The Geshiza Diphthong əu and its Cognate Rhymes in Horpa

The present article analyzes the diphthong u in Geshiza and its cognates in the Horpa language cluster.Through a pan-Gyalrongic comparison, the study confirms the hypothesis of two distinct sources for the diphthong, namely *-Vk and *-Vp, both emerging due to final consonant weakening.The study also reveals that the analyzed Horpa varieties can be categorized into four grades regarding their respective degree of weakening in the two codas: 1. retention as a stop (-Vk, -Vp), 2. fricativization (-V, -Vv), 3. "vocalization" (-Vw, -Vu), and 4. full erosion as a consonant (-).In short, historical Horpa phonology remains inadequately explored, and this study offers an initial contribution towards comprehending the diachronic evolution of Horpa syllable rhyme types.Horpa varieties exhibit varying degrees of progression in their coda weakening.The study demonstrates that weakening of the two historical codas has not always occurred in tandem and to the same degree.In other words, a Horpa variety may exhibit considerable erosion in one and high degree of retention in another. HorpaNorthern Eastern Central Northwestern Western Puxi () 2 Bawang () Erkai () Dandong () Geshiza () Central Stau () 3 Zhangda () Bomei () Jialaxi () Figure 1.The Horpa cluster and the varieties discussed in the present study Horpa and Khroskyabs form the West Gyalrongic sub-branch of Gyalrongic.West Gyalrongic languages share a more distant relationship with East Gyalrongic varieties, such as Japhug, Situ, Tsobdun, and Zbu.Relying on Sun's (2019) division of Horpa into five branches, Figure 1 above presents the divisions of the Horpa cluster.Only the Horpa varieties discussed in the present study have been included in the figure.Additionally, Central Stau exhibits noticeable dialectal variation, which also reflets the language's geographical distribution that is the widest among all Horpa varieties.The present study primarily refers to the varieties of Poxiu () and Poxi () with occasional additional remarks on Kongse () and Jiasikong ().The study builds on the following sources: Beginning with Horpa, it relies on the author's fieldwork on Dandong, Geshiza and Poxiu.For Bawang, Bomei, Poxi, and Zhangda, Yang (2021), Van Way (2018), Gates (2021), and Tunzhi (2019) are utilized, respectively.Cognates from Puxi, Erkai, Kongse, Jiasikong, and Jialaxi have been identified from the rGyalrongic Language Database (Nagano and Prins 2013).The author has frequently re-transcribed the cognate words adopted from the database.Regarding Khroskyabs sources, Lai (2017), Huang (2007), and Yin (2007) are used for Wobzi, Guanyinqiao, and 'Jorogs, respectively.In turn, the Eastern Gyalrongic cognates are sourced from Jacques (2021) on Japhug and Prins (2017) on Jiaomuzu/Kyomkyo.Finally, all identified old Chinese cognates are from the pioneering comparative study of Zhang et al. (2019) and their discussion in Hill (2019).2 Despite the similarities in their Pinyinized forms, it is crucial to note that Poxi, Poxiu, and Puxi refer to three distinct Horpa varieties that should not be confused with one another.3 Zhangda from the Northwestern Horpa branch is sometimes discussed under the label 'Northwestern Stau'.To avoid confusion, the present study uses the term 'Central Stau' to narrowly refer to Stau varieties of the Central Horpa branch, thus excluding Zhangda.Horpa varieties exhibit varying degrees of progression in their coda weakening.The study demonstrates that weakening of the two historical codas has not always occurred in tandem and to the same degree.In other words, a Horpa variety may exhibit considerable erosion in one and high degree of retention in another. HorpaNorthern Eastern Central Northwestern Western Puxi () 2 Bawang () Erkai () Dandong () Geshiza () Central Stau () 3 Zhangda () Bomei () Jialaxi () Figure 1.The Horpa cluster and the varieties discussed in the present study Horpa and Khroskyabs form the West Gyalrongic sub-branch of Gyalrongic.West Gyalrongic languages share a more distant relationship with East Gyalrongic varieties, such as Japhug, Situ, Tsobdun, and Zbu.Relying on Sun's (2019) division of Horpa into five branches, Figure 1 above presents the divisions of the Horpa cluster.Only the Horpa varieties discussed in the present study have been included in the figure.Additionally, Central Stau exhibits noticeable dialectal variation, which also reflets the language's geographical distribution that is the widest among all Horpa varieties.The present study primarily refers to the varieties of Poxiu () and Poxi () with occasional additional remarks on Kongse () and Jiasikong ().The study builds on the following sources: Beginning with Horpa, it relies on the author's fieldwork on Dandong, Geshiza and Poxiu.For Bawang, Bomei, Poxi, and Zhangda, Yang (2021), Van Way (2018), Gates (2021), and Tunzhi (2019) are utilized, respectively.Cognates from Puxi, Erkai, Kongse, Jiasikong, and Jialaxi have been identified from the rGyalrongic Language Database (Nagano and Prins 2013).The author has frequently re-transcribed the cognate words adopted from the database.Regarding Khroskyabs sources, Lai (2017), Huang (2007), and Yin (2007) are used for Wobzi, Guanyinqiao, and 'Jorogs, respectively.In turn, the Eastern Gyalrongic cognates are sourced from Jacques (2021) on Japhug and Prins (2017) on Jiaomuzu/Kyomkyo.Finally, all identified old Chinese cognates are from the pioneering comparative study of Zhang et al. (2019) and their discussion in Hill (2019).2 Despite the similarities in their Pinyinized forms, it is crucial to note that Poxi, Poxiu, and Puxi refer to three distinct Horpa varieties that should not be confused with one another.3 Zhangda from the Northwestern Horpa branch is sometimes discussed under the label 'Northwestern Stau'.To avoid confusion, the present study uses the term 'Central Stau' to narrowly refer to Stau varieties of the Central Horpa branch, thus excluding Zhangda.