A further note on yan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and an [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

• Author: Goldin, Paul R.

Professor E. G. Pulleyblank's response (JAOS 123: 635-39) to my article on the Chinese particles yan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and an [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] gives me an opportunity to correct a defect in the published version of my paper, (1) which ignored Pulleyblank's work on the subject.

In Pulleyblank's view, yan and an represent not a fusion of yu [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and a fossilized pronoun *?an, as I had argued, but a combination of yu and a suffix *-n. While he complains that I do not "attempt to show that [the] hypothetical pronoun an [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is ever used independently as a pronoun," he offers little in the way of evidence that *-n was as productive a suffix in Old Chinese as he implies, and, as far as I know, has never disclosed in any of his publications the precise function or meaning that this postulated suffix is supposed to have. (2) This in effect permits him to yoke together any two words of similar meaning without having to say anything concrete about their relationship--as long as one seems to have a final *-n and the other a final vowel. His proposed pair of yu [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and yan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is a case in point: phonologically it may make sense to connect the two somehow, but what exactly is the proposed suffix doing in yan? Does yan mean "speak it"? Or if the suffixes *-n and *-t are vestiges of a proto-Chinese "aspectual system," how does this account for the peculiar usage of yan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as the semantic equivalent of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]?

Some of Pulleyblank's own examples suggest that more than just a suffix is at work. For instance, yi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and yin [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], a pair that he introduced as evidence in 1991, (3) do not have the same ancient vowels, even in his own reconstruction scheme. Assuming, with Pulleyblank, that these words are indeed cognate, do their forms not suggest some kind of fusion rather than a routine affix? Such problems make it impossible for me to agree that his solution is "surely much better."

A related issue: because he does not accept William H. Baxter's method of handling the A/B syllable distinction in Old Chinese, which I followed in my paper, (4) Pulleyblank proceeds in his note to raise this problem as well. But surely it is not reasonable to expect everyone who publishes an opinion on Old Chinese to explain...