Communication Centre for Sino-Uralic and Sino-Germanic Etymology and Affinity Studies

Publication: Journal paper: Zhou 2010, Sino-Germanic (~Indo-European).

周及徐 2010: “汉藏缅语与印欧语的对应关系词及其意义” – «语言研究» 2010.4: 23–27. //EN: Zhou, Ji-xu 2002: “The Correspondent Words between Chinese, Tibetan, Burman and Indo-European Languages and their Position in Chinese Language History” – Studies in Language and Linguistics 2010.4: 23–27. [ISSN 1000-1263] [CN 42-1025/H] (CSSA) (CSSCI) (PKU-1992/1996/2000/2004/2008/2011)

Main text written in Chinese.

Half DOM method, half Comparative method. Etymological units in numbers. Chinese characters are given.

Selected phonetic data within DOM: Old Chinese in Zhengzhang's reconstruction-transcription system.

Primary DOM target language: English. Occasionally referred target languages: selection from references. English in orthography. Other languages as citations. Primary etymological reference for target language: Origins: a Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English.

Results of common etymological units: | Chinese ∩ (Tibetan and/or Burmese) ∩ (some representatives of Indo-European languages) | = 11.

Positions on definitions: “The eleven groups of correspondent words among OC [Old Chinese], TB [Tibetan] and BM [Burmese] are listed there to show the relationship with the PIE [Proto-Indo-European] words. these correspondent words not only are the evidences of the closed relationship between them in history, but also show the time was about 4300 years ago.


Access to this publication (CNKI, previewing the first paper is free of charge)


[Read more at the homepage]

©2008-2014 CCSUSG

wordpress visitor counter