<p>Claw wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>After that, metathesis occurred which changed /ʐɨ/ to /ɨʐ/</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'd like to add that Karlgren envisioned the crucial step as vocalic epenthesis (insertion of a vowel) rather than metathesis (inversion of two segments). He envisioned a stage in which these syllables were syllabic /ńź/ through loss of the final vowel, after which a schwa was inserted before the consonant.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-30T06:49:11.163Z
2015-10-30T06:49:11.163Z
brannerchinese
<p>BTW, I have Schuessler's book, and the transcription shown in parentheses after the character indicates the Middle Chinese rather than Old Chinese pronunciation, so ńźi refers to MC rather than OC pronunciation.</p>

<p>Back to your question, it's important to note that initial ńź- is being used as a transcription rather than an indication of the actual pronunciation.  According to <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=_XJRT43MXRgC&amp;pg=PA55">A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology, p. 55</a>, Karlgren chose ńź- to transcribe this sound in order to reflect the fact that it evolved into a voiced fricative in descendants such as Mandarin (pinyin r- is often analyzed as IPA /ʐ/, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_retroflex_sibilant">voiced retroflex sibilant</a>); however, the book notes that "for Early Middle Chinese, however, it is widely agreed that it was simply a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatal_nasal">palatal nasal</a> (IPA: /ɲ/)."</p>

<p>As you noted, this Early Middle Chinese /ɲ/ became /j/ in Cantonese, and /n/ in Japanese.  Such <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_change">phonological changes</a> are not too hard to imagine occurring, though EMC /ɲ/ changing to Mandarin's retroflex /ʐ/ may be a little harder to imagine.  However, it is interesting to note that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Chinese#Late_Middle_Chinese">in Late Middle Chinese</a>, all palatal sibilants merged into the retroflex sibilants (e.g., /tɕ/ -> /ʈʂ/, /dʑ/ -> /ɖʐ/, etc.).  At this time the palatal /ɲ/, while not a sibilant, also got carried along with this change and became retroflex in LMC.  After that, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metathesis_%28linguistics%29">metathesis</a> occurred which changed /ʐɨ/ to /ɨʐ/ (see <a href="http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/18289792.html">《北京音系解析》, p. 24</a>), which is realized as [əɻ] (pinyin: er) in modern Mandarin.</p>

<p>As an interesting aside, phonological changes often have exceptions, so a few words continued to retain the initial nasal in their modern descendants, the best example being 爾/尔 (MC: ńźje, Mand.: ěr, Cant.: ji5), whose colloquial pronunciation retained the nasal initial and became modern 你 (Mand.: nǐ, Cant.: nei5).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-13T10:33:00.610Z
You're right, all the sound changes you've described are not particularly hard to imagine. The missing link was that /ʐɨ/ metathesised to /ɨʐ/ -- thanks for making that clear!
jogloran
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-13T11:18:17.617Z
BTW, I just wanted to add that this metathesis must have happened before Mandarin lost the final plosives in its 入聲 words (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checked_tone).  For instance, 日 (MC: ńźjet) is pronounced ri rather than er in Mandarin, indicating that the final -t got dropped after the /ʐɨ/ to /ɨʐ/ change occurred.
Claw
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-13T11:28:53.880Z
Yes, that explanation makes sense. The final stop would have had to have been present to block the metathesis. Incidentally, do you know of any reference work about these and similar sound changes?
jogloran
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-13T11:47:44.490Z
Other than the references already mentioned in my comment, Edwin Pulleyblank's _Middle Chinese_ is very good.  I don't actually have it because it appears to be very expensive; however, it looks to be pretty comprehensive based on the excerpts I've seen on Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=iWgDpSUY_fkC&printsec=frontcover).  I do have _Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation_ (also by Pulleyblank), which can be considered a companion to _Middle Chinese_.  It primarily contains tables of pronunciations, but its introduction has a good summary of various phonological topics.
Claw
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-13T11:53:05.473Z
Thanks. My university has copies of both; I'll definitely take a look.
jogloran
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-13T10:21:02.400Z
2012-05-13T10:27:06.807Z
2012-05-13T10:27:06.807Z
Claw
<p>Schuessler's reconstruction of the Old Chinese reading of 二 is *ńźi. It seems there is a correspondence between OC syllables beginning in *ń or *ńź and Mandarin syllables romanised as <code>er</code>.</p>

<p>However, I've always wondered at what the intervening steps in the sound change were. Cantonese has <code>ji6</code>, which maintains the nucleus. Similarly, the kan-on (漢音) borrowing of 二 into Japanese has the reading <code>ni</code>.</p>

<p>How did the rhotic syllabic vowel develop in Mandarin from *ńźi?</p>

<mandarin><pronunciation><phonology><middle-chinese>
The development of rhotic vowels in Mandarin
# The development of rhotic vowels in Mandarin

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-12)

Schuessler's reconstruction of the Old Chinese reading of 二 is \*ńźi. It seems there is a correspondence between OC syllables beginning in \*ń or \*ńź and Mandarin syllables romanised as `er`.

