Old Chinese, also called Archaic Chinese in older works, is the oldest
attested stage of Chinese, and the ancestor of all modern varieties of
Chinese.[a] The earliest examples of Chinese are divinatory
inscriptions on oracle bones from around 1250 BC, in the late Shang
dynasty. Bronze inscriptions became plentiful during the following
Zhou dynasty. The latter part of the Zhou period saw a flowering of
literature, including classical works such as the Analects, the
Mencius, and the Zuozhuan. These works served as models for Literary
Chinese (or Classical Chinese), which remained the written standard
until the early twentieth century, thus preserving the vocabulary and
grammar of late Old Chinese.
Old Chinese was written with an early form of Chinese characters, with
each character representing a monosyllabic word. Although the script
is not alphabetic, most characters were created by adapting a
character for a similar-sounding word. Scholars have used the phonetic
information in the script and the rhyming practice of ancient poetry
Old Chinese phonology, corresponding roughly to the
Western Zhou period in the early part of the 1st millennium BC.
Although many of the finer details remain unclear, most scholars agree
Old Chinese differed from
Middle Chinese in lacking retroflex and
palatal obstruents but having initial consonant clusters of some sort,
and in having voiceless nasals and liquids. Most recent
reconstructions also describe
Old Chinese as a language without tones,
but having consonant clusters at the end of the syllable, which
developed into tone distinctions in Middle Chinese.
Most researchers trace the core vocabulary of
Old Chinese to
Sino-Tibetan, with much early borrowing from neighbouring languages.
During the Zhou period, the originally monosyllabic vocabulary was
augmented with polysyllabic words formed by compounding and
reduplication. Several derivational affixes have also been identified.
However the language lacked inflection, and indicated grammatical
relationships using word order and grammatical particles.
Reduplication and compounding
5.1 Word classes
5.2 Sentence structure
8 Further reading
9 External links
Timeline of early Chinese history and available texts
c. 1250 BC
c. 1046 BC
early Shu, Songs, I Ching
Spring and Autumn period
Annals, later Shu
Warring States period
received classic texts
The earliest known written records of the
Chinese language were found
Yinxu site near modern
Anyang identified as the last capital of
the Shang dynasty, and date from about 1250 BC. These are the
oracle bones, short inscriptions carved on tortoise plastrons and ox
scapulae for divinatory purposes, as well as a few brief bronze
inscriptions. The language written is undoubtedly an early form of
Chinese, but is difficult to interpret due to the limited subject
matter and high proportion of proper names. Only half of the 4,000
characters used have been identified with certainty. Little is known
about the grammar of this language, but it seems much less reliant on
grammatical particles than Classical Chinese.
From early in the
Western Zhou period, around 1000 BC, the most
important recovered texts are bronze inscriptions, many of
considerable length. Even longer pre-Classical texts on a wide range
of subjects have also been transmitted through the literary tradition.
The oldest parts of the Book of Documents, the
Classic of Poetry
Classic of Poetry and
I Ching also date from the early Zhou period, and closely resemble
the bronze inscriptions in vocabulary, syntax and style. A greater
proportion of this more varied vocabulary has been identified than for
the oracular period.
The four centuries preceding the unification of
China in 221 BC (the
Spring and Autumn period
Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period)
constitute the Chinese classical period in the strict sense. There are
many bronze inscriptions from this period, but they are vastly
outweighed by a rich literature written in ink on bamboo and wooden
slips and (toward the end of the period) silk. Although these are
perishable materials, and many books were destroyed in the burning of
books and burying of scholars in the Qin dynasty, other texts have
been transmitted as copies. Such works from this period as the
Analects, the Classic of Filial Piety, the Mencius and the Zuo zhuan
have been admired as models of prose style since the Han dynasty. The
Classical Chinese of such works formed the basis of Literary Chinese,
which remained the written standard until the early twentieth
Shang dynasty oracle bone script on an ox scapula
Seal script on bamboo strips from the Warring States period
Main article: Chinese characters
Each character of the script represented a single
Old Chinese word.
Most scholars believe that these words were monosyllabic, though some
have recently suggested that a minority of them had minor
presyllables. The development of these characters follows the
same three stages that characterized Egyptian hieroglyphs,
Mesopotamian cuneiform script and the Maya script.
