ]</td><td></td><td>tsjeng</td></tr><tr><td>㯱3826</td><td>tšjiir<sup>2</sup></td><td>tf:i<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>rci (1)</td><td>責</td><td>[tšaj]</td><td></td><td>tsreak</td></tr><tr><td>㯱2005</td><td>tšior<sup>1</sup></td><td>tf<sup>2</sup>ó<sup>r</sup></td><td>*<sup>*rtf</sup>-</td><td>rco (1)</td><td>莊</td><td>[tšAŋ]</td><td>tsang, 'tshang, cang (*tšaŋ)</td><td>tsrjang</td></tr><tr><td>㯱4602</td><td>jar<sup>1</sup></td><td>já<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>rye (1)</td><td>耶</td><td></td><td>ya (*ia)</td><td>yae</td></tr><tr><td>㯱4976</td><td>'wejr<sup>2</sup></td><td>wèj<sup>rn</sup></td><td></td><td>rwe (2)</td><td>盈</td><td>[jiŋ]</td><td></td><td>yeng</td></tr><tr><td>㯱4606</td><td>zør<sup>2</sup></td><td>zì<sup>rn</sup></td><td></td><td>grze (1)</td><td>嵐</td><td>[fuč]</td><td></td><td>ngwoj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>移則</td><td>[jɔj]</td><td>X + tsig, tcik~hā (*tsɔk)</td><td>yok</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="13">¹³ The terms “Chinese” and “Tibetan” here refer specifically to the dialects used in Tangut-era transcriptions — namely, 13th century Medieval Shazhou Chinese (abbreviated MSZ, also known as Hexi Chinese) and Northeastern Tibetan.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 5. (continued)</caption><tr><td>微</td><td>djir<sup>2</sup></td><td>di<sup>r</sup></td><td>dhir (2), dir (1), 'dar (1)</td><td>能</td><td>[nəŋ]</td><td>'ding, ding<br>(*nəŋ[ŋdəŋ])</td><td>nong</td></tr><tr><td>亥</td><td>jwir<sup>2</sup></td><td>wi<sup>r</sup></td><td>d.wir (10)</td><td>悅</td><td>[jye]</td><td>war (*iyar)</td><td>ywet</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>蔚</td><td>[ʔuɛ]</td><td></td><td>'jw+jH</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>月</td><td>[hɪyɛ]</td><td>'gwar (*ŋyar[ŋgyar])</td><td>ngjwot</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>熨</td><td>[ʔy]</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>巍</td><td>žjir<sup>2</sup></td><td>ži<sup>r</sup></td><td>zhir (5)</td><td>日責</td><td>[raj]</td><td>zhir (*nžir) + X</td><td>nyeak</td></tr><tr><td>養</td><td>žjir<sup>1</sup></td><td>ži<sup>r</sup></td><td>zhir (1), g.zhir (1)</td><td>日</td><td>[ri]</td><td>zhir (*nžir)</td><td>nyit</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>入</td><td>[ri]</td><td>zhib (*nžip)</td><td>nyip</td></tr><tr><td>羈</td><td>rejr<sup>2</sup></td><td>rèj<sup>rn</sup></td><td>re (7), re' (5)</td><td>冷</td><td>[lɪŋ~ləŋ]</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>焚</td><td>rjur<sup>1</sup></td><td>rú<sup>r</sup></td><td>ru (1), g.ru' (1), g.ru (1)</td><td>六</td><td>[ly]</td><td>lug, lyug (*luk~liuk)</td><td>ljuwk</td></tr><tr><td>茲</td><td>rjir<sup>2</sup></td><td>ri<sup>r</sup></td><td>ri (4), ri' (1)</td><td>領</td><td>[lɪŋ]</td><td>lɛŋ (*liɛŋ)</td><td>ljengX</td></tr><tr><td>媼</td><td>rar<sup>2</sup></td><td>rà<sup>rn</sup></td><td>ra (3), ra' (2)</td><td>囉</td><td>[lɔ]</td><td>la', la (*lɑ)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>嫵</td><td>ljiir<sup>1</sup></td><td>l:i<sup>r</sup></td><td>*<sup>ŋ</sup>yld-ldi (2), ldi' (1), zla' (2)</td><td>勒</td><td>[lɔj]</td><td></td><td>lok</td></tr><tr><td>嬾</td><td>dwewr<sup>2</sup></td><td>dwiw<sup>rn</sup></td><td>'dwi (2)</td><td>泥骨</td><td>[nu]</td><td>'de (*niei[ŋdiei]) +<br>kor (*kor)</td><td>nwot</td></tr><tr><td>粃</td><td>γar<sup>1</sup></td><td>yá<sup>rn</sup></td><td>d.gá' (1)</td><td>sequ</td><td>[ʔɔ]</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>媼</td><td>džjiir<sup>1</sup></td><td>dži<sup>r</sup></td><td>g.ji' (1)</td><td>尼責</td><td>[naj]</td><td>'ji, 'ji, li (ni[ŋdži]) +<br>X</td><td>n(r)eak</td></tr><tr><td>殤</td><td>zjiir<sup>2</sup></td><td>z:i<sup>r</sup></td><td>g.zi (1), g.zi' (1)</td><td>移則</td><td>[jɔj]</td><td>X + tsig, tcik~hä<br>(*tsɔk)</td><td>yok</td></tr></table>

Table 5 illustrates this complex situation, providing a comparative overview of selected Tangut characters with their Tibetan and Chinese transcriptions.<fnref n="14" />

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Table 5 presents the following data: For Tangut, Char_num gives the character and its number in Li (2008). Where available, pT indicates reconstructed preinitials based either on Proto-Horpa as presented in Honkasalo et al. (2025) or inferred from examples in this paper. Tibetan transcriptions are drawn from Tai (2008), with attestation counts noted in parentheses. For Chinese, ZZZ refers to the glossing characters from the Tangut-Chinese glossary 簡綱 mji²zár¹nyu¹dzjij¹bju¹pja¹gu²nji², Cn. 番漢合時掌中珠 Fān Hàn Héshí Zhǎngzhōngzhū. The corresponding phonetic notations are: PPC for 'Phags-pa Chinese, i.e., Chinese written in the 'Phags-pa script under Mongol administration (Coblin 1999; 2001); this lect reflects a regional koine of the Southern Song and Jin period. MSZ refers to Medieval Shazhou Chinese varieties as reconstructed in Coblin (1994), with Common Shazhou representing their protoform. Notations follow Coblin's conventions, which build on those of Takata (1988). Although these forms predate Tangut by nearly two centuries, they provide valuable comparative material for identifying phonological features in Chinese dialects in direct contact with Tangut. Reflexes not visible in historical forms but preserved in modern dialects (e.g., Xining or Dunhuang) are also potentially relevant. For reference, the final column presents Middle Chinese (MC) readings using the system of Baxter (1992), a standard framework reflecting Qièyùn categories. Forms shaded in gray in PPC and MC are inferred from glossing characters in the ZZZ, while shaded MSZ forms reflect reconstructions based on Coblin's phonetic correspondences or related series.</footnote>
This table presents arguments in favor of both interpretations, the segmental and the
vocalic. The points supporting Nishida's view, i.e., that these are vocalic rhotacized syllables
(*Vr*), can be summarized as follows:

* Tibetan transcribes Tangut *r*-syllables in two ways: with superscript preinitials (first row) and with coda consonants (second row).<fnref n="15" /> If the rhotic elements were segmentally realized, it is unclear why all *r*-syllables would be grouped into a single category in the rhyme dictionaries.

* Some Tibetan transcriptions omit rhotics in syllables otherwise identified as *r*-syllables (fourth row). Since Tibetan script has the capacity to represent rhotics, their absence may suggest a non-segmental realization.

* Despite the overall consistency of Tibetan notation, character མྱ is once transcribed as *me*, implying that the rhotic segment was either weakly articulated or absent. Many Gyalrongic languages have cognates with initial *rmV[+high]* meaning ‘person’, yet the Geshiza Horpa cognate is *me*, and shows the same morphosyntactic behavior (e.g., as a clitic forming agentive nouns).

* Chinese reconstructions and notations associated with the ZZZ glosses typically show no rhotic element, even when the corresponding Tangut reconstruction features an *r*-onset.

Conversely, the following observations challenge Nishida’s interpretation of rhotacization as non-segmental:

* While more distant Chinese sources — such as ’Phags-pa Chinese (PPC) and Middle Chinese (MC) — do not indicate rhotics, several Medieval Shazhou Chinese (MSZ) varieties, which precede Tangut-era dialects by about two centuries, do show coda -r in syllables whose Tibetan transcriptions also display -r (third row). This suggests that the absence of rhotics in first-row Chinese data may reflect limitations in the Chinese script, rather than the absence of the sound.

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ I henceforth use the term “*r*-syllables” to refer to the set of rhymes belonging to the second minor cycle and those in the third minor cycle that show rhotic features in transcription, without committing to a specific phonological or phonetic interpretation.</footnote>
* Pre-Tangut (and proto-Horpa, the common ancestor of Tangut and the modern Horpa languages) had preinitials corresponding to the Tibetan preinitials, which are still preserved in most modern Horpa varieties (Tangut being the exception).

At this stage, regardless of the exact phonetic realization, the variety of transcriptional patterns may point either to distinct segments (if the sources are synchronically aligned) or to distinct historical stages. The latter scenario would suggest that the Tibetan transcriptions predate the systematization found in the dictionaries, while the former would require us to determine which parameter is phonological (the class of the dictionaries, or the segments of the transcriptions).

## 2.2 Rhyme dictionaries' distribution

Table 6 presents the *r*-syllables reconstructed as rhotacized in the second and (most of the) third minor cycles, as identified by Nishida, Gong Hwang-cherng (GHC), and more recent systems derived from GHC. The table includes reconstructions by GHC, Gong Xun (GX), Nishida, and Mathieu Beaudouin (MB), along with the corresponding *shè* categories and their transcriptional parallels in Tibetan (based on Tai 2008) and Sanskrit (based on Sun 2010).<fnref n="16" />

Scholarly consensus on the presence of rhotacization across these rhymes is not universal. Although Nishida was the first to propose rhotacization, he expressed reservations about its relevance for the current fifth *shè*, a position also adopted in Arakawa's system. At first, it indeed seems strange that the Tanguts, having established an ordered sequence in their major cycle (and having started the first minor cycle with the same *shè*), would then depart from this pattern by starting a new cycle with a different vowel. As noted in the introduction, however, the structure of the cycles is not rigidly systematic and should be treated as a heuristic rather than a strict phonological blueprint.