However, I've always wondered at what the intervening steps in the sound change were. Cantonese has `ji6`, which maintains the nucleus. Similarly, the kan-on (漢音) borrowing of 二 into Japanese has the reading `ni`.

How did the rhotic syllabic vowel develop in Mandarin from \*ńźi?

**Tags:** mandarin, pronunciation, phonology, middle-chinese


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2012-05-13. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

BTW, I have Schuessler's book, and the transcription shown in parentheses after the character indicates the Middle Chinese rather than Old Chinese pronunciation, so ńźi refers to MC rather than OC pronunciation.

Back to your question, it's important to note that initial ńź- is being used as a transcription rather than an indication of the actual pronunciation. According to [A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology, p. 55](http://books.google.com/books?id=_XJRT43MXRgC&pg=PA55), Karlgren chose ńź- to transcribe this sound in order to reflect the fact that it evolved into a voiced fricative in descendants such as Mandarin (pinyin r- is often analyzed as IPA /ʐ/, a [voiced retroflex sibilant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_retroflex_sibilant)); however, the book notes that "for Early Middle Chinese, however, it is widely agreed that it was simply a [palatal nasal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatal_nasal) (IPA: /ɲ/)."

As you noted, this Early Middle Chinese /ɲ/ became /j/ in Cantonese, and /n/ in Japanese. Such [phonological changes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_change) are not too hard to imagine occurring, though EMC /ɲ/ changing to Mandarin's retroflex /ʐ/ may be a little harder to imagine. However, it is interesting to note that [in Late Middle Chinese](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Chinese#Late_Middle_Chinese), all palatal sibilants merged into the retroflex sibilants (e.g., /tɕ/ -> /ʈʂ/, /dʑ/ -> /ɖʐ/, etc.). At this time the palatal /ɲ/, while not a sibilant, also got carried along with this change and became retroflex in LMC. After that, [metathesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metathesis_%28linguistics%29) occurred which changed /ʐɨ/ to /ɨʐ/ (see [《北京音系解析》, p. 24](http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/18289792.html)), which is realized as [əɻ] (pinyin: er) in modern Mandarin.

As an interesting aside, phonological changes often have exceptions, so a few words continued to retain the initial nasal in their modern descendants, the best example being 爾/尔 (MC: ńźje, Mand.: ěr, Cant.: ji5), whose colloquial pronunciation retained the nasal initial and became modern 你 (Mand.: nǐ, Cant.: nei5).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: You're right, all the sound changes you've described are not particularly hard to imagine. The missing link was that /ʐɨ/ metathesised to /ɨʐ/ -- thanks for making that clear!  
> **username_2**: BTW, I just wanted to add that this metathesis must have happened before Mandarin lost the final plosives in its 入聲 words (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checked_tone).  For instance, 日 (MC: ńźjet) is pronounced ri rather than er in Mandarin, indicating that the final -t got dropped after the /ʐɨ/ to /ɨʐ/ change occurred.  
> **username_0**: Yes, that explanation makes sense. The final stop would have had to have been present to block the metathesis. Incidentally, do you know of any reference work about these and similar sound changes?  
> **username_2**: Other than the references already mentioned in my comment, Edwin Pulleyblank's _Middle Chinese_ is very good.  I don't actually have it because it appears to be very expensive; however, it looks to be pretty comprehensive based on the excerpts I've seen on Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=iWgDpSUY_fkC&printsec=frontcover).  I do have _Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation_ (also by Pulleyblank), which can be considered a companion to _Middle Chinese_.  It primarily contains tables of pronunciations, but its introduction has a good summary of various phonological topics.  
> **username_0**: Thanks. My university has copies of both; I'll definitely take a look.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-10-30. Score: 0

username_2 wrote:

> After that, metathesis occurred which changed /ʐɨ/ to /ɨʐ/

I'd like to add that Karlgren envisioned the crucial step as vocalic epenthesis (insertion of a vowel) rather than metathesis (inversion of two segments). He envisioned a stage in which these syllables were syllabic /ńź/ through loss of the final vowel, after which a schwa was inserted before the consonant.


---