Some words could be represented by pictures (later stylized) such as
日 rì "sun", 人 rén "person" and 木 mù "tree, wood", by abstract
symbols such as 三 sān "three" and 上 shàng "up", or by composite
symbols such as 林 lín "forest" (two trees). About 1,000 of the
oracle bone characters, nearly a quarter of the total, are of this
type, though 300 of them have not yet been deciphered. Though the
pictographic origins of these characters are apparent, they have
already undergone extensive simplification and conventionalization.
Evolved forms of most of these characters are still in common use
Next, words that could not be represented pictorially, such as
abstract terms and grammatical particles, were signified by borrowing
characters of pictorial origin representing similar-sounding words
(the rebus strategy):
The word lì "tremble" was originally written with the character 栗
for lì "chestnut".
The pronoun and modal particle qí was written with the character 其
originally representing jī "winnowing basket".
Sometimes the borrowed character would be modified slightly to
distinguish it from the original, as with 毋 wú "don't", a borrowing
of 母 mǔ "mother". Later, phonetic loans were systematically
disambiguated by the addition of semantic indicators, usually to the
less common word:
The word lì "tremble" was later written with the character 慄,
formed by adding the symbol ⺖, a variant of 心 xīn "heart".
The less common original word jī "winnowing basket" came to be
written with the compound 箕, obtained by adding the symbol 竹 zhú
"bamboo" to the character.
Such phono-semantic compound characters were already used extensively
on the oracle bones, and the vast majority of characters created since
then have been of this type. In the Shuowen Jiezi, a dictionary
compiled in the 2nd century, 82% of the 9,353 characters are
classified as phono-semantic compounds. In the light of the modern
Old Chinese phonology, researchers now believe that
most of the characters originally classified as semantic compounds
also have a phonetic nature.
These developments were already present in the oracle bone script,
possibly implying a significant period of development prior to the
extant inscriptions. This may have involved writing on perishable
materials, as suggested by the appearance on oracle bones of the
character 册 cè "records". The character is thought to depict bamboo
or wooden strips tied together with leather thongs, a writing material
known from later archaeological finds.
Development and simplification of the script continued during the
pre-Classical and Classical periods, with characters becoming less
pictorial and more linear and regular, with rounded strokes being
replaced by sharp angles. The language developed compound words,
so that characters came to represent morphemes, though almost all
morphemes could be used as independent words. Hundreds of morphemes of
two or more syllables also entered the language, and were written with
one phono-semantic compound character per syllable. During the
Warring States period, writing became more widespread, with further
simplification and variation, particularly in the eastern states. The
most conservative script prevailed in the western state of Qin, which
would later impose its standard on the whole of China.
Old Chinese phonology
Old Chinese phonology and Reconstructions of Old
Old Chinese phonology
Old Chinese phonology has been reconstructed using a variety of
evidence, including the phonetic components of Chinese characters,
rhyming practice in the
Classic of Poetry
Classic of Poetry and
Middle Chinese reading
pronunciations described in such works as the Qieyun, a rhyme
dictionary published in 601. Although many details are still disputed,
recent formulations are in substantial agreement on the core
issues. For example, the
Old Chinese initial consonants recognized
Li Fang-Kuei and William Baxter are given below, with Baxter's
(mostly tentative) additions given in parentheses:[b]
Stop or Affricate
Various initial clusters have been proposed, especially clusters of
*s- with other consonants, but this area remains unsettled.
Most scholars posit optional medials *-r-, *-j- and the combination
*-rj- as the origin of the retroflex and palatal obstruents of Middle
Chinese, as well as many of its vowel contrasts. However, the
palatal medial *-j- has been challenged on a number of grounds, and a
variety of different realizations for this distinction have been used
in recent constructions.
Reconstructions since the 1980s usually propose six vowels:[d]
Vowels could optionally be followed by the same codas as in Middle
Chinese: a glide *-j or *-w, a nasal *-m, *-n or *-ŋ, or a stop *-p,
*-t or *-k. Some scholars also allow for a labiovelar coda *-kʷ.
