Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics
Ϭ

ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015 - 2017 “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Studies in Asian Geolinguistics V— IRON —Report of ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015–2017“Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
First published 2017
Edited by Yoshihisa Taguchi & Mitsuaki Endo
Copyright © 2017 Individual Contributors

ISBN 987-4-86337-265-8
This is an electronic publication in PDF format.
This publication is offered under Creative Commons International License
Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Published by
Research Institute for
Languages and Cultures ofAsia and Africa (ILCAA)
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
3-11-1, Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi,
183-8534, Tokyo, JAPANhttps://publication.aa-ken.jp/

Table of Contents“Iron” in Asian Languages
Rei FUKUI, “Iron” in Korean .......................................................................................................... 01
Mika FUKAZAWA, “Iron” in Ainu .................................................................................................. 04
Yoshio SAITÔ, “Iron” in Mongolic and Turkic................................................................................ 06
Fumiki SUZUKI, Takashi UEYA and Kenji YAGI, “Iron” in Sinitic ............................................... 07
Keita KURABE, Hiroyuki SUZUKI, Kazue IWASA, Shiho EBIHARA, Satoko SHIRAI,
and Ikuko MATSUSE, Iron in Tibeto-Burman ............................................................................ 09
Yoshihisa TAGUCHI, “Iron” in Hmong-Mien ................................................................................. 13
Mitsuaki ENDO, Iron: Tai-Kadai ..................................................................................................... 15
Masaaki SHIMIZU, Iron: Austroasiatic ........................................................................................... 17
Yoichi NAGATO, Iron: Semitic Languages...................................................................................... 19
Hidetoshi SHIRAISHI, Wind and Iron in Nivkh .............................................................................. 21
Nobobu YOSHIOKA, Iron: South Asia............................................................................................. 23
ArticleHiroyuki SUZUKI, Notes on the Word Form for ‘Iron’ with a Voiced Initial in Tibetic Languagesof the Eastern Tibetosphere ........................................................................................................ 25

Cover photo:https://pixabay.com/en/eiffel-tower-paris-france-landmark-898680/

“Iron” in Korean

The forms with a suffix are used only in the
coastal areas in Kangwŏn and Kyŏngsang dialects.
The unrounded front vowel [ɛ] is mainly used inKyŏngsang and Phŏng’an dialects. In the former cases
the distinction between [e] and [ɛ] has been lost in
many places including Pusan and Taegu, and for suchdialects, Ogura (1944) simply uses the symbol [ɛ].
However, as for Phŏng’an dialects, the distinction
between these two vowels is not lost so that it isdifficult to explain the form [swɛ] (1c) found in these
dialects.
Historically, the Mk word /soy/ (H) seems tohave been used for a long time. We also have lots ofcompounds including the word /soy/ in MK texts:

1. Classification of word forms
Modern standard word for “iron” is /sø/ or /swe/.
Dialectal variation is not so great. Only one basic form,
derived from Middle Korean (MK) /soy/, is used. This
word basically means metal in general but among thevarious kinds of metals, iron is the most typical one
and in many cases this word simply means iron.
Another Sino-Korean word /cher/ (MK thyer), which
specifically means iron, has not been widely used indaily life until modernization began.
As for the cultural aspect of this word, it isgenerally admitted the people in Korea began to useiron earlier than in Japan, and it was imported to Japan
until iron was found and the method of making iron
was introduced.
Ogura (1944: 1st vol. 221-222) recorded 16 forms
but all contain this common element developed from
the MK /soy/. These forms can be classified into threemajor groups.

soy-kɨrɨs: iron ware
soy-stoŋ: iron scrap
soy-puph: bell (lit. iron drum) etc.
As to the etymology of this words, there havebeen two theories (cf. Kim Minsu (1997) and Kang
(2010)) but neither seems to be persuasive.
By the way, it seems important to realize that
there is a homonym /soy/ which means ‘lock/key’ in
MK, and this poses an interesting question on the
etymology of this word. In modern Korean, only
compound forms are used for ‘lock/key’,‘camwulssoy’ and ‘yelssoy’.
In Matisoff (1992), he observed that “ManySoutheast Asian languages have a different word for‘lock/key’ which does seem to be borrowed from
Chinese 鎖 (Mandarin suǒ), ......”. If we think in thesame line as these languages, this word may be aborrowing from Chinese 鎖 (Sino-Korean sway).
(This possibility was pointed out by Kurabe Keita at
the presentation of this paper.)
One problem with this theory is that, although theword for iron soy and the Sino-Korean sway look
similar in the modern language, Sino-Korean readingof this character in MK was swa or sa. (Ito Chiyuki(2007). However, if we look at the form swɛ found inPhŏng’an dialects as stated above, the word for ironand the Sino-Korean reading of the character 鎖 isexactly the same for these dialects, and this fact should
be taken into account in explaining the etymology ofthis word.

Group 1
1a sø, 1b swe, 1c swɛ, 1d se, 1e sɛ 1f siGroup 22a ʔsø, 2b ʔswe, 2c ʔswɛ, 2d ʔse, 2e ʔsɛ, 2f ʔsiGroup 33a sø-ʔkop, 3b swe-ʔkop, 3c swe-ʔkɔt, 3e swe-ʔkatForms in Group 1 are the most basic ones. Theirdifferences concerns how the MK diphthong /oy/ isrendered in each dialect. Sometimes the front roundedvowel [ø] (1a) is said to be the standard variety but infact the diphthong [we] (1b) is the most popular
pronunciation of this word in Seoul. Other varieties
concerns about the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, lossof the glide [w] and vowel raising.
Forms in Group 2 have a reinforced initialconsonant /ʔs/. The vowel shows a couple of varietiesthat are similar to the cases of group 1.
Forms in Group 3 are made up by adding a suffix,
of which the meaning is not clear.
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The form [sø] is most widespread throughout the
Korean peninsula. As to the initial consonant,reinforced varieties are found in Kyŏngsang and Cheju
dialects. This goes well with the idea that we have
many examples of sporadic and historically irregularreinforced initial consonants in these regions.

Bibliography
Choi, Hakkŭn (1978) Han’guk pangŏn sajŏn. (ADictionary of Korean dialects) Seoul: Hyeonmunsa.

1

Ito, Chiyuki (2007) Chōsen kanjion kenyū. Tokyo:
Kyūko-shoin.
Kang, Kilun (2010) Pigyoŏnŏhakchŏk ŏwŏn sajŏn.
(Etymological dictionary based on comparative
linguistics) Seoul: Hanguk Munhwasa.
Kim, Minsu (ed.) (1997) Korean Etymological
Dictionary (우리말語源辞典). Seoul: T’aehaksa.
Lee, Iksop et al. (2008) Han’guk pangŏn sajŏn
(Linguistic atlas of Korea). Seoul: T’aehaksa.
Matisoff, James A. (1992) A key etymology.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area: 15: 1.
Ogura, Shinpei (1944) Chōsengo hōgen no kenkyū(Studies in the Korean dialects). 2 vols. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the Joint researcher of this project
Kurabe Keita for his insightful comments. I am also
grateful to Professor Endo Mitsuaki for inviting me tothis conference.
(Rei Fukui)2鉄・金(かね)小倉進平 『朝鮮語方言の研究』
地図化プロジェクト

0

sø
swe
swɛ
se
sɛ
si
ʔswe
ʔswɛ
ʔse
ʔsɛ
ʔsi
ʔsui
sø-ʔkopswe-ʔkopswe-ʔkɔt
swe-ʔkatNR

100km
2017/03/28 Seal 8.0

3

“Iron” in Ainu

for “New Year,” sónkaci, came from syoogatu 正月
in Japanese (Tamura 1996: 291, 675).
Map 2 shows differences in accent among thedialects. In the most of the dialects, the words for“metal” are accented on the first syllable, i.e., káni,
káne, and kaani. The word kaani of the Sakhalin
dialects would be borrowed from the word káni of the
Hokkaido dialects, following the correlation between along vowel aa in Sakhalin and a high pitch á in
Hokkaido.
According to the basic accent in the Hokkaido
Ainu dialects, a high pitch falls on the second syllable,
CVCV́. Also, in the Aomori dialects (Japanese) ofnortheastern Japan, the word for “metal” has a highpitch on the second syllable, [kan�] LH (Hirayama(ed.) 1993: 3376). However, the word accented on thesecond syllable, kaní, would be newer than the others
and adopt the basic accent rule in the Hokkaido Ainu
dialects. Map 2 shows the local distribution of Type B
words. Vovin (1993 :73-74, 98) reconstructs the
proto-Ainu form *kaani HHH “metal,” which comesfrom the Old Japanese word kane HH “metal”; I
suggested a long vowel form is not old above. For
example, in the Kyoto dialect of Japanese, theaccent-less kane HH, may be borrowed into Ainu withthe high pitch falling on the first syllable, káni. The
unaccented form of Type C are only distributed in theunaccented dialects of Hokkaido (as seen on Map 2).

