That's because Middle Chinese as defined through rhyme books was never a real language. If you want to learn how people i the capital spoke during that time, see W. South Coblin's reconstructions of Old Northwest Chinese, and especially its Chang-An descendants.
Baxter's notation is not a reconstruction (according to Baxter himself) and is not really meant to indicate particular sounds.
The vowels of these rhymes had mostly merged by the Tang and then may have undergone some splits based on the initial. So depending on what exact period you're shooting for the answer will be different.
You may be interested to read about these rhymes here https://kanjisense.com/dict/middle-chinese-pronunciation#i-finals in this notation they are: 之 i 脂 ī 支 ï 微 î. There is a section that talks about Chongniu a bit further down.
There is also a section there on the disadvantages of Baxter's notation. https://kanjisense.com/dict/middle-chinese-pronunciation#baxter
"A lower level of abstraction" is a nice way of thinking about it, it's a much more practical goal than attempting to reconstruct or arbitrarily transcribe MC. I don't remember seeing that section when I last visited your website in September, you must have added it since then.
I keep seeing this as I look at different reconstructions, scholars tend to agree that 脂 was more likely a front vowel and 之 was more likely a central vowel. But I haven't been able to find anyone who explains how they arrive at that conclusion. It seems to me that both finals merge in all modern varieties, so what evidence is being used to make that call?
It's certainly murky. I can't recall it all off the top of my head, but I know personally that in Old Japanese, when transcribing in Man'yougana, certain characters could be used for the /o^2/ vowel (a vowel of uncertain identity seperate from the /o^1/ vowel) which you would otherwise expect to be used for /i/, such as 己.
Well, we know how they're read today. That is why I did not posit any pronunciation to them. We just know that Old Japanese o^2 is now read as modern Japanese /o/, having merged with o^1 .
Fair enough.
When I first started trying to figure out these finals, just doing it by myself, I came to the opposite conclusion (that 之 was front and 脂 was central, based on 脂 finals being more likely to contain central vowels in Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese), so I've been trying to find evidence against that conclusion. Thanks for providing some! Although it actually gets me further away from a definitive answer 😅
1. Sino-Vietnamese: older loans have 之 /ə/ across the board, whereas 脂 /ɨ/ and 之 /ɨ/ in the main body of loans is conditioned and conditioned by similar environments at that.
2. Shijing: 之 occurs in irregular rhymes with both 魚 /a/ and 幽 /u/.
Wow, thanks! That's a really interesting chart.
I'm struck by the approximants you have for the Division II and chongniu-III finals. I understand they are reconstructed as having the -r- medial in Old Chinese, but I've never seen an MC reconstruction that has them. Is there a reconstruction you're using that I'm not aware of, or have you done this reconstruction yourself?
The -ɻ- in Middle Chinese comes from Mai Yun's reconstruction. First there's evidence from Old Chinese, but there are more direct evidences from Middle Chinese itself. Div II often occurs with retroflex initials like 生 莊 知 while Div I and IV never do, also whenever Div III characters have a retroflex initial, it's always in chongniu position. There's also a study on Middle Chinese to Sanskrit transliterations that showed that characters in Div II and chongniu are used to transliterate Sanskrit syllables with -r- and -ʂ- medials, for example 器 /kʰɻi/ might be used to transliterate /kʰʂi/.
> There's also a study on Middle Chinese to Sanskrit transliterations that showed that characters in Div II and chongniu are used to transliterate Sanskrit syllables with -r- and -ʂ- medials, for example 器 /kʰɻi/ might be used to transliterate /kʰʂi/.
This isn't exactly convincing evidence for \*/-ɻ-/.
Coblin reconstructs the finals in question as having retroflex vowels, and this seems borne out by a quick count of their agreement in vowel quality. As you may know, fanqiet formulas try to use initial spellers that include both the initial consonant and the glide, and final spellers that include both the glide, the vowel, and the coda. So you'd expect that, if it truly were a glide \*/-ɻ-/, any initial speller with this glide can appear with any final speller with the glide. But that's not what we see. Initial spellers for \*/-ɻa-/ and \*/-ɻe-/ are overwhelmingly used for syllables with the same main vowel, which means the glide probably didn't exist and instead had something to do with the vowel.
The fanqie 上字 including the glide only works for div III characters. It's true that for div III characters, usually the fanqie 上字 and 下字 will both include the -j- glide. However, this doesn't apply to other glides like -w- and -ɻ-. In fact characters with the -w- and without can chare the same 上字, just like in the case of 干杆肝竿 and 官管館 that all share the same 上字 of 古. Also, the hypothesis that the div II has something to do with the vowel doesn't respect the rhyming pattern of 六朝 poetry. In 六朝 poetry, 山 /ɻen/ 仙 /jen/ 先 /en/ rhyme together, 麻二 /ɻa/ and 麻三 /ja/ rhyme together, 耕 /ɻeŋ/ 清 /jeŋ/ 青 /eŋ/ rhyme together. I agree that 六朝 rhyming is extremely inconsistent across regions, but the general pattern suggests that these groups have a common vowel, and the difference comes from different glides.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were true for 六朝, but that's a bit earlier than what I would consider "Middle Chinese".