A second discrepancy concerns the classification of Rhyme 2.84, which belongs to the third minor cycle's *shè* 2 in GHC-based systems, but continues within the second minor cycle's *shè* 8 in Nishida-based systems. Additionally, rhymes 1.94 and 1.95 are reconstructed as non-

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ The Sanskrit data provide additional perspective on the phonetic realization of *r*-syllables. Although rhotics are commonly indicated in the Sanskrit transcriptions, these forms typically involve second-minor-cycle syllables with reconstructed *r*- onsets, rhotacized in all GHC-based systems. To avoid circular reasoning, one must identify instances where such rhotacized rhymes are used to transcribe or are transcribed by syllables lacking initial rhotics. This does occur for most *shè* categories (with the exception of the first, fifth, and eighth), where at least one example of a Tibetan or Sanskrit transcription features a non-rhotic initial and a syllable with -*r*, rather than *r*.</footnote>
rhotacized in Nishida-inspired systems, and the third minor cycle, if it exists, may thus be considered a catch-all category for rhymes that could not be classified. Neither Tibetan transcriptions nor Sanskrit data can currently resolve this issue conclusively. From a distributional perspective, both systems exhibit inconsistencies: GHC-based systems separate the second *shè* from the fourth, while Nishida-based systems isolate Rhymes 1.92 and 2.85 from the rest of the fourth *shè*. Overall, uncertainties remain regarding the third minor cycle, and readers should keep this in mind when analyzing data from this category.

<table><caption>**Table 6.** The r-syllables of the second and third minor cycles</caption><thead><tr><th>Minor cycle</th><th>shè</th><th>Rhymes</th><th>GHC</th><th>GX</th><th>Nishida</th><th>MB</th><th>Tibetan</th><th>Sanskrit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">second</td><td>5?</td><td>77-79 (1.73-74, 2.66-68)</td><td>-ejr/-ijr</td><td>-ejr</td><td>-or (?)</td><td>-ej'</td><td>re, re', rCe, rCe', Ce</td><td>re, rai</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>80-81 (1.75-76, 2.69-70)</td><td>-ur</td><td>-ur</td><td>-ur</td><td>-u'</td><td>(C)ru, rCu, rCo</td><td>ru, rum</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>82-84 (1.77-79, 2.71-72)</td><td>-er/-ir</td><td>-er</td><td>-ir/-iêr/-ir</td><td>-i'</td><td>rCi, rCi', rCe, Ce, rCu, rCa</td><td>ri, rîh (ra)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>85-89 (1.80-83, 2.73-75)</td><td>-ar</td><td>-ar</td><td>-ar/-iar/-ar</td><td>-a'</td><td>ra, rCa, Car, re</td><td>a, ra</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>90-92 (1.84-86, 2.76-77)</td><td>-ør/-ir</td><td>-ør</td><td>-ur/-ør/-ir</td><td>-i'</td><td>Cir, rCi, Cur, ri, Ci, rCe, Car, rCo</td><td>r, r, ri</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>93-94 (1.87-88, 2.78-79)</td><td>-ewr/-iwr</td><td>-ewr</td><td>-iwr/-iør</td><td>-iw'</td><td>rCi, rCi'</td><td>re, rai</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>95-98 (1.89-91, 2.80-83)</td><td>-or</td><td>-or</td><td>-or/-ior/-ør</td><td>-o'</td><td>rCo, rCu, rCa</td><td>ro (va, vi)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">third</td><td>2!</td><td>99 (2.84)</td><td>-eer</td><td>-er</td><td>-ir (?)</td><td>-i'</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4!</td><td>100 (1.92, 2.85)</td><td>-iir</td><td>-ør</td><td>-ir (?)</td><td>-i'</td><td>rCi, Ci'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2!</td><td>101 (1.93, 2.86)</td><td>-iir</td><td>-er</td><td>-iør (?)</td><td>-i'</td><td>rCe, rCi</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8!</td><td>102-103 (1.94-95)</td><td>-oor</td><td>-or</td><td>-o (?)</td><td>-o'</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.3 The relationship between r-syllables and other categories

As *r*-syllables overlap with other phonological categories, it is useful to verify whether these overlaps are attested in living, well-documented languages to avoid proposing constructs that conflict with the constraints of the vocal apparatus. It is also beneficial to systematically analyze the oppositions they establish with other categories, in order to determine whether complementary distributions may emerge.

The *r*-syllables as reconstructed in GHC-based systems overlap with the feature of the major cycle's second sub-cycle, and with Grades I, II, and III (cf. Table 3).

* The GHC characteristic for grade III (-j-) has been replaced by the absence of a syllabic feature, which does not conflict with the presence of rhotacization or segmental rhotics.

* Grade I is reconstructed as uvularized by GX, a view I follows. Although rare, typological parallels exist for the co-occurrence of rhotacization with uvularization or
pharyngealization, notably in the Qiangic languages (e.g., the Mawo and Luhua dialects of Qiang; Evans 2006a, 2006b; Evans et al. 2016). Rhotacization is thus compatible with these features, as would be segmental rhotics.

* Grade II is reconstructed as pharyngealized by GX. While this is not problematic from a distributional perspective, the main difficulty lies in phonetic constraints. To my knowledge, no language distinguishes pharyngealization from uvularization in a four-way system. Adding rhotacization, which also involves lingual muscular activity in the pharynx, makes this reconstruction even harder to defend.<fnref n="17" />

* The major cycle's second sub-cycle feature was reconstructed as lengthened by GHC, who noted the absence of distinction in transcriptions referring to these two series of syllables. According to Gong (2003), who initially did not include these syllables in his article, the third minor cycle's *r*-syllables represent a repeated version of the major cycle's second sub-cycle feature. I follow this view for now, leaving the detailed relevance of this feature in *r*-syllables for later discussion, as it goes beyond the scope of rhotics and rhotacization.

* Finally, all these systems reconstruct an incompatibility between the first minor cycle and the second minor cycle, which may imply that these categories are (diachronically) in complementary distribution.

From a systemic perspective, all systems agree that the minor cycles are SPECIFICATIONS, highlighting features not present in the major cycle. The extent to which the oppositions or associations they imply are natural typological phenomena is a question that deserves further investigation, which I shall consider below. According to GHC-based systems, the compatibilities of features can be illustrated through Table 7. A notable pattern is that only the first minor cycle has a compatibility more restricted than the major cycle: it is compatible only with itself. In GHC systems, this exclusivity is key for reconstructing a first minor cycle that stands apart and restricts the emergence of features from other categories.

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Pharyngealization and uvularization both occur in the pharyngeal cavity, differing mainly by a slight raising of the tongue root for uvulars. Acoustically, both tend to slightly lower the first (F1) and second (F2) formant frequencies, resulting in considerable overlap potential. Beaudouin & Honkasalo (under review) confirm the /ɪ/ phoneme hypothesis for Grade II (with [r], [s] and [z] allophones) through a detailed analysis of comparative, phonotactic (initials and *fǎnqiè*), and transcriptional evidence. They also show a pattern of complementary distribution between Grade II and *r*-syllables in specific vocalic contexts.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 7.** The systemic compatibility of features in GHC-based reconstructions</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>major sub.1</th><th>major sub.2</th><th>first-minor</th><th>second-minor</th><th>third-minor</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Major sub-cycle 1</td><td>—</td><td>V</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Major sub-cycle 2</td><td>V</td><td>—</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>first-minor</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>—</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>second-minor</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>—</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>third-minor</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

It may now be interesting to replace these categories with the features proposed by each author. Figure 1 presents, from left to right, the reconstructions by GHC, followed by GX, and then the modifications by MB.

<table><caption>**Figure 1.** Compatibilities and incompatibilities in GHC, GX, and MB systems</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>CV</th><th>CVV</th><th>CV</th><th>CVr</th><th>CVVr</th><th></th><th>CV</th><th>nCV</th><th>CV</th><th>CVr</th><th>nCVr</th><th></th><th>CV</th><th>C:V</th><th><sup>3</sup>CV</th><th>CVr</th><th>C:Vr</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CV</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>CV</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>CV</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>CVV</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td></td><td>nCV</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td></td><td>C:V</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>CV</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>CV</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td><sup>3</sup>CV</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>CVr</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td></td><td>CVr</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td></td><td>CVr</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>CVVr</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td></td><td>nCVr</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td></td><td>C:Vr</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td>X</td><td>V</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Most systems appear quite coherent about the compatibility between the first and second sub-cycle syllables (including the *r*-syllables of the third cycle). In GHC's system, tenseness prevents lengthening; in MB's, vocalization prevents gemination. In my view, tenseness less convincingly accounts for the absence of prenasalization, unless this feature affects the entire syllable. Gong Xun has yet to publish his interpretation of the first minor cycle and may provide insights on this question.

The crucial point is this: for the last two cycles to be considered phonological entities, the characteristic of the first minor cycle must block the presence of rhotics or rhotacization. GHC's reconstruction, currently followed by GX, could explain this. However, rhotacization itself is neither inherently compatible nor incompatible with tenseness. Similarly, in MB's system, vocalization alone does not explain the absence of rhotacization. Possibly, features attached to this vocalization, such as a particular voice quality that restricts the movement of the tongue's back toward the pharynx, might account for it.