1. Classification of word forms
In Ainu, the word káni for “metal” was borrowed
from Japanese kane 金 and created with it the words
for some kinds of metals. Specially for “iron,” there
are the following three types in Hattori (1964: 208):
A. kani type:káni, káne, kani, kaani
B. X kani type:B-1. yay'an kaani, yayán káni, yayán kaní,yayán káne
B-2: sínokane
B-3: sirár kani
C. loan word: tecí
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Around the 9th or 10th century, when Hokkaido wasdivided into the Okhotsk culture and the Satsumon
culture, people were refining iron, which was takenfrom a trade with Japanese. Although Sakhalin Ainu
had the skill of smithery, Hokkaido Ainu lost it
because more Japanese iron products were imported,
Mamiya (1810) reported.
In Type A, kani type, the words for “metal” areapplied as the meaning of “iron.” The vowels /e/ and/i/ in the second syllable of kane and kani, would be
influenced by the Tohoku dialects in northeastern
mainland Japan. Similarly, there are two forms for“potato,” imo and emo, in the Ainu dialects andJapanese dialects. Ono (1996: 10) reported /e/ can bechanged into /i/ in Japanese Ainu speakers’ Japanese,
influenced by the Hokkaido dialects of Japanese, i.e.,koi < koe “voice,” kairu < kaeru “to go back,” andomai < omae “you.”Type B, the X kani type, is classified into threesubtypes: the B-1 words, i.e. yayán káni etc., mean
“general metal,” the B-2 word, sínokani, means “realmetal,” and the B-3 term, sirár kani, means “rockmetal.” We can also find other metals and metallic
tools, compounded with the term káni for “metal” (seeTable 1).
As we can see in Type C, tecí, which is the loan
word from Japanese tetu 鉄, Japanese tu [tsu] wasborrowed into Ainu ci [tɕi], since Ainu does notpossess the sound [tsu]: i.e., the word for “cabbage,”káypeci, was borrowed from kaibetu カイベツ in the
Hokkaido and Akita dialects of Japanese, and the word

ReferencecoppersilverWord
húrekani

Meaning and source“red metal”

sirókani< J. sirokane 白金“white metal”

tetara kaani“white metal”

gold

kónkanigimletikísakanihammerkánituci
hecawé kani

gun

téppo

< J. kogane 黄金“yellow metal”“metal for drilling ahole in something”< J. kanaduci 金槌“metallic hammer”“bursted metal”< J. teppô 鉄砲“metallic gun”

Table 1. Metals and metallic tools(Hattori 1964: 208, 122; “J.” means Japanese)
Keywords: metal, accent, loan word4

A. kani type
B. X kani typeB-1. “General metal”
B-2. “Real metal”
B-3. “Rock metal”
C. loan word

Map 1. “Iron” in Ainu

A. Accent on the first syllable
A-1. káni
A-2. káne
A-3. kaani
B. Accent on the secondsyllablekaní
C. Nonekani

Map 2. “Metal” in Ainu
(Mika Fukazawa)

5

“Iron” in Mongolic and Turkic

The lax variants, which are marked with a diamondsign on the map, are distributed only along thesouthern periphery.

The word forms representing “iron” in Mongolic and

The Mongolic forms are considered to be a

Turkic are all cognates of the Old Turkic word temirloanword from Turkic.

except the one used in a Mongolic language called
Dagur.

Temüjin “ironsmith” after a Tatar leader.)Metallurgical technology is considered to

Karachin, etc.), tömör (Mongol: Ordos, Alxa, etc.),

The Turkstɵmər (Mongol: Chakhar), tömür (Oyirad), tʉmərwere known as skilled ironworkers as early as the(Buriad), temər (Shera Yughur), tɑmər (Bonan),

6th century when they were subjects of Róurán (柔tumər (Monguor), and tɕiəmu (Dongxiang).

然).

B) kasō typeA) temir type

Dagur alone has a form of completely different

The Turkic forms can be divided into two

origin, kɑsō, for “iron.”categories in terms of the tenseness of the initialconsonant.

ModernMongolic forms are tɵmɵr (Mongol: Khalkha,

have transmitted from the Scythians in western
Eurasia to eastern Eurasian peoples.

(Činggis Qan was named

is unknown.

The forms are (1) temir (Karachay,

The etymology of the word

Because the Tachen dialect inXīnjiāng, which is marked with an arrow symbol in

Kumyk, Kazakh, Karakalpak, Kirghiz, Nogay,

the center of the map, is spoken by the descendants

Uzbek, Tuvan, Tofalar, Altai), tämär (Khalaj), tämirof the Dagur soldiers sent from northeastern China in(Chuvash), tēmir (Chulym), timir (sakha, Dolgan),the 18th century, we can say that only one language

and tömür (Uighur) and (2) demir (Turkish,in the eastern periphery obtained this form in history.

Turkmen, Gagauz, Karaim, Crimean Tatar), dəmir(Yoshio Saitô)(Azeri), demər (Sarïg Uighur), and dimur (Salar).

“Iron” in Mongolic and Turkic

6

“Iron” in Sinitic[-ʔ] is distributed in areas speaking the Jin, Wu, andJianghuai Mandarin dialects. A-1-3 [-t] is typically
distributed in Guangdong and Guangxi provinces. A-14 [-k] shows a scattered distribution in the Yue dialectareas.
Table 1place
word form
ending

1. Classification of word forms
We classified word forms for “iron” into two
types: A tie 鐵 and B tieba 鐵巴. The lattercomprises a root (tie 鐵) and a suffix (ba 巴).
According to the initials of the phonetic forms, A tie
鐵 is classified into two types: A-1 [tʰ-] and A-2 [h-].
The former type is classified into four types according
to endings:
A tie 鐵A-1 initial [tʰ-]A-1-1 open: tʰie, tʰi:e, tʰiɛ, tʰiə, tʰia, tʰe, tʰi, tʰa, tʰei,
tʰɛi, tʰai
A-1-2 glottal stop [-ʔ]: tʰieʔ, tʰiɛʔ, tʰiæʔ, tʰiəʔ, tʰiɐʔ,
tʰiaʔ, tʰiʌʔ, tʰiʔ, tʰiɪʔ, tʰeʔ, tʰaʔ, tʰɯʔA-1-3 [-t]: tʰiet, tʰiɛt, tʰyet, tʰit, tʰet, tʰɛtA-1-4 [-k]: tʰik, tʰɛk
A-2 initial [h-]: hi, hiɛʔ, hiet, hit, het
B tieba 鐵巴: tʰie pa, tʰi pa
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The word forms denoting “iron” in Chinese dialects
essentially show a unanimous distribution of A tie 鐵.
People in a few places use B tieba 鐵 巴 , whichcollocates always with A tie 鐵. However, in someplaces, tieba 鐵巴 is exclusive to mean “a lump ofiron.” This suggests that tieba 鐵 巴 was originallyderived from an iron object, and later generalized tomean “iron.”
The phonetic forms of A tie 鐵 are consistent withthe phonological system of each dialect. The dominant
initial consonant is the aspirated voiceless alveolar A-1[tʰ-]. A-2 [h-] is distributed in Jiangxi and Guangdong
provinces. This feature is observed in the Middle
Chinese (MC) tou 透 initial in areas speaking the Yue
dialect siyi 四邑 subgroup and is a part of the Gan
dialect. A remarkable diversity is observed in the
behavior of the endings. The endings of tie 鐵 can beclassified into four types. Excluding the A-1-1 type, theother three types belong to the ru 入 tone. The A-1-1
open type is mainly distributed in Mandarin-speaking
areas but with varying tone types. For example, it
merged into the shang 上 tone in the Beijing 北京
dialect, the yinping 陰平 tone in Xi’an 西安, and thequ 去 tone in Yinchuan 銀川. This can be attributed
to the systematic changes of the phonological system,
which occurred recently. In the Xiang dialect, the tie 鐵
forms have no coda but retain the ru 入 tone
independently of the other tone types. A-1-2 glottal stop

open

[-ʔ]

