Proto-Hmong–Mien (PHM), also known as Proto-Miao–Yao (PMY; Chinese: 原始苗瑶语), is the reconstructed ancestor of the Hmong–Mien languages. Lower-level reconstructions include Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic.
Ratliff (2021) estimates that the split between Hmongic and Mienic had occurred before 2500 BP, since the Old Chinese words 鐵 tiě ‘iron’ and 下 xià ‘descend’ were both borrowed separately by Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic.[1]
In earlier studies, the date of proto-Hmong-Mien has been estimated to be about 2500 BP by Sagart, Blench, and Sanchez-Mazas (2004),[2] as well as by Ratliff (2021:247).[1] It has been estimated to about 4243 BP by the Automated Similarity Judgment Program (ASJP),[3] however, ASJP is not widely accepted among historical linguists as a sufficiently rigorous method to establish or evaluate relationships between language families, since it only makes use of 40 basic vocabulary items.[4]
Reconstructions of Proto-Hmong–Mien include the following.[5]
In China, the first comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Hmongic (Proto-Miao) was undertaken by Wang Fushi (1979).[13] Wang's 1979 manuscript was subsequently revised and published as Wang (1994).[14]
Proto-Mienic (Proto-Mjuenic; reconstruction excludes Biao Min and Zao Min) has been reconstructed by Luang-Thongkum (1993).[15] A comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Mienic has been published by Liu (2021).[16]
Martha Ratliff (2010) used 11 criterion languages for her reconstruction.
Wang & Mao (1995) base their Proto-Hmong–Mien reconstruction on the following 23 criterion Hmong-Mien languages.
Martha Ratliff's 2010 reconstruction contains the following phonemic inventory.
The full set of Proto-Hmong–Mien initial consonants is (Ratliff 2010: 31):
The 3 medial consonants are *-j-, *-l-, and *-r-. The 6 final stop consonants are *-p, *-t, *-k, *-m, *-n, and *-ŋ.
The Proto-Hmong–Mien vowels are (11 total) (Ratliff 2010: 108):
Proto-Hmong–Mien has the following syllable structure (Ratliff 2010:10):
(C) C [j/w/l] [i̯/u̯] (V) V C (C)T
Ratliff (2010) does not reconstruct vowel length for either Proto-Mienic or Proto-Hmong–Mien; in contrast, Li (2018) reconstructs vowel length for both.[12] Even though Mienic languages usually have vowel length, Ratliff ascribes this to areal features that were borrowed after the breakup of Proto-Mienic.[17] Neighboring languages with vowel length include Yue Chinese and Zhuang.
Ostapirat (2016)[11] revises various reconstructed Proto-Hmong–Mien consonant initials proposed by Ratliff (2010). He suggests that many proto-initials are in fact sesquisyllables, in line with Baxter & Sagart's (2014) Old Chinese reconstruction and Pittayaporn's (2009) Proto-Tai reconstruction. Examples include reconstructing *m.l- and *m.r- where Ratliff (2010) reconstructs *mbl- and *mbr-, respectively. Hmong-Mien presyllables are further discussed in Strecker (2021).[18]
Ostapirat (2016) also reconstructs velarized initial consonants (*Cˠ-) where Ratliff (2010) reconstructs -j- or -w-. Similarly, Norquest (2020) also reconstructs velarized initial consonants for Proto-Kra–Dai.[19]
Additionally, Ostapirat revises Ratliff's uvulars (*q-, etc.) as velars (*k-, etc.), and her palatals as either alveolars or palatals.
Below are some reconstructions from Ostapirat (2016) compared with those of Ratliff (2010).
Taguchi (2023) discusses several revisions in the phonological reconstruction of Proto-Hmong–Mien and suggests a classification based on lexical evidence rather than phonological sound changes.[20] Rimes are simplified, while nasal codas in open rimes in Proto-Hmongic are posited to have derived from historical nasal initial consonants.[21] Taguchi (2023) also suggests that Ratliff's (2010) Proto-Hmongic *k- and *q- are in fact secondary developments from Proto-Hmong–Mien *kr- and *k-, respectively.
