Talk:ห่าน

Dating

Proto-Mon-Khmer is likely predate or contemporary to Proto-Sino-Tibetan, so loaning from Chinese, at any stage, to PMK, is impossible. Plus the Old Chinese and Middle Chinese reconstructions show the *ŋ- onset, while the PMK and Proto-Tai have *h onset, so it's absolutely impossible for either to be derived from 雁 (yàn). PhanAnh123 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I will move Chinese aside then. And we must use template cog instead of der. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@PhanAnh123 Just for argument's sake... it's not absolutely impossible. There are some C. *ŋ- ~ T. *h- correspondences, most famously Thai ห้า (hâa) << 五 (OC *ŋaːʔ) (in Zhengzhang's reconstruction), and this has led some to propose that the OC was actually prefixed *C.ŋ-. This correspondence also commonly shows up in the vernacular layer in Min Nan: see 魚 (OC *ŋa) > MN h- etc. The relationship between the various proto-forms is unclear at this stage, and an etymological relationship is not completely ruled out. Mark Alves has written on this topic: “Etyma for ‘Chicken’, ‘Duck’, & ‘Goose’ among Language Phyla in China & Southeast Asia” (2015) in JSEALS. Wyang (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Is PMK still able to come from Sanskrit right? I think I see one (not that goose). --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)