Beijing (Mandarin)
Xi’an (Mandarin)

tʰiɛ
tʰiɛ

Yinchuan (Mandarin)
Changsha (Xiang)

tʰie
tʰie

Taiyuan (Jin)tʰiəʔNantong (Jianghuai)Suzhou (Wu)

tʰiʔ
tʰiəʔ

[-t]
Guangzhou (Yue)
tʰit
[-k]
Zengcheng (Yue)tʰɛk
The reconstruction of MC for “iron” by Schussler(2007: 497) is *tʰiet. According to Baxter and Sagart(2014), the Old Chinese (OC) form is *l̥ ˤik (OC) > thet(MC)
(http://ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/).
Shuowen jiezi 説 文解 字 defined tie 鐵 as “黑 金也 ”(black metal). Wang Li (1982: 469) and Sagart(1999: 200–201) showed the derivation of tie 鐵 fromthe word-family of *(h)l[i]k (black). However, theleading word form for black is hei 黑 , which isreconstructed as *m̥ˤək (OC) > xok (MC) (Baxter and
Sagart 2014). The possibility that *l̥ ˤ- and *m̥ˤ- belongs
to the same word-family needs to be clarified in future
analysis.
Table 2
OC
tie 驖
dai 黛

*lik>det*lɨk-s>dojHyi 黓*lɨk>yikmeaning
black horse
black pigment
eyebrows
black

for

the

In China, meteoric iron objects were found in thesites of the middle of Shang dynasty (1300BC). As foriron manufacturing, the estimated 1000BC ironware
discovered in the Xinjiang district is the earliest
evidence presently (Lu 2003: 122). Iron use in China
was earlier than the other areas in East Asia, and its use
later spread more swiftly than bronze. Sagart (1999:
201) showed that the Chinese loan words in Written
Tibetan (lčags<hlyak-s) and Tai (Proto-Tai: *hlek (Li1977: 136)) must have been made very early, that is,
before the changes of initials and codas.
Keywords: word-family, loan word
(Fumiki Suzuki, Takashi Ueya, Kenji Yagi)

7

“iron” in Sinitic
A tie 鐵B tie ba 鐵巴

A-1 initial [tʰ-]A-1-1 open

A-2 initial [h-]A-1-2 [-ʔ]A-1-3 [-t]A-1-4 [-k]8

Iron in Tibeto-Burman

via “feature shuffling” and/or various phonologicalprocesses, including: (a) fortition of the initial fricative,e.g. Burmese t̪ an; (b) progressive assimilation, e.g.
Tshobdun rGyalrong ʃɨm44, Guoke Nusu ɕɛ̃35, Fumin
Alo ɕe21; (c) regressive assimilation, e.g. JaphugrGyalrong ɕom, Qianxi Guiqiong ʃɔ̃53, Lancang Lahuɕo33; (d) deletion of the final nasal (which sometimes
left its trace in the vowel), e.g. Southern Prinmi ɕĩ55,
Maibeng Guiqiong ʃɑ̃31, Jinuo ɕɛ42, Queyu ɕo55; (e)retroflexivization, e.g. Longchuan Achang ʂam55; (f)debuccalization, e.g. Longlin Yi hə21; and (g)diphthongization, e.g. Shuangbo Yi ɕiə21. In this paper,
we divide Type A into three subtypes based on the
degree of erosion of the final nasal, which shows someareal patterns (see Section 2).
Type B reflects a PTB etymon *syaːl ⪤ *syiːr ‘iron’,from which various modern forms have arisen via
processes such as: (a) progressive assimilation, e.g.
Sampang syel; (b) fortition of the fricative, e.g. Falam
Lai thı́ir; (c) deletion of the initial, e.g. Ao jən²; and(d) nasalization of the final liquid, e.g. Nocte jan.
Type C originates from the PTB etymon *l-tsyak‘iron’, which gave rise to diverse forms via processes
such as: (a) devoicing and fricativization of the prefix,
e.g. rNgawa Tibetan l̥ tɕək, Askyirong Tibetan htɕɑʢ,Rongdag Tibetan ɦdʑɑ:; (b) retroflexivization, e.g.
sProsnang Tibetan hʈʂɑʔ; (c) progressive assimilation,e.g. Wache Tibetan l̥ tɕeq; (d) lenition of the final, e.g.
Dartsendo Tibetan htɕɑʔ, Mroha Tibetan l̥ tɕəχ,
Xinchengzi Tibetan dʐa53; and (e) fortition of theinitial affricate, e.g. Pa-O thaɁ21. We divide Type C
into two subtypes based on the initial consonant, as
they are well grounded in terms of both areal andgenetic perspectives. Type C-1 mainly represents all
modern Tibetic languages and dialects that have theirdiachronic sources in WrT lcags, while Type C-2
represents Karenic languages that have their sources in
PKar *thaɁD. Note further that PTB *l-tsyak is related
to Old Chinese *l̥ ˁik ‘iron’, which was an early loan
into many Southeast Asian languages, e.g. Proto-Tai*hlek D, Proto-Palaungic *hlek, Proto-Hmongic*l̥ uwC, and Proto-Mienic *r̥ŭɛk (see Tai-Kadai,
Austroasiatic, and Hmong-Mien in this volume).
In addition to the three major types, there are someinfrequent roots that carry the meaning ‘iron’, whichcannot be traced back to the PTB stage, including:

1. Classification of word forms
Our data on 517 languages and dialects, including
primary data on many Tibetic languages and dialects,
can be abstracted into three major types. Among these
Types, A and B are especially widespread in terms ofthe diversity of branches.1
Type A-12
ɕam55, ʃam, ʂam55, sam, ɕɑm53, ɕǝm, shv̀m, ɕiam53
From WrB sam: t̪ an, t̪ aɴ, thang, than, thænʃɨm44, siŋɕom, ʃom55, ʃon, somu, suʴmuType A-2
ɕɛ42, ʃɛ42, ɕe11, xe21, ɕɪ21, xɪ21, ɕi2, xi13, ɕiə21
xɒ21, ʂhɔ31, sɔ55, ɕo55, xo44, so33, ʂɯ53, xɯ33, ʃu55, ʂu53ɕy55, xy55, xɤ11, xə55, hə21
Type A-3
55
31
53
35
55
ɕɛ35
̃ , ɕĩ , ʃɑ̃ , ʃɔ̃ , ʂõ , ʂə̃Type Bsya:l, syel, sél, sel, sil, sylśir, sher, sər
thı́ir, thı̂ ir, thı̌ ir, thı̂ ʔ, thúajən², jan, yan
Type C-1
From WrT lcags: ltɕak(s), ɬtʃaks, l̥ tɕək, l̥ tɕəq, l̥ tɕeq,l̥tɕəχ, htɕak, htɕɑʔ, hʈʂɑʔ, htɕəχ, htɕɑʢ, htɕa, htɕeʔ, ʂtɕəq,ɦdʑɑ:, dʐa53
Type C-2
thaɁ21, thaɁ44, thaʔ55, tha11, tha21, tha42
These three widespread types have good etyma inProto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB).3 Type A reflects a PTB
etymon *syam ‘iron’, which gave rise to myriad forms
Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows:
PBG (Proto-Bodo-Garo), PCN (Proto-Central Naga),
PKar (Proto-Karenic), PKC (Proto-Kuki-Chin), PLo(Proto-Loloish), PNN (Proto-Northern Naga), PTa(Proto-Tani), PTB (Proto-Tibeto-Burman), PTk(Proto-Tangkhulic), TB (Tibeto-Burman), WrB(Written Burmese), and WrT (Written Tibetan).
2
Superscripts on lexical items indicate their tones.
3
Forms of PTB, Old Chinese, Proto-Tai,
Proto-Palaungic, Proto-Hmongic, and Proto-Mienic
are based on the following sources, respectively:
Matisoff (2003), Baxter and Sagart (2014), Li (1977),
Sidwell (2010), Ratliff (2010), and Ratliff (2010).
1