Most scholars now believe that
Old Chinese lacked the tones found in
later stages of the language, but had optional post-codas *-ʔ and
*-s, which developed into the
Middle Chinese rising and departing
The improved understanding of
Old Chinese phonology
Old Chinese phonology has enabled the
study of the origins of Chinese words (rather than the characters with
which they are written). Most researchers trace the core vocabulary to
a Sino-Tibetan ancestor language, with much early borrowing from other
neighbouring languages. The traditional view was that Old Chinese
was an isolating language, lacking both inflection and derivation, but
it has become clear that words could be formed by derivational
affixation, reduplication and compounding. Most authors consider
only monosyllabic roots, but Baxter and
Laurent Sagart also propose
disyllabic roots in which the first syllable is reduced, as in modern
Middle Chinese and its southern neighbours Tai–Kadai, Hmong–Mien
and the Vietic branch of Austroasiatic have similar tone systems,
syllable structure, grammatical features and lack of inflection, but
these are believed to be areal features spread by diffusion rather
than indicating common descent. The most widely accepted
hypothesis is that Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language
family, usually as a primary branch. The evidence consists of some
hundreds of proposed cognate words, including such basic
vocabulary as the following:
nhac < *nhik
khrok < *khruk
myiṅ < *myeŋ
maññ < *miŋ
chac < *chik
ña < *ṅʲa
tok < *tuk
Some progress has been made on the sound correspondences between
Chinese and Tibeto-Burman languages, though hampered by the difficulty
of reconstruction on both sides. Initial consonants generally
correspond regarding place and manner of articulation, but voicing and
aspiration are much less regular, and prefixal elements vary widely
between languages. Some researchers believe that both these phenomena
reflect lost minor syllables.
Proto-Tibeto-Burman as reconstructed
by Benedict and Matisoff lacks an aspiration distinction on initial
stops and affricates. Aspiration in
Old Chinese often corresponds to
pre-initial consonants in Tibetan and Lolo-Burmese, and is believed to
be a Chinese innovation arising from earlier prefixes.
Proto-Sino-Tibetan is reconstructed with a six-vowel system as in
recent reconstructions of Old Chinese, with Tibeto-Burman
distinguished by the merger of the mid-central vowel *-ə- with
*-a-. The other vowels are preserved by both, with some
alternation between *-e- and *-i-, and between *-o- and *-u-.
Old Chinese period, Chinese civilization expanded from a
compact area around the lower
Wei River and middle Yellow River
eastwards across the North
China Plain to
Shandong and then south into
the valley of the Yangtze. There are no records of the non-Chinese
languages formerly spoken in those areas and subsequently displaced by
the Chinese expansion. However they are believed to have contributed
to the vocabulary of Old Chinese, and may be the source of some of the
many Chinese words whose origins are still unknown.
Jerry Norman and Mei Tsu-lin have identified early Austroasiatic
loanwords in Old Chinese, possibly from the peoples of the lower
Yangtze basin known to ancient Chinese as the Yue. For example, the
early Chinese name *kroŋ (江 jiāng) for the
Yangtze was later
extended to a general word for "river" in south China. Norman and Mei
suggest that the word is cognate with Vietnamese sông (from *krong)
and Mon kruŋ "river".
Haudricourt and Strecker have proposed a number of borrowings from the
Hmong–Mien languages. These include terms related to rice
cultivation, which began in the middle
*ʔjaŋ (秧 yāng) "rice seedling" from proto-Hmong–Mien *jaŋ
*luʔ (稻 dào) "unhulled rice" from proto-Hmong–Mien *mblauA
Other words are believed to have been borrowed from languages to the
south of the Chinese area, but it is not clear which was the original
*zjaŋʔ (象 xiàng) "elephant" can be compared with Mon coiŋ,
proto-Tai *jaŋC and Burmese chaŋ.
*ke (雞 jī) "chicken" versus proto-Tai *kəiB proto-Hmong–Mien
*kai and proto-Viet–Muong *r-ka.
In ancient times, the
Tarim Basin was occupied by speakers of
Indo-European Tocharian languages, the source of *mjit (蜜 mì)
"honey", from proto-Tocharian *ḿət(ə) (where *ḿ is palatalized;
cf. Tocharian B mit), cognate with English mead.[f] The northern
neighbours of Chinese contributed such words as *dok (犢 dú) "calf"
– compare Mongolian tuɣul and Manchu tuqšan.
Chinese philologists have long noted words with related meanings and
similar pronunciations, sometimes written using the same
Henri Maspero attributed some of these alternations
to consonant clusters resulting from derivational affixes.
