GY Hz BJ MC TY QY XH DU YX LJ Li
---- --- ----- ----- --- ---- --- --- --- --- ---
1 A17 真 Zhen -in 1 A17 1 1 1 1 *
2 A18 諄 Zhun -win 1 A17 1 1 1 1 *
3 A19 臻 Zhen -in 1 A18 2 1 1 1 *
4 A21 殷 Xin -j+n 2 A20 2 2 2 1 *
5 A20 文 Wen2 -jun 2 A19 * 2 2 1 *
---------------------------------------------------------
6 A22 元 Yuan2 -jon 3 A21 3 3 3 2 *
7 A23 魂 Hun2 -won 3 A22 3 3 3 3 *
8 A24 痕 Hen2 -on 3 A23 3 * 3 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------
9 A25 寒 Han2 -an 4 A24 * * * * *
10 A26 桓 Huan2 -wan 4 A24 * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------
11 A27 刪 Shan -aen 5 A25 4 * 4 4 1
12 A28 山 Shan -ean 5 A26 5 4 5 5 1
13 B01 先 Xian -en 6 A27 6 5 5 6 *
14 B02 仙 Xian -jen 6 A28 6 5 5 7 *
----------------------------------------------------------
Whenever at least one of the pre-Qieyun rhyme books distinguishes a class of rhyme words that were not distinguished by another, this distinction was, in every case, observed by the compilers of the Qieyun rhyme book. This is a fundamental feature of the design of the Qieyun and Lu Fayan's rhyme selection procedure.
For example, in the table of rhyme contents of Wang Renxu's Tang dynasty manuscript edition, under the Qieyun level tone, Rhyme number 20 (GYA21), the annotation says:
"Yang and Du rhyme -j+n with -jun; Xiahou rhymes -j+n with -in. [Therefore we] now separate both [rhymes]."
二十殷, 於斤反: 陽, 杜与文同; 夏侯与臻同. 今並別. 廣韻 北京 Baxter 同用 切韻 夏侯 杜 陽 呂 李 ------- ----- ----- --- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- A19 臻 Zhen -in 1 A18 2 1 1 1 * A21 殷 Xin -j+n 2 A20 2 2 2 1 * A20 文 Wen2 -jun 2 A19 * 2 2 1 *
To show that Yang and Du rhyme the words of Xin with Wen in their rhyme books, I have assigned the same number, 2, to both of these rhymes in the columns under their names. Since no mention is made of Li in connection with these rhymes, I use an asterisk (*) as a kind of wildcard. Since Luu (LJ) rhymes CYA17 -in with CYA19 -jun, and CYA18 with CYA17, we may assume the intermediate rhyme CYA20 is also included.
十七真, 職鄰反: 呂与文同; 夏侯, 陽, 杜別. 今依夏侯,陽. 十八臻, 側詵反: 無上聲. 呂, 陽, 杜与真同; 夏侯別. 今依夏侯. 十九文, 武分反. 二十殷, 於斤反: 陽, 杜与文同; 夏侯与臻同. 今並別.The annotations in the table of contents indicate that this procedure was followed consistently throughout the compilation of the Qieyun rhyme book; that is, the compilers preserved any previous distinction that had been made by the major rhyming traditions by setting up a separate and distinct rhyme label for each of them in the Qieyun. (This design feature might even account for the name given to the book: qie, cut, separate, distinguish). In so doing, all of the distinctions, that is, all of the rhyme patterns (but necessarily phonetic distinctions), of the previous rhyme books were incorporated and preserved without prejudice to any one of them!廣韻 北京 Baxter 同用 切韻 夏侯 杜 陽 呂 李 ------- ----- ----- --- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- A17 真 Zhen -in 1 A17 1 1 1 1 * A18 諄 Zhun -win 1 A17 1 1 1 1 * A19 臻 Zhen -in 1 A18 2 1 1 1 * A21 殷 Xin -j+n 2 A20 2 2 2 1 * A20 文 Wen2 -jun 2 A19 * 2 2 1 *
二十一元, 愚袁反: 陽, 夏侯, 杜与魂同; 呂別. 今依呂. 二十二魂, 戶昆反: 呂, 陽, 夏侯与痕同. 今別. 二十三痕, 戶恩反.廣韻 北京 Baxter 同用 切韻 夏侯 杜 陽 呂 李 ------- ----- ----- --- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- A22 元 Yuan2 -jon 3 A21 3 3 3 2 * A23 魂 Hun2 -won 3 A22 3 3 3 3 * A24 痕 Hen2 -on 3 A23 3 * 3 3 *
二十四寒, 胡安反.