Type Dtɕo, tɕu53, tɕu˞53, htɕu53

9

does not seem as though Type B can be reduced to any
areal patterns. The fortition of the initial fricative
found in some items of Type B (i.e. PTB *s/sy > th) isa well-established innovation shared by Kuki-Chin
languages in western Burma, northeastern India andeastern Bangladesh (VanBik 2009:16–7).
Type C is found in northern and southern parts of
the TB distribution. It is prevalent in Tibetic (WrT
lcags), Karenic (PKar *thaɁD, Luangthongkum 2013),
and Tani languages and dialects (PTa *rjok, Sun
1993:391), in which the Tani form is a possible earlyloan from Tibetan (Sun 1993:297). Among the two
major subtypes, Type C-2, which has an alveolar stop,
is restricted to Karenic languages in Lower Burma.
Type C-1, mostly found in Tibetic languages, shows
various kinds of reflexes for the PTB prefix *l-. Thisprefix is retained in regions where Western Archaic
Tibetan is spoken, and in some parts of the Amdo
region, but lost in Ü-Tsang. It became h- in most partsof the Khams region and many parts of Amdo, and ʂin some parts of Khams and Amdo.
Type D, which occurs only in sTau dialects, appears
to reflect a PTB etymon *syam (Type A), as in other
Qiangic languages, but also exhibits the feature ofType C. This may be accounted for in terms of theirdistribution, in regions where Types A and C converge.
Type E is found in Tamangish (TGTM) languagesof Nepal (PTGTM *ᴮpʰai, Mazaudon 1994) and in
Jinghpaw of northern Burma and western Yunnan. The
cognacy of them, however, is unknown.
Type F is only attested in Bai dialects. It appears to
be a loan from Chinese, given that Bai is heavily
influenced by it. Although the Bai forms show asuperficial similarity to Kuki-Chin languages of TypeB, unlike in Kuki-Chin, the sound change from PTB*s/sy to Bai th is not well established in Bai.
Type G, which is distributed in central Nepal, only
appears in Newar dialects in our data.
Type H, which is not shown in our maps, is only
found in lCangdzong Tibetan spoken in Jiangzhong(Chamdo) of eastern Tibet. This item, possibly havingarisen as a result of a semantic shift, may be related to
WrT zha (nye) ‘lead’.

Type E²pʰai, ²pwe, ²pʰeː, phrı̀
Type Fthe44, thɛ33, thɛ44, tɕhi44, tɕhi55, tɕhi42
Type Gnaː̃ , nyā, ne
Type Hɦ
ʑa
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Primary distribution of Type A, found in TB branches
such as Burmish (WrB sam), Loloish (PLo *xam1,
Bradley 1979:332), 4 Naxi, Nungic, Qiangic, andrGyalrongic, is located throughout Burma, Yunnan,
Sichuan, Guizhou, and northern Thailand. Type A, as
illustrated above, shows variation in the degree of
erosion of the final nasal. The deletion of the final
nasal is predominant especially in Loloish and some
Qiangic languages located in the eastern parts of the
distribution of Type A (Type A-2). The final nasal isretained elsewhere (Type A-1). It is of interest to notethat languages that retain the trace of the final nasal asa nasal vowel (Type A-3) appear to be located at theboundaries between Types A-1 and A-2. Note also thatType A shows variation in vowels (such as fronting
and backing), as demonstrated in the previous section.
Forms with the vowel /a/ are located in peripheral
areas, suggesting their oldness, which is confirmed bytheir reconstructed form, i.e. PTB *syam. The
distribution of varieties involving front and backvowels does not appear to exhibit areal patterns.
Type B, found in Kuki-Chin (PKC *thiir, VanBik
2009:132), Central Naga (PCN *jən, Bruhn 2014:414),
Tangkhulic (PTk *tʰir, Mortensen 2012), Northern
Naga (PNN *ya:n, French 1983:506), Bodo-Garo(PBG *sաr1, Joseph and Burling 2006:130), Luish(PLu *sel?, Huziwara 2012:54), and Kiranti languages
and dialects, is concentrated in western Burma,
northeastern India, and eastern Nepal. Type B, as
illustrated above, shows variation in its finals.
Although more data are needed for confirmation, it

Keywords: Tibeto-Burman, sound changes, feature
shuffling, borrowing

For reconstructed mesoroots and their references,
see STEDT Database (Accessed 11 January 2017).
URL: http://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl4(Keita Kurabe, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Kazue Iwasa, Shiho
Ebihara, Satoko Shirai, Ikuko Matsuse)

10Map 1: “Iron” in Tibeto-Burman
A-1

ɕam55, ʃam, t̪ an, t̪ aɴ, ʃɨm44, siŋ, ɕom, ʃom55

A-2

ɕɛ42, ʃɛ42, ɕe11, xɒ21, ʂhɔ31, sɔ55, ɕy55, xy55

A-3

55
31
53
35
55
ɕɛ35
̃ , ɕĩ , ʃɑ̃ , ʃɔ̃ , ʂõ , ʂə̃B

sya:l, syel, śir, sher, thı́ir, thı̂ ir, jən², jan

C-1

ltɕak(s), ɬtʃaks, l̥ tɕək, htɕɑʔ, hʈʂɑʔ, htɕəχC-2

thaɁ21, thaɁ44, thaʔ55, tha11, tha21, tha42

Dtɕo, tɕu53, tɕu˞53, htɕu53

E²pʰai, ²pwe, ²pʰeː, phrı̀F

the44, thɛ33, thɛ44, tɕhi44, tɕhi55, tɕhi42

Gnaː̃ , nyā, ne11

Map 2: “Iron” in Tibeto-Burman (detailed)A-1

ɕam55, ʃam, t̪ an, t̪ aɴ, ʃɨm44, siŋ, ɕom, ʃom55

A-2

ɕɛ42, ʃɛ42, ɕe11, xɒ21, ʂhɔ31, sɔ55, ɕy55, xy55

A-3

55
31
53
35
55
ɕɛ35
̃ , ɕĩ , ʃɑ̃ , ʃɔ̃ , ʂõ , ʂə̃B

sya:l, syel, śir, sher, thı́ir, thı̂ ir, jən², jan

C-1

ltɕak(s), ɬtʃaks, l̥ tɕək, htɕɑʔ, hʈʂɑʔ, htɕəχDtɕo, tɕu53, tɕu˞53, htɕu53

E²pʰai, ²pwe, ²pʰeː, phrı̀F

the44, thɛ33, thɛ44, tɕhi44, tɕhi55, tɕhi42

12

“Iron” in Hmong-Mien

If we use Ratliff (2010)’s reconstruction of rhyme, we canposit a PHM form as *hljŭɛk. 1 A difference observed
between the Hmongic and Mienic forms, in terms of tone,
can be explained by later development: Tone 5 in the
Hmongic forms and Tone 7 in the Mienic forms are theregular reflexes of PHM Tone D in syllables with a coda *k.
Although we conclude that all the forms in HmongMien are treated as reflexes of a single etymon, we treat theTone 5 forms and the Tone 7 forms separately as Type A
and Type B in the map of this article, to indicate theirdifferent history. The subtypes under each type reflect thepresence or absence of a prefix.