Methodologically, this question is not trivial. If no system can explain how the first minor cycle excludes rhotacization or rhotics, we might need one day to revise our categories — perhaps by extending its features to the second and third minor cycles as Nishida initially did.
Such a result would suggest that the cycles containing *r*-syllables are not strictly phonemic, but rather a grouping of “everything *r*-related”. This could be at first sight supported by a simple distributional fact: *r*-initial syllables occur almost only within the *r*-syllable rhymes. *r*- initials have been almost systematically reconstructed as rhotacized. However, this is not supported by the transcriptions — neither Tibetan nor Chinese — since only Tibetan transcriptions with non-*r*- initials and *-r* codas correspond to Chinese glosses pronounced with a coda *-r* in Medieval Shazhou Chinese dialects. Moreover, there is one notable exception, that of *shè* 6, in *-ij*, where rhotic-initial syllables are not rhotacized.

The converse is also possible: lacking a better explanation, some *r*-syllable features might need to be assigned to the first minor cycle. Ultimately, the correct solution depends on a fundamental question: what does “distinguishing” mean? Does the first minor cycle stand out positively, as having a feature absent in other syllables (thus allowing those others to carry their own features)? Or negatively, as lacking a feature present in others? Or perhaps both? To date, the latter interpretation (both) has been instinctively favored. We should reflect more carefully on what “distinguishing” means, and how our conceptual approach shapes the analysis.<fnref n="18" />

### 3. The origins of *r*-syllables

In contrast to the synchronic situation in Tangut, the range of correspondences observable in closely related or even more distantly related Gyalrongic languages readily supports the identification of three distinct segmental sources for the *r*-syllables in pre-Tangut. In these sister languages, the corresponding segments are underlying trilled rhotics, which can thus be assumed to represent earlier stages of the forms later reflected in the Tangut rhyme dictionaries and Tibetan transcriptions. These origins have already been explored by Jacques (2014) and Beaudouin (2023a), from which I borrow and adapt several illustrative examples. This section provides the groundwork for the next (§4), which investigates how each of these sounds may have converged diachronically into a single category.

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ As discussed in the final section, part of the difficulty stems from our preconceptions about phonetic phenomena such as rhotacization as a vocalic feature.</footnote>
## 3.1 *r-* origin

Most Tangut *r*-syllables correspond to words that exhibit preinitial *r-* reflexes in Horpa languages. I distinguish three types of correspondences: intra-syllabic *r*-*; potentially pre-syllabic *r*-*; and cases where the preinitial *r-* has not been inherited.

### 3.1.1 Intra-syllabic preinitial *r-* in pre-Tangut

Many Tangut *r*-syllables can be traced back to a preinitial *r-* in pre-Tangut. These syllables show highly regular correspondences in Geshiza, which has preserved these segments well, as confirmed through comparison with Japhug. Khroskyabs reveals evidence of earlier syncretisms within West Gyalrongic, where *r-* has shifted to laterals or uvulars in some environments.<fnref n="19" />

<table><caption>Table 8. *r*-syllables of *r-* preinitial origin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Wobzi</th><th>Japhug</th><th>Meaning</th><th>Tib. transcr.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>叛</td><td>k'ir {kier<sup>1</sup>}</td><td>rqe</td><td>(n)rc<sup>há</sup></td><td></td><td>'to chew'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>叛</td><td>kór<sup>1</sup> {kor<sup>1</sup>}</td><td>rquə</td><td>lqê</td><td>tuu-rqo</td><td>'throat'</td><td>rko</td></tr><tr><td>嬾</td><td>gwí<sup>1</sup> {gjwir<sup>1</sup>}</td><td>rgə</td><td>s-ŋə 'make sleep'</td><td>nurŋwu</td><td>'to sleep'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>毗</td><td>gú<sup>1</sup> {gur<sup>1</sup>}</td><td>rgo</td><td>ŋí</td><td>kərgú (situ)</td><td>'bovine'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>嬤</td><td>tfí<sup>1</sup> {tejir<sup>1</sup>}</td><td>rtɛ<sup>h</sup>e</td><td>rc<sup>hê</sup></td><td></td><td>'to tie'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>旛</td><td>tfór<sup>1</sup> {teior<sup>1</sup>}</td><td>rtɛ<sup>h</sup>o</td><td></td><td>ty-rcoŋ</td><td>'dirt'</td><td>rco</td></tr><tr><td>癭</td><td>zìw<sup>1</sup> {zewr<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>rzəu</td><td>uzáy</td><td>kurtsɔy</td><td>'leopard'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>易</td><td>vi<sup>1</sup> {wər<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>rvæq<sup>hí</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td>'back (body)'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>姪/姪</td><td>ji<sup>1</sup> {jir<sup>1</sup>/jir<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>rjæ</td><td>rɣá</td><td></td><td>'to ask'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>繳</td><td>ni<sup>1</sup> {njɔr<sup>1</sup>} 'water'</td><td>rŋo</td><td></td><td></td><td>'river'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>瓶</td><td>ni<sup>1</sup> {njir<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>rŋi</td><td></td><td></td><td>'to borrow'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>親親</td><td>ŋwi<sup>1</sup> ~ ŋwi<sup>1</sup> {ŋwər<sup>1</sup>ŋwər<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>riŋə ~ riŋə</td><td>riŋê</td><td>arŋi</td><td>'blue-green'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>嫁</td><td>ŋwi<sup>1</sup> {ŋwər<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>riŋa</td><td>riŋá</td><td>tuu-rŋa</td><td>'face'</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Below are some remarks on this list of correspondences:

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Tangut reconstructions follow Beaudouin's system, with Gong Hwang-cherng's system given in braces (a convention first proposed by Gong 2020 to introduce his new reconstructions). Geshiza data is taken from Honkasalo (2019), Wobzi Khroskyabs from Lai (2017), and Japhug from Jacques (2014) or Jacques (2015–2016).</footnote>
* Labialization of the initial is typical when Tangut inherits from pre-Tangut *r-
preceding velars (*rKV > KwV̈r; see Table 8). Compare Tangut 趟 k:wïr ‘steal’, with
Geshiza rkə ‘steal’; and Tangut 須 ŋwïrks ‘knee’, with Geshiza rŋæ-məu ‘knee’.

* 離頤 ŋwïrk̈ ~ ŋwïrk̈ ‘blue-green’ also shows this labialization pattern and represents a case
of partial reduplication discussed in Honkasalo et al. (2025): the first syllable bears a
high tone, the second a low tone. Compare with 離頤 n̂ïr ~ n̂ïr ‘yellow’. In either case, a
distinction of character is made. This kind of graphic alternation may be more
widespread than previously noted in the literature, applying not only to derivational
pairs but also to phonotactic variants of the same morpheme.

* Tangut 足 jìr̂ ‘to borrow’ corresponds to a velar-initial word in Geshiza. The remote
pre-Tangut form has already been reconstructed as pre-Tangut *rŋja by Jacques (2014:
89) on a broader comparative basis. The development from *rŋja to Tangut jìr̂ mirrors
the pathway proposed for the first and second person plural agreement suffixes in Proto-
West Gyalrongic by Beaudouin (2023b: 644), where *-jŋa (1PL) and *-jna (2PL) both
yield Tangut jì (12PL).

In the examples given above, the concordance between Tangut, its sister languages, and the
Tibetan transcriptions, mostly advocates for a segmental production of the r's in the language
transcribed by Tibetan.

3.1.2 Potentially pre-syllabic preinitial pre-Tangut *r-

Beaudouin (2023a) recently discussed cases where the preinitial can be reinterpreted as
belonging to the preceding syllable in disyllabic words. The relevant examples are presented in
Table 9. To date, the etymon for ‘chicken’ is among the most characteristic lexical innovations
within Horpa; it appears in the lexical lists of Huang (1991) and Sun (2019), and has a
documented counterpart in Tangut.

<table><caption>Table 9. r-syllables with potential pre-syllabic origin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Wobzi</th><th>Japhug</th><th>Meaning</th><th>Tib. transcr.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>癡癩 00904546</td><td>vɔ́r̂j. d̂́ {woŕ:jɑ́r̂²}</td><td>wə́rja</td><td></td><td></td><td>‘chicken’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>癡癩 27784739</td><td>riŋ̂-tsíw r̂́ {rjiŕtsewŕ}</td><td>rtšʰəu</td><td>tsʰây ‘to join’</td><td>tu-ruurtsyɣ</td><td>‘articulation (body)’</td><td>ri, re</td></tr></tbody></table>
Beaudouin (2023a) did not include the Japhug form for ‘articulation’, which brings with it a novel interpretation: the second syllable may originally have been preceded by a preinitial *r- in pre-Tangut. In either interpretative framework, the r-syllable status of the second syllable cannot be attributed to a coda.

As for ‘chicken’, two possible interpretations arise under a rhotacization scenario. The first considers an influence of the first syllable on the second, following the syllabic segmentation implied by the Tangut rhyme dictionaries. In this case, the original rhotic segment could have transferred its phonetic quality to the second syllable before eventually weakening. The second interpretation posits *rja* as the original syllable, as suggested by the Eastern Horpa cognates given in Sun (2019); the rhotic coloring would then have been distributed across both syllables through a process of progressive and regressive rhotacization.

### 3.1.3 Cases of non-transmission?

In some cases, the Tibetan transcriptions appear to indicate a *r-* that is reflected neither in Tangut categories nor in cognates from sister languages (see Table 10), casting doubt on the actual presence of *r-* in pre-Tangut.