廣韻 北京 Baxter 同用 切韻 夏侯 杜 陽 呂 李 ------- ----- ----- --- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- A25 寒 Han2 -an 4 A24 * * * * * A26 桓 Huan2 -wan 4 A24 * * * * *
As might be expected, there is no dispute, and probably unanimity, on CYA24 -(w)an, since no comments are attached. However, based on the selection criteria used, I'm not sure if we can infer that it is also necessarily distinct from all of the following.
二十五刪, 所姦反: 李与山同; 呂, 夏侯, 陽別. 今依呂, 夏侯, 陽. 二十六山, 所閒反: 陽与先仙同; 夏侯, 杜別. 今依夏侯, 杜. 二十七先, 蘇前反: 夏侯, 陽, 杜与仙同; 呂別. 今依呂. 二十八仙, 相然反.廣韻 北京 Baxter 同用 切韻 夏侯 杜 陽 呂 李 ------- ----- ----- --- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- A27 刪 Shan -aen 5 A25 4 * 4 4 1 A28 山 Shan -ean 5 A26 5 4 5 5 1 B01 先 Xian -en 6 A27 6 5 5 6 * B02 仙 Xian -jen 6 A28 6 5 5 7 *
Some assumptions will be necessary at this point. Perhaps things will become clearer after all the data has been assembled and analyzed. Where a rhyme is given with no comment, we may assume it is universally recognized; unless a comment after another rhyme excludes it. Qieyun A02, below, excludes A03 and A04 from Yang's rhyme book; but otherwise these rhymes appear to be recognized by all others. We may assume that A03 and A04 are also distinguished from each other by Luu and Xiahou, otherwise we should expect to see a comment to the contrary after A03 or A04.
一東, 德紅反. 二冬, 都宗反: 無上聲. 陽与鍾江同韻. 呂, 夏侯別. 今依呂, 夏侯. 三鍾, 職容反. 四江, 古雙反.廣韻 北京 Baxter 同用 切韻 夏侯 杜 陽 呂 李 ------- ----- ----- --- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- A01 東 Dong -uwng 獨用 A01 1 * 1 1 * A02 冬 Dong -owng 2 A02 2 * 2 2 * A03 鍾 Zhong -jowng 2 A03 3 * 2 3 * A04 江 Jiang -aewng 獨用 A04 4 * 2 4 *
Above all else, it seems very clear that the Qieyun reflects the maximum number of possible "distinctions" between the several major rhyming traditions. Pulleyblank no doubt had this in mind when he referred to the Qieyun as reflecting a "maximal diasystem." Even though he notes that "few people may have preserved all of its distinctions in their speech," he nevertheless maintains "that most, if not all, of the distinctions [the Qieyun] sets up were still current among some part of ... the educated classes of north and south China at the end of the sixth century." Where I disagree with Pulleyblank is in his treatment of the Qieyun as a static synchronic description of several major dialects (a unified "system") rather than as simply a pluralistic compilation that includes multi-regional and diachronic aspects of several medieval rhyming traditions.
Clearly, we cannot treat the Qieyun as a synchronic description such that every rhyme must be discretely distinguished from every other rhyme, but this is exactly what Pulleyblank, Karlgren, Baxter and others have done. Karlgren saw the Qieyun as representing the speech of a single dialect. Pulleyblank's diasystem includes the major north-south dialect distinctions. Baxter allows that some Middle Chinese dialects did not make all the Qieyun "distinctions," and he is non-committal about their exact phonetic realization in any given dialect. Nevertheless he establishes a one to one correspondence between all of the fanqie spellings and his transcriptional notation. This gives the impression that his notation also reflects a static and synchronically discrete system. Furthermore, since he projects this very notational system back to Old Chinese, his reconstruction of Old Chinese must contain an elaborate set of rules to account for the dialect diversity of Middle Chinese. Dialect specific sound shifts and other local influences that may have occurred independently along the way appear to have no place in the construction of his system.
Given that Yang Xiuzhi, Yunlue (陽休之,韻略), and the other pre-Qieyun authors did not distinguish all of the rhymes in the Qieyun, as described above, we should not simply assume that the compilers of the Qieyun intended to record every minute phonetic distinction wherever or whenever it may have occurred. Had the Qieyun compilers actually set out, like modern day field phoneticians, to preserve a detailed and faithful phonetic record in a multi-regional rhyme book, they might indeed have wished to record all the of the "refined" phonetic differences occurring in the current dialects and/or the major literary rhyming traditions. But this is really a rather bizarre and modern notion. Rhyme books record rhymes. Rhyme words either rhyme or they do not rhyme.