1. Classification of word forms
The word for “iron” in Hmong-Mien is considered aloan from Chinese. Although Ratliff (2010) considers thatthe words in all the Hmong-Mien lects are loans from an
Old Chinese word, which is reconstructed as *l̥ˤik (Baxter
and Sagart 2014), she divides them into two groups: The
Hmongic forms deriving from Proto-Hmongic *hluwC,
and the Mienic forms from Proto-Mienic (PM) *hrŭɛk.
However, there are some comparative evidences toindicate that the word forms of Hmongic and Mienic
ultimately derive from a single Proto-Hmong-Mien(PHM) etymon. First, the Proto-Mienic onset consonant
should also be reconstructed as a lateral. As indicated inTable 1, a velar plosive reflex in Luoxiang (LX) isobserved not only in the case of *hr (as in MEASURE) but
also in the case of palatalized lateral *lj (as in PADDY). In
addition, we must note that the most important test for a
proto-rhotic (*ʔr, *hr, and *r) is the reflex of Daping (DP):a dental affricate /ʣ/ (as in MEASURE). What Daping
indicates in IRON is not /ʣ/ but /lj/, which is the regularreflex of the palatalized lateral in Ratliff (2010).

A: forms with Tone 5
A1: l̥ o5
A2: qo l̥ o5
B: forms with Tone 7
B1: hlje7
B2: a hlje7
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
As all forms for “iron” come from the same origin, andthey seem to be quite regular in comparative perspective,
we see a uniform distribution in the map of “iron.” We
notice that some Hmongic lects in Hunan and Guizhou
have qo l̥ o5 (A2), a prefixed form, but this may only meanthat these lects preserve a more conservative feature, i.e.,
prefixation, in nominal morphology. If the word wasborrowed from Old Chinese, the contact would haveoccurred in the period of PHM.

Table 1
PM

GZ

LX

DP

IRON

*hr-

ɬje7

ɡja7

ljɛ7

PADDY

*lj-

liːŋ2

ɡiŋ2

ljaŋ2

MEASURE

*hr-

ɬaːu1

ɡaːu1

ʣau1

Thus, the form for “iron” in Proto-Mienic is bestreconstructed as having a lateral onset. Turning to rhyme,
we find a good correspondence set including the two items
IRON and ENTER, the latter of which is an indigenous
Hmong-Mien word (see Table 2). As indicated in Table 2,
which includes two Hmongic lects, Yanghao (YH) andJiwei (JW), along with one Mienic lect, Daping, the twoitems exhibit a perfect correspondence.
Table 2
PHM

YH

JW

DP

IRON

-

l̥ hə5l̥ hɔ5

ljɛ7

ENTER

*bjŭɛk

pə6

pɔ6

pjɛ8

This does not mean that the present author makes acommitment for this particular reconstruction. The point

here is that a single PHM etymon with a lateral initialshould be reconstructed.

1

13

"Iron" in Hmong-MienA
A-1: l̥ o5A-2: qo l̥ o5
BB-1: hlje7
B-2: a hlje7

14

Iron: Tai-Kadai

Dong, Sui, Mulao, and Maonan. This sound shape
can be considered as an intermediate form, in which
the initial changed from *hl- to kh-, while the final
consonant experienced the change from *-k to -t.
The palatalized forms chit7 and ɕət7 can be the traceof the i-like vowel which caused palatalization of theinitial consonant as well as the final consonant.
D type is obviously the borrowed form from theYue or Hakka dialects just next to the western borderof the Northern Tai area. D-1 thi:t type preserves theaspirate initial consonant, while D-2 ti:t type lost
aspiration, which is the regular sound change among
Northern Tai.
All of the types A, B, C, and D above areconsidered loan forms from Chinese of different
chronological strata and areas.
However, it seems that Type E va is not related toChinese. E-1 va2 preserves voicedness of the initialconsonant as the tone 2 denotes. While E-2 fa2 is adevoiced form, probably due to the later change.
This Type F is dominant in the Northern area ofNorthern Tai, especially in Poai and Northern Zhuang.
The Hlai language in the Hainan Island shows atotally different form, as seen in the F. go:i type. The
forms in this category basically show similarity.
Detailed changing processes for each form should bestudied further.
G. maa type is found in Saek. As is well known,
this language generally shows an archaism. The originof this sole form rests unknown.
Ni (2010: 170) postulates a possible link between
fa2, lek7 in Tai and besi in Indonesian. According tohim, fa2 is related to the first syllable ba- of the Early
Austronesian *bati, *basih, *besih, while lek7 isrelated to the second syllable -sih.

1. Classification of word forms
In this map, word forms are classified into 7 large
categories: lek type, khjak type, khət type, thi:t type,va type, go:i type, and maa type.
A. lek type
A-1 lek with higher tone typelek7, lik7, lək7, lɯk7, le:k7, lɛ:k7, liak7, lek1,
lyak3, la4, lɛ4.
A-2 lek with lower tone typelek2, lek4, lik2, lɛk6.
B. khjak typekhjãk7.
C. khət typekhwət7', khɣət7, chit7, ɕət7.
D. thi:t type
D-1 thi:t type (with aspirated initial)
thi:t9.
D-2 ti:t type (with unaspirated initial)
ti:t9, ti:t9', tiət7.
E. va type
E-1 va2 typeva2, wa2.
E-2 fa2 typefa2, fa4.
F. go:i typego:i1, ra:i1, xo:i1, huai1, khu:i1, ga:i4, ha:i4, kui1.
G. maa typemaa4.
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The proto Tai form for "iron" is reconstructed as*hlek D by Li (1977). This form is preserved in theCentral Tai area except for the initial consonant *h,which left its trace as a form of a higher tone (A-1).
In Southwestern Tai, its tone changed into the lower
series for an unknown reason (A-2).
Sagart (1999: 200-201) pointed out that this proto
Tai form is close to the Old Chinese form *ahlik;
hence it was borrowed into Tai as well as other
Southeast Asian languages after the manufacturing ofiron in this area took place. This occurred not earlier
than 700-600 BCE, before the regular change *hl- >th- and *-ik > -it took place prior to the age of Middle
Chinese.
B type khjak type is seen in Lakkia as khjãk7. Its
coda preserves -k, while the onset changed into kh-.
C type khət is found among the Kadai languages,

Bibliography
Ni, Dabai. 2010. Dongtaiyu Gailun (An Introduction
to Kam-Tai Languages). Beijing: Minzu Publishing.
[in Chinese]
Sagart, Laurent. 1999. The Roots of Old Chinese.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Keywords: loan words from Chinese, Old Chinese,
MiddleChinese,Yue,
Hakka,
Indonesian,Austronesian, chronological strata(Mitsuaki ENDO)

15

lek with higher tonelek with lower tone
khjak
khət
thi:t
ti:t
va2
fa2
go:i
maa type

16

Iron: Austroasiaticmæ⁴ˈ² θi¹ (Palaungic: Danaw)
hir (Palaungic: Palaung), hir¹ (Palaungic: Riang)
M. kahɔːŋ typekahɔːŋ~rəhɑːŋ~hɔːŋ (Pearic: Chong)rəhɑːŋ (Pearic: Pear)
N. k-rac typeN-1. kʰlat⁷ (Vietic: Chứt [Rục], Malieng), kʰac⁷(Vietic: Muong), lac (Pong), kʰrat⁷ (Tho [CuoiCham]N-2. ʂat⁷ (Vietic: Viet, Tho [Lang Lo], Chứt [Sách])O. The other types
cndroh (Khmuic: Khmu [Cuang])cet (Khmuic: Khsing-Mul)jɔːŋ (Khmuic: Phong), dɔːp (Khmuic: Tai Hat)

