Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics
II

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 II— RICE —(Report of ILCAA J R P 2015–2017“S  A G”)First published 2016
Edited by Mitsuaki E
Copyright © 2016 Individual Contributors
ISBN 978-4-86337-236-8(This is an electronic publication in PDF format)
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, JAPANTable of Contents“Sun” in Asian Languages
Chitsuko FUKUSHIMA, “Sun” in Asia…………………………………………………………… 1

Atsuko UTSUMI, “Sun”: Austronesian languages ………………………………………………… 3“Rice Plant” in Asian Languages
Ryo MATSUMOTO, “Rice” in Tungusic and Uralic ……………………………………………… 5
Yoshio SAITO, “Rice Plant” in Mongolic and Turkic …………………………………………… 7
Kenji YAGI and Takashi UEYA, “Rice” in Sinitic languages …………………………………… 9
Hiroyuki SUZUKI, Satoko SHIRAI, Keita KURABE, Kazue IWASA, and Shiho EBIHARA, Ikuko
MATSUSE, Rice Plant: Tibeto-Burman……………………………………………………… 11

Mitsuaki ENDO, Rice in Tai-Kadai …………………………………………………………… 15
Masaaki SHIMIZU, Rice: Austroasiatic…………………………………………………… 17

Noboru YOSHIOKA, Rice: South Asia ………………………………………………………… 19
Yoichi NAGATO, The Rice: Arabic Languages ………………………………………………… 21
References……………………………………………………………………………………… 23

ArticlesShinsuke KISHIE, Faquire Razaul KARIM, Yukichi SHIMIZU, and Yukako SAKOGUCHI, Dialectal
Word Forms Associated with the Word Ine (Rice) in Japanese ……………………………… 25
Rei FUKUI, Rice and Related Words in Korean ………………………………………………… 32
Hiroyuki SUZUKI, Satoko SHIRAI, Keita KURABE, Kazue IWASA, and Shiho EBIHARA, Ikuko
MATSUSE, A Geolinguistic Analysis of the‘Rice’Category in Tibeto-Burman……………… 37
Hiroyuki SUZUKI, A Geolinguistic Description of Terms for ‘Rice’ in Tibetic Languages of theEastern Tibetosphere……………………………………………………………………… 52

Hiroyuki SUZUKI and Sonam Wangmo, Lhagang Choyu: A First Look at its Sociolinguistic Status………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60
Mitsuaki ENDO, Additional Remarks on Rice in Tai-Kadai …………………………………… 70

Cover photo: taken by yudeLin
Source: http://free-photos-o04.gatag.net/images/gf01a201407102100.jpg, accessed on March 4,
2016

"Sun" in Asia

observed in Sinitic documents found in China(Comment by M. Endo). The word forms tida/tirafound in the Ryukyuan dialects seem to be considered
as connected to tendō ኳ㐨 after the long disputes. In
Ainu, the form cup stands for both “sun” and “moon”,
so the form meaning “daytime” or “night” is added to
the form cup to distinguish between “sun” and “moon”.
Thus all forms denoting “sun” are compounds in Ainu.
In Korean, there is no dialectal variation, only with thethree forms shown in Table 1. In Sinitics, in addition
to two main categories, ri ᪥ and taiyang ኴ㝧, there
are a variety of compounds. In Hmong-Mien, the rootof the Type A ņV1 is considered as a loan from someTibeto-Burman language. Also, there are loans from
Chinese.
In Tibeto-Burman, there are some compound types
considered older than plain types from thegeolinguistic viewpoint. Thus, the form, once used aspart of a compound, later became an independent
word denoting “sun”.
Mongolic and Turkic do not share the words forsun. Mongolic has a disyllabic word naran as theoldest. In Tungusic, the oldest form šigun which could
date back to the Proto-Tungusic is not monosyllabic.
In South Asia, there are 15 categories, and the major
type among them covers from Aryan languages to
Dravidian languages. Some types are observed only in
Dravidian languages or mainly in Iranian languages.
Some word forms have roots in Sanskrit, Prakrit, oreven Persian. In Arabic, the oldest form for “sun” isʃams, which is used in Classical Arabic and is widely
spread throughout the Arabic-speaking areas.
There might be some more word-forms withsimilar features in different language groups; whether
they are actually cognates or not has to be further
examined by the experts of the languages involved.

The word forms denoting “sun” in Asia have much
more variety compared with those in Europe. One
reason might be that more than 17 language groups
and isolates in Asia are included in this atlas while
many languages in Europe are Indo-European
languages.
In some language groups or isolates shown below(Table 1), the word forms interpreted as the oldest aremonosyllabic forms, which are followed by disyllabic
forms or compound forms.
Table 1 Languages with oldest monosyllabic forms#
loans from other languages
monosyllabic

disyllabic

compoundJapanesehitaiyō#
ኴ㝧

KoreanhɛSiniticsri ᪥thɛjaŋ#ኴ㝧
taiyangኴ㝧otentosama#,
nichirin#etc.
henim
reverential

HmongMienA ņV1#
B root isnaŋ orntoŋ

TibetoBurman
TaiKadai
Austroasiatic

Ax *nǝy

Turkickün

A0 *g-namvan
I A ŋajoldest& others+tou 㢌,Bw- ፠,⳶,ష,ye √, wo ❐,yan ║ , Kwබ, di ᖇ

polysyllabic
words+ “hole”,“father”,“wife”, “sky”,“moon” etc.
various compound forms
and plain forms
ta van “eye of day”

ņi tau#ni tau#᪥⣜(㢌)or 䂕 ⣜(㢌)tang ugon “lamp of day”
“eye of day”, “eye of sky”,“eye of god” for all types
küneš

Semantic extension and differentiation
The word form denoting “sun” often extends its
meaning to “day”. Thus the word forms for “sun” and“day” are not always distinguished clearly.
In Turkic, the form kün originally meaning “sun”
extended the meaning to refer also to “day”. In Uralic,
the distinction for “sun” and “day” is not clear in somelanguages, but Tungusic and Samojed languages havedifferent words. In Hmong-Mien, the borrowed wordņV1 (Type A) for “sun” is also used for “day” while theseemingly older Type B might have shifted its
meaning to “sunshine” in some dialects because of the+karak “eye”

Some forms are loans from neighboring,prestigious languages such as Chinese, Tibeto-Burman,
Sanskrit, Persian and Classical Arabic.
In Japanese, there are taiyō and several othercompound words including parts of Chinese origin,but only the use of taiyō ኴ㝧 and nichirin ᪥㍯ areexpress “sun” are found in the area from Austronesian,Austroasiatic, Tai-Kdai, Sinitics, and even to Turkic(one language). In order to distinguish “sun” with“day”, the combinations such as “eye” + “day”, “eye”+ “sky”, “eye” + “god”, “burrow” + “day”, “hole” +“day” etc. are produced (See Map 1: the distributions
in Austronesian languages are not included). The wotype ❐ (“burrow” + “day”) and the Kw- type Ꮝ(“hole” + “day”) are found in Sinitics. This is the sameword-formation as the Indonesian form matahari(“eye” + “day”). These are examples of calque or loantranslation.

newly introduced Type A. In Tai-Kadai, the oldest van
for “sun” denotes both “sun” and “day” butcompounds have been developed to differentiate twomeanings. In Austroasiatic, most word forms denoting“sun” have developed other meanings, “day”, “sky”,“time”, and “god”. As in Tai-Kdai, compounds havebeen developed to refer only to “sun”. In South Asia,
some word forms for “sun” might have developed
from the words denoting “sun, sunshine”, “daytime”,“sun, mountain”, “name of a god”, “time” and ”hot”.
In Arabic, some forms developed from those meaning“hot” or “day” in Classical Arabic.
In Sinitics, except for ri ᪥, other word forms
exclusively mean “sun”. In Japanese, hi for “sun” also
has the meaning for “day” and “sunshine” while it ispart of a word form hiru meaning “daytime”. In Ainu,
the word to or too which originally meant “day”
extended the meaning to “day of the month” asJapanese -ka/-nichi, and the word cup which originallymeant both “sun” and “moon” to “month” as Japanese-gatsu.
In Korean, the word hɛ for “sun” also denotes“year” instead of “day”, whereas the word nar means“day”.

Reverential forms and sun worship
Reverential forms for “sun” are also found inlanguages in East Asia because the sun has been as an
object of worship: for example, kamuy for “god” in
Ainu, o-, don, and sama/san in Japanese, -nim in
Korean, and the Kw- type බ and the di type ᖇ in
Sinitics (See Map 2). Also, the Bw- type ፠, ⳶(⸃),ష and the ye type √ might be kind of a reverential
form because it is personification. In Austroasiatic, the“eye” + “god” pattern is found, and in South India, aname of god from Sanskrit is used to denote “sun”;
these are further evidences of worship.

Diffusion of word-formation patterns
Some peculiar patterns of word-formation which

Keywords: monosyllabic, compound, loan, semantic
extension & differentiation, pattern of word-formation,
reverential form
(Chitsuko Fukushima)

Esri, HERE. DeLorme, NGA, USGS 㹺Esri, HERE

Map 1

Map 2

“eye + day” compounds



Reverential forms in East Asia

Sun: Austronesian languages

form for “day” or “eye” for denoting “sun.” Isnag uses
the same form for “sun” and “eye” (type C). The
majority of these languages belong to type A and use
the same form for both “day” and “sun.”
2-3. Indonesian and Papua New Guinea languages: In
Indonesia, most languages adopt the expression “theeye of the day” for denoting “sun” (type B). Two
subgroups can be posited for this expression. One
group of languages just juxtapose the word for “eye”
before the word for “day” (B-1). Languages of thistype are spread all over Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi, andNusa Tenggara, more in the western region ofIndonesia. The other group consists of languages that
adopt the linker between the words for “eye” and“day” (B-2), and this group also spreads over Sulawesi
and Sumatra. Other languages in Sulawesi, Nusa
Tenggara, and Papua New Guinea (PNG) are mostly
type A. Some languages in PNG use the same form forboth “sun” and “light” (type D). Bali, Java, and Dobel
are examples of exceptional languages in which a
unique form is used for “sun” (type E).
2-4. Oceanic languages and Madagascar: Most
languages used in the Pacific Ocean region are Type E
and use a unique form for “sun.” However, in Tahitianand Eastern Fijian “sun” is expressed as type A, but inWestern Fijian it is type B-2. Malagasy uses type B-1.
3. Word forms for “day,” “eye,” and unique forms
The forms for “eye” do not differ much fromlanguage to language, mata, mato, or masu. In contrast,
those for “day” differ very much. At least one alveolar
consonant should appear, but it can be /d/, /l/, or /r/and the number of consonants and combination of
consonants may also vary: /dd/, /ll/, /dl/, or /ld/. These
forms are prevalent in Taiwan and the Philippines inlanguages, such as aaraw (Tagalog), ɔldɔw (Palawan),
and adlaw (Kaguyanen). In and around Indonesia,
there is an even wider variety such as hari(Indonesian), ari (Madurese), and urɔe (Aceh). In
Papua New Guinea, forms like kina (Mekeo) or dina
(Motu) are found.
Type E forms cannot be split into subgroups here
because they differ very much.
Keywords: word forms, three major types for: “sun,”“day,” “eye of the day,” unique forms.

1. Classification of word forms
Word forms to denote the “sun” in Austronesianlanguages can be categorized into four large types.
Type A contains an alveolar consonant(s) and vowels
before and/or after it/them. In most of the languages
that use type A, the form for “sun” is the same as thatfor “day.” Type B consists of mata or its variation,
combined with type A and typically means “eye of theday.” Type C consists of only mata or its variation.
Type D has /sin/ and a vowel and/or a nasal that
follows it, and mostly, it is a form meaning “light.”
Type E consists of miscellaneous forms that do nothave much in the way of shared features. These types
and subtypes are shown below.
A. (V+) alveolar consonant (+V): “Day”
qadaw
A-1. V+d+Vw
adlaw, ɔldɔw
A-2. V+dl+Vw
allaw, aaraw, aʐaw, yařoA-3. V+r/l+V(w)du, dina
A-4. d+V+(na)ai, aļ, an, allo, asa
A-5. V+i/l/n/s+(V)laʔaa, raʔaa, leA-6. r/l+V+(α)
B. /mata/ + A: “the eye of the day”
B-1. mata “eye” +Linker(nu, ni, lo etc.)+ A (allo, ari,leso) etc.
mata hari, mato
B-2. mata/mato “eye” + type A:ari, mata urɔe, etc.
C. /mata/
mata, mɛɛxa, mət, meteal
C-1 ma+(α):
tèát,C-2 Innovation from “eye,” without /m(a)/ʧəlorimata,C-3 Innovation from “eye” with /ma/:sinaŋ, sina etc.
D. /s/+V+n(+α) type:
E. Unique forms employed to denote “sun” (notidentical with “day” nor “eye”).
nadafi, n-iöE-1. /n/+/r/ or /l/+V:
kabudala, kalasia
E-2. /ka/+α:E-3. else:
2. Geographical distribution
2-1. Formosan languages: Atayal uses a unique form
for “sun,” but other languages have forms related to“day” in the corresponding languages. “Sun” inPaiwan, Yami, and Tsou have exactly the same form as“day,” but Paiwan and Yami belong to Type A,
whereas Tsou belongs to Type D. There are several
different types found in a relatively small area.
2-2. Philippine languages: Only Kalinga Limos in thesample belongs to Type E. Other languages adopt theReferences: Tryon, Darrell T. (eds.) 1995.
Comparative Austronesian Dictionary. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(Atsuko Utsumi)



A-1
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
B-1
B-2
C-1
C-2
C-3
D
E-1
E-2
E-3



qadaw A-2
adlaw, ɔldɔw
allaw, aaraw, aʐaw, yařodu, dina
ai, aļ, an, allo, asa
laʔaa, raʔaa, lemata/mato/maso+ nu/ni/lo + allo/ari/lesomata hari, mato ari, mata urɔe, etc
mata, mɛɛxa, mət, meteal
tèát, ʧəlo
rimatasinaŋ, sina etc.
nadafi, n-iö
kabudala, kalasia
else

"Rice" in Tungusic and Uralicǰəvgəː, ǰəvptə, ǰəbuvuːn, ǰəvkəː, ǰəptiləː, bilgəː
In contrast to the suffixes used in Russian, the suffix

Rice does not grow in the North Eurasia and Siberia.

-ktA is used in China. The suffix -ktA is found in many

Peoples in such areas live by pasturage and hunting.

words relating to food (mainly for many kinds ofHowever, rice is sold at stores and they eat it as an

berries: диктэ ‘berry’, химиктэ ‘cranberry’, игэликтэ

accompaniment to some food. The Russian word for‘red currant’, and others: дэгинӈэктэ ‘mushroom’,‘rice’, “рис (ris)”, has been borrowed by theхуликтэ ‘dried meat’), but it is not regarded as

languages of these peoples regardless of which

productive in Russia and the word such as *ǰəvuktə islanguage families they belong to.

not found1. On the other hand, in China it seems to be

Map 1 shows the distribution of words for ‘rice’ inmore or less productive:

Tungusic and Uralic. Phonologically similar forms ris,
riisi etc. are indicated in the same symbol withoutkəəŋuktə , əŋuktə , iŋəktə mentioning the donor languages (Rus. рис (ris), Swe.

dʒiktə   , iŋəlikəktə  ris, Ger. Reis). The black dot in the Map 1 means thatkʊtʃɪkta , gaakaakta  etc.

, ʃɪʃɪkta,,

no words for rice are documented.

It is assumed that the word dʒəəktə appeared soon

Tungusic in China

after the Orochon separated from the other Evenki and The Tungusic peoples in China have rich lexicons

moved to China.

compared to those in Russia (Map 2).

c. bələ, bele‘rice plant’
Orochon kandʊ‘rice’In Classic Manchu bele means ‘rice’. Sibe, adʒəəktədescendant of Manchu speakers, retains the word, andEwenke

xantʊ dʒəəttə

dʒəəttəHezhe is the only other Tungusic groups that keeps

Tungus Ewenke

totorɡoboda

the cognate word.

Yakut Ewenkekʉɡdʉʉrkaaxe

Hezhe



bələ

Sibe

χandu

bele

d. Other forms
The totorɡo is borrowed from Mongolic “tuturgan”,
but the origin of kʉɡdʉʉr is unknown.

a. kandʊ, xantʊ
As Hu (2001: 206) mentions, kandʊ is possibly

Map 3 tentatively shows the spread of Chinese rice

borrowed from Chinese and xantʊ might also be, but

culture. In the peripheral area borrowing is not

he does not mention the Chinese donor word. The

observed and only the words for ‘rice meal’ are foundpossible donor word might be(no words for ‘rice plant’).

 hàndào ‘rice

grown on dry field’ or  jīngmǐ ~ gēngmǐ ‘rice’.
b. dʒəəktə, dʒəəttə
These words contain the root ǰəb- ‘to eat’. According
to Vasilevich (1958), the last coda consonant of theroot tends to disappear in the southern dialects.
Ev. ǰəb-, ǰəv-, ǰəp-, ǰəbut-

cf; Sol. ǰəg-, Ew./Neg.

ǰəb-, Orch./Oroc./Nan. ǰəp-, Ude. ǰə-, Man. ǰəIn Tungusic in China:
Orochon dʒəp-, Ewenke dʒət-, dʒit-, dzəbt-, ʃilʉnHezhe dʐefu-, Sibe je-, jewe / dʐi-

Map 3. The spread of rice culture

Evenki in Russia has some derivative forms with the1Константинова (1964: 98) mentions that the suffix -ktA
possibly means originally “many”, which makes collective
noun.

suffix for the word meaning ‘food, groceries’:Map.1

Rice in Tungusic and Uralic langages

Map.2

Rice in Chinese Tungusic languages

“Rice plant” in Mongolic and Turkic

The form pirinč is found in Turkish, Gagauz,
Karaim, and Crimean Tatar. The word is from thePersian birinǰ5.
D) šal-type
The Uighur word for “rice plant” is šal (< Persianšālī). Turkmen has the cognate šalï, but it means“rice in the husk.”
E) ris-type
Chuvash, Sakha, Tuvan, Khakas, Altai, etc. use theRussian loanword ris for “rice.”
In many languages “rice plant” and “rice grains”
are not distinct words. For example, the Uzbek word
guruč means both.
Some languages have more than one word for“rice.” Turkmen and Nogay have the type-C words
bürünč and burïǰ respectively in addition to the type-A
forms, but the difference between the two forms is notclearly stated in dictionaries.
In Tuvan, the word ak-bïdā (ak, “white” in Turkic
and bïdā, “rice” in Mongolic) was once used for both“rice plant” and “rice grains” before, but this is now
obsolete and has been replaced with the Russian ris.
From a linguistic point of view, rice seems to havespread among the Turkic-speaking peoples inpremodern times mostly from Persia, where it was
frequently eaten.
Wollaston (1842) lists thefollowing Persian words relating to rice:(1) growing or in the huskšaltūk, čaltūk, šālī(2) cleared from the husk
birinǰ
(3) boiledčilāv(4) rice and milk
šīr-birinǰ
(5) rice-brothšullāh(6) rice and meat, spices, &c. pilāv6(7) rice-fieldšaltūk-zār, mazra‘-i-čaltūk
In the process of spreading, each word seems to haveundergone some semantic changes.

1. Mongolic
The word forms representing “rice plant” in Mongoliccan be divided into the following two types1:
A) tuturgan-type
Mongolic words for “rice plant” include tuturga(Ordos), totrəʁ (Khalkha), etc. in Mongol, hturgan in
Shera Yugur, tudorga in Monguor, tutrəgə in Kalmyk,
and so on.
These type-A forms have derived from the Turkic
word for “rice” tuturkān, which became obsolete in
Turkic and survived in Mongolic. (Clauson 1972)
B) kans-type
Words of this type are found in Dagur. The
Hailar dialect in northeastern China has the word kans“rice plant.” (Cf. kans am “rice grains,” and kans budā
“cooked rice”) The Tacheng dialect in the Xīnjiāng() has kāndə and xāndə2 for “rice, rice plant” (Cf.
kāndə budā / xāndə budā “cooked rice”)
The Kalmyks in the lower Volga region diverged
from the present-day Xīnjiāng in the 17th century, andthe speakers of the Tacheng dialect of Dagur are thedescendants of the soldiers sent from northeastern
China by the Qing () government in the 18th century.
The Mongolic words, excluding those used by these
two groups, show an AB-type distribution.
Rice does not grow in Mongolia, but there seems
to be a fairly clear distinction between “rice plant” and“rice grains” in Mongolic. This may be the result ofChinese influence.
2. Turkic
The word forms representing “rice plant” in Turkic
fall into the following five groups3:
A) döge-type
The forms döge (Tatar), dögö (Bashkir), dügü
(Kumyk), dügi (Nogay), düjü (Azeri), tüwi (Turkmen),etc. come from the old form tögī, which originallymeant “crushed or cleared cereal.”B) küriš-type
The forms are küriš (Kazakh), güriš (Karakalpak),kürüč (Kirghiz), guruč (Uzbek), and so on. These
forms are derived from the New Persian word gurinǰ4.
C) pirinč-type

Keywords: rice plant, rice grains, husk, cooked rice
Additional bibliography:
Laufer, B. (1919) Sino-Iranica. Field Museum of
Natural History: Chicago. pp.372-373.
Nesbitt, M., S. J. Simpson, and I. Svanberg (2010)
History of rice in Western and Central Asia. In S.
D. Sharma (ed.) Rice: Origin, Antiquity andHistory. Science Publishers: Enfield, New
Hampshire.
Wollaston, A. N. (1842) An English-Persian
Dictionary Compiled from Original Sources.
[Reprinted in 1978 by Cosmo Publications, New
Delhi.] p.303(Yoshio Saitô)

1

Buriat has no word for “rice plant.” It only has the word baraigar,
which means both “rice” and “rice porridge.” This word is related
to the Tibetan ˳bras-dkár “white rice.” (Jargal Badagarov, personalcommunication)
2< Chinese  hàndào (Cf. R. Matsumoto’s paper)3
In addition to these five types of words, Äynu, a Turkic cryptolectspoken in the Xīnjiāng, has sipit for “rice plant.”
4
Cf. Sanskrit vrīhi (Laufer 1919).