The fanqie spelling is a word-based analogical spelling system in which words are spelled in terms of other [familiar] words. Fanqie was never intended to, nor is it capable of, making distinctions beyond those of the words of any given speaker or reader. Neither the rhymes nor the fanqie spellings of the words of any given dialect or literary tradition can be arbitrarily extended (or "refined") so as to include the rhymes or words of another dialect which may have distinguished them differently or which did not distinguish them at all, as the Qieyun compilers indicate. The most one can realistically expect from a rhyme dictionary which is designed to include all the rhymes of two or more major dialects or rhyming traditions would be that the speaker of any given dialect would simply ignore the "distinctions" not made in his dialect; or, what was probably more practical and important, that he could learn to make the appropriate distinctions of another dialect (e.g., the distinctions of the capital or the ruling court's dialect) by memorizing and observing the rhymes appropriate to that dialect's rhyming tradition, noting, for example, that no distinction was to be made among the tongyong ("common use") rhymes.
The prospect that all of the rhymes and all of the fanqie spellings could actually be concurrently distinguished one from another by a single individual on a phonetic and auditory basis is most unlikely. In all probability many of the distinctions would have overlapped the phonemic distinctions of any given dialect, resulting in considerable confusion and perhaps even lack of mutual intelligibility, much as they do today.
The Qieyun preface strongly suggests that the differences in the dialects and the major rhyming traditions of the time were precisely of such an extreme and chaotic nature! ("In Qin and Long the falling tone becomes the entering tone. In Liang and Yi the level tone resembles the falling tone. Moreover, 支 zhi < tsye and 脂 zhi < tsyij as well as 魚 yu2 < ngjo and 虞 yu2 < ngju are combined into a single rhyme [by some]. The rhymes of Jiangdong are yet again distinct from those of Hebei.") The Qieyun was not designed to capture this kind of diverse and minute phonetic detail. Only a modern linguist would venture such an incredible hypothesis! The Qieyun was designed to provide a much simpler scheme for preserving all of the rhymes found in the major rhyme traditions, without prejudice or favor to any particular tradition. In that way, so typical of the spirit of Chinese compromise, the Qieyun was able to become, and still is, a truly useful multi-regional guide to the rhymes. The Qieyun is truly the first universal Chinese rhyming dictionary!
Michael Shermer's fifth rule for detecting a pseudoscience asks the question: "Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought?" "This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and to reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence. The confirmation bias is powerful, pervasive and almost impossible for any of us to avoid. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking and rechecking, verification and replication, and especially attempts to falsify a claim, are so critical." (See Scientific American, November 2001)
Up to now Chinese phonology based on traditional Chinese sources remains a pseudoscience. Each phonologist has come up with his own pet theory of what the Qieyun data represent and none have been verified and replicated. On the contrary, attempts to replicate previous theories have simply produced new theories and new sets of phonetic notations. Sometimes the confirmatory evidence is very interesting, but it is still not powerful enough to erase the doubts of skeptics. This is largely because the Qieyun itself has not been examined critically. It has been taken to represent a phonetically discrete synchronic system; sometimes represening the language of one time and one place, sometimes representing the speech systems of two different dialects simultaneously, and sometimes an artificial "diasystemic" speech used only by an educated literary class. More recently it has been claimed that the Qieyun does not represent a language at all.
Nobody has seriously entertained the question: what would happen if you took five major rhyme books containing rhymes that disagreed with each other, based on five major rhyme traditions and combined them into a single multidialect system, following the simple rules explained in table of contents of Wang Renxu's Tang dynasty manuscript of the Qieyun; that is, the rules not for distinguishing sounds but for dividing one traditional rhyme from another. What would motivate such a compilation? What would be the genius and utility of such a compilation? Can it support a phonetically unique synchronic system? Can it support any of the current "reconstructions"? If not, what do we do with it and why do we insist on looking for clever and overly "refined" phonetic interpretations to confirm an underlying synchronic system rather than a pentadialectic system? For example, suppose we were to use the traditional comparative method to reconstruct the ancient forms of five major modern dialects and then combine them into a single book based on Qieyun principles. How close could we come to finally "reconstructing" the original form and intention of the Qieyun "system"?