1. Classification of word forms
In this map, word forms of “iron” are classified as
15 categories as follows:
A. bəsiʔ typebəsiʔ (Aslian)
B. maːm typemaːm (Bahnaric: Bahnar, Brao, Tarieng, etc.)məːm (Bahnaric: Laven)C. lɔːs typelɔːs (Bahnaric: Chrau), lɔs (Bahnaric: Sre)
D. taːɁ typetaːɁ~təːɁ (Katuic: Bru, Ngeq, Kui, Souei),taːɁ (Katuic: Katang, Ong, Pacoh)taːk (Katuic: Bru, Sô; Mangic: Mang)tɛːk (Bahnaric: Stieng)daek (Khmeric: Khmer; Pearic)(Chong of Kompong Som < Khmer)dɛːk (Pearic: Chong of Samray, Chong of Western
Pear < Khmer)dɛːɁ (Khmeric: Surin Khmer)
E. tamɨː typetamɨː (Bahnaric: Brao), təmɨa (Bahnaric: Su')
F. nar typenar (Khasic: Khasi)
G. bərsɔy typepəsoa (Monic: Mon)pəchɤ́j~kəchɤ́j (Monic: Nyah Kur)phcɔj (Bahnaric: Tampuan)
H. karaw types
karaw (Nicobaric: Nancowry)
I. hlek typehlek (Khmuic: Mlabri)hləic (Palaungic: Lawa)hlaik (Palaungic: Palaung)lek (Palaungic: En, Tai Loi, Wa [South])lik (Palaungic: La, Wa)l̥ hét (Palaungic: Samtau)
J. rŋaŋ typekaŋáŋ (Palaungic: Hu)rǝŋaŋ (Palaungic: Lamet)ʔaŋàʕ (Palaungic: U)
K. hrɛm typeyīm (Palaungic: K'ala)rum (Palaungic: Kentung-Wa, Son)hriam~h'riem~riɛ̀m²~rhem (Palaungic: Wa)
L. si(i)r typesiː (Bahnaric: Mnong)

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
In general, each branch has its own form and it isquite difficult to find some phonological relationshipamong them: Aslian: A, Katuic: D, Khasic: F,
Khmeric: D, Monic: G, Nicobaric: H, Pearic: M, andVietic: N. Those branches that have plural forms are:Bahnaric: B, C, D, E, G, L, and Palaungic: I, J, K, L.
And each language of Khmuic has its own form.
taːɁ type (D), and k-rac type (N) present thea-b-a distribution, which could show that the form D isolder than the form N. The Proto-Vietic form *k-rac islikely to be borrowed from the OC *l̥ ˤik 鐵, which isrelated to Tai-Kadai khət type.
It is more obvious that the forms of hlek type (I)are closely related to the Tai-Kadai lek type (Endo2016), and both of them can be related to the OC *l̥ ˤik(Baxter-Sagart 2014). maːm type (B) is also related to
Tai-Kadai maa type (Endo 2016).
The distribution of si(i)r type (L) is peripheral andclosely related to the Tibet Burman *syaːl ⪤ *syiːrtype (Kurabe 2016).
tamɨː type (E) could be related to the Mongolic
and Turkic temir type (Saito 2016).
Bibliography:
Alves, M. (2015) Historical notes on words for knives,
swords, and other metal implements in early
Southern China and mainland Southeast Asia,
Mon-Khmer Studies, 44: 39-56.
Endo, M. (2016) Iron: Tai-Kadai.
Kurabe, K. (2016) Iron in Tibet Burman.
Saito, Y. (2016) “Iron” in Mongolic and Turkic.
Keywords: iron, Austroasiatic(Masaaki Shimizu)

17

A. bəsiʔ type
B. maːm typeC. lɔːs type
D. taːɁ type
E. tamɨː type
F. nar typeG. bərsɔy type
H. karaw types
I. hlek typebəsiʔbə (Aslian)maːm / məːmlɔlɔːs / lɔstaːɁ~təːɁ / taːk / tɛːk /daek / dɛːk / dɛːɁtamɨː / təmɨanarpəsoa / pəchɤ́j~kəchɤ́j /
pə
phcɔj
karaw
hlek / hləic / hlaik / lek /J. rŋaŋ typekaŋáŋ / rǝŋaŋ / ʔaŋàʕ

K. hrɛm typeyīm / rum /lik / l̥ hét

O. The other typehriam~h'riem~riɛ̀m²~rhem
L. si(i)r typesiː / mæ⁴ˈ² θi¹ / hir / hir¹

M. kahɔːŋ typekahɔːŋ~rəhɑːŋ~hɔːŋ /rəhɑːŋ

N. k-rac type

18

O-1.

kʰlat⁷ / kʰac⁷ / kʰrat⁷

O-2.

ʂʂat⁷

Iron: Semitic languages

C. ħadiːd typeħadiːd (‫ )ﺣﺪﯾﺪ‬in Classical Arabic, Damascus, Cairo,
Baghdad, UAE, Yemen, Bukhara (Uzbekistan); ħdiːdin Tunis, Morocco. ħadid [hadiːd] in Maltese. ladíd
and hadíd ‘hard iron, steel’ in Ki-Nubi (Kenya,
Uganda).
The consonantal root ħ-d-d originally has meaning

1. Classification of word forms
The word forms of “iron” are classified as follows.
A. parzillu typeparzillu, parzəlā, parzlā, prizlə, frzn
brðl, brzl, barzelof ‘sharp’ (ħaːdd ‫ ﺣﺎد‬in Arabic, ħad ‫ ַחד‬in Hebrew).
ħadiːd is the Arabic word and is not borrowed,
because morphologically the meaning of ħadiːd is ‘besharpen’ and this form is not shared with other Semitic
languages.
South Arabian languages borrow from Arabicħadiːd: ħádíd in Jibbali (Oman), ħədájd in Mehri(Yemen). But Soqotri form is identical with Ethiopic.

B. ħadiːd typeħadiːd, ħdiːd, hadíd, ħádíd, ħədájd, ħatīta, ladíd,
hadíd, lħdid, lħðið
C. brāt typebrāt, bərāt
D. ħaṣiːn typeħaṣin, ħaṣṣin, ħáṣhin, xaṣiːn,Berber languages also use the ħadiːd type borrowed
from Arabic with the Arabic definite article l alongwith the Berber word: lħdid in Wargla and Ayt

E. w-zz-l typewəzːāl, uzːāl, uzːal, zːel,Seghrouchen, lħðið in Sanhaya (northern Morocco).

F. benipe, penipe

D. ħaṣiːn typeħaṣiːn type is distributed in Ethiopic and Soqotri(South Arabian in Yemen). xaṣiːn (ኀጺን፡) in Ge’ez (theancient Ethiopic), ħaṣṣin in Tigrinya (Eritrea), ħaṣin
in Tigre (Eritrea), ħáṣhin in Soqotri (a South Arabianlanguage in Yemen).

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
A. parzillu typeparzillu type is distributed in the Mesopotamia and
Syria area: barzel in Hebrew (‫רזל‬ֶ ‫) ַבּ‬, parzəlā in Modern
Mandaic, prizlə in Urmi, the Neo-Aramaic dialect
spoken in north western Iran.
The earliest use of this word is parzillu in Akkadianwith the Sumerian signs(

E. brāt typebrāt type is distributed in Ethiopic except the ancient
Ethiopic Ge’ez. brāt (ብረት፡) in Amhara, Chaha andHarari. In Tigrinya bərāt also is used along with ħaṣṣin.

‘iron’) in a fragment of a tablet of the firstdynasty of Susa (Valério & Yakubovich 2010). And
then b-r-ð-l in Ugaritic (), b-r-z-l in
Phoenician (lzrb), parzlā in Syriac ( ‫) ܙ‬. f-r-z-n(nzrf) in Sabaean, an epigraphic South Arabian . In
Arabic firzil (‫ )ﻓﺮزل‬is ‘fetter’.
These forms were borrowed from non-Semitic,
probably Anatolian languages such as Hittite or

AN-BARF. benipe, penipe
benipe (benipe), penipe (penipe) in Coptic.
(Youichi Nagato)

Luvian as a result of the large-scale Assyrian trade(Forbes 2010).
B. w-zz-l typew-zz-l type is Berber forms. wəzːāl in Ghadamsi(western Libya), zːel in Nefusa (northern Libya), uzːalin Wargla (central Algeria) and Kabyle (northern
Algeria), uzːāl in Ayt Seghrouchen (eastern Morocco).
Some Berber languages use also ħadiːd type.