Below are some words roughly belonging to the semantic domains of agriculture and subsistence from Ratliff (2004),[22] with the Proto-Hmong-Mien and Proto-Hmongic reconstructions from Ratliff (2010), and Old Chinese reconstructions from Baxter & Sagart (2014)[23] for comparison (note that the Old Chinese forms are not necessarily cognate with the Hmong–Mien forms). Terms for domesticated animals and non-rice crops are usually shared with Chinese, while vocabulary relating to hunting, rice crops, and local plants and animals are usually not shared with Chinese.
The ethnonym Hmong is reconstructed as *hmʉŋA in Proto-Hmongic by Ratliff (2010), while Mien is reconstructed as *mjænA in Proto-Mienic. In comparison, William H. Baxter and Laurent Sagart (2014)[24] reconstruct the Old Chinese name of the Mán 蠻 (Nanman 南蠻, or southern foreigners) as 蠻 *mˤro[n]; additionally, Sidwell & Rau (2015) reconstruct the Proto-Austroasiatic word for 'person' as *mraʔ.[25]
Proto-Hmong–Mien shares many lexical similarities with neighboring language families, including Austroasiatic, Kra-Dai (Tai-Kadai), Austronesian, and Tibeto-Burman (Ratliff 2010). Martha Ratliff (2010:233-237) lists the following lexical resemblances between Proto-Hmong–Mien (abbreviated below as PHM) and other language families. Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic are provided if the Proto-Hmong–Mien form is not reconstructed.
Many lexical resemblances are found between the Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic language families (Ratliff 2010), some of which had earlier been proposed by Haudricourt (1951).[26] Proto-Austroasiatic (PAA) reconstructions are from Sidwell (2024).[27]
Other Austroasiatic parallels listed by Kosaka (2002:94) are:[28]
Ostapirat (2018:116-117)[29] lists compares the following basic vocabulary items in Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic. Proto-Palaungic as reconstructed by Sidwell (2015) has also been reconstructed.[30]
Further lexical resemblances between Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic are listed in Hsiu (2017).[33]
Many lexical resemblances are found between the Hmong-Mien and Kra-Dai language families, although the tones often do not correspond (Ratliff 2010). Proto-Tai (abbreviated here as PT) reconstructions are from Pittayaporn (2009).[34] Many of the Proto-Tai forms also have close parallels with Proto-Austronesian.
Kosaka (2002)[28] lists many lexical resemblances between Kra-Dai and Hmong-Mien languages, and proposes that they form part of a larger Miao-Dai language family.
Many lexical resemblances are found between the Hmong-Mien and Austronesian language families, some of which are also shared with Kra-Dai and Austroasiatic (Ratliff 2010). Proto-Austronesian (abbreviated here as PAN) and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (abbreviated here as PMP) reconstructions are from Blust (n.d.).[35]
Ratliff notes that the Hmong-Mien numerals from 4-9 and various culture-related vocabulary have been borrowed from Tibeto-Burman. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman (abbreviated as PTB) forms provided below are from James Matisoff (2003).[36]
Additionally, Paul K. Benedict (1987)[37] notes that Proto-Hmong–Mien contains loanwords from an unknown Tibeto-Burman language or branch, which Benedict refers to as Donor Miao-Yao. Benedict (1987:20) believes that these Tibeto-Burman loanwords predate Hmong-Mien's contact with Old Chinese. Some numerals that Benedict (1987) reconstructed for Proto-Donor Miao-Yao are given below.
Guillaume Jacques (2021) notes that there are Tibeto-Burman parallels for various Hmong-Mien words that are found specifically in rGyalrongic and neighboring Qiangic languages. These include the words for 'snow' (cf. Jiangdi Mien bwan5), 'scold' (Proto-Hmongic *qeC), 'walnut' (Proto-Hmongic *qlowC), and 'bamboo' (Proto-Hmong-Mien *hləwX).[38]
{{cite book}}
|work=