Subsequent work has identified several such affixes, some of which
appear to have cognates in other Sino-Tibetan languages.
A common case is "derivation by tone change", in which words in the
departing tone appear to be derived from words in other tones. If
Haudricourt's theory of the origin of the departing tone is accepted,
these tonal derivations can be interpreted as the result of a
derivational suffix *-s. As Tibetan has a similar suffix, it may be
inherited from Sino-Tibetan. Examples include:
*dzjin (盡 jìn) "to exhaust" and *dzjins (燼 jìn) "exhausted,
*kit (結 jié) "to tie" and *kits (髻 jì) "hair-knot"
*nup (納 nà) "to bring in" and *nuts < *nups (內 nèi)
*tjək (織 zhī) "to weave" and *tjəks (織 zhì) "silk cloth"
(compare Written Tibetan ’thag "to weave" and thags "woven,
Another alternation involves transitive verbs with an unvoiced initial
and passive or stative verbs with a voiced initial:
*kens (見 jiàn) "to see" and *ɡens (現 xiàn) "to appear"
*kraw (交 jiāo) "to mix" and *ɡraw (殽 yáo) "mixed, confused"
*trjaŋ (張 zhāng) "to stretch" and *drjaŋ (長 cháng) "long"
Some scholars hold that the transitive verbs with voiceless initials
are basic and the voiced initials reflect a de-transitivizing nasal
prefix. Others suggest that the transitive verbs were derived by
the addition of a causative prefix *s- to a stative verb, causing
devoicing of the following voiced initial. Both postulated
prefixes have parallels in other Sino-Tibetan languages, in some of
which they are still productive. Several other affixes have
Reduplication and compounding
Old Chinese morphemes were originally monosyllabic, but during the
Western Zhou period many new bisyllabic words entered the language.
For example, over 30% of the vocabulary of the Mencius is
polysyllabic, including 9% proper names, though monosyllabic words
occur more frequently, accounting for 80–90% of the text. Many
words, particularly expressive adjectives and adverbs, were formed by
varieties of reduplication:
full reduplication, in which the syllable is repeated, as in
*ʔjuj-ʔjuj (威威 wēiwēi) "tall and grand" and *ljo-ljo (俞俞
yúyú) "happy and at ease".
rhyming semi-reduplication, in which only the final is repeated, as in
*ʔiwʔ-liwʔ (窈宨 yǎotiǎo) "elegant, beautiful". The
initial of the second syllable is often *l- or *r-.
alliterative semi-reduplication, in which the initial is repeated, as
in *tsʰrjum-tsʰrjaj (參差 cēncī) "irregular, uneven".
vowel alternation, especially of *-e- and *-o-, as in *tsʰjek-tsʰjok
(刺促 qìcù) "busy" and *ɡreʔ-ɡroʔ (邂逅 xièhòu) "carefree
Other bisyllabic morphemes include the famous *ɡa-lep (蝴蝶
húdié) "butterfly" from the Zhuangzi. More words, especially
nouns, were formed by compounding, including:
qualification of one noun by another (placed in front), as in
*mok-kʷra (木瓜 mùguā) "quince" (literally "tree-melon"), and
*trjuŋ-njit (中日 zhōngrì) "noon" (literally "middle-day").
verb–object compounds, as in *sjə-mraʔ (司馬 sīmǎ) "master of
the household" (literally "manage-horse"), and *tsak-tsʰrek (作册
zuòcè) "scribe" (literally "make-writing").
However the components of compounds were not bound morphemes: they
could still be used separately.
A number of bimorphemic syllables appeared in the Classical period,
resulting from the fusion of words with following unstressed particles
or pronouns. Thus the negatives *pjut 弗 and *mjut 勿 are viewed as
fusions of the negators *pjə 不 and *mjo 毋 respectively with a
third-person pronoun *tjə 之.
Classical Chinese grammar
Little is known of the grammar of the language of the Oracular and
pre-Classical periods, as the texts are often of a ritual or formulaic
nature, and much of their vocabulary has not been deciphered. In
contrast, the rich literature of the
Warring States period
Warring States period has been
extensively analysed. Having no inflection,
Old Chinese was
heavily reliant on word order, grammatical particles and inherent word
Old Chinese words is not always straightforward, as words
were not marked for function, word classes overlapped, and words of
one class could sometimes be used in roles normally reserved for a
different class. The task is more difficult with written texts
than it would have been for speakers of Old Chinese, because the
derivational morphology is often hidden by the writing system.