19

20

Wind and Iron in Nivkh
1.

Classification of word forms‘Wind’ is la in all dialects. No other forms
are reported.
The Nivkh word for ‘iron’ is [ʋɨʧ] or [wat].
Some literature list molok, malak, malako(e.g. Savel’eva and Taksami 1965), which arefrom the Russian word moloko молоко ‘milk’.
This is also the form that our Nivkh
consultants give when they are asked totranslate молоко [məlʌˈko], though it should
be noted that the primary stress shifts to thefirst syllable [ ̍malak], following the default
trochaic stress pattern in Nivkh.
In this paper we have decided to use‘breast (bust, mother’s milk)’ instead since it
exhibits broader variety among words that aresemantically close to milk.

2.

Geographicaldistribution
andinterpretation
There are six forms for ‘breast’. We
classify them into two types.
Type A
Place & Source1.

ʋɨʧType B has either mɨz- or mɨN- as roots. It
remains to be seen whether these forms areassociable to the verb ‘to suck’, since thisverb is momo- in these dialects as well. If that
could be the case, the transparency withmomo- should have been lost at some time inthe course of history.
The geographic distribution of Type A and
B follows the classic taxonomy of Nivkh
dialects which dates back to Shternberg(1900) and Kreinovich (1934): the Amur
dialect, spoken in the lower reaches of theAmur River and the west coast of northern
Sakhalin, and the Sakhalin dialect spoken on
the rest of Sakhalin. 1 The geographic
distribution of Type A and B forms agrees
with this taxonomy: Type A – the Amur
dialect and Type B – the Sakhalin dialect.
Among the forms in Type A, mɨʧik(Ten’gi) resembles the forms in Type B themost. This is expected since in ourinvestigation Ten’gi is the only Amur dialect
speaking spot located on Sakhalin. Thusmɨʧik could be an intermediary form between
a proto-type A form moʧ and a proto-type B
form mɨXX. This could be investigated bycomparing similar parallels between anintermediary form in Ten’gi and those forms
reported in other dialects.

Kal’ma (Savel’eva and Taksami
1965)

2.
3.

Type B

Keywords: Nivkh,
Sakhalin dialect

Place & Source

Poronaisk (Yamaguchi and Izutsu
2004)
5. ʋatTygmyc (Tangiku, Tanzina andNitkuk 2008)
6. watAgnevo? Kreinovich
7. watPoronaisk (Austerlitz 1984)
Type A is presumably related to the verb
momo- ‘to suck’ or/and to mot- ‘to kiss’. The
final -k is a nominalizer. Related words aremomos ‘soother’ (-s: nominalizer) and moʧ
soX ‘mother’s milk’ (Savel’eva and Taksami1970). The vocalic correspondence o:ɨ isunheard of, but the consonantism (m-ʧ-k)provides evidence for moʧk and mɨʧik being
related forms.
4.

wat

iron,

Amur

dialect,(Hidetoshi Shiraishi)

1

Kreinovich (1934) reported the number of speakers to
be 3,200 for the Amur dialect and 850 for Sakhalin.

21‘iron’ in Nivkh

22

Iron: South Asia (IE (Aryan, Iranian,Nuristani), Dravidian,
Burushaski)Andamanese,áyas later, too. Another original form is lauhabhāṇḍa
लौहभा ड ‘lōhá pot, lōhá mortar’, and its meaning, suchas ‘iron tools’, has surely become vaguer over time.
The cīmara type (withsymbols) appears inAryan, Nuristan, and Burushaski languages, which areconcentrated in the area of Himalaya, Karakorum, andHindukush mountain ranges (see Map 2). The original
Sanskrit form cīmara चीमर might mean ‘copper’, forexample in cīmarakāra चीमरकार ‘coppersmith’ inSaṁghāṭa-sūtra in Gilgit, but its Chinese version is
described as t‘ie 㚡 ‘iron’ (Turner 1966: 828).
Interestingly, this type is distributed between most lōhá
forms of Aryan and the áyas forms of Iranian, butneither any Iranian language nor any Aryan language
south of Swat and Kohistan employ a form of this type.
Moreover, the sample Sanskrit record is found out in
Gilgit, Shina speaking area, and the recent distribution
is still just around the place.
The third major type áyas (withsymbols) can beseen in all Iranian, southernmost Aryan (Sinhala andDhivehi), and Vedda languages. The forms originate in
Sanskrit áyas अयस ् ‘metal’. Historically, this form haschanged, on the Aryan hand into ayō in Pali and thennian haaya in Prakrit, while on the Iranian
hand into ayaṅh inin Pahlavi. Some
Avestan and then aśin or āhenforms come from the Sanskrit compoundsáyasupaskara अयसपु कर ‘tool made of áyas’,
perhaps, or áyaskāṇḍa अय का ड ‘a quantity of áyas’,surely.
Next, the irumpu type (withsymbols) is used in
Dravidian languages, except for western ones. Western
languages of the Dravidian family use forms of the
karbin type. It is suggestive that the Tamil karbin form
is analytic: karum poṉ ‫ܛ‬ᾞΆܶ‫ܱܥ‬Ᾱ. The poṉ partcan be detected in the minor poṉ type, which has
another candidate, panna, from Kurux. This type comesfrom Proto-Dravidian, something like *poṉ ‘gold’. It
indicates that the karbin type has been derived fromProto-Dravidian expressions composed like karum poṉ‘black gold’, and the irumpu type is also possibly of theancient form *cirum poṉ ‘dark gold’ or the like (cf.
Tamil iru ܑᾞ ‘black’, Kolami ciruŋ ‘very dark’, andMalayalam iravu ߮ࠔ࠙ࠡ ‘night’).
Rao is a minor type in Andamanese. The word rɛo ofrɛoṭɔy in Great Andamanese originally meant ‘iron’ andṭɔy meant ‘sharp’. Tul in Áka Cháriár and Áka Kédé
may be from the same origin as ṭɔy, and the morpheme
looks like the initial part of tāūl bód da in Áka Bía-da.
While the latter part is similar to póht-da in Áka

Nihali,

1. Classification of word forms
There are four major categories of word forms̢
lōhá, cīmara, áyas, and irumpu ̢ and two minor
categories.
A. lōhá: lōhá, lōhā, lohā, lōha, loho, lohu, ḷuhā, lōh,loh, luwā, lɔ̃u, lõ̀ , lō, lo, no; [+upaskara]: lokhãḍ,lokhanḍo, lonkāḍ; [lauhabhāṇḍa]: loḍhũ
B. cīmara: čímar, čimar, čimárr, čimā́ r, čimɛr, čīmbar,čhimá, čimu, čhumár, čumár, čümā́ r, čumur, ċimár,
ċímä, ċimə, ʦamuru, zime, sē̃war
C. áyas: ayas, āhan, āhin, ahyn, ahan, ohan, āsin, āsín,yišn, ya, da; ?[+upaskara]: ōspə́na; [+kāṇḍa]:yákaḍa, yakaḍapojja, dagaṇḍu
D. irumpu: irumpu, irimpu, irïmbï, inupu, inumu, inum,ib
E. rao: remo, lé e, rɛoṭɔy, rāō tul
F. karbin: karba, kabbiṇa, kabïn
G. poṉ: poṉ, pannāH. others: šĕšitar, phalam, ayil, kacci, tāūl bód da,póht-da2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The lexical forms representing the word ‘iron’ can beclassified into A) lōhá type, B) cīmara, C) áyas, D)irumpu, E) rao, F) karbin, G) poṉ, and H) others.
The distribution of ‘iron’ words is quite simple. On
the one hand, most of Indo-European, Burushaski, andNihali employ the types A, B, or C. On the other hand,
Dravidian languages employ D, F, and G types. Type E
is for Andamanese.
The most major type is lohá (withsymbols).
This type is derived from Sanskrit lōhá लोह ‘reddish
metal (iron ~ copper)’. Forms of this type are used by
Indo-Aryan and Nihali languages, exclusive of theDardic group, a subgroup of Northwestern Aryan.
Historically, the form lōhá in Sanskrit, lōha in Prakrit,and now, for example, lōha େଲୗହ in Oriya, has notchanged. Some languages use forms derived from
Sanskrit lōhōpaskara लोहोप कर ‘tool made of lōhá’.
This kind of compound form can be found in type C23

Bójihiáb.