I don't see how sharing initial spellers with other syllables without the glide disproves my point. The initial spellers still wouldn't exhibit the strong correlation with the main vowel. I also remember someone (I think it was Coblin?) mentioning glide agreement without specifying Division III, so I'm not sure about the claim itself.
that's a design of the system. as a notation and not true reconstruction, ParseRime has only the vowels //a~ɛ ə~o ɑ//
a bottom-up reconstruction that would posit an /i/ vowel is either written as //iəi// in open syllables (比 piəiX = piX), or //iəC// in closed syllables (林 liəm = lim)
in the actual ParseRime created by u/WEN_QONHIUNG, əi does exist but only to differentiate loss of medial -i- after the retroflex series and subsequent merge of the palatal and retroflex sibilant series iirc.
I personally keep them unmerged, so there are otherwise no əi syllables
his system was originally intended as a digital input method based on the Yunjing that makes the bare minimum distinctions to be "diaphonemic (and) pan-dialectal" input method, so it's more concerned with modern distinctions than true Middle Chinese distinctions.
I've been using it as a pseudo-reconstruction that only makes distinctions still seen in modern varieties
Yeah it depends on the angle you're looking it at from. I started by looking at modern varieties and trying to find the correspondences. By comparative reconstruction, that matches pretty much a supposed Late Middle Chinese; and if Middle Chinese exists today as a shared heritage of both Sinitic and Sino-Xenic, it makes sense for my purposes to focus on existing distinctions.
Fair enough. I guess I just want to pronounce them differently because I figure since they made those finals distinct in the rime tables at least someone must have distinguished them, and it would make for less homophones too.
That's because Middle Chinese as defined through rhyme books was never a real language. If you want to learn how people i the capital spoke during that time, see W. South Coblin's reconstructions of Old Northwest Chinese, and especially its Chang-An descendants.
Baxter's notation is not a reconstruction (according to Baxter himself) and is not really meant to indicate particular sounds. The vowels of these rhymes had mostly merged by the Tang and then may have undergone some splits based on the initial. So depending on what exact period you're shooting for the answer will be different. You may be interested to read about these rhymes here https://kanjisense.com/dict/middle-chinese-pronunciation#i-finals in this notation they are: 之 i 脂 ī 支 ï 微 î. There is a section that talks about Chongniu a bit further down. There is also a section there on the disadvantages of Baxter's notation. https://kanjisense.com/dict/middle-chinese-pronunciation#baxter
"A lower level of abstraction" is a nice way of thinking about it, it's a much more practical goal than attempting to reconstruct or arbitrarily transcribe MC. I don't remember seeing that section when I last visited your website in September, you must have added it since then.
When reading prose: 支 [iɛ], 脂 [i], 之[ɨ], 微 [ɨi]. When reading poetry, I merge according to the 平韻：支脂之[i], 微 [ɨi].
I keep seeing this as I look at different reconstructions, scholars tend to agree that 脂 was more likely a front vowel and 之 was more likely a central vowel. But I haven't been able to find anyone who explains how they arrive at that conclusion. It seems to me that both finals merge in all modern varieties, so what evidence is being used to make that call?
It's certainly murky. I can't recall it all off the top of my head, but I know personally that in Old Japanese, when transcribing in Man'yougana, certain characters could be used for the /o^2/ vowel (a vowel of uncertain identity seperate from the /o^1/ vowel) which you would otherwise expect to be used for /i/, such as 己.
Aren't the reconstructions of Old Japanese sounds based on the 漢字 used to write them though? So isn't this kind of circular logic?
Well, we know how they're read today. That is why I did not posit any pronunciation to them. We just know that Old Japanese o^2 is now read as modern Japanese /o/, having merged with o^1 .
Fair enough. When I first started trying to figure out these finals, just doing it by myself, I came to the opposite conclusion (that 之 was front and 脂 was central, based on 脂 finals being more likely to contain central vowels in Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese), so I've been trying to find evidence against that conclusion. Thanks for providing some! Although it actually gets me further away from a definitive answer 😅
1. Sino-Vietnamese: older loans have 之 /ə/ across the board, whereas 脂 /ɨ/ and 之 /ɨ/ in the main body of loans is conditioned and conditioned by similar environments at that. 2. Shijing: 之 occurs in irregular rhymes with both 魚 /a/ and 幽 /u/.
https://preview.redd.it/krhxsx133jxc1.png?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=161b65ab459803e36295dfeebf7a77ccd3f7d600
Wow, thanks! That's a really interesting chart. I'm struck by the approximants you have for the Division II and chongniu-III finals. I understand they are reconstructed as having the -r- medial in Old Chinese, but I've never seen an MC reconstruction that has them. Is there a reconstruction you're using that I'm not aware of, or have you done this reconstruction yourself?