For example, the verb *sək "to block" and the derived noun *səks
"frontier" were both written with the same character 塞.
Old Chinese nouns and pronouns did not indicate number or gender, but
some personal pronouns showed case distinctions:
*ljaʔ 予 / *lja 余 / *ljə 台
*njaʔ 汝 / *njəjʔ 爾 / *njə 而 / *njak 若
In the oracle bone inscriptions, the *l- pronouns were used by the
king to refer to himself, and the *ŋ- forms for the Shang people as a
whole. This distinction is largely absent in later texts, and the *l-
forms disappeared during the classical period. In the post-Han
period 我 and 其 came to be used as general first and third person
pronouns respectively. The second person pronouns 汝 and 爾
continued to be used interchangeably until their replacement by the
phonological variant 你 (modern Mandarin nǐ) in the Tang
There were also demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, but no
indefinite pronouns with the meanings "something" or "nothing".
The distributive pronouns were formed with a *-k suffix:
*wək 或 "someone" from *wjəʔ 有 "there is"
*mak 莫 "no-one" from *mja 無 "there is no"
*kak 各 "each" from *kjaʔ 舉 "all"
As in the modern language, localizers (compass directions, "above",
"inside" and the like) could be placed after nouns to indicate
relative positions. They could also precede verbs to indicate the
direction of the action. Nouns denoting times were another
special class (time words); they usually preceded the subject to
specify the time of an action. However the classifiers so
characteristic of Modern Chinese only became common in the Han period
and the subsequent Northern and Southern dynasties.
Old Chinese verbs, like their modern counterparts, did not show tense
or aspect; these could be indicated with adverbs or particles if
required. Verbs could be transitive or intransitive. As in the modern
language, adjectives were a special kind of intransitive verb, and a
few transitive verbs could also function as modal auxiliaries or as
Adverbs described the scope of a statement or various temporal
relationships. They included two families of negatives starting
with *p- and *m-, such as *pjə 不 and *mja 無. Modern northern
varieties derive the usual negative from the first family, while
southern varieties preserve the second. The language had no
adverbs of degree until late in the Classical period.
Particles were function words serving a range of purposes. As in the
modern language, there were sentence-final particles marking
imperatives and yes/no questions. Other sentence-final particles
expressed a range of connotations, the most important being *ljaj 也,
expressing static factuality, and *ɦjəʔ 矣, implying a change.
Other particles included the subordination marker *tjə 之 and the
nominalizing particles *tjaʔ 者 (agent) and *srjaʔ 所
(object). Conjunctions could join nouns or clauses.
As with English and modern Chinese,
Old Chinese sentences can be
analysed as a subject (a noun phrase, sometimes understood) followed
by a predicate, which could be of either nominal or verbal
Before the Classical period, nominal predicates consisted of a copular
particle *wjij 惟 followed by a noun phrase:
"I am a young person." (
Book of Documents
Book of Documents 27, 9)
The negated copula *pjə-wjij 不惟 is attested in oracle bone
inscriptions, and later fused as *pjəj 非. In the Classical period,
nominal predicates were constructed with the sentence-final particle
*ljaj 也 instead of the copula 惟, but 非 was retained as the
negative form, with which 也 was optional:
(of shooting at a mark a hundred paces distant) "That you reach it is
owing to your strength, but that you hit the mark is not owing to your
strength." (Mencius 10.1/51/13)
The copular verb 是 (shì) of Literary and Modern Chinese dates from
the Han period. In
Old Chinese the word was a near demonstrative
As in Modern Chinese, but unlike most Tibeto-Burman languages, the
basic word order in a verbal sentence was
"Mencius saw King Hui of Liang." (Mencius 1.1/1/3)
Besides inversions for emphasis, there were two exceptions to this
rule: a pronoun object of a negated sentence or an interrogative
pronoun object would be placed before the verb:
"The years do not wait for us." (
An additional noun phrase could be placed before the subject to serve
as the topic. As in the modern language, yes/no questions were
formed by adding a sentence-final particle, and requests for
information by substituting an interrogative pronoun for the requested
Old Chinese modifiers preceded the words they modified.