56

Cf. Sanskrit vrīhi (Laufer 1919).
> Turkic pilov, pelau, palau, etc. > European pilaf and pilav.

 No data available

as of February 2016

“Rice plant” in Mongolic No data available as ofFebruary 2016

“Rice plant” in Turkic

Rice in Sinitic

the use of this term may indicate the superiority or theimportance of the referent as grain. Needless to say,millet is more frequently cultivated than rice in thenorth, and rice is more important than millet in thesouth. The dividing line of rice cultivation is wellknown as the Qinling-Huaihe ⛙ ᕊ Ὶ Ἑ line.
Northern people rarely see planted rice, so there is noneed for them to represent rice as plant or as grainwith different word.
The formation of type C gu ㇂ ( ✐ ) may be
explained in
the context of intermediate
environmental conditions. There are two possibilities
for its formation; either the northern type (dividing RP
and UR, ㇂ denote UR) was replaced by the southern
type, or the opposite is true. Be that as it may, ㇂probably denoted “unhusked rice” at first, and later
expanded its meaning to include “Rice plant”.
Table 2

1. Classification of word forms
We classified word forms into 4 large categories.
A. dao ✄ type
A1. tau/dau: ✄[tau Ϫ ] [dɔ Ϫ㹠 ]✄Ꮚ[tau Ϫ ʦɿ] Ỉ✋[ʂueiϩ tauϪ]A2. tiu: 㔙[tiuϪ㹠] 㔙௘[tiuϪ㹠 a]B. he ⚻ type: ⚻[vɔϨb][ ui]C. gu ㇂(✐)type:C1. ㇂(✐) [kuɤʔϫ㹟] ㇂Ꮚ[kuϨ㹠ʦɿ]C2. ✋㇂[tauϪ kuϨ㹟]
D. others su ⢖[sy], zaozi ᪩Ꮚ[ʦau ʦiɛ]
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
A distribution of the words denoting Rice plant in
China looks comparatively simple. A. dao ✄ type ismainly distributed in the northern area of the country
and the lower reaches of the Yangzi river (A1).
Adjacent to A1, A2 is distributed in Fujian province.
A2 is characterized by the glide -i- in the root. B. he ⚻type is distributed in other southern areas, including
Hunan, Jiangxi, Guangdong and Guangxi. C gu ㇂ typeis distributed in the upper reach of Yangzi river(C1).
C2“✋㇂”, the contamination form of A and C1, isdistributed in the contact area of A type and C1 type.
Table 1RP

UR

(Fujian)ኴཎ

にᆀ tau tsəʔ㇂ kuəʔ

typeすᏳにᆀ thau tsɿ

㇂ᆀ ku tsɿ

Ṋ₎

㇂ ku

㋏㇂ ɕiou ku

basin

ྜ⫧

に tɔ

にᆀ

㇂ᆀ kuəʔ tsə

Southern

⸽ᕞ

に dɛ

㇂ koʔ

㋏ soʔ

type

ᱵ┴

⿮ vɔ

㇂ kuk

㋏௘ siuk e

⚟ᕞ
ན㛛

RP

UR

に tieu⢖ ts uɔʔ

h

IM
tai

に tiu

h

㯩௘ sue a⢖ ts Ik

Table2 shows the condition in Min dialect. Su“⢖”is used to denote “unhusked rice” here. ⢖ is usuallyused for “Italian millet” in other regions, so thereferential shift of ⢖ can be clearly observed.
However, su ⢖ and gu ㇂ are relatively similar inpronunciation and meaning, therefore their etymology
may be related. Except referential shift or confusion,
many kinds of names related to rice are found inancient sources. Some of them may relate with otherlanguages. Examples are shown in Table3. Middle
Chinese(MC) are attached for reference.
Table 3⚾
Rice plant✌
Fruit of rice
*si
*ka
⚻ஓ(ㄝ)
⚻அ⚽ᐿ(ㄝ)⛣( Rice plant )ぜ*nuɑn Rice in Pei dialect
*jĭe
/*nuɑ
Ἅᅧㅝ✄ (ㄝ)୍᭣⚻ྡ(ㄝ)⛭Rice[ ⚻ ⶜ ] Rice plant
*thu
*miet
✄ஓ (ㄝ)⚻ஓ(ㄝ)㯩Glutinous rice⛳
Rice or barn grass
*ɕĭo
*bai
✄ཪ⛳ⲡఝ✐(ᘅ)⚻ᒓ⪋㯫(ㄝ)✮Wild rice⛈*xuɒi
Rice in Nanhai
*lĭo
/*xɑu
⮬⏕✄ (⋢)✄ᒓ/༡ᾏஅ⛈(ㄝ)IM

Northern

Yangzi

Min type

A conceptual model of distribution of the rice plant(RP) referring to “unhusked rice (UR)” and “Italian
millet (IM)” is shown in Table 1. Looking at table 1,
we can notice two features indicating the south-northcontraposition. First of all, in the southern area, “riceplant” and “unhusked rice” are distinguished, while
this is not the case in the northern area. Secondly, inthe northern area, gu ㇂ is used for “Italian millet”,
while the same word it is used for “unhusked rice” inthe south area. The Yangzi basin, reflecting its
geographical location, presents intermediate features.
For example, in Wuhan Ṋ₎, RP and UR are denotedby identical terms (northern type), but gu ㇂ is used todenote UR (southern type). Gu ㇂, also written as “✐”,was originally used as a generic term for “grain”, so(ㄝ:Shuowenjiezi ㄝᩥゎᏐ, ⋢:Yupian ⋢⠍, ᘅ:Guangyunᘅ㡩.

cf. MC: ✄:*dɑu, ⚻:*ɣu䀗㻘㻌 ㇂:*kuk, ⢖:*sĭwok)Keywords: south-north contraposition, intermediate
dialects, referential shift(Kenji Yagi, Takashi Ueya)

“Rice” in Sinitic

Rice plant: Tibeto-Burmankɔ33 bo55, ku33 pɔ55, etc.
E + B typekoʔ4tɕhe6, kɔ tšhén, etc.
E + other typekauʔ-pìɴ, jɔ̆21thauŋ35kauk31, etc.
BK + others typetɕhɛ55 pɔ55, tshe21pəʔ42, ʈʂha55phv̩ 33, tʃhə33sɿ31,dʐʅ31 iɑ33 so55, tɕɔ31tseŋ55, etc.

1. Classification of word forms
In Tibeto-Burman (TB), more than 15 word roots
are found to denote ‘rice plant’. Many of them are
etyma of the proto-level forms such as
Proto-Tibeto-Burman
(PTB;
see
STEDT),
Proto-Kuki-Chin
(PKC;
see
STEDT),
andProto-Burmic (PB; see Bradley 2011), as well as
Written Tibetan (WrT) and Written Burmese (WrB). A
list of word forms is as follows:

The PTB etyma mentioned above contain several
meanings: PTB *b-ras ‘RICE / FRUIT / BEARFRUIT / ROUND OBJECT’; PTB *bu ‘RICE’; PTB*ma-y ါ *mey ‘RICE / PADDY’; PTB *kuk ‘RICE /GRAIN (CROP)’; PTB *m-dz(y)a-k/n/t/s ‘EAT /FOOD / FEED / RICE’ (see STEDT). The PB etymon*čan1 means ‘polished rice’ (cf. Bradley 2011).
In the classification above, subclassifications
regarding phonetic forms are not provided except for
the B and D types because the diversity of phonetic
forms usually reflects a sound change within alanguage or language complex; hence, for example, toclarify the variegated phonetic forms of the A-type isuseful only when a loan process into other languages
is discussed. It is certain that these forms are related to
the WrT form ’bras if a whole systematic soundcorrespondence of a language or a dialect isconsidered. Bradley (2011) took into considerationthat the B-type is divided into two categories: reflexesof WrB chan (BC) and the others (BK); the D-type isalso divided into two categories: straightforwardreflexes of the proto-forms (DM) and their metathesis
counterpart (DA). The B-type and the KR-type might
have a relation with each other if the examples from
Qiang, /qhəʴ/ (Yadu) and /tʂhə/ (Puxi), are considered,despite WrT also having a form chan ‘boiled grain’. It
is thus to be well examined whether a hypotheticalarchi-proto-form for these two types is built based on
this evidence.
Compounds of different roots are not frequently
attested. A stem with an affix is not considered in thelist above, but reflected on the maps as marked by ‘+’,regardless of the sort of affixes or compounds. Some
etyma are used for other categories of ‘rice’ such as‘hulled rice’, ‘rice grain’, and ‘cooked rice’,depending on the languages. To the contrary, the formof ‘rice plant’ corresponds to that of ‘millet’ in theoriginal meaning as seen in the TH- and KR-types aswell as that of ‘polished grain’ in the original meaning,as seen in the TD-type.

A. PTB etymon *b-ras, incl. reflexes of WrT ’brasmbras24, mbrat, mɖwa53, mɖʐwi, bras, bdʑa:, ɳɖaɦ,ɳɖɯ ɦɯ, ɳɖɛ:, ŋgɯ:, ɲɟi:, ŋgi:, ȵdʑe:, mbɛ˞:, mbɛʕː, etc.
B. PB etymon *čan1, incl. reflexes of WrB chan
BC: shain, cîn, etc.
BK: tʂhɯ33, tɕhe33, tshe33, tʃhɯ44, cà, etc.
C. PTB etymon *bu
bùq, b ̀ , bɯ́, ɓɯ̀, etc.
D. PTB etymon *ma-y ါ *mey
DM: mam, maam, a44 mɛ44, mɛ35mɛ31, etc.
DA: aŋ, am33, aŋ31bɯ55, a:ɱ55, etc.
E. PTB etymon *kuk, incl. that of PB *ʔgok
kaukF, kuk31, ko33, khɔ13, quo31, gɔ31, etc.
F. PB etymon *haŋa55ho21, etc.
G. PTB etymon *m-dz(y)a-k/n/t/s
dzɑ31.
TH. PKC etymon *θaaŋ (‘millet’)ta:ng2, tsáaŋ, etc.
KR. *khr/*qhr-type (cf. WrT khre ‘millet’)khrɯʔ35, qhəʴ, kr̥ ʰi44, khrɿ, etc.
TD. reflexes of WrT drus ma ‘polished grain’ʈe: ma, ʈe ma, etc.
BA. ba-typeba, wā.
S. s-typesiɯu55, ɕu55, sɔ44, ʂv44, ɕi31, ʂuɛ55, etc.
DO. do-typedɔ35.
LZ. l-typeli31za53.
NY. ny-typenȳ.
In addition to the above-mentioned forms, most ofwhich are monosyllabic, several types of compounds(excluding examples with an affix) are also found.
Some of them are as follows:
E + C type

Burmese /kauʔ-pìɴ/ (rice-plant + plant).
The TH-type, corresponding to a PKC form, iswidely shared by Kuki-Chin languages mainly spoken
over the Myanmar-Bangladesh-India borderland. Notethat there is no expansion of this form into otherlanguages.
The S-type is mainly found in Prinmi, Naic
languages, and some dialects of Bai. Its distribution isclustered from a wider view, i.e., a south-eastern partof the TB area. Interestingly, it appears between the A
and B/E types. The S-type found in Bai may be a loan
from the neighbouring Naic languages. However, its
spreading route is still unclear.
The DO-type is attested only in Guiqiong, /dɔ35/;
however, a similar form /ndu55/ ‘meal’ is also used in
Lhagang Choyu. The form /to/ in Dakpa (mTshosna
Monpa) also means ‘rice’. Even geographicallyscattered, they might share a common origin, theDO-type. However, there is also another form, reflexof WrT lto ‘meal’, employed as ‘cooked rice’ inDzongkha, which has four distinctions in the ‘rice’
category. More investigation is needed.
Any geolinguistic explanations are currently
unavailable for other types such as F-type (found in
Phongsali Hani), G-type (found in Nusu; a PTB
etymon *m-dz(y)a-k/n/t/s, generally corresponding towords meaning ‘food’ and/or ‘eat’), LZ-type (found inTrung, but originated from Nujiang Lisu), andNY-type (found in Kayaw) because of their extremely
limited distribution.

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The A-type is the most widely distributed because
most Tibetic languages share it, presenting extremely
variegated phonetic forms. Several non-Tibetic
languages spoken in the easternmost Tibetospheresuch as various rGyalrongic languages, nDrapa, andDarmdo Minyag, also use this type, which is regarded
as a Tibetan loan. One noticeable point is that rice
does not grow in many parts of the Tibetosphere, but
the varieties share the same root of this word;
moreover, it produced a loan word. However, since therice is used for religious rituals, ’bras might spreadand remain as a religious word, not as a basic word.
Another WrT etymon drus ma (the TD-type) ismainly used in Yunnan. It originally designates ‘rice
grain’, distinguished from ’bras ‘rice plant’ in several
vernaculars of Khams Tibetan, however, some dialects
use it as a general term for ‘rice’ in English.
The B-type is divided into two groups, one ofwhich is the BK-type, widely distributed in thesouth-eastern area next to the Tibetosphere. This typeis mainly attested in Loloish languages. Various
phonetic realisations of BK are perhaps the same as
the A-type, a result of diachronic sound change in agiven variety. The other category is BC: reflexes of
WrB chan, mainly attested in Burmese dialects.
The C-type is distributed mainly in Karenic
languages in Myanmar and its surrounding areas. A
phonetically similar form to the C-type is the BA-type,also attested in Myanmar and its adjacent areas. The
form in Newar /wā/ is included in the BA-typebecause of a phonetic similarity; however, the origin is
uncertain. A compound /zăbá-bìɴ/ (hulled rice + plant)
is used in Yangon Burmese as well as Myeik (/zabábı̀/̃ ),in which the first two syllables (reflex of WrB capā3)
are a Mon loan (Bradley 2011:135).
The D-type is divided into two categories. The
DM-type is attested in Jino, Nusu, and Jinghpaw,
whereas the DA-type is found in Cak, Rawang, andTrung languages. Their distribution is scattered, hence
the forms are unlikely to have a mutual relationship.
However, the explanation as metathesis given by
Bradley (2011:139) could be acceptable.
The E-type is attested in Bai and several
Lolo-Burmese languages. This form is related toChinese gu ‘grain’ (STEDT), and it should be notedthat Yunnan Chinese also use gu for ‘rice plant’ (Yagi& Ueya, this volume). We can find that the E-typeappears with a suffix or in a compound, e.g., Yangon

3. Conclusion
In the present work, we collected Tibeto-Burman
data of ‘rice plant’ from 483 languages and dialects,
and found more than 15 roots that denote ‘rice plant’.
On the maps, we distinguished 17 types of plain forms,
and 3 types of stems with an affix and compound form.
The various word roots are independent and have theirown territory; therefore we do not conclude any
chronological order of them. A much more interesting
point might be possible semantic changes of roots
among related words regarding ‘rice’ and other crops
such as ‘millet’, which is another investigation fromdifferent perspectives.
Keywords: Tibeto-Burman, semantic category,semantic change(Hiroyuki Suzuki, S. Shirai, K. Kurabe,
K. Iwasa, S. Ebihara, and I. Matsuse)Legend
Map 1: ‘Rice’ in Tibeto-Burman: The whole area.
N.B. The mark ‘+’ in the legend means an existence ofother morphemes.

LegendMap 2: ‘Rice’ in Tibeto-Burman: An enlarged version.
N.B. The mark ‘+’ in the legend means an existence ofother morphemes.

Rice in Tai-Kadai

corresponding to Indic kh- to represent kh andmodified letter ( ) to represent x-, agreeing on thewhole with Lü and White Tai." According to him, *xchanged into kh- in SW and CT, while *x- changed toɣ-, ɦ-, and h- in NT dialects.
You (1980: 8) postulates the chain as kh- > h- > x- >ɣ-, but he doesn't mention that a different soundshould be reconstructed for this category, opposing to*kh- forDiller (1988, 1991: 177) cited Gedney (1979,1989)'s reconstruction for the initial of rice as *ɣ. Thatmeans, the NT form preserved the oldest sound, and itchanged to kh-, x-, respectively. This view conforms
to the geographical distribution of type A having or
having had a voiced gutteral, since it occupies theperipheral areas denoting an older origin.
Nishida (2000:115-117) reconstructed *khau for"rice", *qhau for "to enter" (sic, they should bereversed), and he considered the changing process in
Sipsongpanna Dai of NT as below:
13th C. kh- : qh15th C. kh- : x17th C. kh- : x-ฃ

1. Classification of word forms
The dominant word forms for rice in Tai-Kadai aretypes A and B, which presumably have the same
origin:A. ɣau C2 typeA-1 ɣau C2 typeA-2 ɦau C2 type
A-3 hau C2 type
B. khau C1 typeB-1 xau C1 typeB-2 khau C1 typeB-3 khaau C1 type
C. m- typeC-1 mu:n C1 typeC-2 mut typeC-3 meɯ C1 typeD.others
Some examples, such as su42 mɯŋ42 kuŋ35, je23,
haƼŋ24 na55 / paƼi24 etc. in the Geyang languages are
isolated. Other than these, some irregular forms of A
and B regarding tone class, for examples A2, B2 andso on, occur. However, their locations are scattered.
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The type C distributed among the Li languages is in
Hainan Island only. If the C-1 mu:n C1 type isconsidered as a peripheral form surrounding the C-2
mut type, the latter might be a newer form.
Types A and B differ in terms of voicedness of
initial consonants with a consequent upper/lower
distinction of tone. Types A-1 and A-2 retain thevoiced initial consonant, but the initial consonant of
A-3 is devoiced. Type A is mainly distributed in thenorthern area, but it is also found in the southernmost
places as well as the Isan area of Thailand and Laos.
It is especially noteworthy that the Saek language, oneof the most conservative languages in Tai, belongs tothis type. Type B is distributed in the southern area.
There are several interpretations concerning thechronological order of types A and B.
Li (1977: 209, 290) reconstructed the proto form as*xəu C. He says: "This voiceless fricative has
merged with Proto-Tai *kh- in most SW and CT
dialects, but is represented by h- in most NT dialects,
occasionally ɣ- or v- in some Pu-i dialects. The NT
dialects then are crucial in determining whether theProto-Tai consonant is *kh- or *x-. ͐The Sukhothai
inscriptions have two letters, the normal letterข.

present
xFerlus (2010: 65) says: "The vocabulary for rice in
the Thai languages originates from MK. The genericterm kʰawC1 (exception: kʰa:wC1 in Siamese)
originates from the widespread root *r.koʔ "husked
rice" in MK." Its modern reflection in Khasi is[kʰaw]. The Modern Mon form for the husked rice ishaoʔ < *s.ŋəʔ which he mentioned is also noteworthy
in this regard.
Pan (2013) reconstructed the proto Tai-Kadai form
for "rice" as *Gu, and it changed to q- in Kam-Sui
languages, then further changed to *h- in proto Tai.
Shimizu (2015) showed that *r.koʔ, meaning"husked rice", is dominant in the major Austroasiaticarea except for the southeastern corner in his map. 2.
In the majority of Tai-Kadai languages, rice plant,
husked rice, and meal are denoted by one and thesame word form.
This fact implies that ricecultivating was unknown for former Tai-Kadai's, andfavors the theory by Ferlus that it was borrowed from
Austroasiatic.
However, if the sound changing
process *ɣ > ɦ > h > x > kʰ is correct, the original
borrowed form should have a voiced initial. khau C
is already attested in the Ram Khamhaeng inscription
composed in 1292.
(Mitsuaki Endo)





Rice: Austroasiatic

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
A first look at the distribution of 8 main lexical
forms representing “rice plant,” “paddy (rice),” and“unhusked rice” will allow us to regard ba‫ ݦޝ‬type asquite old because its location is scattered in the mostperipheral areas: Northeast India, Southern Laos,Southern Vietnam, and Peninsular Malaysia. A close
look at the distribution of s‫ ݦޝܤ‬type with reference toC-r‫ ޝܧ‬type also reveals its oldness due to its peripheral
distribution. Meanwhile, among the forms belonging
to C-r‫ ޝܧ‬type, the forms as s(ԥ)r‫( ܧ࡭ܧ‬Katuic), srԥw
(Khmeric) sro’ (Monic) are older than those as ‫ݦ‬ar‫ޝܤ‬,thr‫ޝܤ‬, ‫ݦ‬ar‫ޝܧ‬, har‫ޝܧ‬, tr‫ޝܧ‬, r‫( ޝܧ‬Katuic), chróo‫ݦ‬, and chóo‫ݦ‬(Monic) because the former are seen in more
peripheral areas than the latter (see Map. 1).
hƾ‫ ݦܧ‬type does not show the a-b-a distribution
pattern as can be seen in the above cases. However, its
location is quite broad, ranging from Northern
Thailand and Northern Laos to Northern Myanmar.
The locations of the other 4 forms are all limited tocertain regions: c‫ܭ‬h type in Southern Laos, maw typeon the border of Laos and Vietnam, ha‫ޝ‬l type along thecoast of Gulf of Thailand, and al‫ޝܧ‬³ type in Northern
Central Vietnam.
Only al‫ޝܧ‬³ type (Vietic) is supposed to have beenborrowed from the Old Chinese: ✋ *[l]ޫu‫ >( ݦ‬dào)(Ferlus 2010, Baxter & Sagart 2014).
In most cases, the forms for “rice plant,” “paddy,”or “unhusked rice” are distinguished from those of“husked rice.” Furthermore, the forms for the latter arequite limited, having only 2 root forms: *r.ko‫ ݦ‬and*ph‫( ޝܭ‬Ferlus 2010). As for their distribution, shown in
Map 2, *ph‫ ޝܭ‬can only be seen in the region where c‫ܭ‬htype is dominant—that is, the West Bahnaric region.