(YOSHIOKA Noboru)

Map 1. ‘Iron’ in South Asia

Map 2. cīmara type24

Notes on the Word Form for ‘Iron’ with a Voiced Initial in Tibetic
Languages of the Eastern Tibetosphere
Hiroyuki Suzukiaa

IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology

Abstract
This article attempts to explain an existence of a word form ‘iron’ of Tibetic languages with avoiced initial which is likely to correspond to Written Tibetan (WrT) lcags ‘iron’. This form isjust attested in some linguistic areas within Gannan Prefecture, and a part of the dialects havealso a voiced initial for the words like lce ‘tongue’ and bcu ‘ten’. Therefore, the form of ‘iron’
with a voiced initial is also one of the series of exceptions of voicing, and no need to look for
another etymon in WrT is assumed.

1

Introduction

This article provides a detailed explanation regarding the word form ‘iron’ of Tibetic languages with avoiced initial, which still corresponds to lcags in Written Tibetan (WrT). It examines the case of Tibetic
languages spoken in the eastern Tibetosphere, which Kurabe et al. (this volume) did not describe indetail due to their focus on the whole of the Tibeto-Burman linguistic area. The geographical scope ofthe eastern Tibetosphere follows the definition of Suzuki (2015).
The data used to create the linguistics maps at the end of this article only includes first-handmaterials collected by the author from 2003 to 2016. Because of this, as well as because of time
constraints on the part of the author, the data points are not equally distributed within this area, and thepoints on the map only reflect the current research situation. The present map contains 235 points.
The linguistic maps reflect so-called ‘regiolects’, i.e. dialects with regional differences. Sociolects,
which certainly exist in the given area, are not dealt with in this article.

2

Word forms of ‘iron’ in Tibetic languages

In most Tibetic languages, the word form for ‘iron’ corresponds to WrT lcags, with many phonetic
realisations, such as [htɕɑʔ], [hʈʂɑʔ], [hcçɑʔ], [ʂtɕəq], [htɕəχ], and so on.1 WrT distinguishes khro ‘pig
iron’ from lcags, and I did not obtain any data which shows a form corresponding to khro employed as‘iron’. Hence, it is not necessary to classify word forms depending on etyma. However, there are somedialects which employ a phonetic form of a voiced initial. They are following:
Rongthag: /ɦdʑɑ:/sDedgudgon: /ɦdʑɑ:/These dialects are distribtuted in Thewo County, Gannan Prefecture, Gansu Province, and they
belong to Thewo-smad Tibetan. We should note that similar cases are found in one previous work: Yang
(1995) provides a word form for ‘iron’ in five dialects from Gannan Prefecture, among which
Liping-Jiuyanzhai and Xinchengzi-Yebei have a voiced initial, as /dʑa53/ and /dʐa53/ respectively.
Therefore I will classify in this article the word forms for ‘iron’ into two large groups for the map:
C-type is a straightforward sound correspondence with lcags, and J-type is an irregular form. In addition,
there is one dialect which employ a form corresponding to lcags with a suffix, as in /ɕtɕɑ: rə/ (C+-type).
1 A suprasegmental description is uniformly omitted except for citations.

25

Furthermore, only the lCanggrong dialect spoken in sMarkhams use another root /ɦʑa/, which seems to
be related to the first syllable of WrT zha nye ‘lead’, which is classified here as Z-type. A semanticchange might have occurred, or, possibly, it is a mere misunderstanding when the fieldwork. It is lessinteresting to provide a map without much information regarding the lexical difference, however, weshould note that not all the word forms display a lexical variation in Tibetic languages.

3

Potential explanation

A voiced initial is certainly an exceptional sound if it corresponds to lc initial in WrT. Then, how do weunderstand the existence of examples with a voiced initial for the word ‘iron’? Does it have another WrT
etymon? I propose a possibility of an exceptional phonetic correspondence of WrT c with a preradical of
the general word of WrT for ‘iron’ lcags because there are two more words with this type of exception
attested in the same or other dialects surrounding Thewo-smad. The two words are WrT lce ‘tongue’ and
WrT bcu (tham pa) ‘ten’. Exceptional sound correspondences are following:
Word forms for ‘tongue’gZari: /ɦdʑa/
Braggamnang: /ɦdʑɑ:/mBrirdzi: /ɦdʑɑ:/Khaba: /ɦtɕa:/sDedgudgon: /ɦtɕɑ/
Word forms for ‘ten’gZari: /ɦdʑa: mba/
Braggamnang: /ɦdʑa: mba/
mBrirdzi: /ɦdʑɯ thɑ: mba/
Khaba: /ɦtɕɯ thɑ: mba/
Note that these sound correspondences are also considererd as an exception. They merely mean that
there are other examples that show a change of voicing of a WrT initial c with a preradical letter. As forthe word form for ‘tongue’, it is also claimed that the form with a voiced initial corresponds to WrT ljags,
a honorific word for ‘tongue’, however, seeing the examples provided in this article, we can consider
another possibility, especially, the rhyme of gZari and Khaba does not suggest a relation to WrT -ags.

Acknowledgements
I should like to express my gratitude to my Tibetan friends who helped me and taught me their mothertongue. Field research was funded by four Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science [JSPS]: “Linguistic Substratum in Tibet” (headed by Yasuhiko Nagano,No. 16102001), “Dialectological Study of the Tibetan Minority Languages in the Tibetan Cultural Areain West Sichuan” (headed by the present author), “International Field Survey of the rGyalrongic
Languages” (headed by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 21251007), “Study on the Dialectal Development ofTibetan Spoken in Yunnan, China, through a Description of the Linguistic Diversity” (headed by thepresent author, No. 25770167), and “International Field Survey of Tibeto-Burman Link Languages”(headed by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 16H02722), as well as and a private financial support of Tibetan
Studies Committee of Yunnan Ethnology Association headed by Xu Jianhua.
References
Kurabe, K., H. Suzuki, K. Iwasa, S. Ebihara, S. Shirai, and I. Matsuse. 2017. Iron: Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics V ---Iron--- (this volume)
Suzuki, H. 2015 [2016]. A geolinguistic description of terms for ‘sun’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern
Tibetosphere. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics I ---Sun---, 79-85.
Yang, Sh. 1995. Yi he liang jiang liuyu Zangyu fangyan huiyao. Gansu Minzu Chubanshe.

26

Map

LegendMap 1: Overall distribution of word forms for ‘iron’.

27

Contributors
Rei FUKUI, The University of Tokyo
Mika FUKAZAWA, The Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture
Yoshio SAITÔ, Tokyo Gakugei University
Fumiki SUZUKI, Nanzan University
Takashi UEYA, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies
Kenji YAGI, Kokushikan University
Takashi UEYA, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies
Fumiki SUZUKI, Nanzan University
Keita KURABE, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Hiroyuki SUZUKI, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology
Kazue IWASA, JSPS / Kyoto University
Satoko SHIRAI, JSPS / University of Tsukuba
Shiho EBIHARA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Ikuko MATSUSE, Center for Newar Studies
Yoshihisa TAGUCHI, Chiba University
Mitsuaki ENDO, Aoyama Gakuin University
Masaaki SHIMIZU, Osaka University
Yoichi NAGATO, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Hidetoshi SHIRAISHI, Sapporo Gakuin University

Noboru YOSHIOKA, National Museum of Ethnology

Acknowledgements
This volume is a part of the results of the project on“Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”2015 2017 at the ILCAA, TUFS. The articles were partially supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (KAKENHI) 15K02525, 16K16820, 17J40087, respectively.