Thus relative clauses were placed before the noun, usually marked by
the particle *tjə 之 (in a role similar to Modern Chinese de
"... the heart that cannot bear the afflictions of others." (Mencius
A common instance of this construction was adjectival modification,
Old Chinese adjective was a type of verb (as on the modern
language), but 之 was usually omitted after monosyllabic
Similarly, adverbial modifiers, including various forms of negation,
usually occurred before the verb. As in the modern language, time
adjuncts occurred either at the start of the sentence or before the
verb, depending on their scope, while duration adjuncts were placed
after the verb. Instrumental and place adjuncts were usually
placed after the verb phrase. These later moved to a position before
the verb, as in the modern language.
^ The time interval assigned to
Old Chinese varies between authors.
Some scholars limit it to the early Zhou period, based on the
availability of documentary evidence of the phonology. Many include
the whole Zhou period and often the earliest written evidence from the
late Shang, while some also include the Qin, Han and occasionally even
later periods. The ancestor of the oldest layer of the Min dialects
is believed to have split off during the Han period.
Old Chinese forms are starred, and follow Baxter
(1992) with some graphical substitutions from his more recent work:
*ə for *ɨ and consonants rendered according to IPA conventions.
^ Baxter describes his reconstruction of the palatal initials as
"especially tentative, being based largely on scanty graphic
^ The vowel here written as *ə is treated as *ɨ, *ə or *ɯ by
^ The notation "*C-" indicates that there is evidence of an Old
Chinese consonant before *r, but the particular consonant cannot be
^ Jacques proposed a different, unattested, Tocharian form as the
^ Shaughnessy (1999), p. 298.
^ Tai & Chan (1999), pp. 225–233.
^ Baxter & Sagart (2014), p. 33.
^ Baxter & Sagart (2014), p. 1.
^ Boltz (1999), pp. 88–89.
^ Boltz (1999), p. 89.
^ Boltz (1999), p. 90.
^ a b Norman (1988), p. 58.
^ a b Baxter & Sagart (2014), pp. 50–53.
^ Boltz (1994), pp. 52–72.
^ Boltz (1999), p. 109.
^ a b Wilkinson (2012), p. 36.
^ Boltz (1994), pp. 52–57.
^ Boltz (1994), pp. 59–62.
^ Boltz (1999), pp. 114–118.
^ a b GSR 403; Boltz (1999), p. 119.
^ a b GSR 952; Norman (1988), p. 60.
^ Boltz (1994), pp. 67–72.
^ Wilkinson (2012), pp. 36–37.
^ Boltz (1994), pp. 147–149.
^ Schuessler (2009), pp. 31–32, 35.
^ Boltz (1999), p. 110.
^ Boltz (1999), p. 107.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 61–62.
^ Boltz (1994), pp. 171–172.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 62–63.
^ Schuessler (2009), p. x.
^ Li (1974–1975), p. 237; Norman (1988), p. 46; Baxter
(1992), pp. 188–215.
^ Schuessler (2007), p. 122.
^ Baxter (1992), p. 203.
^ Baxter (1992), pp. 222–232.
^ Baxter (1992), pp. 235–236.
^ Schuessler (2007), p. 95.
^ Baxter & Sagart (2014), p. 43.
^ Baxter (1992), p. 180.
^ Baxter (1992), p. 291.
^ Baxter (1992), pp. 181–183.
^ Schuessler (2007), pp. xi, 1–5, 7–8.
^ Baxter & Sagart (1998), pp. 35–36.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 8–12.
^ Enfield (2005), pp. 186–193.
^ Coblin (1986), pp. 35–164.
^ Norman (1988), p. 13.
^ GSR 0058f; Baxter (1992), p. 208; Hill (2012), p. 46.
^ GSR 0094j; Baxter (1992), p. 453; Hill (2012), p. 48.
^ GSR 0103a; Baxter (1992), p. 47; Hill (2012), p. 46.
^ GSR 0564a; Baxter (1992), p. 317; Hill (2012), p. 8.
^ GSR 0648a; Baxter (1992), p. 785; Hill (2012), p. 27.
^ GSR 0058a; Baxter (1992), p. 795; Hill (2012), p. 46.
^ Baxter (1992), p. 201.
^ GSR 1032a; Baxter (1992), p. 774; Hill (2012), p. 27.
^ GSR 0404a; Baxter (1992), p. 785; Hill (2012), p. 9.