<table><caption>**Table 10.** Non-transmission as exemplified by the Tibetan transcriptions</caption><thead><tr><th>Char.</th><th>Tangut</th><th>Initial</th><th>Tib. transcr.</th><th>Meaning</th><th>Cognates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>蠻0105</td><td>²kú {kju¹}</td><td>V</td><td>rkyu, rku</td><td>‘to pray’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>嫇3574</td><td>tsèj {tsjij²}</td><td>VI</td><td>rtse</td><td>‘to know’</td><td>Wob. tsʰé,<br>Cp. Tib. ṣṭhśad</td></tr><tr><td>嫺3315</td><td>²tsiʰ {tsəl¹}</td><td>VI</td><td>rtsi', rtsi, rtsing, rtsa</td><td>‘color’</td><td>Wob. mtsʰón,<br>Cp. Tib. ṣṭḥṭhon</td></tr><tr><td>嫺3612</td><td>²tsiʰ {tsəl¹}</td><td>VI</td><td>rtsa</td><td>‘plaster’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>羶0801</td><td>²tsó {tsjɔl¹}</td><td>VI</td><td>rtso</td><td>‘be fat’</td><td>Gesh. tsʰuə,<br>Wob. tsʰú, Jap. tsʰu</td></tr><tr><td>敏2569</td><td>²tfi {tɛji¹}</td><td>VII</td><td>rci, rca</td><td>‘to encircle’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>竈0930</td><td>dú {dju¹}</td><td>III</td><td>rdu</td><td>‘EX.V’</td><td>Gesh. də</td></tr><tr><td>麤1147</td><td>²dì {dji²}</td><td>III</td><td>grdi'</td><td>‘to build,<br>repair’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>嬭2871</td><td>²ɣi {ɣji¹}</td><td>VIII</td><td>rki</td><td>‘tile’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>譌0015</td><td>²ɣi {ɣji¹}</td><td>VIII</td><td>rgi, rgi', rge</td><td>‘ore’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>嬭2763</td><td>ɣu¹ {γu¹}</td><td>VIII</td><td>rgu</td><td>‘evening’</td><td>Gesh. gəeʰo ?</td></tr></tbody></table>
I can currently identify no reliable cognates for the last row of Table 10, with the speculative exception of the word for ‘evening’. The coarticulation of velar initials with back vowels appears to inhibit the expected development of r-syllables (cf. Tangut 繕 ŋwo² ‘money’ vs. Geshiza rŋən ‘money’; Tangut 麟 ku¹ ‘engrave’ vs. Geshiza rku ‘engrave’). This pattern authorizes a possible phonotactic constraint involving velars and back vowels, though further investigation is needed.

Honkasalo et al. (2025) have identified Tangut-Horpa correspondences that support a scenario in which aspiration in pre-Tangut conditioned the assignment of certain syllables to the first minor cycle, rather than to the second or third (see Table 11). When we return to Table 10, it is notable that all the initial-VI Tangut syllables with rts- Tibetan transcriptions have cognates that show aspiration. However, none of these cognates display a preinitial r-. It seems unlikely that all Tangut’s sister languages independently lost such a preinitial — especially given Tangut’s general lack of conservatism. But the possibility deserves mention.

<table><caption>**Table 11.** Distinct reflexes of *r-* in Tangut</caption><thead><tr><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Jiaju</th><th>Gloss</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>欝 gu̯rks (< *rg-)</td><td>rgo</td><td>rgu</td><td>‘cow’</td></tr><tr><td>獺 zìw̯rg (< *rz-)</td><td>rzəu</td><td>rzəu</td><td>‘leopard’</td></tr><tr><td>藏 tsúrg (< *rts-)</td><td>rtso</td><td>rtsu</td><td>‘winter’</td></tr><tr><td>籬 ŋwírg (< *rŋ-)</td><td>rŋə</td><td>rŋə</td><td>‘to be blue-green’</td></tr><tr><td>櫬 əkú (< *rkʰ-)</td><td>rkʰo</td><td>rkʰo</td><td>‘to be cold’</td></tr><tr><td>櫞 ətsí (< *rtsʰ-)</td><td>rtsʰe</td><td>rtsʰe</td><td>‘lungs’</td></tr><tr><td>臯 ətsùrg (< *rtsʰ-)</td><td>rtsʰə</td><td>rtsʰəpʰæj</td><td>‘to cough’</td></tr></tbody></table>

Another possibility is that aspiration — already known to play a role in shifting genuine pre-Tangut *r-* syllables into members of the first minor cycle — may also be the determining factor in the present cases, producing a reflex equivalent to the feature characterizing this cycle. This feature, reconstructed as tenseness since Nishida (1964), was argued for with even less empirical support than rhotacization. Yet it does not appear to align with the correspondence patterns between Tangut and Geshiza. Beaudouin (2023a: 214) provides evidence that first minor cycle syllables sometimes correspond to syllables with vocal preinitials in Geshiza (e.g., Tangut 繕 ŋtʃi ‘to move’ vs. Geshiza ətci ‘to move’). Moreover, recent fieldwork has shown that in Horpa languages, syllables such as sni can be realized as [ini] (Honkasalo & Gates 2023). Thus, aspiration may play a decisive role, but not necessarily by producing what has been
termed tenseness. This hypothesis still does not explain why cognates do not display preinitial *r-*, though.

Another possibility is that the *r-* in Tibetan transcriptions serves a function unrelated to segmental structure, such as encoding tonal features. However, the data are inconsistent, and Tibetan transcriptions have so far corresponded well with segmentally reconstructible elements in pre-Tangut.

A final explanation is that these words do not originally have *r-* preinitials in pre-Tangut. The fact that Tibetan indicates through *r-* a sound that is reconstructed as prevocalized in Beaudouin (2023a) may only indicate the phonetical proximity of the two sounds (*r*C- and *v*C-). In other words, these etyma would be transcribed through *r-* because Tibetan ears perceived in these syllables preinitial material similar to Tangut rhotacization — which was probably still slightly preinitially realized as [ʃ] or [ʃ] in syllables with etymological *r*C-.<fnref n="20" />

## 3.2 *-r-* origin

Medials may also have contributed to the emergence of *r*-syllables in Tangut, as already shown by Jacques (2014: 27), with additional examples provided by Beaudouin (2023a: 225) (see Table 12).

<table><caption>Table 12. *r*-syllables of medial origin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Wobzi</th><th>Japhug</th><th>Meaning</th><th>Tib. transcr.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>嬭2768</td><td>kíw¹ {kjiwr¹}</td><td>skʰrəu</td><td>skʰrâu</td><td>qro</td><td>‘ant’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>嬭3582</td><td>k:ì' {kjiir²}</td><td>skrə</td><td>skʰrá ‘bile’</td><td></td><td>‘gallbladder’</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>竈3058</td><td>z:ì' {zjiir²}</td><td>wre</td><td>jdâ</td><td></td><td>‘water’</td><td>gzi, gzi'</td></tr><tr><td>嬭2858</td><td>zì' {zjir²}</td><td>dzi</td><td>sræi</td><td>zri</td><td>‘be long’</td><td>zi', gzi', rdzi'</td></tr></tbody></table>

Coarticulation patterns with vowels remain to be thoroughly investigated (and, naturally, more examples are needed), but a preliminary rule seems to emerge: with high (front, central) vowels, an unaspirated onset followed by a medial *-r-* in close pre-Tangut generally yields a

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Methodologically, this case shows how Tibetan data, whose exact phonetic features remain unknown, can be used as a hub where Tangut variables meet to teach us about their values. Note that the analogy going through Tibetan may have been fostered by the fact that etymological *r*Cʰ-* triggers first minor cycle, as mentioned just before.</footnote>
third-minor-cycle *r*-syllable in Tangut.<fnref n="21" /> Conversely, when the onset is aspirated, the corresponding *r*-syllable belongs to the second minor cycle. These correspondences clarify why the feature reconstructed by GX as prenasalization, if accurate, could not be extrapolated to the third minor cycle as GHC proposed in GX's system.<fnref n="22" /> If the relevant feature is instead gemination, then GHC's extrapolation may be defensible. Further research on these points is in preparation.

The correspondence for ‘be long’, while seemingly straightforward, shows reflexes in Tangut that diverge from the patterns discussed above. The absence of *-r-* in Geshiza may indicate a metathetic process, or another origin in Geshiza; further inquiry is required, and I leave this issue open for now.

Interestingly, the second grade appears to have contributed to a different kind of incidental, non-phonemic rhotacization, as illustrated by the transcriptions in Table 13. Given that Grade II is known to correspond to *-r-* (or sometimes *-l-* ) in sister languages (see Table 14), this is not entirely unexpected. For the time being, this phenomenon has been observed with Rhyme 23 (2.20). Such data may offer evidence for a transphonologization process involving segmental *-r-* . That said, there is no indication that a final *-r* was ever present in the ancestor of *r̥2736 b: ʔà*, which was used to transcribe Chinese loanwords of the second grade pronounced *mba* in Tangut’s Chinese (*m̥- > mb-*).<fnref n="23" />

<table><caption>Table 13. Second grade transcribed with rhotics in Rhyme 23</caption><thead><tr><th>Char.</th><th>GHC</th><th>MB</th><th>Tibet. transcr</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>r̥2736</td><td>biaa<sup>2</sup></td><td>b:ʔà</td><td>'bar (1)</td><td>phonetic</td></tr><tr><td>l̥5040</td><td>kiaa<sup>2</sup></td><td>k:ʔà</td><td>bkar (1)</td><td>'to mend'</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="21">²¹ The fact that only high front/central vowels are attested here provides a diachronic explanation for the pathways taken by medial *-r-*, and for their transphonologization as Grade II and/or as part of the second and third minor cycles. This issue is currently being investigated in a separate paper (Beaudouin & Honkasalo under review).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Though GHC makes this extrapolation, GX does not. GX only adopts Gong’s lengthened nasals and does not address the characteristics of GHC’s lengthened vowels in the third minor cycle.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ These loans originate from Old Chinese *-(C).m³ra(C) (e.g., for 馬, 麻, 駕, etc.). The interpretation of the Tangut second grade in MB’s system, if accurate, might also suggest that Northwest Chinese retained traces of the OC medial /r/, whether as a medial segment or through vocalic coloring.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 14.** Some correspondences of Tangut grade II with -r- and -l- in Gyalrongic languages</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Wobzi</th><th>Japhug</th><th>Meaning</th><th>Tib. loanword</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>衞<sub>1572</sub></td><td>pʰiɔ́w {pʰiɔw<sup>l</sup>}</td><td>pʰru</td><td>pʰrɔ̄m</td><td>wyrum</td><td>'be white'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>竊<sub>0080</sub></td><td>pʰiɔ̄ {pʰiɔ<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>mpʰri</td><td>bɔ̄rə</td><td>qapri</td><td>'snake'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>竊<sub>4719</sub></td><td>ɔkɛ́j {kiɛ́j<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>sqrə</td><td>skré</td><td>sɔsqra</td><td>'border'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>麩<sub>2780</sub></td><td>kɔ́w {kiɔw<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>qlo</td><td>qlɔ́</td><td></td><td>'valley'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>褫<sub>0956</sub></td><td>ɔ:ɔ́ {lhiɔ<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>nzala</td><td>njá</td><td></td><td>'to lick'</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The fact that only rhymes from Rhyme 23 currently show potential traces of rhotacization (for Tibetan ears) may indicate a conditioning role of the vowel /a/. As can be observed in Table 12, Tibetan transcriptions notably fail to render the *r*-syllable in the word for ‘water’. This absence may result from a different vocalic environment that rendered the rhotic less perceptible. If we accept that the Tibetan transcriptions reflect a lect slightly distinct from that represented in the rhyme dictionaries, it is possible that the segment disappeared entirely in the Tangut variety documented by these transcriptions. In any case, this discrepancy might provide the first clue toward a non-segmental realization of “*r*” in Tangut: the final -*r* in Tibetan transcriptions does not correspond to the original position of the *-*r*- in remote pre-Tangut. Indeed, these transcriptions sometimes omit the rhotic entirely, suggesting that the vowel environment was a determining factor.

