Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/kroj
 |
This Proto-Sino-Tibetan entry contains reconstructed terms and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence. |
Proto-Sino-Tibetan
Etymology
- Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *kwroy (Coblin, 1986)
- Proto-Tibeto-Burman: *kroj (Matisoff, STEDT; Benedict, 1972; Coblin, 1986)
Old Chinese 蝸 (OC *kroːl, *kʷroːl) and 螺 (OC *roːl) both come from this root, but are characterized by a different treatment of the preinitial segment. While the latter regularly lost its preinitial (whose presence is testified by Proto-Min *lhoiᴬ), the former, through a dialectal pronunciation *k.rˁoj > *kˁroj, maintained the velar articulation. In Mandarin the first of these two characters has two pronunciations; besides wō, there's also guā, which shows a more regular development. Baxter and Sagart (2014: 161-164) report many examples of character doublets, like these two, where Old Chinese initial clusters evolve differently due to dialectal influences, cf. 聿 (MC ywit) ~ 筆 (MC pit) < OC *p.rut, distinguished by the reflex of the onset.
蝸 (OC *kroːl, *kʷroːl) is attested much earlier than 螺 (OC *roːl). Of the two, it is the only one to be glossed in the Shuowen and it is also found in the Book of Rites. The second is mentioned together with first one in the Jiaoshi Yilin, Jiao Yanshou's commentary to the Yijing written during the Western Han dynasty [206 BCE — 9 C.E.], while explaining hexagram 25.
According to Duan Yucai, by his times 蝸 (wō) meant “terrestrial (unedible) snail”, while 螺 (luó) meant “aquatic (edible) snail”.
Although probably unrelated, words resembling this Proto-Sino-Tibetan root are found in Southeast Asia:
- Proto-Mon-Khmer *kloʔ (“snail, shellfish”) (Shorto, 2006)
- Proto-Tai *ho:jᴬ (“shellfish”) (Pittayaporn, 2009), whence Thai หอย (hɔ̌i, “shellfish”)
- Proto-Mien: *klu̯eiᴬ/ᴮ (Ratliff, 2010)