1. Classification of word forms
In this map, word forms of “rice plant,” “paddy(rice),” or “unhusked rice,” which are in most cases
distinguished from those of “husked rice,” “uncookedrice” or “pounded rice,” are classified as 9 categories
as follows:
A. baӃҌ type
A-1. kba‫( ޝ‬Khasic)A-2. ba‫( )ݦ(ޝ‬Aslian, Bahnaric), baba (Aslian), bwa‫ޝ‬(Bahnaric), va‫( ޝ‬Bahnaric)
B. cѓh typec‫ܭ‬h (Western Bahnaric)
C. maw typemaw (Northern Bahnaric)
D. C-rэӃ types(ԥ)r‫( ܧ࡭ܧ‬Katuic), srԥw (Khmeric) sro' (Monic),‫ݦ‬ar‫ޝܤ‬, thr‫ޝܤ‬, ‫ݦ‬ar‫ޝܧ‬, har‫ޝܧ‬, tr‫ޝܧ‬, r‫( ޝܧ‬Katuic), chróo‫ݦ‬,chóo‫( ݦ‬Monic)
E. sъӃҌ types‫( ޝܤ‬Katuic), s‫ݦܤ‬, s‫( ݦ࡮ܥ‬Monic)
F. hƾэҌ typeF-1. hƾ‫( ݦܧ‬Khmuic, Palaungic), hƾau‫( ݦ‬Palaungic)
F-2. ƾo‫( ޝ‬Khmuic, Palaungic), ƾaw (Khmuic,
Palaungic), ƾua‫( ݦ‬Khmuic)
G. haӃl typeG-1. ha‫ޝ‬l tko‫( ݦ‬Pearic)
G-2. ha‫ޝ‬j (Pearic)
H. alэӃ³ type
H-1. al‫ݦޝܤ‬, al‫ޝܧ‬³, ‫ݦ‬al‫ܧ‬ғ‫ޝ‬, ul‫ޝܧ‬³ (Vietic)H-2. l‫͵ޝܧ‬ͷ, l‫ޝܧ‬³, lua³, law (Vietic)
I. The other types
pad‫ܭ‬j (< Malayic), ph‫“ <( ޝܭ‬husked rice”), juuk,șák, etc.

Map 1sъӃҌ type () and C-rэӃ type (Keywords: rice plant/paddy/unhusked rice, husked rice
(Masaaki Shimizu))

Map 2. *r.ko‫( ݦ‬) and *ph‫( ޝܭ‬

)




A

F

*k.‫ܦ‬a‫( ޝ‬Ferlus 2010)*hƾ‫( ݦܧ‬Diffloth 1980)

A1

kba‫ޝ‬

F1hƾ‫ ݦܧ‬/ (h)ƾo‫ ݦ‬/ hƾau‫ݦ‬A2ba‫ )ݦ(ޝ‬/ bwa‫ ޝ‬/ va‫ޝ‬F2ƾo‫ ޝ‬/ ƾaw / ƾua‫ݦ‬BG*c‫ܭ‬h (Sidwell 2003)
c‫ܭ‬h

C

*‫ݦ‬maw (Sidwell 2011)
maw

D

G1

ha‫ޝ‬l tko‫ݦ‬G2ha‫ޝ‬jH*‫ݦ‬a-l‫( ݦޝܧ‬Ferlus 2007)*sar‫( ܧܧ‬Sidwell2005); *sroo‫( ݦ‬Diffloth1984)H1al‫ݦޝܤ‬DO‫ޝܧ‬ñ‫ݦ‬DO‫ܧ‬ғ‫ޝ‬ul‫ޝܧ‬³sar‫ޝܤ‬V ԥ U‫ޝܧ‬VUR VUԥZ / [‫ݦ‬a/th]r‫ ޝܤ‬/H2l‫͵ޝܧ‬ͷ / l‫ޝܧ‬³ / lua³ / law[‫ݦ‬/h]ar‫ ޝܧ‬/ tr‫ ޝܧ‬/ r‫ ޝܧ‬/ chróo‫ݦ‬E*ha‫ޝ‬l (Headley1985)I*s‫( ݦ ࡬ܺ࡮ܥ‬Diffloth 1984)s‫ ޝܤ‬/ s‫ݦܤ‬

OthersRice:South

Asia (IE (Indic, Iranian,Nuristani), Dravidian,
Burushaski)Andamanese,

have changed the middle /h/ into /j/, /ž/, /z/: such as( ). In the west of the region,
Pashto wríji
Persian, Tajik, and Balochi have changed the initial/w/ into /b/. These languages have also added a front
vowel after the consonant, and /n/ before the /j/ aslosing the final front vowel; e.g. Balochi birinj( ). In northwest Pakistan, the forms changed theinitial sound /bir/ into /gr/; e.g. Khowar grinč ( ).
Meanwhile in northeast Pakistan, the other current isobserved, which transformed the consonant cluster /vr/
into /br/, and the phoneme /h/ into zero; e.g. Shina
bríu ( ) and Nager Burushaski bryúu ( ). Thischange of /vr/ into /br/ may have happened under the
influence of the neighbouring Hunza Burushaski and), whichDomaaki form bras ‘rice-plant’ ( ,originated in Tibeto-Burman.
Forms of the taṇdụ la type are observed throughout
South Asia around the Sanskrit region, i.e. from thenorthern part of Pakistan to Maldives (see Map 3). The
forms of this type are derived from the Sanskrit wordtaṇdụ la तंडुल ‘grain after threshing, unhusking andwinnowing (especially rice)’. Additionally, many
languages in South Asia have cognate words such as, but they mean ‘grain of rice’, not
Urdu čā wal‘rice-plant, paddy’.
The next bhāt type can be seen around the longitudeof 70° E. The original form and meaning of this typeare not clear.
The dhāna type is observed in northern areas. From
Assamese language in the north-east end of South Asia,
to Kashmiri in the north-west end. The meaning of the
Sanskrit word dhāna धान is ‘corn grain’.
Nell and varči originated in Dravidian. The former
originally meant ‘rice, paddy’ while the latter ‘rice,grain’. Forms of these categories are used only inmodern Dravidian languages. The Telugu word nivari
is either of this category, or derived from Sanskritnīvā r नीवार ‘wild rice’.
Šā li शा ल and anna अ न originally meant ‘grain in
the husk’ and ‘food’ in Sanskrit, respectively. Thesetypes are employed by Aryan languages.
Prā u, biyyam, aški, and qes seemed to emerge from
Dravidian, but their original definitions are unknown.
These types are only observed in Dravidian languages.
It is sometimes believed that Persian dish polow
and Turkish pilav are of Persian origin, but the term
appears to be derived from Dravidian. Sanskrit pulākaपलु ाक means ‘lump of boiled rice’.
(YOSHIOKA Noboru)

Nihali,

1. Classification of word forms
In this map, there are six major categories of word
form: vrīhi, taṇdụ la, bhā t, dhā na, nell, and varči, andsix minor categories.
A. vrīhi: vrı̄ hi, vı̄ , wríji, wríži, wrize, birinj, berenj,
grinč, grenj, rizan, ruji, bryúu, bríu
B. taṇd ̣ula: taṇdụ la, taṇdụ lamu, tā ndū l ̣a, taṇdụ r,haṇdụ ̄ , čhā uḻ a, čā ula, čā la, čaul, čawal, čā val,sahal
C. bhāt: bhāt, bhāta, bhatt, bhatta, baṭ
D. dhāna: dhāna, dhān, dhāṇ, dāñĕE.

nell: nell, nellu, nellï, nel, nes̱ ; nes̱ išky(compounding with ašky in K. aški group)

F. varči: verči, varsil, vari, valči, vaḍlu, val, wanjı̄ ,bā r, ariči, ari; nivari, ō remu
G. šā li: šā li, šalí, sā rı̄
H. anna: anna
I. prā u: prā u, prā lu
J. biyyam: biyyamu, bi·am
K. aški: ašky, akki
L. qes: qesu, xessM. others: čṑ nnā mū̃ jī, mo, nē be, deputullantana,
iat,
̣
bras
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The lexical forms representing rice (plant, paddy)
can be classified into A) vrīhi type, B) taṇdụ la, C)
bhāt, D) dhā na, E) nell, F) varči, G) šā li, H) anna, I)
prā u, J) biyyam, K) aški, L) qes, and M) others.
The major types are vrīhi and taṇdụ la.
The former can be found in Sanskrit vrīhi ी ह‘(grain of) rice’. Forms of this type are mainly locatedin the northwestern area of South Asia, i.e. westward
of Pakistan, but also in Sri Lanka, within Aryan and
Iranian languages, and even Burushaski languages(see Map 2). In the south, Marathi ( ) and Sinhala( ) retain the initial /v/. In the border between Aryan
and Iranian, Pashto and Waṇeci use the initial /w/ andMap 1. ‘Rice’ in South Asia

Map 2. vrihi type

Map 3. taṇdụ la typeThe Rice: Arabic languages

and u merged in Colloquial Arabic.
For example, *ḥimaːr > ḥumaːr, *dʒubna > ɡibna,
etc. can be seen in Cairene Ar. Accented i and u arealways rendered as ə in Damascene Ar. The same
explanation can be used with regards to rəzz in
Mesopotamian dialects including Anatolian.
In the Mossul ʁəzz the r is shifted to ʁ. The pronunciation of r as [ʁ] can often be seen at the individuallevel in other regions. The so-called emphasized ṛ ([ɾʶ]or [ɾˁ]) can be seen in some places. When r is not in
combination with i it often becomes ṛ.
riss, ṛuss are z devoiced at the end of a word. The
word is written as ross according to Maltese
orthography, and the two separately written vowels oand u are the same phoneme. Further, the voiced
consonants at the end of the word are all devoiced.
Juba Ar. in South Sudan is losing its original Arabic
features, having ruz remain a two consonant wordroot.
A-b. roːz typeThe roːz type is a r-w-z three consonant root form
where a w is added to the two word root r-z, includingṛoːz, ṛoːẓ, ṛuːẓ, ruːz, etc.In Morocco, since it is linked
to oː > u it becomes ruːz. It is distributed solely from
Tunisia to Morocco, and is ruzz in Malta and medieval
Andalus (Iberia), allowing us to think that it was
originally the ruzz type, that later developed into theroːz type.
A-c. rinz ( ‫)ۑ رﻧﺰ‬rinz is in Taṣāwīr Oman. It is believed that n wasadded onto this in order to make it a three consonantroot, but this addition of an n for this purpose isunusual. In Taṣāwīr rənz = “plant” and ʕīʃ = “dish” <ʕajʃ.

1. Classification of word forms
The word forms of “the rice” are classified as 4 large
categories: ruzz, ʕeːʃ, timman, maːru.
A. ruzz typesubgroups areّ‫)ە‬
A-a. ruzz, ṛuzz, ruz, rəzz ( ‫رز‬ruzzu, ruzzun,
rizz, ṛizz (the vowel i)
russ
ʁəzz,
A-b. roːz, ruːz, ṛuːẓ, rowz, rawz(‫)ۑ روز‬A-c. rinz ( ‫)ۑ رﻧﺰ‬B. ƣeːʃ (‫)ڸ()ﻋﯿﺶ‬C. timman (‫)( )ﺗﻤﻦ‬D. maːṛu (‫)( )ﻣﺎرو‬2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
A. ruzz type ( ‫)ۑە( ) رز‬
A-a. ruzz typeThe ruzz type is the most widely distributed in
Arabic-speaking areas.
ὄρυζα (Classical Greek) Ўuruz, urz, aruz ... (Classical Ar.) Ў*ruz (< uruz) or ρύζι (Modern Greek) Ў  Ў    Ў?
ruzz ruwz Ѝ? rizz
rinz
The Classical Arabic uruz, urz, aruz (‫ )ارز‬may havebeen borrowed from the Classical Greek ὄρυζα. From
there, the use of u, a, or the Arabic ʕ㸦‫ا‬㸧as an initialsound may have been dropped. This phenomenon of
the initial ʕ being dropped can often be seen in otherlexicons as well:
Cl. Ar. ʕaχaða ‘to take’ > χuð ‘take! (imperative)’
Cl. Ar. ʕaχaða ‘to take’ > Cairene Ar. χad ‘to take’
Because the two consonant r-z becomes the wordroot when 㸦ʕ ‫ا‬㸧is dropped, the doubled z ruzz (the rootis r-z-z) becomes a three consonant root.
It is possible that rizz was borrowed from the Modern
Greek ρύζι; but it is necessary to give consideration to
the period that this took place in.
It is possible that it wasn’t borrowed from Modern
Greek, and is a result of the vowels being repositioned
again according to the consonant environment once i

B. ʕeːʃ (‫)ڸ()ﻋﯿﺶ‬ʕeːʃ is distributed throughout the Persian Gulf. ʕajʃ
originally meant ‘life, living’ and is used in Egyptian
Ar. to mean ‘bread. Perhaps “life” grew to indicate“rice,” as pilaf is eaten as a staple food in the Arabian
Peninsular.
C. timman (‫)( )ﺗﻤﻦ‬timman is used in areas of Iraq including Baghdad,
Basra, etc. In this region a distinction is made between
ʃilib ‟field rice, rice before being processed for food”
and timman.
D. maːṛu (‫)( )ﻣﺎرو‬Maːṛu is used in Ḥassānīya Ar. in Mauritania. cf.
Wolof mālo “rice”.
(Youichi Nagato)





References
Austroasiatic
Baxter, William H. & Sagart, Laurent. 2014. Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction, version 1.1(20 September 2014) http://ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/
Diffloth, Gérard. 1980. The Wa languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 5.2 (192 pp.)
Diffloth, Gérard. 1984. The Dvaravati Old Mon languages and Nyah Kur. Monic Language Studies.
Chulalongkorn University Printing House. Bangkok (iii, 402 pp., maps)
Ferlus, Michel. 2007. Lexique de racines Proto Viet-Muong (Proto Vietic Lexicon). Unpublishedmanuscript.
Ferlus, Michel. 2010. The Austroasiatic Vocabulary for Rice: its origin and expansion. Journal of theSoutheast Asian Linguistics Society. 3.2: 61-76.
Headley, Robert K. 1985. Proto-Pearic and the classification of Pearic. In Southeast Asian Linguistic
Studies presented to André-G. Hudricourt. Edited by Surya Ratanakul, David Thomas, &Suwilai Premsrirat. Bangkok, Mahidol University: 428-478.
SEALANG Mon-Khmer Language Project. SEALANG Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary.
http://sealang.net/monkhmer/dictionary/
Sidwell, Paul and Pascale Jacq. 2003. A Handbook of Comparative Bahnaric: Volume 1. West
Bahnaric. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 551.
Sidwell, Paul. 2005. The Katuic languages: classification, reconstruction and comparative lexicon.
Muenchen: Lincom Europa (iii, 307 p.; ill., map).
Sidwell, Paul. 2011. Proto Bahnaric. Unpublished manuscript.
Tai-Kadai
Diller, A. V. N. 1988, 1991. Consonant Mergers and Inscription One, In: James R. Chamberlain ed.
The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy, Collected Papers, 161-189, Bangkok: The Siam Society.
Ferlus, M. 2010. The Austroasiatic Vocabulary for Rice: its Origin and Expansion, Journal of theSoutheast Asian Linguistics Society, 3.2: 61-76.
Gedney, W. J. 1979, 1989. Evidence for Another Series of Voice Initials in Proto-Tai, In: Selected
Papers on Comparative Tai Studies, 229-269, Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast AsianStudies, The University of Michigan.
Haudricourt, A. G. 1972. Problèmes de phonologie diachronique, Paris: SELAF.
Lévi, A. 1988. Les langues Thai, In: Nicole Revel ed. Le riz en Asie du sud-est, Atlas du vocabulairede la plante, articles, 47-80, Paris: Éditions de l'École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
Li, F. K. 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai, Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
Nishida, T. 2000. Higashi Ajia Shogengo no Kenkyu (Studies in the Eastern Asian languages), 1,
Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku Gakujutsu Shuppankai. [in Japanese]
Pan, W. Y. 2013. Cong Daomi de Mingcheng Kan Daomi de Fayuandi (Homeland of Rice as seenfrom Terms of Rice), In: Shi Feng & Feng Gang eds. Eastward Flows the Great River: Festschriftin Honor of Professor William S-Y. Wang on his 80th Birthday, 447-454, Hong Kong: City
University of Hong Kong Press. [in Chinese]
Shimizu, M. 2015. Rice: Austroasiatic, Paper presented at the 2nd meeting of the ILCAA Joint
Research Project "Studies in Asian Geolinguistics".
You, R. J. 1980. Cong Yuyan Dilixue he Lishi Yuyanxue Shilun Yazhou Zaipei Dao de Qiyuan he
Chuanbu (An Essay on the Origin and Dispersion of Rice Cultivation in Asia based on Linguistic
Geography and Historical Linguistics), In: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao, 1980/3: 6-17. [inChinese]

'LDOHFWDO:RUGIRUPV$VVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH:RUG,QH ULFH LQ-DSDQHVH
6KLQVXNH.LVKLH)DTXLUH5D]DXO.DULP<XNLFKL6KLPL]X<XNDNR6DNRJXFKLKeywords-DSDQHVH'LDOHFW5\XN\XDQGLDOHFWV*HRJUDSKLFDO'LVWULEXWLRQ&KLQHVH2ULJLQ ,QWURGXFWLRQ ,Q Kaijou no Michi, <DQDJLGD  K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW -DSDQJDLQHG WKH FXOWXUH RI ULFHFXOWLYDWLRQIURPWKHVRXWK+HGHYHORSHGWKLVK\SRWKHVLVWRGHPRQVWUDWHWKDWWKHURXWHZKLFKWKH
FXOWXUH RI ULFH FXOWLYDWLRQ VSUHDG WKURXJK PDLQODQG RI -DSDQ HTXDWHV ZLWK WKH URXWH WKURXJKZKLFKWKHGLIIXVLRQRI-DSDQHVHFXOWXUHRFFXUUHGLQ-DSDQ7KHUHJLRQRIRULJLQDVZHOODVURXWH
RIGLVSHUVLRQRIFXOWXUHRIULFHFXOWLYDWLRQLVQRZEHLQJGLVFRYHUHGWKURXJKPRUHUHVHDUFKZLWKDGYDQFHGPRGHUQWHFKQRORJ\      %\ PHDQV RI WKH '1$ DQDO\VLV RI ULFH 6DWR   GLVFXVVHV KRZ WKH FXOWXUH RI ULFHFXOWLYDWLRQV HQWHUHG -DSDQ PDLQO\ WKURXJK WZR URXWHV :LWK UHIHUHQFH WR VWXGLHV E\ 6DVDNL WKHWZRURXWHVRIGLVSHUVLRQRIULFHFXOWLYDWLRQLQFOXGHWKHURXWHVWDUWHGIURPWKH<DQJW]H
5LYHUOHDGLQJWR-DSDQ$UFKLSHODJRWKURXJKWKH.RUHDQSHQLQVXODDQGWKDWIURPWKH3KLOLSSLQHVOHDGLQJWRWKH5\XN\X,VODQGVDQGIURPWKHUHIXUWKHUWRWKH-DSDQ$UFKLSHODJR7KHIRUPHULVNQRZQWREH japonica LHWHPSHUDWH-DSDQHVHYDULHW\ EHDULQJWKHJHQHRI+ZF7KLVW\SHDFFRXQWVIRUDERXWRIWRWDOULFHFXOWLYDWLRQLQWKH-DSDQHVHDUFKLSHODJR2QWKHRWKHUKDQG
WKHODWWHULVNQRZQDVJapanika LHWURSLFDO-DSDQHVHYDULHW\ EHDULQJWKHJHQHRIKZFZKLFKDFFRXQWVIRUDERXWRIWRWDOULFHFXOWLYDWLRQVSUHDGWKURXJKRXWWKHFRXQWU\&XUUHQWO\ VWXGLHV DUH EHLQJ FRQGXFWHG RQ WKH WUHQGV RI WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ DQG VSUHDG RIFXOWXUH RI ULFH FXOWLYDWLRQ LQ -DSDQ ZKLFK PD\ VKHG OLJKW RQ WKH QDWXUH RI -DSDQHVH FXOWXUH
EHJLQQLQJ IURP WKH Jǀmon WR Yayoi HUD ,Q WKLV UHJDUG WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI
GLDOHFWDO IRUPV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ine ULFH  LQ WKH -DSDQHVH DUFKLSHODJR VHHPV WR EH LPSRUWDQWWKRXJKWKHUHLVDSRRUYDULDWLRQLQWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRIGLDOHFWDOIRUPVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKLWLHine
ULFH 

Ine (✄) as a vegetation is known to be ine (rice), however, when rice-ears arethrashed they change to momi (paddy). These husked momi SDGG\ DUHNQRZQWREH
1
2

Tokushima University
University of Dahaka

genmai KXVNHGULFH DQGpolished genmai (husked rice) is known as hakumai (polishedrice). Subsequently, the cooked form of this rice is known DVmeѻi FRRNHGULFH RUgohaN
FRRNHGULFH ,WZRXOGEHVLJQLILFDQWWRGHVLJQDWHGHULYDWLRQVRIWKHVHZRUGVLQWKHIUDPHZRUNRIWKHOLQJXLVWLFW\SRORJ\ 