Honkasalo et al. (2025) also provide examples where Grade II appears to result from preinitial *r*- in cases where the pre-Tangut syllable can be reconstructed with a high front vowel (see Table 15).

<table><caption>**Table 15.** Tangut second grade with pre-Tangut *rCV [+high] origin</caption><thead><tr><th>Char.</th><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Jiaju</th><th>Gloss</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>殤<sub>2144</sub></td><td>gɔ́iɔ̄ (< *rg-)</td><td>rgi</td><td>rgi</td><td>'to be hard'</td></tr><tr><td>訕<sub>0228</sub></td><td>kɔ́ɛ́j (< *rkɔ́h-)</td><td>rtcʰæ</td><td>rtʃʰæ</td><td>'to bite'</td></tr><tr><td>織<sub>2849</sub></td><td>ɔlɔ́k (< *rɪy-)</td><td>rbi</td><td>n/a</td><td>'to wash'</td></tr></tbody></table>

These examples demonstrate that future research on Tangut, even with the discovery of its close relatives, may not become any easier. While opening up a wide range of new possibilities, the intricate interplay between the preinitial, the initial, the vowel (both diachronically and synchronically in Tangut), and phonological phenomena such as grades and cycles, which still require further refinement, will present many challenges to be addressed in the near future.
### 3.3 *-r origins

The final source of *r*-syllables in Tangut is the pre-Tangut coda *-r*, an origin that has been proposed multiple times in the literature. Below are some new examples (see Table 16).

<table><caption>Table 16. *r*-syllables with coda origins</caption><thead><tr><th>Char.</th><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Wobzi</th><th>Meaning</th><th>Tibet. transcr.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>顛4628</td><td>dwì<sup>rk</sup> {dwər<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>dor</td><td></td><td>'to burn' (intr.)</td><td>b.dur</td></tr><tr><td>麤0802</td><td>zì<sup>r</sup> {zjir<sup>2</sup>} 'pulse'</td><td>zjar</td><td>zjar</td><td>'heart'</td><td>zhir</td></tr><tr><td>煖3273</td><td>yà<sup>rk</sup> {yar<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>yælɔ</td><td></td><td>'chest'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>藏4109</td><td>và<sup>rk</sup> {war<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>var</td><td></td><td>'branch'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>化的2710</td><td>dì<sup>rk</sup> {der<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>ndəl</td><td></td><td>'to grind'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>亳2321</td><td>tfì<sup>r</sup> {tśjir<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>steær</td><td>*scɔr</td><td>'be afraid'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>roid5076</td><td>dʒì<sup>r</sup> {dżjir<sup>1</sup>}</td><td></td><td>jdzɔr</td><td>'feast'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>縒3386</td><td>fɔ́<sup>r</sup> {śjɔr<sup>1</sup>}</td><td>nteʰæra</td><td></td><td>'to play'</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

These correspondences are quite straightforward. Interestingly, the reflexes in Geshiza resemble those found in etyma associated with a rhotic corresponding to Grade II in Tangut (see §3.2). It is important to note that the key difference between the second and third minor cycle *r*-syllables — both deriving from a pre-Tangut *-r* coda — is the presence of a complex onset. In MB's system, the developmental paths for these words are reconstructed as follows: *nd- > d-:*, *stf- > tf-:*, *ndʒ- > dʒ-:*, and *ntʃʰ- > f-:*. (cf. Tangut 顛 fɔ́ 'slaughter', Geshiza nteɔ 'slaughter').

### 3.4 Unknown origin

To complete this inventory of *r*-syllables, I must mention cases that currently resist analysis. In the first row of Table 17, preinitial laterals may have given rise to the *r*-syllable reflexes. For the first two rows, although the origins remain unclear, the examples tend to support a less segmental interpretation, since Tibetan transcriptions do not indicate any *-r* in any part of the syllable.
<table><caption>**Table 17.** Unclear origins of Tangut r-syllables</caption><thead><tr><th>Char.</th><th>Tangut</th><th>Tib. transcr.</th><th>Meaning</th><th>Cognates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>嫗<sup>2205</sup></td><td>l:ɛ̃{ljiir<sup>l</sup>}</td><td>ldi (2), ldi' (1), zla' (1)</td><td>'four'</td><td>Zongkè lde,<br>Geshiza wzæ</td></tr><tr><td>霧<sup>1408</sup></td><td>ʒ:./l:ó̃{lhjoor<sup>l</sup>}</td><td>lha (1)</td><td>'place, city'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>欬<sup>5389</sup></td><td>v<sup>4</sup>l̂k̃{wier<sup>l</sup>}</td><td>'bho (1)</td><td>'to throw'</td><td>Geshiza zua</td></tr><tr><td>嬭<sup>3613</sup></td><td>dwìw<sup>rk</sup> {dwewr<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>'dwi (2)</td><td>'to enlighten'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>敲<sup>0615</sup></td><td>dwìw<sup>rk</sup> {dwewr<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>bdhi (2)</td><td>'be conscious (of)'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>鍼<sup>1857</sup></td><td>jèj' {,jijr<sup>2</sup>}</td><td>ŋwa' (1) ?</td><td>'to execute'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>姙<sup>2283</sup></td><td>yù<sup>rk</sup> {yur<sup>l</sup>}</td><td>dbhi' (1) ?</td><td>'to remain'</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The example to 'remain' appears to be a scribe's error, likely anticipating the following character 鵀 bèj {bjij<sup>2</sup>} (text cited in Tai 2008: 59). As for the example 'to execute', I cannot currently provide an explanation. It is worth noting that some characters have multiple readings, as documented by Honkasalo et al. (2025); for instance, 鵀 ㄉㄨㄟˊ is transcribed in one Tibetan source as kha. This form corresponds to Geshiza sq<sup>h</sup>a, a suppletive morpheme used in numerals, such as wnæ-sq<sup>h</sup>a ('twenty', literally 'two-ten').

## 3.5 Summary

Table 18 provides a summary of the correspondences discussed so far.

<table><caption>**Table 18.** Summary of the mentioned correspondences</caption><thead><tr><th>Tangut</th><th>pre-Tangut</th><th>Horpa</th><th>Gyalrongic</th><th>Tib. transcr.</th><th>MSZ Chinese > Modern varieties</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>*rV</td><td>rV</td><td>rV</td><td>rV</td><td>IV > IV</td></tr><tr><td>r-syllables</td><td>*rCV</td><td>rCV</td><td>rCV</td><td>rCV</td><td>CV > CV<br>(CV<sub>r</sub> > CV)</td></tr><tr><td>(CV<sub>r</sub>)<br>(C:V<sub>r</sub>)</td><td>*CC<sup>h</sup>rV<br>*C(C)rV<br>?</td><td>CC<sup>h</sup>rV<br>C(C)rV<br>?</td><td>CrV<br>CrV<br>-r-<br>Cro</td><td>CV(')<br>(CV', rCV')<br>Car</td><td>CV > CV<br>Ca > Ca</td></tr><tr><td>(C:V<sub>r</sub>)</td><td>*CV<sub>r</sub><br>*CCV<sub>r</sub></td><td>*CV<sub>r</sub><br>CCV<sub>r</sub></td><td>*CV<sub>r</sub><br>CCV<sub>r</sub></td><td>CV<sub>r</sub></td><td>*CV<sub>r</sub> > CV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>*ICV ??</td><td>(ICV)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 18. (continued)**</caption><tr><td>first-minor<br>(^CV)</td><td>*rC<sup>h</sup>V<br>*(r)ts<sup>h</sup>- ?<br>*rg- ??</td><td>rC<sup>h</sup>V<br>ts<sup>h</sup>-<br>(g-)</td><td>ts<sup>h</sup>-</td><td>rts- !<br>rg-</td></tr><tr><td>Grade II<br>(C<sup>h</sup>V)</td><td>*C(ı)V<br>*rKV<sup>[+high]</sup></td><td>CrV, ClV<br>rKV<sup>[+high]</sup></td><td>CrV</td><td></td></tr></table>

The first row shows that *r*-initial syllables consistently lack any coda reflexes. The inclusion of all syllables with *r*-onsets within the *r*-syllable categories of the rhyme dictionaries may imply different scenarios. One possibility is that the rhyme dictionaries reflect a later stage of the language than the Tibetan transcriptions. Alternatively, the initial's phonetic quality alone may have led the rhyme dictionary authors to group these initials as *r*-syllables, possibly because it imparted a distinctive timbre to the rhyme. Both explanations could be true simultaneously, as will be discussed in the next section.

The second row indicates that the *r* in *r*-syllables deriving from pre-Tangut *r*- was clearly articulated (though the precise manner remains uncertain) in the variety transcribed by Tibetan sources. The hypothesis that the *r* is merely a transcriptional artifact can likely be dismissed: the alignment between Horpa languages and Tibetan transcriptions — both for *rC*- initials and *-Cr* codas — is too precise to be coincidental. Furthermore, Chinese data reflect a distinct treatment of the third-row rhymes, sometimes showing *-r* codas in colloquial Shazhou dialects, unlike the first-row rhymes, which never show such codas except indirectly via a phonetic series' isolated instance. This supports the interpretation that the *r*- was indeed pronounced and had a perceptible influence on the entire syllable.

