Talk:mới

Etymology

@PhanAnh123 I have a source that associates this term with Khmer ថ្មី (thməy) and other Austroasiatic terms (Peiros 1998: 260). Judging from the histories of both entries, however, you seem to consider that it is not the case. Do you have any source that refutes the above-mentioned association?--Eryk Kij (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think there's any literature that refutes this connection (especially not older sources), but I know for a fact that the Vietnamese word and the Khmer word are not cognates. Within Vietic, there're two terms for "new", one is in Kri (Diffloth & Enfield, 2009; pg. 14) and Thavung, the other was reconstructed as *ɓəːjʔ (Ferlus, 2007) and presents in Tho, the Pong group, Ruc and Viet-Muong. Only words belong to the earlier are cognates to the general Austroasiatic term, while the later is an innovation within Vietic. There's no way to connect the PAA word (something like **tmiːʔ) to *ɓəːjʔ, since under no environment could earlier *m shifted into *ɓ and Vietic *ɓ also has only one origin in native words: PAA *ɓ, therefore no secondary development is possible either. In Vietnamese, earlier *ɓ became /m/ in every environment, which created a false cognate and is the source of this confusion. On a similar note, the connection between Vietnamese trời and Mon ဗြဲ also seems dubious to me.PhanAnh123 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand your logic and read both sources, but still do not know evidence for impossibility of the shift *m to *ɓ. What should we (I and other readers) see further?--Eryk Kij (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you could find any source that explicitly discusses this change (the field is far from developed after all), but to the best of my knowledge, if this case of PAA *m > PV *ɓ is accepted, it would be the single case of such sound change, and thus, makes it ad hoc. Vietnamese /m/ has two native sources, *m and *ɓ, which show no relationship at PV and PAA levels, only after Vietnamese started to form did the two morphemes merged (this *ɓ, *m > m merger is a really early sound change in the history of Vietnamese). In this particular case, the Mường lects (which starts with orthographic m instead of expected b, see also Nguyễn Văn Tài's Ngữ âm tiếng Mường qua các phương ngữ) was almost certainly borrowed from Vietnamese or diffused from a lowland dialect when the various Viet-Muong dialects still formed a dialect continuum.PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note also the cases such as PMK *ml(əw) were likely misreconstruction on Shorto's part and although *b and *ɓ merged in many modern Austroasiatic languages, PAA kept them distinct.PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

󱮈

@PhanAnh123 The appearance of U+F1B88 <private-use-F1B88> depends on a specific font. Can you fix it to be standard Unicode CJK or an IDS? —Fish bowl (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)