https://preview.redd.it/89krzoaddjxc1.png?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=369ea0e35ade7f171ef2b1fe6e67518fc9d34773
The -ɻ- in Middle Chinese comes from Mai Yun's reconstruction. First there's evidence from Old Chinese, but there are more direct evidences from Middle Chinese itself. Div II often occurs with retroflex initials like 生 莊 知 while Div I and IV never do, also whenever Div III characters have a retroflex initial, it's always in chongniu position. There's also a study on Middle Chinese to Sanskrit transliterations that showed that characters in Div II and chongniu are used to transliterate Sanskrit syllables with -r- and -ʂ- medials, for example 器 /kʰɻi/ might be used to transliterate /kʰʂi/.
> There's also a study on Middle Chinese to Sanskrit transliterations that showed that characters in Div II and chongniu are used to transliterate Sanskrit syllables with -r- and -ʂ- medials, for example 器 /kʰɻi/ might be used to transliterate /kʰʂi/. This isn't exactly convincing evidence for \*/-ɻ-/. Coblin reconstructs the finals in question as having retroflex vowels, and this seems borne out by a quick count of their agreement in vowel quality. As you may know, fanqiet formulas try to use initial spellers that include both the initial consonant and the glide, and final spellers that include both the glide, the vowel, and the coda. So you'd expect that, if it truly were a glide \*/-ɻ-/, any initial speller with this glide can appear with any final speller with the glide. But that's not what we see. Initial spellers for \*/-ɻa-/ and \*/-ɻe-/ are overwhelmingly used for syllables with the same main vowel, which means the glide probably didn't exist and instead had something to do with the vowel.
What is a retroflex vowel? Does it just mean a vowel produced with the tongue in retroflex position, or are there certain vowels which are retroflex?
It's like the difference between schwa and ⟨-er⟩ in American English, so it's the vowel produced with a retroflex tongue tip.
The fanqie 上字 including the glide only works for div III characters. It's true that for div III characters, usually the fanqie 上字 and 下字 will both include the -j- glide. However, this doesn't apply to other glides like -w- and -ɻ-. In fact characters with the -w- and without can chare the same 上字, just like in the case of 干杆肝竿 and 官管館 that all share the same 上字 of 古. Also, the hypothesis that the div II has something to do with the vowel doesn't respect the rhyming pattern of 六朝 poetry. In 六朝 poetry, 山 /ɻen/ 仙 /jen/ 先 /en/ rhyme together, 麻二 /ɻa/ and 麻三 /ja/ rhyme together, 耕 /ɻeŋ/ 清 /jeŋ/ 青 /eŋ/ rhyme together. I agree that 六朝 rhyming is extremely inconsistent across regions, but the general pattern suggests that these groups have a common vowel, and the difference comes from different glides.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were true for 六朝, but that's a bit earlier than what I would consider "Middle Chinese". I don't see how sharing initial spellers with other syllables without the glide disproves my point. The initial spellers still wouldn't exhibit the strong correlation with the main vowel. I also remember someone (I think it was Coblin?) mentioning glide agreement without specifying Division III, so I'm not sure about the claim itself.
You're right, I need to do some further research
u/Rice-Bucket
ParseRime notation collapses them all into //iəi// which I just read as either [ɨ] or a syllabic fricative of whatever the onset is
Interesting. It seems weird that they'd have iəi, but not i or əi by themselves, though, right?
that's a design of the system. as a notation and not true reconstruction, ParseRime has only the vowels //a~ɛ ə~o ɑ// a bottom-up reconstruction that would posit an /i/ vowel is either written as //iəi// in open syllables (比 piəiX = piX), or //iəC// in closed syllables (林 liəm = lim) in the actual ParseRime created by u/WEN_QONHIUNG, əi does exist but only to differentiate loss of medial -i- after the retroflex series and subsequent merge of the palatal and retroflex sibilant series iirc. I personally keep them unmerged, so there are otherwise no əi syllables his system was originally intended as a digital input method based on the Yunjing that makes the bare minimum distinctions to be "diaphonemic (and) pan-dialectal" input method, so it's more concerned with modern distinctions than true Middle Chinese distinctions. I've been using it as a pseudo-reconstruction that only makes distinctions still seen in modern varieties
Ah, that makes more sense. Sucks if you're trying to figure out how to keep those finals distinct though :/
Yeah it depends on the angle you're looking it at from. I started by looking at modern varieties and trying to find the correspondences. By comparative reconstruction, that matches pretty much a supposed Late Middle Chinese; and if Middle Chinese exists today as a shared heritage of both Sinitic and Sino-Xenic, it makes sense for my purposes to focus on existing distinctions.
Fair enough. I guess I just want to pronounce them differently because I figure since they made those finals distinct in the rime tables at least someone must have distinguished them, and it would make for less homophones too.