The third row presents a more complex and less certain picture due to scarce data. Generally, the *-r*- medials are unrepresented in Tibetan and Chinese transcriptions, possibly because these systems could not represent such segments. The reflexes corresponding to Grade II — whose exact phonetic value remains debated — suggest a form of rhotacized *-r*. Since Chinese can mark *-r* codas, one might expect similar marking for other syllables. However, with only one example (諧k:ʔə́) lacking a Chinese phonetic gloss, conclusions remain tentative. Notably, the three characters glossing 諧b:ʔə́ in the ZZZ rhyme dictionary feature a rhyme in -a without any coda.

The fourth row displays the clearest distribution. Here, Tibetan, Chinese, and other transcriptions agree on a syllabic position: the *-r* coda attested in Medieval Colloquial Shazhou
varieties (which predate Tangut's neighboring Chinese dialects by roughly two centuries) was
probably already undergoing lenition toward the modern form lacking the -r. This lenition is
also reflected in Tibetan transcriptions of Tangut Grade II Rhyme 23, reinforcing this
interpretation.

The fifth row remains highly hypothetical and will not be further discussed here. Regarding the last two rows, we can recall that aspirated onsets prevent syllables from being classified as r-syllables, despite originating from rC- initials. Similar phonetic dynamics may apply to simple onsets.

Despite some apparent contradictions, the correspondences and concordances detailed above exhibit a coherent pattern. The Tangut language reflected in the Tibetan transcriptions realized coda -r in a lenited fashion; initial r- were sufficient to categorize syllables as r-syllables (except with Shè 6), with an absence of trilled production, indicating a progressive rhotacization coloring what came after. r- preinitials were slightly pronounced and influenced the syllable, although simple aspiration could eliminate them. Overall, the r in the Tangut variety transcribed by Tibetans was undergoing severe lenition. Assuming the rhyme dictionaries are contemporaneous, their grouping of these rhymes likely reflects a convergence of secondary reflexes into an ongoing phonemic rhotacization process. If the Tibetan transcriptions slightly predate the rhyme dictionaries, the rhyme dictionaries may represent a more unified, fully rhotacized stage. In this stage, historical segmental differences (r-, rC-, -r-, -Vr-) were no longer phonologically distinctive, and only the perceptual rhotacized quality mattered. If they are contemporaneous, they present evidence for non-phonemic realizations of r segments.

4. The paths to rhotacization

Cross-linguistically, within the Gyalrongic family, most rhotics are analyzed as historically
originating from trills. This is the case for Geshiza (Honkasalo 2019: 146), where consonant
clusters preserve the production of trills, and in Wobzi Khroskyabs (Lai 2017: 34), where the
trilled consonant is preserved by elder speakers. Many of these r exhibit distinct phonetic
variants, often described as [z] but fundamentally rhotic. Ikeda & Lew (2017) present a study
on the pervasive and overlooked phonological existence of alveolar fricative rhotics in Tibeto-
Burman. Their argument may be relevant for the diachrony of Tangut, where the rhyme
dictionary class confronts phonetically close but different sounds, especially the fricatives of the ninth initial, which involve laterals.

The fact that trills originating from distinct articulatory positions can, over time, converge into a common phonological rhotacized outcome is not *per se* surprising. There is a phonetic commonality linking all types of rhotics found worldwide — whether realized as trills like in Horpa languages, uvular trills or fricatives as in French, or approximants as in modern American English.<fnref n="24" />

The prevailing explanation for this universal rhotic feature (Lindau 1985; Catford 1986) is that diverse rhotic productions share identical pharyngeal patterns of behavior at the tongue root. Delattre (1971) demonstrated that French and German uvular trills are produced in two stages: first, tongue root movement toward the pharynx, and second, dorsum contact with the uvula. Ultrasound studies confirm tongue root retraction in trills, as shown, for example, among 20 native Spanish speakers by Boyce et al. (2011). It is plausible to posit a similar tongue root retraction in pre-Tangut, originating from diverse sources as seen above (§3), which phonologically manifests in the *r*-syllable category of the Tangut rhyme dictionaries. As we shall see, syllabification of this feature could explain how the coalescence observed in the rhyme dictionaries is phonologically justified.

I shall analyze each case in order: first, the path taken by the initial *r*- (§4.1); then that taken by medial *-r*- (§19), preinitial *r*- (§4.3), and finally the coda *-r* (§4.4).<fnref n="25" />

## 4.1 *rV → [ɑṼ]

The *r*-initial syllables in Tangut are currently all reconstructed as rhotacized (except for *Shè* 6), despite the lack of direct transcriptional evidence. This reconstruction is not arbitrary: these *r*-initial syllables are assigned to the *r*-syllable category precisely because of their classification in the rhyme dictionaries.

In the closest related languages, the initial rhotic is analyzed underlyingly as /r/. However, phonetically, these languages realize their /r/ initial as a fricative or approximant. For example,

<footnote n="24">²⁴ This commonality is evidenced by the frequent complementary distributions between distinct rhotic productions. Geographically, isoglosses marking dialect transitions between rhotic types are common, as in the German dialect continuum. Moreover, variability may exist within a single lect, such as Scottish English, where *r* production alternates between trills and approximants (Scobbie et al. 2015).</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ In each subsection, * indicates the pre-Tangut form (i.e., the origin discussed in the previous section), and [ ] the probable synchronic phonetic realization in Tangut.</footnote>
in Wobzi, *r* is realized initially as a retroflex approximant [ʃV] or a fricative [z] (Lai 2017: 34); similarly, Geshiza (Honkasalo 2019: 147) produces its /r/ as [z] in word-initial position before a vowel (which applies to all Tangut rhymes) and intervocalically — that is, Geshiza does not distinguish syllable-initial *r* by word position. Mazur Stau (Gates 2021: 53), also a West Gyalrongic language, differs slightly: it realizes *r* as [ʃV] or [z] initially, but as an alveolar trill [r] or flap [ʃ] intervocalically.

Several arguments support a rhotacized approximant realization in Tangut. Beyond the distributional data discussed earlier, an overlooked fact is that among the 210 syllables reconstructed with an initial *r-*, *none* bears the second grade (reconstructed /ɪ/ by Beaudouin). This grade is also absent from the second minor cycle, which is mostly rhotacized. If Beaudouin’s /ɪ/ hypothesis (an alveolar approximant) is correct, the phonetic realization of /r-/- in Tangut can be posited as [ʃ-] or [ɪ-], explaining the impossibility of a *[ʃɪ] or *[ɪ] sequence. In other words, while phonologically distinct (alveolar approximant vs. retroflex approximant), this sequence is articulatorily impossible. The absence of this cluster in the second minor cycle may be linked to this articulatory restriction, though further investigation is needed.

Phonologically, the syllable-initial rhotic in Tangut may remain /r/. First, it does not overlap with Grade II /ɪ/. Second, practically speaking, *rV* syllables continue to be used in transcribing Sanskrit words via the dharanis, indicating their underlying identity as /r/, consistent with other West Gyalrongic languages. If rhotacized vowels exist, they might be interpreted as an influence of /r/ realized as [ʃV~] on the vowel.<fnref n="26" />

## 4.2 *CrV → [CʃV~]*

Medial *-r-* can also give rise to *r*-syllables. Some examples discussed earlier (§3.2) can be explained by the allophonic realization of /r/ as [ʃ] or [z] in voiced environments. For instance, in Geshiza Horpa, *grə* ‘boat’ is pronounced [gzə]. This allophony sheds light on the Tangut form for ‘water’, *ŋr̥z:i̥r* [zì~], which corresponds to Geshiza *wrə* (itself derived through stages from proto-Horpa *ŋywrə* < *ŋrə*; see Duo’erji 1998). The coalescence of the double onset results

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Naturally, without access to native Tangut pronunciation, it is impossible to determine if a distinct rhotic phoneme /r/ (contrasted with a native /ʃ/) would be more accurate for Sanskrit loanwords. If all trilled [r] features had been completely lost, positing only /ʃ/ might be justified. Phonologically, both options are viable. Ideally, one would analyze recordings of Tangut reciting *dharanis* to observe any consonantal variation, but such data will unfortunately never be available.</footnote>
in gemination in Tangut, while the medial -r-, through fricativization, potentially colors the vowel.

This constitutes the first explanatory pathway, but an alternative one exists.

In Northwestern Rma (Qiangic) dialects, allophonic variation of this kind does not necessarily require a diachronic shift. For example, in Yunlinsi Rma, the sequence b.ɪəə ‘testicles’ can surface as [bəə¹] (see Table 19). The feature here is highly syllabic, making it challenging to determine whether the surface form is [CɪV] or [CV¹]. Descriptions have varied over time: Liu (1998) analyzed it as phonemic vocalization (V¹) in Mawo, and Evans (2006b) treated it similarly for Yunlinsi before proposing this allophony in Evans (2017).