^ GSR 0826a; Baxter (1992), p. 777; Hill (2012), p. 12.
^ GSR 0981a; Baxter (1992), p. 756; Hill (2012), p. 15.
^ GSR 0399e; Baxter (1992), p. 768; Hill (2012), p. 9.
^ GSR 0079a; Baxter (1992), p. 209; Hill (2012), p. 46.
^ GSR 0049u; Baxter (1992), p. 771; Hill (2012), p. 46.
^ GSR 0319d; Baxter (1992), p. 407; Hill (2012), p. 51.
^ GSR 1016a; Baxter (1992), p. 520; Hill (2012), p. 27.
^ Coblin (1986), pp. 13–33.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 13–16.
^ Handel (2008), pp. 425–426.
^ Schuessler (2007), pp. 58–63.
^ Gong (1980), pp. 476–479.
^ Schuessler (2007), pp. 2, 105.
^ Schuessler (2007), pp. 110–117.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 4, 16–17.
^ Boltz (1999), pp. 75–76.
^ Norman & Mei (1976), pp. 280–283.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 17–18.
^ Baxter (1992), p. 573.
^ Haudricourt & Strecker (1991); Baxter (1992), p. 753; GSR
1078h; Schuessler (2007), pp. 207–208, 556.
^ Norman (1988), p. 19; GSR 728a; OC from Baxter (1992),
^ Schuessler (2007), p. 292; GSR 876n; OC from Baxter (1992),
^ Boltz (1999), p. 87; Schuessler (2007), p. 383; Baxter
(1992), p. 191; GSR 405r; Proto-Tocharian and Tocharian B forms
from Peyrot (2008), p. 56.
^ Jacques (2014).
^ Norman (1988), p. 18; GSR 1023l.
^ Handel (2015), p. 76.
^ Sagart (1999), p. 1.
^ Maspero (1930), pp. 323–324.
^ Baxter & Sagart (2014), pp. 53–60.
^ Schuessler (2007), pp. 14–22.
^ Downer (1959), pp. 258–259.
^ Baxter (1992), pp. 315–317.
^ GSR 381a,c; Baxter (1992), p. 768; Schuessler (2007),
^ GSR 393p,t; Baxter (1992), p. 315.
^ GSR 695h,e; Baxter (1992), p. 315; Schuessler (2007),
^ GSR 920f; Baxter (1992), p. 178; Schuessler (2007), p. 16.
^ Schuessler (2007), p. 49.
^ GSR 241a,e; Baxter (1992), p. 218.
^ GSR 1166a, 1167e; Baxter (1992), p. 801.
^ GSR 721h,a; Baxter (1992), p. 324.
^ Handel (2012), pp. 63–64, 68–69.
^ Handel (2012), pp. 63–64, 70–71.
^ Handel (2012), pp. 65–68.
^ Sun (2014), pp. 638–640.
^ Baxter & Sagart (1998), pp. 45–64.
^ Schuessler (2007), pp. 38–50.
^ Wilkinson (2012), pp. 22–23.
^ a b Norman (1988), p. 87.
^ a b Baxter & Sagart (1998), p. 65.
^ Schuessler (2007), p. 24.
^ Baxter & Sagart (1998), pp. 65–66.
^ GSR 633h; Baxter (1992), p. 411.
^ Baxter & Sagart (1998), p. 67.
^ Baxter & Sagart (1998), p. 68.
^ Norman (1988), p. 86.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 85, 98.
^ a b Herforth (2003), p. 59.
^ Schuessler (2007), p. 12.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 87–88.
^ a b Herforth (2003), p. 60.
^ Baxter (1992), p. 136.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 89–90.
^ a b Pulleyblank (1996), p. 76.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 117–118.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 90–91.
^ Schuessler (2007), p. 70.
^ Norman (1988), p. 91.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 91, 94.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 115–116.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 91–94.
^ Norman (1988), p. 94.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 97–98.
^ Schuessler (2007), pp. 172–173, 518–519.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 94, 127.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 94, 98–100, 105–106.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 94, 106–108.
^ Pulleyblank (1996), pp. 13–14.
^ Norman (1988), p. 95.
^ Pulleyblank (1996), p. 22.
^ a b Schuessler (2007), p. 14.
^ Pulleyblank (1996), pp. 16–18, 22.