Dialect map1. Rice Plant in Japanese Dialects
6RXUFH+,5$<$0$7HUXRHWDOHGV  'LFWLRQDU\RI-DSDQHVH'LDOHFWV *HQGDL1LKRQJR+ǀJHQ'DLMLWHQ 0HLMLVKRLQ7RN\R 






Dialect map2. Rice in Japanese Dialects
6RXUFH+LUD\DPD7HUXRHWDO㸦㸧&RQWHPSRUDU\-DSDQHVH'LDOHFW'LFWLRQDU\ *HQGDL1LKRQJR+RJHQ'DLMLWHQ 0HLMLVKRLQ
7KHUHDUHWZRDUJXPHQWVLQIDYRURIWKLVSURSRVDODVIROORZV  $UJXPHQW  7RSLF   :KDW DUH WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ ZRUGV IRU WKH ZRUGIRUPV ine>SDGG\@kome>ULFH@meѻi>ULFH@RUgohaN>ULFH@LQWKH(XUDVLDQODQJXDJHV RUGLDOHFWV $UJXPHQW 7RSLF 7KHUHDUHZRUGIRUPVIRUULFHZKLFKLQFOXGHmotѻ DQGsekihaN RWKHUWKDQWKLVJHQHUDOZRUGIRUULFHkomeLQWKH-DSDQHVH)RUPHULVNQRZQWREHmotѻigome >JOXWLQRXVULFH@ZKLOHWKHODWWHULVNQRZQDVurutѻimai>QRQJOXWLQRXVULFH@,QOLQHZLWKWKHVHZRUGIRUPVZKDWDUHWKHRWKHUZRUGIRUPVWRUHSUHVHQWkome ULFH LQRWKHUODQJXDJHV GLDOHFWV 'LVWULEXWLRQRIGLDOHFWDOZRUGIRUPVWRUHSUHVHQWWKHZRUGLQH ULFH LQ-DSDQHVH

7KH GLDOHFWDOIRUPV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH ZRUG LQH ULFH  DQG NRPH ULFH  LQ -DSDQHVH FDQ EH
DVFHUWDLQHGIURPWKH*HQGDL1LKRQJR+RXJHQ'DLMLWHQ &RQWHPSRUDU\-DSDQHVHGLDOHFW8QDEULGJHG FRPSLOHG E\ 7HUXR HW DO   DV ZHOO DV =XVHWVX 5\XN\XJR -LWHQ ,OOXVWUDWHG 5\XN\XODQJXDJHGLFWLRQDU\ FRPSLOHGE\1DNDPRWR   

Dialect map3-1. Rice plant in Ryukyu Dialects

Dialect map3-2. Rice plant in Ryukyu Dialects
6RXUFH
1$.$02720DVDFKLH  =XVHWVX5\XN\XJR-LWHQ.LQNHLVKD
7KHUH LV D PHDJHU YDULDWLRQ LQ WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI GLDOHFWDO IRUPV IRU WKH ZRUGIRUPVUHSUHVHQWLQJ ine SDGG\ DQGkome ULFH 7KHZRUGIRUPine LVGLVWULEXWHGWKURXJKRXWPRVWRIWKH
PDLQODQG -DSDQ ZKLOH ïne RU ene EHLQJ WKH SKRQHWLF YDULDQW RI HDFK RWKHU DUH GLVWULEXWHG LQ WKHUHJLRQRI7RKRNXDQG,]XPR ,]XPR 
7KH-DSDQHVHZRUGIRUWKHSODQWVHJHiganbana, $PDU\OOLV KDYHDORWRIGLDOHFWDOYDULDQWVZKLOH WKH ZRUGV IRU WKH SODQWV HJ matsu, SLQH  take EDPERR  DQG ume, SOXP  KDYH D IHZGLDOHFWDOYDULDQWV UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH ZRUGine ULFH  EHORQJV WR WKH ODWWHU JURXS $FFRUGLQJO\ SODQWVKDYLQJPHDJHUYDULDQWVLQGLDOHFWDOZRUGIRUPVZKLFKKDYHH[LVWHGLQ-DSDQIURPWKHDQFLHQWWLPHV
WHQG WR KDYH QR GLDOHFW YDULDQWV 7KHUHIRUH LW FDQQRW EH GHQLHG WKDW WKH ZRUGIRUPV ine ULFH  KDGH[LVWHGIURPWKH<D\RLHUDZKHQWKHFXOWLYDWLRQRIULFHKDVWKRXJKWWRKDYHEHJXQ2QHGLVWLQJXLVKHVEHWZHHQLQHDQGNRPHZKLOHWKHRWKHUGRHVQRW7KHIRUPHUFOXVWHURIGLDOHFWVGLVWLQJXLVKHV ✄ DQG⡿ UHVSHFWLYHO\DQGDUHSURQRXQFHGDV㹙LQH㹛DQG>NRPH@7KHODWHUGRHVQRWGLVWLQJXLVKEHWZHHQ ✄
DQG ⡿  ZKLFK DUH SURQRXQFHG DV >PDL@ RU >PH‫> @ޝ‬PL@ $OWKRXJK WKHUH DUH PDQ\ GLDOHFWVGLVWLQJXLVKLQJLQHࠕ✄ࠖDQGNRPH ࠕ⡿ࠖLQWKHPDLQODQGDQG1RUWK5\XN\XPRVWRIWKHGLDOHFWVLQ
WKHFOXVWHU RIGLDOHFWV LQWKH VRXWKHUQ5\XN\X GR QRW GLVWLQJXLVK WKHP :LWK UHJDUG WRWKH GLDOHFWV
DVVRFLDWHGZLWKLQHLQWKH5\XN\XGLDOHFWV1DNDPRWR  UHIHUUHGWRWKHSDWWHUQRILPSRUWDWLRQDQGGLVSHUVLRQRIW\SLFDOGLDOHFWV :KHQ WKH ZRUG HQWHUHG WKH 5\XN\X DUFKLSHODJR LW VSUHDG IURP PLGGOH 2NLQDZD towards thesouthern part of northern Amami and Southern Miyako, and Yaeyama. Therefore, the distribution
shows that there are new word-forms in the mid-southern part of Okinawa, while the old word-form
remained around the periphery. In consideration of this distribution of the ine, the word-form of ine
lineage is distributed in southern middle Okinawa, while the word-form of mai lineage is distributed
in northern Okinawa, Miyako and Yaeyama.

&RQFOXVLRQ
7R FRQFOXGH IURP LQGLYLGXDO GLVWULEXWLRQ DPRQJ WKH ZRUGIRUPV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH ZRUG ULFH
PDLKDVHQWHUHGILUVWLQWKH5\XN\X,VODQGVDQGWKHQWKHLQHLQWKHODWWHUSHULRG7KLVDOVRDWWHVWVWKDWWKHVSUHDGRIZRUGIRUPVRIWKHPDLOLQHDJHILUVWHQWHUHG.\XVKXDQGVXEVHTXHQWO\ZRUGIRUPVRI
LQHOLQHDJHVSUHDGWKURXJKWKH-DSDQHVHDUFKLSHODJR7KHGLVWULEXWLRQRIWKHYDULRXVGLDOHFWVRIWKH
5\XN\X,VODQGVLVRQHRIWKHVRXUFHVWKDWFRQWULEXWHGWRWKHSUHGLFWLRQRIWKHKLVWRULFDOGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHGLDOHFWVLQWKH-DSDQHVHDUFKLSHODJR 


5HIHUHQFH<DQDJLGD.XQLR  .DLMǀQR0LFKL&KLNXPDVKREǀ
1DWLRQDO,QVWLWXWHIRU-DSDQHVH/DQJXDJHDQG/LQJXLVWLFV  -DSDQ/LQJXLVWLF$WODV9ROƿNXUDVKǀ,QVDWVXN\RNX0XUD\DPD6KLFKLUR  1LKRQJRQR7DQMǀ&KLNXPD6KREǀ
1DNDPRWR0DVDFKLH  =XVHWVX5\ǌN\ǌJR-LWHQ.LQNHLVKD
1DNDPRWR0DVDFKLH  1LKRQ5HWWǀ*HQJRVKLQR.HQN\ǌ7DLVKǌNDQ6KRWHQ 
7RNXJDZD 0XQHPDVD 6DWǀ 5\ǀLFKL 6DVXSHUYLVRU 6KǀJDNX 7RVKR   &RPSUHKHQVLYH
'LFWLRQDU\RI-DSDQHVH'LDOHFWV 1LKRQ+ǀJHQ'DLMLWHQ 6DWǀ<ǀLFKLUǀ  ,QHQR.LWD0LFKL6KǀNDEǀ +LUD\DPD7HUXRHWDO  &RQWHPSRUDU\-DSDQHVH'LDOHFW'LFWLRQDU\ *HQGDL1LKRQJR+RJHQ'DLMLWHQ 0HLMLVKRLQ
6DWǀ5\ǀLFKL  '1$JD.DWDUX,QDVDNX%XQPHL.LJHQWR7HQNDL1LKRQKǀVǀN\RNDL
6DVDNL.ǀPHL  1LKRQEXQNDQR7DMǌNǀ]ǀ6KǀJDNXNDQ
6DVDNL.ǀPHL  1LKRQEXQNDQR.LVǀZR6DJXUX1LKRQKǀVǀN\RNDL
7RNXJDZD0XQHPDVD  'LDOFW$WODVLQ-DSDQ 1LKRQQRKRXJHQFKL]X  
6DWǀ5\ǀLFKL  +ǀJHQQR&KL]XFKǀ2NXQL.RWREDR6KLUX6KǀJDNXNDQ









































Rice and related words in Korean
Rei Fukui
Department of Korean Studies,
Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology,
The University of Tokyo

Abstract
Korean has a rich vocabulary of words related to rice. This paper gives a tentative
comparison with that of Japanese, and then present linguistic maps for two important words
representing rice plant and husked rice. Based on these maps and historical data, the history
and etymology of these words will be discussed.

1

Introduction

Rice has been one of the main staple foods in Korea, in much the same way as in other east Asian
countries, and vocabulary related to rice is abundant.

2

Modern standard Korean

Modern standard Korean has the following words related to rice:pj‫[ ܧ‬pj‫]ܧ‬nwi [nܷi]s’ar [s’al]
ips’ar [ips’al]
meps’ar [meps’al]chaps’al [t‫ݕ‬haps’al]pap [pap]

rice plant; unhusked riceunhusked rice mixed in husked rice
husked rice (typically rice but not confined to it)
non-glutinous rice (as opposed to s’ar of grain other than rice, and also
to glutinous rice)
non-glutinous rice (as opposed to glutinous rice)glutinous ricecooked rice (typically rice but not confined to it); meal

The distinction between /pj‫ܧ‬/ and /s’ar/ is similar to that of Japanese /ine/ and /kome/ but there areslight differences. For example, /pj‫ܧ‬/ can mean not only the rice plant but unhusked rice which in turn isexpressed by a separate word in Japanese. The word /nwi/ can mean unhusked rice but it can be used
only when it is mixed with husked rice. The word /s’ar/ largely corresponds to Japanese /kome/ but it isdifferent from the latter in that it can mean various other grain, e.g., /cops’ar/ (foxtail millet), /poris’ar/(husked barley) etc., by prefixing the name of grain other than rice. In this respect the word /s’ar/
resembles more like Chinese mƱ (⡿).1
A tentative comparison of Korean and Japanese vocabulary concerning rice is shown in thefollowing table.
Koreanrice plantpj‫ܧ‬unhusked riceunhusked rice mixed in husked rice nwi
husked rice (in general)s’ar
1 This is pointed out in Ito (2008 : 272).

Japanese
ine
momi
kome

husked grain (other than rice)
non-glutinous riceglutinous ricecooked rice (and other grain); meal

3*-s’arips’ar, meps’ar uruci
chaps’almoci-gomepap
mesi, (archaic) ii

Dialectal variation

Among various words related to rice, linguistic maps for two important words, /pj‫ܧ‬/ ‘✄’ and /s’ar / areshown below, based on data found in Ogura (1944), dialect data for ‘✄’ and are given.

Map 1. /pj‫ܧ‬/ ‘✄’.
A. pjэ type
A1. pj‫ܧ‬, A2. pe, A3. pøB. narak type
B1. na-rak, B2. na-rok, B3. na-ruk, B4. no-rakMap 2. /s’ar/ ‘⡿’
A. s’ar typeA1. ‫ݦ‬s‫ݞ‬l, A2. ‫ݦ‬sal (Used in many places. Omitted in the map.)
B. ips’ar typeB1. ip-sal
C. waƾ type
C1. waƾ-d‫ܭ‬, C2. waƾ
In map 2 the word /s’ar/ [‫ݦ‬sal] is not displayed because it is used in many places and Ogura (1944)
specifies no locations for this item.
Based on the above two maps, the following observations can be made on the geographicaldistribution of these two items.
Rice as plant (✄):
(1) Geographical distribution: A clear north vs. south contrast; pjэ-type forms (north) and narak-type
forms (south).
(2) The modern standard form /pj‫ܧ‬/ is used only in a limited area and a phonetic variety /pe/ is morewidespread.2(3) Among the four narak-type forms, the form /narok/ and its variety /naruk/ are locatedseparately at several places, mainly at the borders, separated by the /narak/ area so that it can besaid that the form /narok/ is the oldest among the four.
Rice as husked grain (⡿):
(1) The standard form /s’ar/ (not marked in the map) and a phonetically more conservative variety/s’‫ݞ‬r/ is widespread.
(2) Other type of forms /ips’ar/ and /waƾ/ are located at the northern half of the peninsula.

4

History and etymology

The following table shows modern forms concerning rice and corresponding Middle Korean forms,
and data from JƯlín lèishì recorded in the 12th century.
Modern forms/pj‫ܧ‬//narak//s’ar//ips’ar//meps’ar//chaps’ar//pap/

MK (15-16c.)/pje/ (H)JƯlín lèishì (㭼ᯘ㢮஦, 12c.)/ps‫ݞ‬r/ (H)⳶⸃ (*p‫ݞ‬s‫ݞ‬r)/nips‫ݞ‬r/ (RH)
/moips‫ݞ‬r/ (LH)/chaps‫ݞ‬r/ (HH)/pap/ (H)Ogura (1943) gives a detailed account on the etymologies of words related to rice, in which the main
points are summarized as follows:(1) Modern /ips’ar/ goes back to MK /nips‫ݞ‬r/ and the morpheme /ni-/ is cognate with Japanese/ine/.
(2) According to a folk etymology, the /ni-/ in /nips‫ݞ‬r / was derived from ‘ᮤ’, as oppsed toanother form /waƾ-mi/ (‘⋤⡿’) in which the element /waƾ/ is related to wangkǂn (⋤ᘓ), thefounder of the Koryo dynasty. But Ogura denies this theory because the prefix /waƾ/ is used
simply to denote a ‘big’ thing.
2 The alternation between vowels /j‫ܧ‬/ and /e/ are often observed in many dialects including Seoul.

(3) Modern /s’ar/ goes back to MK /ps‫ݞ‬r/ and it was recorded as ‘⳶⸃’ in JƯlín lèishì (㭼ᯘ㢮஦).
But it has neither Chinese or Sanskrit origin, and it has its origin in another word /bjesܺr/(official position in bureaucracy).
(4) The word ‘⳶⸃’ is also used in some Japanese dialects but it was borrowed from Korean.
(5) The word /narak/ is related to the word /narah/ (nation, country), because rice was considered tobe the foundation of politics in the old days.
(6) He also tries to find cognates in Austronesian and other languages families for the word /s’ar/
but present no definite conclusion.
I have the following questions on these points:(1) No mention was made about the origin of the word /pj‫ܧ‬/.
(2) /ni-/ included in MK /nips‫ݞ‬r/ contained a rising tone (R). This must be taken into account inconsidering etymology of this word.
Finally I would like to point out the possibility that the MK form /ps‫ݞ‬r/ might be related to Austronesianwords for rice, for example bras, thereby supposing a metathesis occurred between the second liquidand final consonant.3

Acknowledgements
I would like thank Professor Endo Mitsuaki for inviting me to this conference and also to Professor Ito
Hideto for valuable opinions about the origin of words for rice in Korean.
References
Choi, Hakkǎn (1978) Han’guk pangǂn sajǂn. (A Dictionary of Korean dialects) Seoul: Hyeonmunsa.
Han’guk Chǂngsin Munhwa Yǂn’guwǂn (ed.) (1987—1995) Han’guk Pangǂn Charyochip (Materials in Koreandialects). 9 vols. Han’guk Chǂngsin Munhwa Yǂn’guwǂn.
Chin T’aeha (1974) Kerim Yusa yǂngu. (A research on JƯlín lèishì) Seoul: Tower press.
Ito, Hideto (2008) Inshoku kara no sekkin (Approach from foods). In H. Noma (ed.) Kankokugo Kyoikuron Kǀza 4.
Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Kang, Sinhang (1980) Kerim Yusa Koryǂ pang’ǂn yǂngu. (A research on the Korean dialect in JƯlín lèishì) Seoul:
The University of Sǂnggyungwan press.
Kim, Minsu (ed.) (1997) Korean Etymological Dictionary (㤆ⰂⰦㄒ※㎡඾). Seoul: T’aehaksa.
Lee, Iksop et al. (2008) Han’guk pangǂn sajǂn (Linguistic atlas of Korea). Seoul: T’aehaksa.
Ogura, Shinpei (1943) Ine to bosatsu. (Rice and bodhisattva) Minzokugaku Kenkyǌ (Ẹ᪘Ꮫ◊✲) 1-7: 695-725.
Tokyo: Nihon minzoku gakkai. (reprinted in Ogura (1975: 415-445)
Ogura, Shinpei (1944) Chǀsengo hogen no kenkyǌ (Studies in the Korean dialects). 2 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Ogura, Shinpei (1975) Ogura Shinpei Chosakushyǌ 2 ( ᑠ ಴ 㐍 ᖹ ⴭ స 㞟 ( ஧ )).  Kyoto: Kyoto daigaku
kokubungakkai.

3 This view was pointed out to me by Professor Ito Hideto (personal communication).

A Geolinguistic Analysis of the ‘Rice’ Category in Tibeto-Burman
a

b

c

d

e

f

Hiroyuki Suzuki , Keita Kurabe , Kazue Iwasa , Satoko Shirai , Shiho Ebihara , and Ikuko Matsusea

IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnologyb
JSPS / ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studiesc
JSPS / Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto UniversitydLinguistic Research Center, Reitaku Universitye
ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studiesf
Research Center for Newar Languages and Culture

Abstract
This article deals with a geolinguistic analysis of various word forms represented as ‘rice’ inEnglish in Tibeto-Burman languages. Because of a vast areal distribution of these languages
over variegated cultural areas, the semantic field corresponding to ‘rice’ in English is also
various. In our data, some Tibeto-Burman languages classify ‘rice’ into several semantic
categories employed by distinct word forms, e.g., ‘rice plant’, ‘hulled rice’, ‘polished rice’, and‘cooked rice’, whereas some merely have only one form as in English. The linguistic maps
display that the complexity of the semantic field of ‘rice’ is related to the rice cultivation culture.

1

Introduction

Collecting data for producing a geolinguistic map of ‘rice plant’ for the second topic of the project Studyin Asian Geolinguistics (Suzuki et al. this volume), we have noticed that Tibeto-Burman languages havedifferent semantic division regarding the word ‘rice’. This article basically addresses the issue of thecomplicated way of representing the semantic field of ‘rice’.
As the first step, we arrange the semantic category of ‘rice’. For example, Japanese possesses a
series of words corresponding to ‘rice’ in English, such as: ine ‘rice plant’, kome ‘rice grain’, momi
‘hulled rice’, genmai ‘polished (brown) rice’, hakumai ‘polished (white) rice’, and mesi / gohan ‘cookedrice’. Since Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken in the rice cultivation region, it should be noticed that
there is a possibility of distinguishing rice species, such as japonica and indica, non-glutinous rice(urutimai in Japanese) and glutinous rice (motigome in Japanese), and water rice plant (suitoo inJapanese) and land rice plant (rikutoo in Japanese). Among these semantic categories, for instance, mostTibetic languages have only one word to express all of these categories, whereas Burmic languages
typically classify them into several categories.
We should also pay attention to the terminology which is frequently used in articles written in
English, in which we have found crucial problems. One of them is ‘husked rice’. The lexicographicaldefinition of the word ‘husked’ is ‘of which the husk was removed’; however, it is widely used for
denoting both the original meaning and another meaning, ‘with a husk’. And, predictably, ‘unhusked’,
the counterpart of the word ‘husked’, is also employed for both ‘with a husk’ and ‘without a husk’ inpractical use. Therefore, in this article, we use ‘hulled’ for ‘with a husk’ and ‘polished’ for ‘without ahusk’. Concerning ‘paddy’, we avoid this term for any kinds of ‘rice’ because of its polysemy.
This article deals with the rice as a biological form (plant and grain) of non-glutinous oryza sativa,
planting rice. Words of other categories, such as ‘glutinous rice’ and ‘rice field’, are out of scope.
Referring to Bradley (2011), we can see a more complicated situation of semantic changes over several
important grain crops in the Tibeto-Burman languages. Such information will be mentioned whennecessary.