<table><caption>**Table 19.** Allophony of /CɪV/ in Yunlinsi Rma (Evans 2017)</caption><thead><tr><td>Form</td><td>Output</td><td>Meaning</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>p.ɪa</td><td>[p.ɪɑ] ~ [pɑ¹]</td><td>‘ball of foot’</td></tr><tr><td>ɪp.ɪu</td><td>[xρ.ɪu] ~ [xpu¹]</td><td>‘panicum’</td></tr><tr><td>pʰ.ɪu</td><td>[pʰ.ɪu] ~ [pʰu¹]</td><td>‘patch’ [N]</td></tr><tr><td>b.ɪu</td><td>[b.ɪu] ~ [bʊ¹]</td><td>‘flock’</td></tr><tr><td>ɪb.ɪu</td><td>[ɪb.ɪu] ~ [ɪbwu¹]</td><td>‘wine at bottom of vat’</td></tr><tr><td>kʰ.ɪæ</td><td>[kʰ.ɪæ] ~ [kʰæ¹]</td><td>‘eight’</td></tr><tr><td>g.ɪə</td><td>[g.ɪə] ~ [gə¹]</td><td>‘wages’</td></tr><tr><td>q.ɪa-q.ɪa</td><td>[q.ɪa-q.ɪa] ~ [qa¹-qa¹]</td><td>‘magpie’</td></tr><tr><td>qʰ.ɪu</td><td>[qʰ.ɪu] ~ [qʰu¹]</td><td>‘rice’</td></tr><tr><td>k.ɪu</td><td>[k.ɪu] ~ [kʊ¹]</td><td>‘Han Chinese’</td></tr><tr><td>kʷ.ɪa</td><td>[kʷ.ɪa] ~ [kʷa¹]</td><td>‘help’</td></tr><tr><td>pɛ̈-h.ɪɛ</td><td>[pɛ̈-h.ɪɛ] ~ [pɛ̈-hɛ̈¹]</td><td>‘tonight’</td></tr></tbody></table>

This kind of speaker output could be explained by a maximal constriction gesture that is reached during the syllable onset and maintained long enough to make it difficult for both speaker and hearer to distinguish between the two possible surface forms, [CɪV] and [CV¹]. An ultrasound study measuring tongue gesture timing, similar to the one conducted by Lawson et al. (2015) on two Scottish English sociolects, could verify whether this phenomenon applies in modern languages.<fnref n="27" />

If confirmed, this possibility would support the idea that Tangut *r*-syllables belong to a single phonological category (from the Tangut perspective). Despite their distinct historical

<footnote n="27">²⁷ This hypothesis aligns with findings by West (1999), which show that segment perception extends over their surrounding context and that removing segments can still allow their existence to be inferred. In the case of Rma, even if the /-i-/ is removed, its underlying presence is perceptible due to the allophonic rhotacized production.</footnote>
sources, the articulatory configuration here is quite similar between the /r̥/V/ case (< *rV) and the /C̥/V/ case (< *CrV). Within this framework, the initial /r̥/V/ may be analyzed as /C̥/V/ with a zero initial, meaning they share the same syllabic structure.<fnref n="28" /> This hypothesis presupposes strong rhotacization, occurring far back in the pharyngeal cavity.<fnref n="29" />

### 4.3 *rCV → [r̥CV~]

The next source of Tangut *r*-syllables, while among the most frequently and earliest attested, may initially appear challenging to reconcile with a phonetic output similar to those discussed previously. However, given that the historical phoneme /r/ seems to have been strongly rhotic and lenited in initial (and possibly medial) positions, it is plausible that this behavior extended to the preinitial position, which was already rhotacized, thereby producing a comparable phonetic outcome. The key difference from the preceding case — where the rhotic is likely anticipated just before the release of the initial — is that, here, having been anticipated slightly earlier, the rhotic gesture must be maintained longer muscularly to influence the entire syllable.

Below (Table 20) I reproduce the correspondences introduced earlier and reconsider them in light of the theoretical framework we are currently developing.

<table><caption>**Table 20.** Distinct reflexes of *r-* in Tangut</caption><thead><tr><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Jiaju</th><th>Gloss</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>抵 gú<sup>rg</sup> (< *rg-)</td><td>rgo</td><td>rgu</td><td>'cow'</td></tr><tr><td>斂 zìw<sup>rg</sup> (< *rz-)</td><td>rzəu</td><td>rzəu</td><td>'leopard'</td></tr><tr><td>藏 tsú<sup>rg</sup> (< *rts-)</td><td>rtso</td><td>rtsu</td><td>'winter'</td></tr><tr><td>籬 ηwí<sup>rg</sup> (< *rŋ-)</td><td>rŋə</td><td>rŋə</td><td>'to be blue-green'</td></tr><tr><td>撮 ²kú (< *rkʰ-)</td><td>rkʰo</td><td>rkʰo</td><td>'be cold'</td></tr><tr><td>懶 ²tsí (< *rtsʰ-)</td><td>rtsʰe</td><td>rtsʰe</td><td>'lungs'</td></tr><tr><td>顫 ²tsú<sup>sh</sup> (< *rtsʰ-)</td><td>rtsʰə</td><td>rtsʰəpʰæj</td><td>'to cough'</td></tr></tbody></table>

The dynamics of rhotacization, as conceptualized in this article, may explain the absence of the second minor cycle when the initial consonant is aspirated (second row). If the preinitial

<footnote n="28">²⁸ This analysis excludes Grade II, which remains a separate phoneme /l/. As noted earlier, a dedicated study on this topic is underway.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Recent fieldwork on the Jiaju variety of Horpa shows that at least one Eastern Horpa variety displays a similar phenomenon: when confronted with the same productions, different analysts could alternatively identify /C̥/V or /CV~/ as the underlying form (Sami Honkasalo, p.c., 30 July 2025).</footnote>
r- [r̥-] was still subtly articulated but shortened enough for the speaker to syllabify it similarly to other r (all positioned after the onset), then the presence of a perturbing feature such as aspiration could have disrupted this process while removing the original aspiration. This interruption would result in a syllable retaining only a vocalic, sesquisyllabic trace of the original rhotic (e.g., for ‘be cold’ *rkʰ- [r̥kʰ-] > ək-).

## 4.4 *CVR → [CV~]

The diachrony of the r-rhymes traceable to *-Vr in pre-Tangut is the most straightforward case; this phenomenon is synchronically attested in Geshiza (Honkasalo 2019: 196). According to Honkasalo, in coda position, the r is naturally pronounced as [r̥] (see Table 21).

<table><caption>**Table 21.** Rhotacization parallel for Geshiza cognates</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Tangut</th><th>Geshiza</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>藏4109</td><td>và<sup>rn</sup> {war<sup>2</sup>} [và<sup>ri</sup>]</td><td>var [va~]</td><td>'tree branch'</td></tr><tr><td>蓀4689</td><td>wá<sup>r</sup> {jwar<sup>l</sup>} [wá~]</td><td>zvær [zvæ~]</td><td>'to light'</td></tr><tr><td>麴0802</td><td>zi<sup>r</sup> {zjir<sup>2</sup>} [zi~]</td><td>zjar [zja~]</td><td>'heart'</td></tr></tbody></table>

The phonetic path here is quite similar to that of an r-full lect such as General American English. However, as Honkasalo argues for Geshiza, it may not be necessary to posit a separate phonemic category of rhotacized vowels. Since r-(pre)initial syllables belong to the same material category — the r-syllables of the rhyme dictionaries — and since these cannot be analyzed as simply onsets of rhotacized vowels (otherwise we would expect initial r in other rhyme categories as well), positing phonemic rhotacized vowels would entail distinguishing phonemic /V~/ (rhotacized vowels) from allophonic [V~] (coarticulation due to initial r-) within the same category.

Moreover, typologically, rhotacized vowels are exceedingly rare, occurring in roughly 1% of the world's languages (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996). Thus, the first distributional evidence against such an analysis should suffice to reject it, especially given that transcriptions show clear traces of segmental /r/, either synchronically or in the very recent past.

Nonetheless, this does not preclude a SYLLABIC perception of the rhotacized feature: just as historically post-onset segments could be anticipated, the entire syllable may have been
pronounced anticipating the rhotacized coda, producing a consistently similar output to Tangut ears hearing Tangut speech.

## 5. Conclusion

The Tibetan and Chinese transcriptions of Tangut consistently indicate that /r/ was originally pronounced as a segmental consonant occupying distinct syllabic positions, with clear concordant parallels in pre-Tangut forms reconstructed from Proto-Horpa. At first glance, this multiplicity of origins offers no compelling evidence for a pre-Tangut coalescence that would PHONOLOGICALLY account for the *r*-syllables found in the synchronic second and third minor cycles of Tangut.

However, the Tibetan transcriptions also provide distributional clues suggesting that a lenition process *r* → *l* — whose exact extent remains uncertain — was underway in the variety of Tangut they reflect. At the same time, Northwestern Rma and, apparently, Jiaju Horpa exhibit a merger pattern which, when considered in light of this lenition, may shed light on the emergence of a unified suprasegmental rhotacization class. The hypothesis proposed here invokes a mono-syllabicization process (cf. Michaud 2012), attested in other Asian languages and extended here to the case of rhotacization: although *r* may still be (weakly) PHONETICALLY SEGMENTAL, it conditions the ENTIRE SYLLABLE through a constriction gesture that extends beyond the segment from which it originates and makes it PHONEMICALLY SUPRASEGMENTAL.

## Acknowledgements

I warmly thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, and Jonathan P. Evans for suggesting, after a presentation I gave at Academia Sinica in January 2024, that I work on this specific topic. Without the parallels he provided in Rma, the reconstruction of the phonetic developments proposed here would not have been possible. Responsibility for the views expressed in this article rests solely with me, and any critique or comment should be addressed directly to me.
List of abbreviations

GHC Gong Hwang-cherng

GX Gong Xun

MB Mathieu Beaudouin

MC Middle Chinese

MSZ Medieval Shazhou Chinese

PPC 'Phags-pa Chinese

Vr rhotic vowel nucleus, vocalic rhotacized syllables

ZZZ 番漢合時掌中珠 Fān Hàn Héshí Zhǎngzhōngzhū (Tangut-Chinese glossary)

References

Arakawa, Shintaro. 1999. A study on Tangut tones from Tibetan transcriptions. *Linguistic Research* 17–18. 27–44.

Baxter, William H. 1992. *A handbook of Old Chinese phonology*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Beaudouin, Mathieu. 2023a. *Grammaire du tangoute. Phonologie et morphologie*. Paris: INALCO. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Beaudouin, Mathieu. 2023b. Tangut and Horpa languages: Some shared morphosyntactic features. *Language and Linguistics* 24(4). 611–673.

Beaudouin, Mathieu & Honkasalo, Sami. 2023. Proto-Horpa and the classification of Tangut. (Talk given at the 56th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (ICSTLL 56), Bangkok, 10–12 October 2023.)

Beaudouin, Mathieu & Honkasalo, Sami. Under review. Where does *r* lead? Reconstructing forward Tangut’s Grade II. (Manuscript.)

