| In 1972, with the publication of his "The Proto-Chinese Final System and the Chieh-yun", Kun Chang proposed a new way of looking at Chinese historical phonology. In doing this, he made two claims: (1) the Shijing-Archaic is not the earliest source of Chinese historical phonology, and (2) the development of Chinese historical phonology is not a straight line. He projects a stage earlier than the Shijing, and posits different lines of development for the northern and the southern Chinese dialects. Basic to his work is a reinterpretation of the Qieyun, a rhyme dictionary of 601 A.D.;The distribution of the five major subgroups of the Min dialects is sketched. The southern Min dialects form the largest group of all the Min dialects, inside or outside of Fujian. The tonal system is discussed; among the various Min dialects, there are basically three types of tonal systems: six-tone, eight-tone, and seven-tone. Three changes affecting initials in Min are proposed: strengthening, weakening, and switch of out-going air channel. The colloquial-literary Min initials with the Qieyun initials are also compared.;In Chapter 6, all of the Qieyun rhyme categories are compared with the Min finals. An effort is made to distinguish between the contrastive system and the overriding finals. In order to explain the systematic differences between the colloquial and the literary Min finals, attention is also focused on the development of the final system. Based on comparative Min phonology, it is suggested that Divisions II and IV share the same finals at the earliest stage of Chinese, and that centralization and neutralization are the two major changes in the Chinese historical final systems. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.);The mysterious terminologies of dengyun hbox (sk 30), are clarified which are as crucial as the nature of the Qieyun to the understanding of Chinese historical phonology, especially the exact meanings of the four divisions, and the nature of the Qieyun is defined. The Min dialects are the most conservative of all Chinese dialects, and during its long course of development, the She (Hsia hbox sk 10) nationality may have exerted some influences upon Min Chinese. Neighboring dialects, such as the Wu, Hakka, and Gan, may also have influenced Min one way or another. Phonological strata are results of borrowings. Based on the continuity hypothesis, it is argued that there must have been a Chinese dialect at the pre-Shijing period, and Min was part of it. |