2

Variation of the semantic category for ‘rice’ in Tibeto-Burman: examples

This section presents several examples which reflect a complicated situation regarding the semantic
category for ‘rice’ in Tibeto-Burman based on the data collected and/or confirmed by the present authors.
Some previous works do not provide any clear information regarding the classification of ‘rice’, towhich we must pay attention because we cannot know whether the given languages have different
semantic subdivisions or not. Such data might not be ready for use in geolinguistic analyses. This
prudent attitude will certainly enhance the quality of linguistic maps.
We describe languages classified in the following linguistic groups: Tibetic, Burmese, Jinghpaw, Yi,
Bai, Karenic, Newar, and Qiangic. Following the description of each language group, a summary
regarding the variation of semantic division is provided. An appendix at the end of the article provides aword list for the ‘rice’ category of Burmese and Yi languages.
2.1

Tibetic

The major part of the Tibetosphere does not belong to the rice cultivation culture because of its climate
condition. Hence, the word for ‘rice’ in the Tibetic languages is not abundant, and most varieties have acommon word form derived from Literary Tibetan (LT) ’bras. This LT form is related toProto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB) *b-ras ‘RICE / FRUIT / BEAR FRUIT / ROUND OBJECT’ as mentioned
in Suzuki et al. (this volume). This case can be displayed as follows:1
Table 1: Majority of the Tibetic varieties.
category
rice (plant, hulled, polished, cooked)
ѫ
exampleяѓ:, mbrѓ:, mяi, etc.
However, two exceptions are found: Khams Tibetan in Yunnan and Dzongkha, which are described
below.
The first one is a part of dialects of Khams Tibetan spoken in Yunnan, which has two different forms
for ‘rice’ as follows:
Table 2: Several Tibetic varieties spoken in Yunnan.
category
rice plant
rice grain (hulled, polished, cooked)
࠺
exampled҉e:, mbѓӋ:
Ҁi: ma, ҀΩӋ mщ
This type distinguishes ‘rice plant’ from ‘rice grain’, comparable with ine and kome in Japanese. The
form of ‘rice plant’ corresponds to LT ’bras and that of ‘rice grain’, to LT drus ma. See Suzuki (thisvolume) for details.2 All the dialects which possess this distinction are spoken in the rice cultivation
area.
The second one is Dzongkha, which has a more complicated type for ‘rice’, which classifies thesemantic category in four sorts:
Table 3: Dzongkha’s system.
category rice plant
example bd҉a:rice grain (hulled)chum

rice grain (polished)re:cooked riceto

Two word forms correspond to LT forms. /bd‫ݣ‬a:/ ‘rice plant’: LT ’bras, and /to/ ‘cooked rice’: LTlto. The latter is also employed for ‘meal’ including ‘cooked rice’ in other dialects spoken in Lhokha, thearea along Yarlung Tsangpo River south to Lhasa, such as rGyantse and rTsethang.

1 Note that some Tibetans consider that ‘cooked rice’ is to be called the form derived from LT za ma or zan. This

word generally means ‘food, meal’, not specifically ‘cooked rice’ among various kinds of food and meals.

2 See also Suzuki (2012), which is the first description regarding this topic.



2.2

Burmese3

Burmese, as is typical of languages of rice cultivation area in mainland Southeast Asia, has multiple
words associated with ‘rice’, thus separating words for rice with and without a husk, and words forcooked and uncooked rice, all of which are expressed by distinct roots, e.g. zăbá (Written Burmese(WB) capƗ3) ‘hulled, uncooked rice grain’, shàѬ (WB chan) ‘polished, uncooked rice grain’, and thămíѬ(WB thama۪3) ‘cooked rice; food’. An appositional compound shàѬ-zăbá is also used in order to refer torice grain regardless of whether it is covered with a husk or not. In Burmese, ‘rice plant’ is expressed bya word kauҌ (WB kok) or by compound nouns involving a morpheme ҌăpìѬ ‘tree, plant’, i.e. kauҌ-pìѬand zăbá-bìѬ.
Table 4: Burmese type.
category rice plant
example kauҌ, kauҌ-pìѬ, zăbá-bìѬ

rice grain (hulled)zăbá

rice grain (polished)shàѬ

cooked ricethămíѬ

Many of these rice-related words are, diachronically speaking, inheritance from Proto-Burmic, areconstructed ancestor of Lolo-Burmese languages: *‫ݦ‬gok ‘unhusked japonica paddy’, *þan1 ‘husked
rice’ and *maƾ2 ‘cooked rice’, the first of which appears to have a historical connection to the Chinese
word g· (Old Chinese *[k]‘ok) ‘grain’ (Bradley 2011:135, 137-9). The word zăbá, on the other hand, isconsidered to be a loanword from Mon, an Austroasiatic language which was predominantly spoken in
Lower Burma before the southward expansion of Burmese speakers (ibid., p.135).
2.3

Jinghpaw

Jinghpaw, spoken in the northern edge of rice cultivation area in Southeast Asia, makes fine distinctions
between ‘hulled’ and ‘polished’ rice as well as between ‘cooked’ and ‘uncooked’ rice, as is the case withother neighbouring languages of Southeast Asia, e.g. mam ‘hulled, uncooked rice grain’, ngu ‘polished,uncooked rice grain’, and юàt ‘cooked rice; food’, the last of which has its diachronic source insuffixation of the obsolete nominalizing suffix -t to a verbal base юá ‘eat’. The word mam can also referto ‘rice plant’. Jinghpaw also has a morpheme khàw which is only found in compound words associatedwith rice plants, e.g. khàw-Дa (rice plant-paddy field) ‘irrigated paddy field’. The morpheme khàw is aloanword from Shan, a Tai language whose speakers occupy river valleys in the Jinghpaw region,
cultivating rice in irrigated fields.
Table 5: Jinghpaw type.
category rice plant
example mam, khàw
2.4

rice grain (hulled)mamrice grain (polished)ngu

cooked riceюàt

Yi languages in Loloish

Within the Loloish languages, especially the languages of the Yi (Lolo) people in China and VietNam
will be discussed here. According to the official Chinese classification, there are six dialects spoken in
the Southwestern part of China. In a few mountainous areas in northern VietNam4, it is said that there
are two dialects spoken by Hoa Lolo (Flower Lolo) and Den Lolo (Black Lolo). Amongst the Yi
languages, there exist distinctive words referring to ‘rice’ and ‘cooked rice’ as the examples of Nesu5and Sani6 show as follows; on the other hand, many of them also demonstrate a distinction between ‘rice

3 The

transcription of Colloquial and Written Burmese are based on Kato (2008) and Duroiselle (1916),
respectively.
4 Loloish language is spoken in a part of Laos as well. However, unfortunately, its data have not been available
hitherto, due to a certain reason.
5 The data are cited form Chen (2010).
6 The data are cited from Chen (2010).

plant’ and ‘hulled rice’, and ‘polished rice’ and ‘cooked rice’ such a case in Nersu 7 . However,throughout most of them, ‘polished rice’ is generally expressed by such a word formation as ‘rice’ +‘white’.8 As shown in Bradley (2011), the etyma of tsы33 ‘rice grain’, tюhѢ33 ‘paddy’ and tsы33 ‘cookedrice’ for Sani are respectively *dza1, *þan1 and *dza1. This seems to be the case with the words of Sani inthe chart below.
Table 6: Loloish type.
category rice plantNesutюhe21SanitюhI33NersutѺhi21
2.5

rice grain (hulled)tюhe21 sѓ33
tюhI33 si21tѺhi21 se33 mo33

rice grain (polished)tюhe21 thu55
tюhI33 Ѥu33
dzo21 Ҁhu33

cooked rice
dzo21
tsa33
dzo21

Bai

Bai, spoken in the western part of Yunnan Province, China, possesses several types of sematic
distinctions within the ‘rice’ category:
1. four distinctions, i.e. ‘rice plant’, ‘hulled rice grain’, ‘polished rice grain’, and ‘cooked rice’ , as is
the case in Chinese; e.g., Jinshan, spoken next to Ancient Town of Lijiang Municipality, andZhaozhuang, spoken next to New Town of Xiaguan, Dali Municipality.
Table 7: Bai four-distinction type.
category
rice plant
Jinshangu22
Zhaozhuang9 kuo21

rice grain (hulled)
sќ44
si44

rice grain (polished)
mѓi33
mѓ33

cooked ricexѓ55zΩ33xѓ55si33

2. three distinctions, i.e. ‘rice plant’, ‘hulled grain’, and ‘polished and cooked rice’; e.g., Jiuzhai,
Baoshan, and Jintang, Liuhe, Heqin.
Table 8: Bai three-distinction type.
category
rice plant
10
Jiuzhaigэ31
Jintang11
ƾku21

hulled rice grain
sv44
sэ44

polished and cooked rice
me33
mѓ33

3. two distinctions, i.e. ‘rice plant and hulled grain’ and ‘polished and cooked rice’; e.g., Qiping,
Heqin, and Yinyuan, Yuanjiang, Yuxi.
Table 9: Bai two-distinction type.
category
rice plant and hulled grain
Qiping12
ku21
Yinyuan13 kэ12

rice grain (polished, cooked)
me33
me33

There are small differences in sound of each word form; however, we can easily find four types: /k,g/-type, /s/-type, /m/-type, and /x/-type. The examples above display that the /m/-type, which is perhaps
originally employed only for ‘polished rice’ as shown in Table 7, expands to other semantic categories.
7 The data are cited from Chen (2010).
8 In the Yi languages, an adjective is placed after a noun.
9 The data are cited from Zhao (2012).
10 The data are cited from Wang (2008).
11 The data are cited from Wang (2008).
12 The data are cited from Wang (2008).
13 The data are cited from Wang (2008).



2.6

Pwo and Sgaw Karen

Karenic languages, such as Pwo and Sgaw Karen, are spoken in the Irrawaddy delta of Burma and in
highlands of northwest Thailand. Pwo Karen (Hpa-an dialect) separates words associated with ‘rice’
into the following three categories, each being coded by distinct roots, i.e. bѧ̗ ‘hulled rice; rice plant’,ћѧըchá ‘uncooked rice’, and mѡ̖ ‘cooked rice; food’ (Kato 2004:575). The same distinction can be foundin Sgaw Karen as well, as illustrated by bѧ̗ ‘hulled rice; rice plant’, hѧ̗șaҌ ‘uncooked rice’ and mƝ‘cooked rice; food’.
Table 10: Karenic type.
category
rice plant and hulled grain rice grain (polished)
Pwobѧ̗ћѧըchá
Sgawbѧ̗
hѧ̗șaҌ
2.7

cooked rice
mѡ̖
mƝ

Newar

Newar is mainly spoken in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal, and the central and eastern parts of Nepal
belong to the ‘rice cultivation region’. This is supported by the existence of a combined word jƗ-kͅ:‘rice-bean.soup’ which is the principal dining menu of Newar people. Five varieties of the Newar
language collected for the project show three-category division of ‘rice’: ‘hulled rice; rice plant’,‘polished rice’, and ‘cooked rice’, and each word corresponding to these three subcategories is shown in
Table 11. WƗ is used to mean ‘rice plant and hulled rice’ in Kathmandu, Patan, Baktapur and Bhanepa,
except for Dolakha yƗ. WƗ seems to preserve the older form than yƗ, because Newar has the word bǊ:‘field’, in addition to wƗ and yƗ. Considering the reconstructed form of Proto-Tibeto-Burman *b-ras andthe Karenic word buu, wƗ is closer to them from the phonological point of view.
In Table 11, the compound word jƗ-ki is used for ‘rice grain’. JƗ is the stem of the compound word;
however, the suffix -ki also has the meaning of ‘rice’ according to Kölver (1994).
Table 11: Newar type.
category
rice plant and hulled grain
Kathmandu wƗ
Dolakha14yƗ
2.8

rice grain (polished)
jƗki
jƗki

cooked ricejƗjƗ

Qiangic

Many Qiangic languages are spoken within the Tibetopshere and thus the language area generally does
not belong to the rice cultivation culture. Because of this reason, many languages merely have one form
for ‘rice’ as in English, such as Qiang, rGyalrongic languages, nDrapa, and Darmdo Minyag:
Table 12: Majority of the Qiangic varieties.
category
rice (plant, hulled, polished, cooked)
Yadu Qiang15qhΩҪ
Kyomkyo Situ rGyalrongkhrѧҌ35m
Munashan Chuchen rGyalrong
bras24
ѫShade Darmdo Minyag
я҈e55mThamkhas Lhagang Choyu
яwa55
Zhongni nDrapanяѓ3
Several rGyalrongic languages have two different forms for ‘rice’, as seen in Table 12, i.e.
/khr݁/-type and /mbras/-type. The latter is evidently a Tibetan loan (LT ’bras; see 2.1). However, one
14 The data are cited from Genetti (2007).
15 The source of the word form is LaPolla & Huang (2003).

variety only possesses one of two, and the meaning is completely the same between the two of them.16
The former form might be related to LT khre ‘millet’; in some Tibeto-Burman languages such as
Kuki-Chin, the form of which proto-semantic meaning is ‘millet’ is used for ‘rice’ (Bradley 2011;
Suzuki et al. this volume). Therefore, it is highly possible that a similar phenomenon happened in somerGyalrongic languages and dialects.
It is noteworthy that some Qiangic languages have a semantic division for ‘rice’, e.g., Prinmi andGuiqiong.
Table 13: Prinmi and Guiqiong type.
category
rice plant
Maoniuping Prinmi
sjΩw55
Qianxi Guiqiong17
ku55tsѷ33

rice grain (hulled and polished) cooked riceҀѺhwѓ13
dzi55
35
dэ
zi35

These two languages are separately distributed from one another, however, they have the same
semantic division for ‘rice’. The form of ‘rice plant’ in Qianxi Guiqiong is a Chinese loan, whichcorresponds to the form attested in Southwestern Mandarin. Another dialect of Guiqiong, Maibeng, inthis Asian Geolinguistic Project, has only one form for ‘rice’, /d‫ܧ‬35/ (Huang ed. 1992). This may be theonly inherited word for both ‘rice plant’ and ‘rice grain’.
2.9

Summary

Based on the description above as well as the data collected for the project Study in Asian Geolinguistics,
the semantic division within ‘rice’ (non-glutinous oryza sativa; plant and grain) attested within
Tibeto-Burman is classified as follows:
A. only one semantic category (as in the English word ‘rice’)no classification needed: most Tibetic languages and many Qiangic languages
B. two semantic categories
1. rice plant vs. rice grain: some Tibetic languages spoken in Yunnan
2. rice plant and hulled grain vs. polished and cooked rice: Loloish languages, Bai
3. rice not ready to eat (plant and grain) vs. rice ready to eat
C. three semantic categories
1. rice plant and polished rice vs. hulled rice vs. rice ready to eat: several Loloish languages
2. rice plant and hulled grain vs. polished rice vs. cooked rice: Jinghpaw,18 Karenic, Newar
3. rice plant vs. rice grain (hulled and polished) vs. rice ready to eat: Prinmi, Guiqiong
4. rice plant vs. hulled grain vs. polished and cooked rice: Bai
D. four semantic categories
rice plant vs. hulled rice vs. polished rice vs. cooked rice: Burmese, Bai, several Loloish languages,
and Dzongkha (Tibetic)
As displayed above, the semantic division attested in Tibeto-Burman languages is so variegated thatgeneralisation to give an overall explanation regarding the diachronic acquisition of semantic categoriesof ‘rice’ within Tibeto-Burman languages is a complicated task. The classification above can bedisplayed as in the following tabular:

16 Elder speakers, as well as local intellectuals such as monks may know both the word forms; however, this does

not mean that a distinction of these two word forms is attested in a given variety.
17 The source of the word form is Song (2011).
18 A Shan loan taken into consideration, Jinghpaw should be classified as D. See Table 5.

Table 14: classification of the ‘rice’ categoryclassification
rice planthulled riceAword form aword form a
B1
word form aword form b
B2
word form aword form a
B3
word form aword form aC1
word form aword form b
C2
word form aword form aC3word form aword form b
C4word form aword form bDword form aword form b

polished riceword form aword form bword form bword form aword form aword form bword form bword form cword form ccooked riceword form aword form bword form bword form bword form cword form cword form cword form cword form d

The purpose of this article is limited to elucidate the geographical distribution of theabove-mentioned categories. The classification and the name of each category (A-D) are to be applied
for linguistic maps and analyses in Section 3.

3

Map design and analysis

This article presents five maps. The basis of the dataset is quite similar to that employed in Suzuki et al.
(this volume); however, several data are omitted due to lack of the specific explanation of the semantic
field of ‘rice’. The maps will, based on available data, show how many semantic divisions a given
language at least possesses. Map 1 and 2 are designed regarding the number of word forms employed for‘rice’, i.e. the four categories A, B, C, and D found in 2.9; Map 2 is an enlarged version of Map 1
regarding the southern half part of the Tibeto-Burman area. Maps 3, 4, and 5, are, respectively, the mapsof the whole TB area, the southern part of the TB area, and Yunnan-Northernmost Myanmar area, basedon the full classification displayed in 2.9.
The shape of symbols of the legend is common to all the maps, featured as follows:
A-typeB-typeC-typeD-typesmall dotstarsquarediamond

Because of the dense distribution of recorded varieties in the eastern part of the TB area, use ofcoloured symbols can enhance readability, which is applied for all the maps. However, the colour usedin Maps 1 and 2 is redundant for better readability, whereas it is related to the classification andfunctions as a display of distinctions in Map 3, 4, and 5.

Legend
Map 1: Overall distribution of the number of word forms for ‘rice’.

LegendMap 2: Distribution of the number of word forms for ‘rice’: Southern TB area.
Map 1 and Map 2 display an overall distribution of the number of distinct word forms for ‘rice’.
They basically show that languages mainly spoken in the rice cultivation area have multiple semantic
categories for ‘rice’ expressed with distinct word forms. The northernmost point in the data which havemultiple distinct semantic categories for ‘rice’ is the Qianxi dialect of Guiqiong (nGochang), at the pointof 30.170 latitude north and 102.208 longitude east. This dialect is spoken in a valley along the DaduheRiver, and the climate condition is warm and appropriate for rice cultivation. The languages with foursemantic categories for ‘rice’ are, according to Map 1 and Map 2, spoken between Xide (28.182 latitude
north; Nosu Yi) and Myeik (12.433 latitude north; Burmese).
It is interesting that some Tibetic languages spoken in the rice cultivation area acquired a detailed
semantic division for ‘rice’, as in Dzongkha and Yunnan Khams (see also 2.1). Looking at Loloish
languages, the distributions of ‘three-division’ type and ‘four-division’ type are not related to each otherfrom a geographical viewpoint. The major part of the ‘four-division’ type is attested within the territoryof China, i.e. within the linguistic Sinosphere. This most complicated type may be related to thesemantic division for ‘rice’ in Chinese (e.g., dao ‘rice plant’, gu(zi) ‘rice grain’, (da)mi ‘rice ready tocook/ rice grain’, (mi)fan ‘cooked rice’)19 other than the inheritance of the semantic division withmultiple word forms in a given language.

19 The lexical form and meaning may differ depending on dialects of Chinese, even withen South-western

Mandarin. See Yagi & Ueya (this volume).

LegendMap 3: Overall distribution of word forms for ‘rice’ with the classification provided in 2.9.



Legend
Map 4: Distribution of word forms for ‘rice’ with the classification provided in 2.9: Southern TB area.

Legend
Map 5: Distribution of word forms for ‘rice’ with the classification provided in 2.9: Yunnan-Myanmar.

Maps 3, 4, and 5 present a distribution of word forms for ‘rice’ with the classification provided in 2.9.
The criterion of the classification is the number of word forms connecting with their division ofsemantic fields. Categories B1, C3 (symbols in orange), and C4 (symbols in green) distinguish ‘rice
plant’ from ‘grain’. This type is principally found in the north-western part of Yunnan, in Trung, Khams
Tibetan, and Bai languages. Categories B2 and C2 (symbols in sky blue) are common in that a variety
has the same word form for ‘rice plant’ and ‘hulled rice’. In Loloish languages, except for the‘four-division’ type, the ‘three-division’ type with C2 category is found the most. In addition, the C2
type is found in Jinghpaw.