Boyce, Suzanne E. & Combs, Sandra & Rivera-Campos, Ahmed. 2011. Acoustic and articulatory characteristics of clinically resistant /r/. *The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America* 129(4 supplement). 2625.

Catford, John. 1986. Comment on “variability in feature specifications”. In Perkell, Joseph S. & Klatt, Dennis H. (eds.), *Invariance and variability in speech processes*, 478–479. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chirkova, Katia. 2012. The Qiangic subgroup from an areal perspective: A case study of languages of Muli. *Language and Linguistics* 13(1). 133–170.
Coblin, W. South. 1994. *A compendium of phonetics in Northwest Chinese* (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 7). Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California.

Coblin, W. South. 1999. Thoughts on the identity of the Chinese 'Phags-pa dialect. In Simmons, Richard VanNess (ed.), *Issues in Chinese dialect description and classification* (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 15), 84–144. Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California.

Coblin, W. South. 2001. 'Phags-pa Chinese and the standard reading pronunciation of Early Míng: A comparative study. *Language and Linguistics* 2(2). 1–62.

Delattre, Pierre. 1971. Pharyngeal features in the consonants of Arabic, German, Spanish, French, and American English. *Phonetica* 23(3). 129–155.

Duo'erji. 1998. *Daofuyu Geshizhahua yanjiu*. Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House.

Evans, Jonathan P. 2006a. Origins of vowel pharyngealization in Hongyan Qiang. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area* 29(2). 91–123.

Evans, Jonathan P. 2006b. Vowel quality in Hongyan Qiang. *Language and Linguistics* 7(4). 731–754.

Evans, Jonathan P. 2017. R-like sounds in Northwestern Rma. (Paper presented at the 50th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (ICSTLL 50), Beijing, 26–28 November 2017.)

Evans, Jonathan P. & Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Chiu, Chenhao & Liou, Michelle. 2016. Uvular approximation as an articulatory vowel feature. *Journal of the International Phonetic Association* 46(1). 1–31.

Gates, Jesse P. 2021. *A grammar of Mazur Stau*. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Gong, Hwang-cherng. 1994. A hypothesis of three grades and vowel length distinction in Tangut. *Journal of Asian and African Studies* 46. 305–314.

Gong, Hwang-cherng. 2003. Tangut. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), *The Sino-Tibetan languages*, 602–620. London: Routledge.

Gong, Hwang-cherng. 2007. The position of Tangut in the comparative study of Sino-Tibetan languages. *Language and Linguistics* 8(2). 447–470.

Gong, Hwang-cherng. 2011. *Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics: Collection of papers by Professor Hwang-cherng Gong*. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Gong, Xun. 2020. Uvulars and uvularization in Tangut phonology. *Language and Linguistics* 21(2). 175–212.

Gong, Xun. 2022. Nasal preinitials in Tangut phonology. *Archiv orientální* 89(3). 443–482.

Hashimoto, Mantaro. 1963. A study of the rhyme system of Tangut or Hsi-hsia language. *Tōhō Gaku* 25. 83–105.

Honkasalo, Sami. 2019. *A grammar of Eastern Geshiza: A culturally anchored description*. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Honkasalo, Sami & Gates, Jesse P. 2023. When /kʷə/ becomes [aŋə] and /sni/ becomes [ŋni]: Preinitial vocalization in Horpa consonant clusters. (Paper presented at 56th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Athens, 29 August–1 September 2023.)

Honkasalo, Sami & Gates, Jesse P. & Beaudouin, Mathieu. 2025. Preinitials and their development in Horpa and Tangut. *Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale* (DOI: 10.1163/19606028-bja10049) (Accessed 2025-03-25.)

Huang, Bufan. 1991. Daofuyu. In Dai, Qingxia (ed.), *Fifteen Tibeto-Burman languages*, 1–45. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan Press.

Ikeda, Elissa & Lew, Sigrid. 2017. The case for alveolar fricative rhotics with evidence from Nusu. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area* 40(1). 1–39.

Ivanov, Alexei. 1909. Zur Kenntniss der Hsi-hsia-Sprache. *ИзвѣстіЯ ЯМПЕРАТОРСКОЙ АКАДОМІУ Наукъ (Bulletin de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg) Series 6*. 3(18). 1221–1233.

Jacques, Guillaume. 2014. *Esquisse de phonologie et de morphologie historique du tangoute*. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

Jacques, Guillaume. 2015–2016. *Dictionnaire japhug-chinois-français*, version 1. Paris: Project HimalCo.

Jacques, Guillaume & Michaud, Alexis. 2011. Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na and Laze. *Diachronica* 28(4). 468–498.

Jacques, Guillaume & Pellard, Thomas. 2021. Phylogenies based on lexical innovations refute the Rung hypothesis. *Diachronica* 38(1). 1–24.

Kychanov, Evgenij I. & Arakawa, Shintaro. 2006. *Tangut dictionary: Tangut-Russian-English-Chinese dictionary*. Kyoto: University of Kyoto. (Original title: *Словарь тангутского (Си Ся) языка: тангутско-русско-англо-китайский словарь.*)

Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. *The sounds of the world's languages*. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lai, Yunfan. 2017. *Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi*. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Lai, Yunfan & Gates, Jesse P. & Gong, Xun & Jacques, Guillaume. 2020. Tangut as a West Gyalrongic language. *Folia Linguistica Historica* 41(1). 171–203.

Laufer, Berthold. 1916. The Si-hia language, a study in Indo-Chinese philology. *T'oung Pao* 17(1). 1–126.

Lawson, Eleanor & Scobbie, James M. & Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2015. The role of anterior lingual gesture delay in coda /r/ lenition: An ultrasound tongue imaging study. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (ed.), *Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences* (paper number 332). Glasgow: University of Glasgow. (https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0332.pdf)

Li, Fanwen (ed.). 2008. *Xià Hàn zìdiǎn*. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

Lindau, Mona. 1985. The story of /r/. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.), *Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged*, 157–168. Orlando: Academic Press.

Liu, Guangkun. 1998. *Mawo Qiangyu yanjiu*. Chengdu: Sichuan Nationalities Publishing House.

Michaud, Alexis. 2012. Monosyllabification: Patterns of evolution in Asian languages. In Stolz, Thomas & Nau, Nicole & Stroh, Cornelia (eds.), *Monosyllables: From phonology to typology*, 115–130. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Miyake, Marc. 2012. Complexity from compression: A sketch of pre-Tangut. In Popova, Irina (ed.), *Tanguts in Central Asia: A collection of articles marking the 80th anniversary of Prof. E. I. Kychanov Тангуты в Центральной Азии: сборник статей в честь 80-летия проф. Е.И.Кычанова*, 244–261. Moscow: Oriental Literature.

Morisse, Georges. 1904. Contribution préliminaire à l'étude de l'écriture et de la langue Si-Hia. In *Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres* (ed.), *Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de l'Institut de France. Première série: *Sujets divers d'érudition*, vol. 11–2, 313–379. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Nevsky, Nikolai Alexandrovich. 1926. *A brief manual of the Si-hia characters with Tibetan transcriptions* (Research Review of the Osaka Asiatic Society 4). Osaka: Osaka Asiatic Society.

Nishida, Tatsuo. 1964. A study of the Hsi-Hsia language: Reconstruction of the Hsi-Hsia language and decipherment of the Hsi-Hsia script, vol. 1. Tokyo: Zauho Kankokai.
Nishida, Tatsuo. 1966. A study of the Hsi-Hsia language: Reconstruction of the Hsi-Hsia language and decipherment of the Hsi-Hsia script, vol. 2. Tokyo: Zauho Kankokai.

Norman, Jerry. 1994. Pharyngealization in Early Chinese. *Journal of the American Oriental Society* 114(3). 397–408.

Scobbie, James & Lawson, Eleanor & Nakai, Satsuki & Cleland, Joanne & Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2015. Onset vs. coda asymmetry in the articulation of English /r/. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (ed.), *Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences* (paper number 704). Glasgow: University of Glasgow. (https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0704.pdf)

Shen, Ruiqing. 2017. Děng (grades). In Sybesma, Rint (ed.), *Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics*, vol. 2, 13–20. Leiden: Brill.

Sofronov, Michail V. 1968. Grammatika tangutskogo iazyka. *Грамматика тангутского языка*. Moscow: Nauka.

Solonin, Kirill. 2020. The formation of Tangut ideology: Buddhism and Confucianism. In Meinert, Carmen & Sørensen, Henrik H. (eds.), *Buddhism in Central Asia I: Patronage, legitimation, sacred space, and pilgrimage*, 123–147. Leiden: Brill.

Sun, Bojun. 2010. *Researches on the newly transcribed Dharanis in Xixia*. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.

Sun, Bojun & Tai, Chung-pui. 2012. Features of the Tangut consonant system as reflected in Sanskrit-Tangut transliterations. In Hill, Nathan W. (ed.), *Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages IV*, 347–381. Leiden: Brill.

Sun, Hongkai. 1962. Qiāngyǔ gàikuàng. *Zhonguo Yuwen* 1962(12). 561–571.

Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2019. The ancestry of Horpa: Further morphological evidence. In Kong, Jiangping (ed.), *The ancestry of the languages and peoples of China* (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 29), 24–43. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.

Tai, Chung-pui. 2008. *A study of Tibetan phonological transcription in Tangut Buddhism fragments*. Beijing: Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Takata, Tokio. 1988. *A historical study of the Chinese language based on Dunhuang materials: The Hexi dialect of the ninth and tenth centuries*. Tokyo: Sobunsha.
West, Paula. 1999. Perception of distributed coarticulatory properties of English /l/ and /r/. *Journal of Phonetics* 27(4). 405–426.

Wolfenden, Stuart N. 1931. On the Tibetan transcriptions of Si-Hia words. *The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland* 1931(1). 47–52.

Wolfenden, Stuart N. 1934. On the prefixes and consonantal finals of Si-Hia as evidenced by their Chinese and Tibetan transcriptions. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* 1934(4). 745–770.

Author's address

Mathieu Beaudouin

Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics

University of Cambridge

Cambridge CB3 9DA

United Kingdom

mb2810@cam.ac.uk

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9267-7734