4

Concluding remarks

This article analysed the semantic category of ‘rice’ in Tibeto-Burman languages by presenting 5 maps
regarding the number of word forms for ‘rice’ with a classification of its semantic categories. The maps
basically show that the complexity of the semantic category for ‘rice’ is related to the region where agiven language is spoken as well as where the rice cultivation culture is location; however, because oflimitation of data, in-depth analysis was unable to be provided.
The article, though, presents a basic view for an investigation of ‘rice’ category in the
Tibeto-Burman languages. The appendix provides a list of word forms for ‘rice’ in Burmese and Loloish
languages collected from the authors’ fieldwork and previous works. The task in coming works is toelucidate the semantic division of ‘rice’ in every related Tibeto-Burman variety.
Acknowledgements
A part of the discussion was ameliorated based on that in the second meeting of the Project “Studies in
Asian Geolinguistics” (19.-20. December 2015).
Fieldwork by Hiroyuki Suzuki was supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research fromthe Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [JSPS]: No. 16102001 (headed by Yasuhiko Nagano),
No. 19-250 (headed by Hiroyuki Suzuki), No. 21251007 (headed by Yasuhiko Nagano), and No.
25770167 (headed by Hiroyuki Suzuki), as well as and a private financial support of Tibetan Studies
Committee of Yunnan Ethnology Association headed by Xu Jianhua.
Fieldwork on Jinghpaw by Keita Kurabe was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (Nos.
24-2938 and 26-2254) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).
Fieldwork by Kazue Iwasa was supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (Research
Project Number: 98J02839 and 03J02770) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),
the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport,
Science and Technology, Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim: No. 11171101 (headed by Osahito
Miyaoka), and by Centre National de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) in 2010.
Appendix: Data for ‘rice’ in Burmese and Yi languages
Burmese languages:
language/ variety

rice plant

Yangonkau‫ݦ‬,kau‫ݦ‬-pì݆,zăbá-bì݆

Arakanese/Sittwe
Intha/Inle
Marma/Chittagong
Myeik
Palaw
Taungyo/Pindaya
Tavoyan/Dawei
Yaw/ GangawcԥbázabábıҒ Ѻko‫ݦ‬pa݆Mrice grain(hulled)
zăbá

pà
zabá
zăbaH
ba:

rice grain(polished)
shà݆
s‫ܭ‬ƾ
chaiƾ
shaҒ Ѻ
sha݆M
shain
shen



cooked rice

sourcethămí݆

m‫ܭ‬Ғnthԥm‫ܧ‬ғƾ
mıғ Ѻ
ma݆H
thԥmînhman:thԥmânOhno (1969:94)
Okell (1995:69)
Huziwara (2008:831)
Kato (2012:154)
Otsuka (2014:186)
Yabu (1981:163)
Ohno (1971:114)
Yabu (1980:170)

Yi languages:

language/ variety

rice plant

Yi Northern/Lizixiang
Yi Northern/Xide
Yi Northern/Liangshan
Senza/Xichang
Yino/Leibo
Lidim/Ganluo
Sodi/Huilit‫ݔ‬h݁33t‫ݔ‬h݁33t‫ݔ‬h݁33t‫ݔ‬h݁33t‫ݔ‬h݁22t‫ݔ‬h݁33

Yi Western/Wuju
Yi Western (Laluba)/
BaiwudiLalu/Binchuant‫ܨ‬hi55t‫ݔ‬h݁33

rice
grain
(hulled)t‫ݔ‬h݁34 s‫ݑ‬33t‫ݔ‬h݁34 si33t‫ݔ‬h݁22 si22t‫ݔ‬h݁33 si33t‫ݔ‬h݁33
ma33

t‫ܨ‬hi55t‫ܨ‬hi55 sE21t‫ܨ‬hi55t‫ܨ‬hi55 ‫ݔ‬e21

Lalo/Lincang
Lipo/Huaping
Lolo/Moudingt‫ܨ‬hi55t‫ܨ‬he33t‫ܨ‬hi55
tshe33 s‫ܭ‬21t‫ܨ‬he33t‫ܨ‬he33 sæ21

Toloza/Lijiang
Talu/Yongsheng
Lavu/Shunchuant‫ݔ‬hi21t‫ܨ‬hu55

Zoko/Maguan
Polo/Wenshan
Yi Eastern/Luquan
Yi Eastern/Panxian
Yi Eastern/Daxiyi
Yi Eastern/Weiningt‫ܨ‬hi21
tshe33t‫ݔ‬he21t‫ܨ‬he21t‫ݔ‬he11t‫ݔ‬hi21 kha33t‫ݔ‬hu55 mu55t‫ݔ‬h݁55
mu55
t‫ܨ‬hi21 ‫ܨ‬i44
tshe33 ‫ܨ‬i33

Yi Eastern/
Chengguanzhen
Yi Eastern/Dafang
Yi Eastern/Longlin
Nasu/Dongchuan
Naso/Daguan
Alo/Fumin
Mongi/Haoming
Nersu/Weiningt‫ݔ‬h݁55 ‫ܤݔ‬21t‫ݔ‬he11 mu11

rice
grain
(polished)t‫ݔ‬h݁33t‫݁ݔ‬33 t‫ܨ‬hu33t‫ݔ‬h݁33 qu33t‫ݔ‬h݁33t‫ݔ‬h݁22t‫ݔ‬h݁33

cooked rice

sourcedza33
dz‫ܤ‬33
dza33
dza22
dza33

ZMYC (1991)
Huang (1992)
DCQG (1984)
Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)t‫ݔ‬h݁33

dza33

Chen (2010)dz‫ܤ‬21 kh‫ܤ‬55dz‫ܤ‬21 kh‫ܤ‬55
fuࡧ 55dza21 kha55
fuࡧ 55dz‫ܤ‬21 kh‫ܤ‬55
kho33
t‫ܨ‬he33 phy33o33t‫ݔ‬hi33t‫ݔ‬hu55 pu55dz‫ܤ‬55

ZMYC (1991)dz‫ܤ‬55

Huang (1992)

dza55

Chen (2010)dz‫ܤ‬33
dzo33

Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)

dzo33

Chen (2010)dz‫ܤ‬21dzu55

Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)

dzu55 khu55

dzu55

Chen (2010)t‫ܨ‬hi21 ku55
tshe33 phi33
dzo33 kho33t‫ܨ‬he21 thu33t‫ݔ‬he11 ‫ݚ‬hvࡦ 33

dz‫ܧ‬21
dzo33
dzo21
dzo21
dzu11
d‫ܤݣ‬33,
dzu21

Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)
DCQG (1984)
DCQG (1984)
Huang (1992)t‫ݗݔ‬21

dzu21 thu33

tsh‫ݑ‬21

dzo21 ‫ݚ‬hu33

dzo21

ZMYC (1991)tsh‫ݑ‬21 mu21
tshe21t‫ݔ‬he21t‫ܨ‬he21t‫ݔ‬he21

dzu21 thu33
tshe21 th݁21
dzo33 kho33
tshe21 thu33
dzo33 kho33

dzu21
dzou21
dzo21
dzo21
dzu21

DCQG (1984)
DCQG (1984)
Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)kh‫ܧ‬13dz‫ܧ‬13

Chen (2010)

dzo21 ‫ݚ‬hu33

dzo21

Chen (2010)

dzo21 ‫ݚ‬hu33t‫ܨ‬hI21 thu55
tshiԥ21 thu21

dzo21
dzo21
dz‫ܧ‬21dzo21d‫ݢ‬o21
dzo21
dzo21
dzo33
‫ܤ‬55 me21,
dzo33

Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)
DCQG (1984)
Iwasa(forthcoming)20
ZMYC (1991)
Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)
ZMYC (1991)kh‫ܧ‬13t‫ݔ‬hi21t‫ݔ‬he21 mo21t‫ܨ‬he21 mo21t‫ݔ‬he21 mu21kh‫ܧ‬13 khe13i13t‫ݔ‬hi21 se33
mo33
t‫ܨ‬he21 ‫ܨ‬i33t‫ܨ‬hI21 ‫ܨ‬i33

Nipu/Zhijin
Noso/Xingren
Yi Southern/Shuangbo
Yi Southern/Mocediantshi21t‫ܨ‬hI21
tshiԥ21

Yi Southern/Jingxing
Neshu/Yuxi
Narsu/Gejiu
Nesu/Yuanjiang
Yi Central/Yangjiatian
Yi Central (Luoluobo)/
Wujiet‫ܨ‬he21t‫ܨ‬hI21t‫ܨ‬he21t‫ܨ‬he21t‫ܨ‬hi33t‫ܨ‬hI21 ‫ܬݔ‬33t‫ܨ‬he21 s‫ܭ‬33t‫ܨ‬he21 s‫ܭ‬33t‫ܨ‬he21 thu55t‫ܨ‬hI21 thu55t‫ܨ‬hI21 thu55t‫ܨ‬he21 thu55t‫ܨ‬he33 phiu33

t‫ܨ‬he33 sæ21t‫ܨ‬he33 sæ21t‫ܨ‬he33 phyo33t‫ܨ‬he21

20 An article including this data is currently being written.



DCQG (1984)

Huang (1992)

Yi Central/Pujiehei
Kopo/Zhanyi
Yi Southeastern (Axi)/
Dapingdi
Yi Southeastern (Axi)/
Lanniqing
Yi Southeastern (Axi)/
Moxiangjing
Asi/Chengjiang
Yi Southeastern(Sani)/Lunan
Yi Southeastern(Sani)/Weize
Yi Southeastern(Sani)/Lunan
Sani/Luliang
Nise/Lunan
Sanni/Kunming
Yi Southeastern(Azha)/Madi
Azi/Kaiyuan
Lopo/Mile
Ma Ndzi/Baolac

tshe55 thu55t‫ܨ‬hI33t‫ܨ‬hi33 ts‫ܭ‬33,
tso33 bi33
ts‫ܭ‬33

tshe55t‫ܨ‬hI33 s‫ܭ‬21

dzo33 t‫ܨ‬i55

tso33

Xu et al. (2013)
Chen (2010)

tso33 bi33,t‫ݔ‬ho33 ‫ݚ‬ho33

tso33

ZMYC (1991)

tso33 bi55
tso33

Iwasa (2004)

tso33 s‫ݞ‬11
tso22 bi22t‫ܨ‬hi33t‫ܨ‬hi33 sa21t‫ܨ‬hI33 m‫ܤ‬33

tso22 bi22,t‫ݔ‬ho22 tho21
tso33 bi33

tso22

Yuan (1953)

tso33

Chen (2010)t‫ܨ‬hI33 ܾu33ts‫ܤ‬33

DCQG (1984)t‫ܨ‬hI33 m‫ܥ‬33t‫ܨ‬hI33 szࡦ 11t‫ܨ‬hI33 ܾzࡦ 33ts‫ܥ‬33

Huang (1992)t‫ܨ‬hI33, t‫ܨ‬hƬ33t‫ܨ‬hI33 m‫ܣ‬33t‫ܨ‬hI33 ܾu33ts‫ܣ‬33

YHJMCD (1982)t‫ܨ‬hI33t‫ܨ‬hi21t‫ܨ‬hi33t‫ܨ‬hI33 si21t‫ܨ‬hI21 s‫ܭ‬33t‫ܨ‬hi33 s‫ܬ‬55t‫ܨ‬hI33 ܾu33t‫ܨ‬hI33 tܾu33
tshi33 ‫ݔ‬u33ts‫ܤ‬33
dzu21
dza33

Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)tso31
t‫ܨ‬hI33t‫ܨ‬he21q‫ܤ‬13

Iwasa (2004)t‫ܨ‬hI33 s‫ܭ‬21t‫ܨ‬hi21 s‫ܭ‬33

dzo33 t‫ܨ‬i55
a21 th݁21

dzo33
dzu21

Chen (2010)
Chen (2010)
Iwasa (2003)

References
Bradley, D. 2011. Proto-Tibeto-Burman grain crops. Rice 4:134–141. DOI 10.1007/s12284-011-9074-y, accessedon 30th December 2015.
Bùi-Ĉình. 1950. Tìm Hi͋u ÿ͛ng-bào mi͉n núi Vi͏t-Nam. Nhà Xuҩt-Bҧn TiӃng-ViӋt. Hanoi.
Chen, K. 2010. Yiyu Fangyan Yanjiu. Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe.
Duroiselle, Ch. 1916. Literal transliteration of the Burmese alphabet. Journal of the Burma Research Society
6:81-90.
Genetti, C. 2007. A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Mouton de Gruyter.
Huang, B. ed. 1992. Zangmian Yuzu Yuyan Cihui. Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe.
Huziwara, K. 2008. Tyakkugo no kizyutugengogakuteki kenkyuu. PhD dissertation. Kyoto Univesity.
Institute of Ethnology. 1978. Các dân T͡c ít ng˱ͥi ͧ Vi͏t nam (các t͑nh phía Băc). Hanoi.
Iwasa, K. 2003. A Wordlist of the Ma Ndzi Language. Descriptive and Theoretical Studies in Minority Languagesof East and Southeast Asia A3-16:69-76.
Iwasa, K. 2004. Axi and Azha - Descriptive, Comparative and Sociolinguistic Analyses of Two Lolo Dialects ofChina. PhD Dissertation, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies.
Kato, A. 2004. Pookarengo bunpoo. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Tokyo.
Kato, A. 2008. Birumago hatsuonhyooki no ichirei (An example of transcription of Burmese pronunciation). ms.
Kato, A. and Khin Pale. 2012. The Myeik (Beik) dialect of Burmese. Journal of Asian and African Studies
83:117-160.
Kölver, U. 1994. A Dictionary of Contemporary Newari. VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
LaPolla, R.J. with Ch. Huang. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang. Mouton de Gruyter.
Nguyên Loan. 1973. Vài nét vӅ tiӃng Lô Lô ӣ Hà Giang. Ngôn ngͷ. Linguistics Institute. Hanoi. 1973 4:24-33.

Ohno, T. 1969. Birumago hoogen no kenkyuu (1) Nansei hoogen. Journal of Osaka University of Foreign Studies
22:81-106.
Ohno, T. 1971. Birumago hoogen no kenkyuu (2) Nantoo hoogen. Journal of Osaka University of Foreign Studies
23:101-122.
Okell, J. 1995. Three Burmese dialects. Papers in Southeast Aisan linguistics no. 13: Studies in Burmese
Languages, 1-138. Canberra: ANU.
Otsuka, K. 2014. Birumago Palaw hoogen kiso goi. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 8:163-200.
Shirai, S., K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, H. Suzuki, and S. Ebihara. 2015. Sun: Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics 1:14-17.
Song, L. 2011. Guiqiongyu Yanjiu. Minzu Chubanshe.
Suzuki, H. 2009. Introduction to the method of the Tibetan linguistic geography —a case study in the Ethnic
Corridor of West Sichuan—. In Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.) Linguistic Substratum in Tibet—New Perspective
towards Historical Methodology (No. 16102001) Report Vol.3, 15-34, National Museum of Ethnology.
Suzuki, H. 2012. À propos du terme ‘riz’ et de l’hypothèse du groupe dialectal Sems-kyi-nyila en tibétain duKhams. Revue d’études tibétaines 23:107-115.
Suzuki, H. 2015. A geolinguistic description of terms for ‘sun’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere.
Studies in Asian Geolinguistics 1:79-85.
Suzuki, H. 2016. A geolinguistic description of terms for ‘rice’ in Tibetic languages of the eastern Tibetosphere.
Studies in Asian Geolinguistics 2 (this volume).
Suzuki, H., S. Shirai, K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, S. Ebihara, and I. Matsuse. 2016. Rice plant: Tibeto-Burman. Studies in
Asian Geolinguistics 2 (this volume).
Wang, F. 2008. Dali Congshu Baiyupian. Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
Xu Xianming, Bai Bibo et al. 2013. Studies on the Hlersu Language. Minzu Chubanshe.
Yabu, S. 1980. Birumago Yaw hoogen no siryoo. Journal of Asian and African Studies 19:164-182.
Yabu, S. 1981. Birumago Taungyo hoogen no siryoo. Journal of Asian and African Studies 21: 154-187.
Yagi, K. & T. Ueya. 2016. Rice: Sinitic. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics 2 (this volume)
Yuan, J. 1953. Axi Minge ji Qi Yuyan. Zhongguo Kexue Chubanshe.
Yunnansheng Lunan Yizu zizhixian Wenshi Yanjiushi. 1982. Yihan Jianming Cidian. Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
(=YHJMCD)
Zangmianyu Yuyin he Cihui Bianxiezu. 1991. Zangmianyu Yuyin he Cihui. Zhongguo Shehuikexue Chubanshe.
(=ZMYC)
Zhao, Y. 2012. Zhaozhuang Baiyu Cankao Yufa. Minzu Chubanshe.
Zhongyangminyuan Yizu Lishi Wenxian Bianyishi, Zhongyangminyuan Yizu Lishiwenxianban. 1984.
Dianchuanqiangui Yihan Jibencihui Duizhaocidian. Mimeographed version. (=DCQG)A Geolinguistic Description of Terms for ‘Rice’ in Tibetic
Languages of the Eastern TibetosphereaHiroyuki Suzukia

IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology

Abstract
This article attemps to describe a dialectal difference of the word ‘rice’ attested in around 230
dialects of the eastern Tibetic languages. The word ‘rice’ generally corresponds to Written
Tibetan (WrT) ’bras, however, a small number of vernaculars spoken in the southernmost areaof the eastern Tibetosphere (Yunnan) divide ‘rice’ into two semantic categories, ‘rice grain’ and‘rice plant’, of which the former corresponds to WrT drus ma. The geographical distribution
shows the difference of the lexical system in the rice-cultivating area.

1

Introduction

This article provides a detailed description of the geolinguistic analysis of the word forms for ‘rice’ inthe Tibetic languages spoken in the eastern Tibetosphere, which Suzuki et al. (this volume) did notdescribe in detail due to their focus on the whole of the Tibeto-Burman linguistic area. The geographicalscope of the eastern Tibetosphere follows the definition of Suzuki (2015c).
The data used to create the linguistics maps at the end of this paper only includes first-hand materials
collected by the author from 2003 to 2015. Because of this, as well as because of time constraints on thepart of the author, the data points are not equally distributed within this area, and the points on the map
only reflect the current research situation. The present map contains 225 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

Classification of semantic categories and word forms

This section provides a classification of word forms of ‘rice’ based on its semantic differentiation andthe phonetic variation. Regarding the semantic differentiation, there are two types:(A) one semantic category for ‘rice’; this type possesses only one single stem as in English.
(B) two semantic categories for ‘rice’; this type distinguishes ‘rice grain (hulled, polished, andcooked)’ from ‘rice plant’ or ‘general species’ name for rice’ by differing stems.
The stem attested in most dialects of the A-type, and one stem in the B-type correspond to Written
Tibetan (WrT) ’bras, including numerous types of phonetic realisations. However, the variation ofphonetic realisations is not crucial for classification here, and it just distinguishes a regular soundcorrespondence with WrT from a regular one. The classification proposed in the article is as follows:1
A-typeA-1: showing a regular sound correspondence of WrT ’bras[݅‫ܭܩ‬:], [m‫ܩ‬i:], [݄ܱi:], [ଔd‫ݣ‬e:], [mb‫ޥܭ‬:], [mb‫]ޝݧܭ‬, [mbr‫ܭ‬:], etc.
A-2: showing an irregular sound correspondence of ’bras[݅‫]ܸ݁ ݁ܩ‬, [ƾg݁:], [ƾgi:], etc.
A-3: correspondence of WrT drus ma ‘polished grain’[‫ݚ‬e ma], [‫ݚ‬e: ma]
1 A suprasegmental description is uniformly omitted.

B-typeB-1: ’bras ‘general name for rice’ and drus ma ‘rice grain’ with a regular sound correspondence[ଔd‫ݣ‬e:]+[h‫ݚ‬u: ma], [ଔd‫ݣ‬e:]+[‫ݚ‬i: ma], [ଔd‫ݣ‬e:]+[‫ݚ‬ԥ ƾ‫]ܤ‬, [mb‫ޥܭ‬:]+[‫ݚ‬ԥ‫ ޥ‬m‫]ܣ‬, etc.
B-2: ’bras ‘general name for rice’ and drus ma ‘rice grain’ with an irregular sound correspondence[ܸge:]+[h‫ݚ‬ԥ: ma],Phonetic variation is generally not a criterion to classify word forms, as seen in Shirai et al. (2015).
However, an irregular sound correspondence should be noted, because it might show a spreading
process of the irregular form. Evidence that shows irregular phonetic correspondences, which we canobtain only through a systematic analysis of sound correspondences of a given variety with WrT, are notdiscussed here for the sake of simplicity. 2 A partial discussion of the irregular phonetic form of
WrT ’bras ‘rice’ was provided in Suzuki (2012).

3

Geographical distribution and interpretation

I present three linguistic maps (see the end of the article). Map 1 displays an overall distribution of theword forms for ‘rice’, reflecting semantic differences as well as phonetic realisations, that is, the map
distinguishes the classifications given in Section 2 from each other. Map 2 is an enlarged version of thesoutheastern Khams area. Map 3 reflects the phonetic variation of the word form corresponding to
WrT ’bras. Map 3 is not directly for geolinguistic discussions but for a reference of phonetic forms. The
linguistic maps here were designed with ArcGIS online.
Map 1 displays that the varieties using the A-type are distributed in the majority of the eastern
Tibetosphere3 with an evident exception from Yunnan, where those using the B-type concentrate. The
area of the B-type belongs to a rice cultivation culture, and Tibetans there also plant rice. Therefore, thedistribution of the B-type is highly related to this cultural background, where a classification of ‘rice
plant’ and ‘rice grain’ must have been needed. However, as mentioned in Suzuki et al. (this volume), therice does not grow in many parts of the Tibetosphere because the climate condition is inappropriate forrice-growing, but the varieties share the same root of this word. This implies that the rice is not a basic
word but a cultural one which can be related to the religious purpose. We can also note that the WrT
form ’bras corresponds to Proto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB) *b-ras ‘RICE / FRUIT / BEAR FRUIT /ROUND OBJECT’ (STEDT4), and it is principally Tibetic languages that employ this PTB etymon for‘rice’ among the Tibeto-Burman languages.
Map 2 is an enlarged version of the area where the word form for ‘rice’ is complicated in the eastern
Tibetosphere. The minor groups of the classification above, which are A-2, A-3, B-1, and B-2, appear
mainly in the rGyalthang dialect group spoken on the rGyalthang-Yangthang plain and the adjacent areaof the Jinshajiang River. Some varieties spoken along the Lancangjiang River and the Nujiang River
also have either the A3 or B1 type.
Firstly, it is certain that the B-type appears in varieties spoken in a rice cultivation culture, including
Wujing, Tuoding, and Xiaruo townships as well as Tacheng Town (belonging to the Jinshajiang
drainage system), Yongchun and Pantiange townships (belonging to the Lancangjiang drainage system),and Bingzhongluo and Bangdang townships (alongside Nujinag). Note that the dialectal relationshipamong the varieties is not so close to every other because these varieties include the Sems-kyi-nyila andsDerong-nJol groups.

2 For details regarding the irregularity of this sound correspondence in several dialects of Yunnan, see Suzuki(2009, 2010ab, 2011ab, 2014ac, 2015a, 2016ab).

3 Following the previous geolinguistic works regarding the Tibetic languages spoken in the eastern Tibetosphere,

the distribution of lexical forms can appear in two extreme ways: either occupied by one majority (as in Shirai et al.
2015 and Suzuki 2015c for ‘sun’) or scattered in variegated forms (as in Suzuki 2012b for ‘piglet’, and Suzuki
2014b for ‘cat’). The case of ‘rice’ evidently belongs to the former.
4 http://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl/etymon/2071, accessed on 20th January 2016.

Secondly, we should also pay attention to the distribution of the A-3 type, with a single stem
corresponding to WrT drus ma, which only appears in three varieties in a mountainous area which does
not belong to a rice cultivation culture. Considering the geographical condition and genetic position of
dialects, these varieties probably once had the B-type system and lost the form corresponding to
WrT ’bras with a replacement of WrT drus ma. Following this, it is also noted that the B-type is
distributed in two different dialect groups as mentioned above. However, the lexical varieties for ‘rice’
imply that they might have had a mutual relationship. Suzuki (2014d) mentions that the Bodgrong
dialect (spoken along the Nujiang) is spoken by immigrants from some villages along the Lancangjiang,
among which two villages, gYanggril and Tshodrug, are nominated as candidates based on the local
tradition. The case of ‘rice’ suggests that speakers of the Bodgrong dialect might be related to those of
Tshodrug, for the dialects with the A-3 type are spoken in the close area to it. Now the Tshodrug dialect
does not maintain the B-type and employs the A-type; however, it is possible that the elder generation of
the speakers of the Tshodrug dialect used the B-type.
Finally, we look at the A-2 and B-2 types, both of which are characterised by an irregular soundcorrespondence of WrT ’bras. These types have a /g/ as the main initial, whichi is considered as anirregular form. Referring to Map 3, we see that the /g/-initial form are not perfectly equivalent to the A-2
type. Some varieties with the A-1 type also have a /g/-initial form, such as Shingkhogteng and Daan, in
which the forms corresponding to WrT ‘labial obstruent with a glide r’ normally correspond to velar
obstruents. The velar sound /g/ attested in the form for ‘rice’ has a close relation to /ܱ/ and /d‫ݣ‬/ as
discussed in Suzuki (2015a, 2016a). Based on each phonetic form, /g/ must be related with /ܱ/, not with/d‫ݣ‬/. Taking the process of sound development discussed in Suzuki (2016a) into consideration, /ܱ/ is themost conservative sound and /d‫ݣ‬/ is the innovative. The rGyalthang dialect, an example of the A-2 type,normally has a /d‫ݣ‬/ initial for a WrT ’br initial as seen in /ଔd‫ݦܧݣ‬/ for WrT ’brug ‘dragon’, while the form
for ‘rice’ is /ƾg݁‫ޝ‬/, which can be considered as an exception. Then, how did the rGyalthang dialect
obtain this velar initial attested in ‘rice’? Map 3 with a diachronic change given in Suzuki (2016a)
suggests that the form for ‘rice’ with a /g/ initial might have spread from south to north in therGyalthang-Yangthang plain. This route of expansion may be related to that of Naxi from the 15th to 18th
centuries. According to Suzuki (2015b), the sound change regarding the WrT r-glide should have been
influenced by Naxi after its intense contact began in the 15th century, thus the expansion of the wordform for ‘rice’ might be related to Naxi’s rule for the rGyalthang area at that period.5 In this case, ‘rice’
is not likely to be used for a kind of staple food but for a religious purpose, as rice cultivation is notpractised on the rGyalthang-Yangthang plain. This explanation can also be applied for the case of theB-2 types attested along the Jinshajiang. The region once functioned as an ‘entrance’ from the Naxi
cultural area to the Tibetosphere and has a religious site. Naxis and Tibetans still live together in thisregion.6

4

Conclusion

The word form of ‘rice’ in the Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere mainly corresponds to
WrT ’bras, and its geographical distribution is nearly pervasive. Most regions do not belong to the ricecultivation area; however, varieties have the same stem for rice. It is probably because the rice is used
for religious rituals, whether they are of Bon or Buddhism. The ‘rice’ seems to be a kind of staple food,but in the case of Tibet, it can be for a religious purpose.
In the Tibetosphere in Yunnan, however, a complicated system is attested. Several dialects spoken
under the rice cultivation culture distinguish ‘rice grain’ from ‘rice plant’ by using different stems. The
irregular sound correspondence of WrT ’bras is also seen in Yunnan, which might be spread from theNaxi area to the north. The case of the Bodgrong dialect, spoken along the Nujiang, can be related to thevarieties with the B-type spoken along the Jinshajiang. Because the B-type is attested in the limited
5 See Wang (1995) for a detail.
6 See Wu (2009) for a detail. However, the varieties that were influenced by Naxi the most belong to the Melung

subgroup of the Sems-kyi-nyila group, and this fact appears in the Melung’s systematic phonetic development, Seealso Suzuki (2013).

range among the Tibetic languages, it is difficult to suppose that varieties with the B-type developed
independently in several places. The migration history of the Bodgrong Tibetans also indicates theorigin where the varieties using the B-type are spoken.

Acknowledgements
I should like to express my gratitude to my Tibetan friends who helped me and taught me their mothertongue. A part of the discussion was ameliorated based on that in the second meeting of the Project“Studies in Asian Geolinguistics” (19.-20. December 2015). 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 Studyof the Tibetan Minority Languages in the Tibetan Cultural Area in West Sichuan” (headed by thepresent author), “International Field Survey of the rGyalrongic Languages” (headed by Yasuhiko
Nagano, No. 21251007), and “Study on the Dialectal Development of Tibetan Spoken in Yunnan, China,
through a Description of the Linguistic Diversity” (headed by the present author, No. 25770167), as wellas and a private financial support of Tibetan Studies Committee of Yunnan Ethnology Association
headed by Xu Jianhua.
References
Shirai, S., K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, H. Suzuki, and S. Ebihara. 2015. Sun: Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics 1:14-17.
Suzuki, H. 2009. Naxi bunkaken no Tibettogo Yongsheng-ken Daan [Daan] hoogen no hoogen syozoku. Bulletinof National Museum of Ethnology 34.1:167-189.
Suzuki, H. 2010a. Khams-Tibettogo Xianggelila-ken Langdu [Lamdo] hoogen no hoogen syozoku. Bulletin of
National Museum of Ethnology 35.1:231-264.
Suzuki, H. 2010b. Khams-Tibettogo Weixi-Tacheng [mThachu] hoogen ni okeru sorisitaka boin --- sono
onseigakuteki tokutyoo no kizyutu to bunseki. Kyoto University Linguistics Research 29:27-42.
Suzuki, H. 2011a. Khams-Tibettogo Xiaozhongdian-Jinianpi [Yangthang/Gyennyemphel] hoogen no onsei
bunseki. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 6:137-173.
Suzuki, H. 2011b. Gagatang Zangyu de yanhua yuanyin yu qi laiyuan. Language and Linguistics 12.2:477-500.
Suzuki, H. 2012a. À propos du terme ‘riz’ et de l’hypothèse du groupe dialectal Sems-kyi-nyila en tibétain duKhams. Revue d’études tibétaines 23:107-115.
Suzuki, H. 2012b. Tibetan pigs revisited : multiple piglets with a sow in Yunnan Tibetan and beyond. Papers fromthe First International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics, 79-88.
Suzuki, H. 2013. Yunnan Weixi Zangyu de r jieyin yuyin yanbian --- Jiantan “erhua” yu “jinhou” zhi jiaocha
guanxi. Dongfang Yuyanxue 13:20-35.
Suzuki, H. 2014a. Khams-Tibettogo Xianggelila-ken Xiaozhongdian-xiang Chuiyading [Choswateng] hoogen no
onsei bunseki to goi : rGyalthang kaihoogengun ni okeru hoogen sai ni kansuru koosatu wo soete. Bulletin of
National Museum of Ethnology 39.1:45-122.
Suzuki, H. 2014b. Issues in the lexical complexity in Eastern Tibetic languages : from a cat’s eye. Papers from theSecond International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics, 116-125.
Suzuki, H. 2014c. Niru Zangyu de xiaosheyin shengmu yu qi Zangwen duiying guilü. Dongfang Yuyanxue
14:1-12.
Suzuki, H. 2014d. Kamu-Tibettogo Bingzhongluo [Bodgrong] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and African
Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 9:153-193.
Suzuki, H. 2015a. Jiantang Zangyu tuhua yanjiu de jige yiyi. Yunnan Zangxue Yanjiu 2:184-197.



Suzuki, H. 2015b. Lijiang Yongshengxian Daan Zangyu de laili chutan: tongguo Naxizu de jiechu ruhe yanbian.
Lecture given at Southwest University for Nationalities (Chengdu). [A revised version to be published in
Zangxue Xuekan 8 (2016)]
Suzuki, H. 2015c. A geolinguistic description of terms for ‘sun’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere.
Studies in Asian Geolinguistics 1:79-85.
Suzuki, H. 2016a. /ܱ/ ga kataru onhenkasi --- Khams-Tibettogo Xianggelila hoogengun ni okeru kookoogai keiretu
onso ni tuite no oboegaki. Journal of Kijutsuken, Descriptive Linguistics Study Group 8 (in press).
Suzuki, H. 2016b. In defense of prepalatal non-fricative sounds and symbols: towards the Tibetan dialectology.
Researches in Asian Languages 10 (in press).
Suzuki, H., S. Shirai, K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, S. Ebihara, and I. Matsuse. 2016. Rice plant: Tibeto-Burman. Studies in
Asian Geolinguistics 2 (this volume).
Wang, H. 1995. Diqing Zangzu Shehuishi. Zhongguo Zangxue Chubanshe.
Wu, G. 2009. Diqing Xianggelila Lüyou Fengwuzhi — Yanzhe Diming de Xiansuo. Yunnan Renmin Chubanshe.



Maps

LegendMap 1: Overall distribution of word forms.

LegendMap 2: Distribution of word forms in the southeastern Khams region.7

7 Unfortunately, the map automatically generated by ArcGIS does not reflect the factual borderline dividing

Yunnan Province from Sichuan Province. The actual line should be further to the north; on the map, Dongwang
Township belongs to Sichuan, which should be within Yunnan.

LegendMap 3: Distribution of the main initial (with a glide) sound corresponding to WrT ’bras.8
8 The legend does not reflect the preinitial feature (prenasalisation in most cases); ‘‫ ’ܩ‬includes both a plosive /‫ܩ‬/and an affricate /‫ݢܩ‬/; ‘#’ means lack of the form corresponding to WrT ’bras (i.e., A-3 type).

Lhagang Choyu: A First Look at its Sociolinguistic Statusa

Hiroyuki Suzuki and Sonam Wangmoab

IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnologya
IKOS, University of Oslo

Abstract
Lhagang Choyu is a newly recognised moribund language spoken only in one hamlet named
Tage (Thabs-mkhas) of Tagong (lHa-sgang) Town, Kangding (Dar-mdo) Municipality, Ganzi(dKar-mdzes) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China. There are less than ahundred competent speakers, most of whom, unfortunately, no longer use the language in daily
life, speaking Khams Tibetan instead. This essay describes the sociolinguistic status of Lhagang
Choyu and explains how it has remained undiscovered until now.

1

Introduction

This short article aims to shed light on a Qiangic language named Lhagang Choyu (Tagong Queyu ຄ‫ޜ‬তฏ䈝1), spoken only in one hamlet, called Tage ຄṬ [Thabs-mkhas] of Tagong ຄ‫[ ޜ‬lHa-sgang]Town, Kangding ᓧ ᇊ [Dar-mdo] Municipality, 2 Ganzi ⭈ ᆌ [dKar-mdzes] Tibetan Autonomous
Prefecture, Sichuan ഋᐍ Province, China.

Fig. 1: Geographical position of Tagong Town.3
1 The character ত que is pronounced as [t‫ܨ‬hio] in the local Sichuanese (a member of southwestern Mandarin) of

Kangding.

2 Kangding became a municipality-level administrative unit on the 1st of June, 2015.
3 This map, designed with Googlemaps (https://www.google.co.jp/maps/ ; accessed 25th June 2015), is also used in

Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2015c, 2016a).

This language is currently moribund, and there might not, unfortunately, be any more native
speakers who acquired the language as a mother tongue. Although there are around 20 households livingin Tage Hamlet, there are less than a hundred people who know the language, most of whom are now
habitual speakers of Khams Tibetan (the Thamkhas dialect; Minyag Rabgang Khams), with aknowledge of Lhagang Choyu as a second language. Hence, they do not habitually use this language,
and speak Khams Tibetan instead. Khams Tibetan is even used within families in which all members arefrom Tage Hamlet.
The existence of Lhagang Choyu 4 was incidentally found in the course of the first author’s
investigation of the historical area of Darmdo Minyag, a Qiangic language which may have been
dominant in this region in the past (Dawa Drolma & Suzuki 2015). Collecting local narratives related to
non-Tibetic languages, he encountered information concerning a non-Tibetic, non-Darmdo Minyag
language spoken in two hamlets located to the west of Tagong Village.
Despite long-standing academic interest in endangered languages, and intense ethnographic
explorations in the region, this language has remained unrecorded until now. Even the second author, anative of Tagong Village, only learnt of the language during this research. Most middle-aged andyounger villagers living in Tagong Village do not know it either. In such a situation, it is notunimaginable that outsider linguists have never had any contact with Lhagang Choyu speakers, eventhough local non-Tibetic languages spoken in the Ethnic Corridor of West Sichuan (a.k.a. Tibeto-Lolo
Corridor or Tibeto-Qiang-Lolo Corridor) have attracted a great deal of attention in the past four decades(Sun 1983, Dai et al. 1990, Ikeda 2003). In addition, the linguistic situation within Tagong Town iscomplicated (Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo 2015a, 2017). Figure 2 shows the distribution andclassification of various languages spoken within the administrative territory of Tagong Town.

Lhagang Choyu
Minyag Rabgang Khams
Fig. 2: Language distribution within Tagong Town.5

Nomadic Amdo

4 This language is briefly mentioned in Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2017).

Figures 2 and 3 are designed with the online geocoding mapping method provided by the site:
http://ktgis.net/gcode/index.php (accessed 13th March 2016).
5

Two sites associated with Lhagang Choyu are indicated in Figure 2. However, it is no longer spoken
in one of them; see Section 2.
The article consists of two main sections: a description of the background of Lhagang Choyu,
followed by a brief sociolinguistic description. We also provide an appendix containing a brief
description of four word forms that characterise Lhagang Choyu. Field research in Tagong Village wasconducted in the summer of 2015 and the spring of 2016. The description of toponyms is uniformly inpinyin, whereas that of languages and varieties utilises a Tibetan-based spelling.

2

Background: languages, geography, and history

This section describes the context of the Lhagang Choyu language, including language distribution in its
surrounding area, the geographical location, and historical features.
As an undescribed variety, the name “Lhagang Choyu” must remain tentative, indicating that thevariety is most closely-related to four known dialects of the Choyu language6 (registered in Ethnologue
as Queyu; 7 ISO 639-3 code: qvy): Youlaxi ቔ᣹㾯 [gYang-la-gshis] Township of Xinlong ᯠ嗉[Nyag-rong] County (Wang 1991; Huang ed. 1992), Rongba 㔂ඍ [Rong-pa] Township of Litang ⨶ຈ
[Li-thang] County (Nishida 2008), and Tuanjie ഒ㔃 Township (Lu 1985; Sun ed. 1991) and Xiala8 ધ᣹ Township (Prins & Nagano 2013) of Yajiang 䳵⊏ [Nyag-chu-kha] County (see Fig. 3 for thegeographical distribution of theses varieties).

Youlaxi
RongbaGala
Tuanjie
Fig. 3: Geographical distribution of Choyu and Lhagang Choyu.

Tage (Lhagang Choyu)

6 “Choyu” can be analysed as the autonym of Choyu speakers “Cho” and WrT yul ‘place’. It is unclear what “Cho”

means and how it is spelt in WrT (or completely nonexistent). Dawa Drolma (2015) uses WrT khyo yul for this
name, however, no interpretation is given. The article continues to use the spelling “Choyu”.
7 As mentioned in footnotes 1 and 6, “Queyu” as a language name, just following the pinyin, has no significance;
hence we recommend the use of “Choyu” instead.
8 Locally pronounced as Gala, in a way of Sichuanese, as shown in Prins & Nagano (2013). The spelling ‘Gala’ isused throughout this article.

There are two principal reasons why we call this language Choyu: first is its linguistic similarity to
Choyu, including phonetic, morphological, and lexical traits, and second is sociolinguistic information
we collected on the language that suggest historical links with Choyu speakers. The former
characteristics (see Appendix) are beyond the scope of this article. The latter much attracts us and will
be discussed here. It remains to be seen whether Lhagang Choyu is linguistically independent from otherChoyu dialects; however, the present status of Lhagang Choyu to be discussed in the article suggests that
we should treat it as an independent language facing severe endangerment.9 When we refer to the
Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) provided by Ethnologue, 10 Lhagang
Choyu can be classified as 8b (Nearly extinct),11 whereas Choyu is 6b (Threatened), with around 7,000
speakers.
Lhagang Choyu has been spoken in at least two hamlets called Tage and Xiya 㾯䳵 [Shing-nyag], inthe southwest of Tagong Town (see the description later in this section); however, at present, it seems to
be used only in Tage. This means that the speech community of this language has already disappeared
and that limited users remain there. Xiya Hamlet belongs to a pastoral area located on the grassland, now
inhabited by speakers of a nomadic variety of Amdo Tibetan, whereas Tage Hamlet belongs to an
agricultural area surrounded by mountains. There are no motorable roads between these hamlets and any
main surrounding villages, and transportation is therefore primarily limited to horses and motorbikes. It
used to take one whole day to walk from Tage to the town centre of Tagong (i.e., Tagong Village),
however, it now takes three hours by motorbike. A direct distance from Tage Hamlet to the closest
speech community of Choyu found in Gala Township of Yajiang County is around 30 kilometres, taking
one day by horse. According to our interviews, there is no specific relationship between Tage and Gala.
As Figure 3 shows, the geography between them consists of steep mountainous terrain.
Due to this situation, connections between Tage and other villages have been limited. However, atpresent, several families of Tage Tibetans have immigrated to the centre of Tagong Village from Tage,and live together with locals. Some households also immigrated from Tage to the area beside the mainroad between Tagong and Xinduqiao ᯠ 䜭 ẕ [Ra-rnga-kha], mainly to Shang Baisang к ᷿ ẁ[Bal-bsrung stod] Village.12
Written documents do not provide any information on the origins of speakers of Lhagang Choyu.
However, according to a local oral narrative, they migrated from the direction of Yajiang in therelatively recent past. Previously, Tage Hamlet had a Bon monastery, but it has now become
Nyingmapa.13 Taking this religious culture into consideration, Tage might have had relations to its
western neighbours, such as Zhaba ᡾ඍ [’Dra-pa] and Xinlong, where Bon culture is still strong.14
As for the situation of Xiya Hamlet, the eastern neighbour of Tage Hamlet, according to a womanfrom the community currently in her 20s, elders there used to speak a language that others could notunderstand when they wanted to discuss secrets.15 She last heard this language when she was six orseven years old, i.e., in the late 1990s. At present, it is not longer spoken in Xiya. However, the existence
9 At present, the authors are planning to edit a vocabulary and a phonetic description as an independent article. A
part of the lexical data of Lhagang Choyu is used as a research outcome of the project of Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics, as in Shirai et al. (2015), Suzuki et al. (2016ab), Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2016b), and Ebihara etal. (2016).
10 See Lewis et al. (2016). Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status, accessed 17th
March 2016.
11 Among the Tibetic languages in the easternmost Tibetosphere, there exists a variety to be labeled as 8b:
Dartsendo Tibetan. See Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2015b).
12 An interview conducted in Lucheng Town (Kangding), 2015.
13 Interviews conducted in Lucheng Town (Kangding), 2015 and 2016. Karmay & Nagano eds. (2003:519-520)
describe a Bonpo monastery in Lhagang Town called Grib-srib, founded in 1646, according to oral tradition.
However, it is just a ruin now, and the hamlet has a Nyingmapa monastery called dPal-ri instead.
14 Interestingly, the relationship between local Bon communities and ethnic minority languages speakers is tosome extent attested. This article, however, will not discuss this issue in detail.
15 An interview conducted in Tagong Village, 2015.

of a ‘secret language’ is still known and this memory is shared even among youngsters. Our informant,
unfortunately, does not what the language was or what it was called. Therefore, we assume that thevariety of Xiya is already extinct and inaccessible. The variety might be Lhagang Choyu, or another typeof language, such as ‘Tibetan Pig Latin,’ the use of which has been attested to in some nearby areas.
However, the reason why we consider this ‘secret language’ to be a kind of Lhagang Choyu is becauseof the word form of ‘meal’ still remembered by our interviewee: [ndu].16 This form is peculiar to Choyu
and Lhagang Choyu, and no similar phonetic forms are attested in surrounding languages (Suzuki et al.
2016a).17
Based on the descriptions above, Lhagang Choyu would have two regional varieties, Thamskhas andShingnyag, though they might have been one variety before. However, the variety of Shingnyag is now
extinct, and there is no way to know what it was like.

3

Sociolinguistic description

This section presents a description regarding the current sociolinguistic situation of Lhagang Choyu,
divided into three topics: accessibility to the language, current language use, and possible reason why
Lhagang Choyu has been unrecognised so far.
- Accessibility to Lhagang Choyu
Before providing a sociolinguistic overview, we make a short notice regarding the accessibility to
Lhagang Choyu, which could be one reason why this language has not received attention so far.
As mentioned above, there are presently no speakers who have acquired Lhagang Choyu as theirfirst language. This means that all the Lhagang Choyu users are multilingual, most of whom acquired
Khams Tibetan (a variety of Thamskhas) as their mother tongue. This variety, according to ourpreliminary analysis, belongs to the southern subgroup of Minyag Rabgang Khams, including the
Rangakha (Xinduqiao) dialect. It is close to the variety spoken in the centre of Lhagang Town (called
Lhagang-B in Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo 2015c, 2016a). However, the intelligibility between them is
not always high. Difference of intonation features, in particular, lowers the intelligibility. Therefore,
even native speakers of Lhagang-B can to some extent have difficulty communicating with Tage
Tibetans.
When the first author initially recorded Lhagang Choyu with an elderly woman in her 70s living in
Tagong Village, he needed two “interpretors”. Firstly, his principal communication language is
Lhagang-B, a dialect of Minyag Rabgang Khams, however, as the old woman does not understand it
well, and thus the first interpretor, from Xiya Hamlet of Tagong, translated Lhagang-B Tibetan into
Shingnyag Tibetan, a dialect of nomadic Amdo with peculiar local features. The second interpretor,from Tage Hamlet, translated Shingnyag Tibetan into Thamkhas Tibetan, a dialect of Minyag Rabgang
Khams highly influenced by nomadic Amdo. Finally, since the elderly woman understood Thamkhas
Tibetan, communication was thus made possible.
This situation implies that no lingua franca existed in the past, hence the mutual relationship overhamlets has also been weak. Indeed, such low intelligibility is probably limited to the case that an
outsider talks with an elderly person regarding such things without any context as a questionnaire of
linguistic materials. The first author was successfully able to communicate with the second interviewee
from Tage, who was in her 50s and already accustomed to life in Tagong Village, by using Lhagang-B.
As mentioned above, the communication language with Tage Tibetans should be Minyag Rabgang
Khams, especially Lhagang-B. There is no use using Chinese or Derge Tibetan (so-called standard
Khams). This specific linguistic situation might have been a great barrier to reach Lhagang Choyu froma practical aspect. However, there are persons who know of this “unknown” language. Then, why have
linguists had no occasion to access this language before? This question will be discussed later.

16 Lhagang Choyu is a tonal language, however, since the mother tongue of the interviewee is Amdo Tibetan,
non-tonal language, and she thus cannot reproduce the exact tonal phonomenon.
17 However, a similar form /t‫ܧ‬/ is attested in nGochang (Guiqiong), which designates ‘rice’ in general.

- Current language use
Based on our research, Lhagang Choyu no longer functions as a communicative tool. In this case, what
do the local people, including speakers and non-speakers of Lhagang Choyu, know about this language?
We will describe below several views regarding this question, based on oral descriptions obtained byinterviews conducted in Lhagang Village.
The multilingual situation in Lhagang Village appears in our field research. Suzuki & Sonam
Wangmo (2017) describe the rapid language change occurring due to urbanisation in Lhagang Village,
including the resettlement of pastoralists. Speakers of Lhagang Choyu living in Lhagang Village arealso involved in this situation, even though their number is small.
Sociolinguistic information was obtained from some interviewees living in Tagong and Xinduqiao
towns.18 Some elderly people know that Lhagang Choyu is to some extent intelligible to Choyu speakers
in Xinlong. One of the interviewees even observed a person from Tage Village speaking in a
non-Tibetan language with some people from Xinlong; he later learnt that the language spoken in
Xinlong was called “Choyu”. Thus, his assumption is that the non-Tibetan language of Tage Hamlet is akind of Choyu.
Elder Tibetans from Tage Hamlet also know the name Choyu as a toponym, but not as an autonym
or a glottonym. However, they cannot specify the exact geographical area of Choyu. They have no
specific autonym for themselves, either. Some Lhagang Choyu speakers identify themselves as /´po pe/,an older loan from a surrounding Tibetic language corresponding to Written Tibetan bod pa. Note thevowel in the second syllable of this word, where we can find a sound correspondence between WrT a inan open syllable and /e/ in Lhagang Choyu. This is a specific feature shared with many Qiangic
languages, not with Tibetic languages, hence this phonetic form is considered as an archaic loan.
One of the interviewees told us that Lhagang Choyu is a mixed language of Choyu (i.e., varieties
spoken in Xinlong, Litang and Yajiang) and Tibetan (i.e., Minyag Rabgang Khams and Amdo).
However, since she did not know what the Choyu language is like, this story should be treated as hearsay.
As seen in this discourse, Lhagang Choyu is a low-prestigious variety; speakers often adopt negative
attitudes to its use. However, a negative attitude taken by non-Thamkhas Tibetans against Lhagang
Choyu has not been attested in the present survey.19 The negative view is also observed in another regard,
which will be explained later.
Lhagang Choyu is no longer used for communication. Moreover, some differences in the linguisticfeatures between the elder and middle generations are already clearly evident; for example, specificsounds, such as complex initials and velarised vowels, are simplified in the pronunciation of the middle
generation. At present, we cannot evaluate whether this phenomenon is because of an ordinary processof historical sound change or because of interrupted intergenerational transmission of the language.
Many Tibetans from Tage have now migrated to Tagong Village and Shang Baisang Village of
Xinduqiao Town. After moving there, they rarely speak Lhagang Choyu and generally use Khams
Tibetan, and other sedentary Tibetans do not know that Tage Tibetans can or could speak anotherlanguage except for Khams Tibetan. Some people know Tage Tibetans speak a kind of “unintelligible
Khams Tibetan,” however, they do not understand that it is a non-Tibetic variety. Why does such a
misunderstanding occur? Following, we describe a noteworthy factor which can help explain thissituation.
- logs-skad and skad-logs: why Lhagang Choyu has been unrecognised so far
More than three decades have already passed since the study of language endangerment emerged as atrend in linguistics. As Minyag Rabgang is located within the “Ethnic Corridor” in West Sichuan, andregarded as the centre of the Corridor by Fei (1980), intense works on minor languages and language
endangerment have been conducted; in consequence, various languages, such as Minyag (Darmdo
18 Interviews conducted in 2015 and 2016.
19 Some pejorative expressions to denote non-Tibetic languages are attested in communities in Ganzi Prefecture,for example, WrT ’dre skad ‘ghost language’ for Nyagrong Minyag (Van Way & Bkrashis Bzangpo 2015:249)
and /rgu skԥ/ ‘cattle language’ for Geshitsa or Situ-rGyalrong spoken in Danba County.

Minyag), Lyuzu, and Daohua, were recognised by linguists.20 Yang (1994) even provides incorrect
information regarding the distribution of non-Tibetic languages, mentioning Tibetic varieties as
non-Tibetic languages. Then, an essential question has emerged: why has Lhagang Choyu goneunrecognised so far in spite of scholars’ great interest in this area?
Local non-Tibetic languages in Khams are often referred to as logs-skad ‘locally-based non-Tibetic
language’ in Tibetan, wherever such languages are distributed within Khams, in Sichuan (Ganzi) and
Qinghai (Yushu), and even in the Tibet Autonomous Region (Chamdo).21 The word logs, derived from averb log ‘inverted, irregular, incorrect,’ in Tibetan, originally means ‘biased, leaning’. However, as far
as the authors observed, the present usage of logs-skad lacks negative implications, and primarily
designates a language which cannot be understood by Khams Tibetan speakers.22 The word formation oflogs-skad is parallel to that of rong-skad ‘farmers’ language’ and ’brog-skad ‘pastoralists’ language’.
But if the word is used in a reversed word order, i.e., skad-logs, the word is understood as a completely
different, very negative sense: ‘leaning language’.
Lhagang Choyu-speakers consider the language not as logs-skad, but as skad-logs. Talking withthem, we have realised that they do not understand the word logs-skad, which we initially used in ourconversations with them. After that, one speaker used the word skad-logs to refer to Lhagang Choyu,
and we finally understood the manner to designate this language. Unfortunately, the word skad-logs
implies that it is a very strange vernacular of a given language --- which must be Lhagang Tibetan here--- and Lhagang Choyu-speakers understood their language as it is. In other words, Lhagang Choyu isregarded as an abnormal, unintelligible variety of Lhagang-B. Tibetan languages cannot specify whether
a speech form is an independent language or a dialect of somewhat larger languages within the Tibetan
lexical items, because it merely has one word skad for ‘speech’, ‘language’, and ‘dialect’.

4Conclusion

This article reported for the first time the existence of a newly recognised language which we refer to as
Lhagang Choyu, spoken in Tage Hamlet, Tagong Town, Kangding Municipality, Sichuan, based on ourfieldwork. It is unfortunate that this language has no more native-competent speakers, however,meanwhile, it is certainly fortunate that it was found before it was completely lost. This article also
analysed the possible factors that have resulted in linguists having no access to this type of minority
language, i.e., speakers’ multilingualism of a given language and a Tibetic regiolect, the polysemy of
WrT word skad, which cannot distinguish a language from a dialect in general.
The history of speakers of Choyu currently seems to be the least obvious among the Qiangic
languages of the Tibetosphere. Linguistic characteristics may be able to elucidate the history of the
Choyu-speaking community. The article has not particularly discussed its linguistic features. However,
the authors will continue to seek possible linguistic descriptions regarding Lhagang Choyu, for thishighly endangered language could tell us about various typological traits, and consequently we need anurgent documentation of Lhagang Choyu before it really is forgotten.

Appendix: commentary for four words in Lhagang Choyu
Four words (of which three are taken from the SAG project) in Lhagang Choyu are explained in detailbelow: ‘sun’, ‘rice’, ‘milk’, and ‘tooth’.
-‘sun’ (see Shirai et al. 2015)
The form of Lhagang Choyu is /ưmi tsi/. In Choyu, it is /݄ܼma/ in Gala, /ଔi55ௗm݁33/ in Tuanjie, /Hpԥ/in Rongpa, and /pu55/ in gYanglagshis. The form of Lhagang Choyu is different from that in any dialects
of Choyu, furthermore, the /m/-initial is also characteristic in the Tibeto-Burman languages.
20 See Sun (1983), Huang & Rig-’dzin dBang-mo (1990), A-tshogs (2004), and Dawa Drolma & Suzuki (2015).
21 See Zla ba sgrol ma (2012).
22 However, users of this word might have to some extent pejorative feelings to designate a language which theycannot understand. A sociolinguistic survey is needed regarding its use.

-‘rice’ (see Suzuki et al. 2016ab, Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo 2016b)
The form of Lhagang Choyu is /ư m‫ܩ‬wa/. In Choyu, it is /nd‫ܭݢ‬35/ in Tuanjie, and /md‫ݢ‬i‫ܭ‬13/ ingYanglagshis. This form is evidently a Tibetan loan. The form is quite similar to the present nomadic
Amdo variety spoken in Lhagang Town, however, the form attested in Lhagang Choyu is more archaic.
The period of borrowing is thus suggested in an earlier time.
-‘milk’ (see Ebihara et al. 2016)
The form of Lhagang Choyu is /ưn‫ܵܭ‬/. In Choyu, it is /khi'noƾ/ in Gala, /nu55/ in Tuanjie, and55/ƾi ௗn‫ܭ‬55/ in gYanglagshis. The /n/-initial for ‘milk’ is not peculiar in Tibeto-Burman; however, theexistence of a velarised vowel in Lhagang Choyu should be noted, because any Choyu dialects do nothave this articulatory manner.
-‘tooth’The form of Lhagang Choyu is /ưki/. In Choyu, it is /ku/ in Gala, /ku53/ in Tuanjie, and /ski55/ ingYanglagshis. The /k/-initial attested in the word ‘tooth’ is noteworthy in Tibeto-Burman, it is justsimilar to Zhangzhung skod (Nagano 2009) and Xixia (Tangut) kͭo², which is related to PTB *s-k-lu(STEDT)23 within the languages considered as those with a genetically closer relationship to Lhagang
Choyu. Since the SAG project does not provide a linguistic map for ‘tooth’, we will display a map for‘tooth’ based on a simplified classification of the initial sound within the easternmost Tibetosphere
below:

Fig.4: Linguistic map for ‘tooth’ within the easternmost Tibetosphere.24
23 See http://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl/etymon/1322, accessed 28th March 2016.
24 Figure 4 is designed with ArcGIS Online.

This map shows that the form of Choyu and Lhagang Choyu (K-type; the type of which the initial is /k/)is isolated; however, there is a similar type (X-type; the type of which the initial is /x/) distributed
around the Choyu-region, which is Darmdo Minyag and brGyargyud Geshitsa.

Acknowledgements
Our thanks go to Lhagang Choyu speakers living in Tagong Village, especially to nChimed Lhamo[’Chi-med lHa-mo], who drew out her knowledge of Lhagang Choyu from her memory to teach us it.
We are also grateful to Tshekho [Tshe-kho], the second author’s mother, Yongdzong Lhamo[gYang-’dzom lHa-mo], and Gelag [dGe-lags], who helped us look for speakers of Lhagang Choyu
living in Tagong Village, as well as to Dorje [rDo-rje] and Sonam Tobdan [bSod-nams sTobs-ldan],who provided us of important related information. We should also like to thank Gerald Roche forchecking our English and contributing insightful comments.
References
A-tshogs, Ye-shes ’Od-gsal. 2004. Daohua Yanjiu. Minzu Chubanshe.
Dai, Q., B. Huang, A. Fu, Rig-’dzin dBang-mo, and J. Liu. 1990. Zangmianyu Shiwuzhong. Beijing Yanshan
Chubanshe.
Dawa Drolma [Dawa Zhuoma]. 2015. Ganzizhou Muyaren de yuyan shiyong xianzhuang ji fazhan qushi. Sichuan
Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao 5:11-14.
Dawa Drolma and H. Suzuki. 2015. Preliminary report of the linguistic area of Darmdo Minyag with ageolinguistic description of ‘sun’. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics 1:72-78.
Ebihara, S., S. Shirai, K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, H. Suzuki, and I. Matsuse. 2016. Milk: Tibeto-Burman. Studies in
Asian Geolinguistics 3 (in press).
Fei, X. 1980. Guanyu woguo minzu de shibie wenti. Zhongguo Shehui Kexue 1:94-107.
Huang, B. 2009. Chuanxi Zangqu de yuyan guanxi. Chuanxi Zangqu de Yuyan, 1-17. Zhongguo Zangxue
Chubanshe.
Huang, B. ed. 1992. Zangmianyuzu Yuyan Cihui. Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe.
Huang, B. and Rig-’dzin dBang-mo. 1990. Lüsuyu. In Q. Dai et al., 132-152.
Ikeda, T. 2003. Seinan Tyuugoku <Sensei Minzoku Sooroo> tiiki no gengo bunpu: Reference siryoosyuu. In O.
Sakiyama ed. Syoometu no Kiki ni Hinsita Gengo no Kenkyuu no Genzyoo to Kadai, 63-114. National
Museum of Ethnology.
Karmay, S. and Y. Nagano eds. 2003. A Survey of Bonpo Monasteries and Temples in Tibet and the Himalayas.
National Museum of Ethnology.
Lewis, M. P., G. F. Simons, and Ch. D. Fennig eds. 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Nineteenth edition.
SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. (accessed 17th March 2016)
Lu, S. 1985. Zhabayu gaikuang. Minzu Yuwen 2:67-76.
Nagano, Y. 2009. Zhangzhung and Gyarong. In Y. Nagano ed. Issues in Tibeto-Burman Historical Linguistics,
131-150. National Museum of Ethnology.
Nishida, F. 2008. Tyuyugo no on-in taikei. Tyuugoku Kenkyuu 16:77-85.
Prins, M. and Y. Nagano eds. 2013. rGyalrongic Languages
http://htq.minpaku.ac.jp/databases/rGyalrong/. (accessed 14th March 2016)

Database.

Onlineversion:Shirai, S., K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, H. Suzuki, and S. Ebihara. 2015. Sun: Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics 1:14-17.
Sun, H. 1983. Liujiang liuyu de minzu yuyan ji xishu fenlei: jianshu Jialingjiang shangyou, Yaluzangbujiang liuyu
de minzu yuyan. Minzu Xuebao 3:99-273.

Sun, H. ed. 1991. Zangmian Yuyin he Cihui. Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2015a. Quelques remarques linguistiques sur le tibétain de Lhagang, «l’endroit
préféré par le Bodhisattva». Revue d’études tibétaines Vol. 32:153-175.
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2015b. Challenge to discover endangered Tibetic varieties in the easternmost
Tibetosphere: a case study on Dartsendo Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 38.2:246-270. [DOI:
10.1075/ltba.38.2.07suz]
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2015c. Lhagang Tibetan of Minyag Rabgang Khams: Vocabulary of two
sociolinguistic varieties. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 10:245-286. Online version:
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/85072. (accessed 14th April 2016)
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2016a. Kamu-tibettogo Tagong [Lhagang] hoogen no bunpoo suketti. Journal of
Kijutsuken, Descriptive Linguistics Study Group 8:21-90.
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2016b. Cultural contexts of the expansion of a Tibetan word ’bras ‘rice’ in theeasternmost Tibetan area. Paper presented at 3rd International Conference of Asian Geolinguistics (Phnom
Penh).
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2017. Language evolution and vitality of Lhagang Tibetan, a Tibetic language asa minority in Minyag Rabgang. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 245 (in press).
Suzuki, H., S. Shirai, K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, S. Ebihara, and I. Matsuse. 2016a. Rice plant: Tibeto-Burman. Studies
in Asian Geolinguistics 2 (this volume).
Suzuki, H., K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, S. Shirai, S. Ebihara, and I. Matsuse. 2016b. Geolinguistic analysis of ’rice’ inTibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics 2 (this volume).
Van Way, J. and Bkrashis Bzangpo. 2015. Nyagrong Minyag: Prestige and maintenance of a traditional languageon the Tibetan periphery. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 38.2:245-255. [DOI:
10.1075/ltba.38.2.06van]Wang, T. 1990. Queyuyu. In Q. Dai, et al., 46-63.
Yang, J. ed. 1994. Ganzi Zangzu Zizhizhou Minzuzhi. Dangdai Zhongguo Chubanshe.
Zla ba sgrol ma (G. Roche, CK Stuart, T. Thurston, Rin-chen rDo-rje, and E. McKinlay [eds]). 2012. Silence in theValley of Songs: Work Songs from Sman Shod Valley. Asian Highlands Perspectives 12.

Additional Remarks on Rice in Tai-Kadai
Mitsuaki Endo
Aoyama Gakuin University

Li (1987) revived his Proto-Tai reconstruction to postulate a voiced/voiceless distinction concerning
aspirated stop initial consonants. As for the word for "rice", the initial is still reconstructed as *x as
before.
Ni (2010: 167) showed that the word form for "rice plant", "husked rice" and "cooked rice or meal"is basically identical among the major Tai-Kadai languages:
languages
Zhuang
Buyi
Lingao
Dai
Dong
Mulao
Shui
MaonanYanghuang
Mo
Jiamu
Lajia
Li

rice plant
hau4
hau4
ŋau4
xau3
qən4
hu3
ʔau4
ɦu4
ɣən4
hən3
ʔəu3
kou3
mu:n3

cooked rice or meal

husked rice
hau4
hau4
lɔp8
xau3
qən4
hu3
ʔau4
ɦu4
ɣən4
hən3
ʔəu3
kou3
gei1,rap7

hau4
hau4
fia4
xau3
qən4
hu3
ʔau4
ʔu5
ɣən4
ŋa:i2
ȶiŋ1
kou3
tha2

The exceptional cases in Lingao, Mo, Jiamu, and Li are underlined..
Furthermore, Ni (2010: 168) considered that the description in the Shuowen Jiezi by Xu Shen (AD.
100) reflected the earlier form of Tai-Kadai. The description is as follows (quoted from the Shuowen
Jiezi, p. 144, Hong Kong: Commercial Press, 1972):͆䥷㸪䧣ⰔˤṶ䥦㮃倚ˤఀᑺ᭣㸸͂㣤அ⨾⪅㸪⋞ᒣஅ⚻ࠊ༡ᾏஅ䥷̓ˤ࿧฿ษࠋ͇Hau belongs to the category of rice. It consists of 䥦 he as semantic
element and 㮃 mao as sound element. Yi Yin said: "Delicious cooked rice is grain in the Xuan
mountain and hau in the Southern Sea. ࿧฿ษ is the fanqie spelling added by Xu Xuan in the 10th
Century AD which can be reconstructed as *hɑu, departing tone. This is an interesting interpretation.
Still, Duan Yucai quoted the Lyshi Chunqiu, chapter Benwei: ఀᑺ᭣:༡ᾏஅ䦔ࠋThe gloss for thisword added by 㧗ㄏ Gao You is 湹湵 black millet. If this is correct, 䥷 could be a corrupted form of 䦔,which goes back to the time of the author Xu Shen.
Professor Masaaki Shimizu pointed out that C-3 meɯ C1 type in the Li language in Hainan could
have a relationship with Austroasiatic C maw type in Northern Bahnaric which is located in South
Vietnam (see Shimizu 2016).
References
Li, Fang-kuei. 1987. Proto Tai *kh and *x. Chinese-Western Encounter: Studies in Linguistics and Literature,
Festschrift for Franz Giet, SVD on the occasion of his 85th Birthday. 57-60. Taipei: Chinese Materials Center
Publications. ᵾ䪺⾕≹䈁2011ǉ৏࿻ਠ䈝Ⲵ NK઼ [ǊǉᵾᯩṲ‫ޘ‬䳶‫ׇ‬ਠ䈝䇪᮷䳶Ǌ111-114ˈेӜ˖␵ॾབྷᆖࠪ⡸⽮ǄNi, Dabai. 2010. "Rice plant", "grains" and "cooked rice or meal", A Synopsys of Kam-Tai Languages, 166-168.
Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.[in Chinese] ٚབྷⲭǉĀにāǃĀ䉧āǃĀ依āǊǉ‫ׇ‬ਠ䈝ᾲ䇪Ǌ166-168.
ेӜ˖≁᯿ࠪ⡸⽮Ǆ
Shimizu, Masaaki. 2016. Rice: Austroasiatic. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, 2.