^ Schuessler (2007), p. 232.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 125–126.
^ a b Pulleyblank (1996), p. 14.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 10–11, 96.
^ Pulleyblank (1996), p. 13.
^ Herforth (2003), pp. 66–67.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 90–91, 98–99.
^ a b c Pulleyblank (1996), p. 62.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 104–105.
^ Norman (1988), p. 105.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 103–104.
^ Norman (1988), pp. 103, 130–131.
Baxter, William H. (1992), A Handbook of
Old Chinese Phonology,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-012324-1.
Baxter, William H.; Sagart, Laurent (1998), "Word formation in Old
Chinese", in Packard, Jerome Lee, New approaches to Chinese word
formation: morphology, phonology and the lexicon in modern and ancient
Chinese, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 35–76,
———; ——— (2014), Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction, Oxford
University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-994537-5.
Boltz, William (1994), The origin and early development of the Chinese
writing system, American Oriental Society,
——— (1999), "Language and Writing", in Loewe, Michael;
Shaughnessy, Edward L., The Cambridge History of Ancient China,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 74–123,
Coblin, W. South (1986), A Sinologist's Handlist of Sino-Tibetan
Lexical Comparisons, Monumenta Serica monograph series, 18, Steyler
Verlag, ISBN 978-3-87787-208-6.
Downer, G. B. (1959), "Derivation by Tone-Change in Classical
Chinese", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 22
(1/3): 258–290, doi:10.1017/s0041977x00068701,
Enfield, N.J. (2005), "Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia"
(PDF), Annual Review of Anthropology, 34: 181–206,
Gong, Hwang-cherng (1980), "A Comparative Study of the Chinese,
Tibetan, and Burmese
Vowel Systems", Bulletin of the Institute of
History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 51: 455–489.
Handel, Zev (2008), "What is Sino-Tibetan? Snapshot of a field and a
language family in flux", Language and Linguistics Compass, 2 (3):
——— (2012), "Valence-changing prefixes and voicing alternation
Old Chinese and Proto-Sino-Tibetan: reconstructing *s- and *N-
prefixes" (PDF), Language and Linguistics, 13 (1): 61–82.
——— (2015), "
Old Chinese Phonology", in S-Y. Wang, William; Sun,
Chaofen, The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 68–79, ISBN 978-0-19-985633-6.
Haudricourt, André G.; Strecker, David (1991), "Hmong–Mien
(Miao–Yao) loans in Chinese", T'oung Pao, 77 (4–5): 335–342,
doi:10.1163/156853291X00073, JSTOR 4528539.
Herforth, Derek (2003), "A sketch of Late Zhou Chinese grammar", in
Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages,
London: Routledge, pp. 59–71,
Hill, Nathan W. (2012), "The six vowel hypothesis of
Old Chinese in
comparative context", Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics, 6 (2):
Jacques, Guillaume (2014), "The word for 'honey' in Chinese and its
relevance for the study of Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan language
contact", *Wékwos, 1: 111–116.
Karlgren, Bernhard (1957), Grammata Serica Recensa, Stockholm: Museum
of Far Eastern Antiquities, OCLC 1999753.
Li, Fang-Kuei (1974–1975), translated by Mattos, Gilbert L.,
"Studies on Archaic Chinese", Monumenta Serica, 31: 219–287,
Maspero, Henri (1930), "Préfixes et dérivation en chinois
archaïque", Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris (in
French), 23 (5): 313–327.
Norman, Jerry; Mei, Tsu-lin (1976), "The Austroasiatics in Ancient
South China: Some Lexical Evidence" (PDF), Monumenta Serica, 32:
274–301, JSTOR 40726203.
Norman, Jerry (1988), Chinese, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Peyrot, Michaël (2008), Variation and Change in Tocharian B,
Amsterdam: Rodopoi, ISBN 978-90-420-2401-4.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1996), Outline of
Classical Chinese Grammar,
University of British Columbia Press,
Sagart, Laurent (1999), The Roots of Old Chinese, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, ISBN 978-90-272-3690-6.
Schuessler, Axel (2007), ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese,
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
——— (2009), Minimal
Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese: A
Companion to Grammata Serica Recensa, Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-3264-3.
Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1999), "
Western Zhou History", in Loewe,
Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward L., The Cambridge History of Ancient
China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 292–351,
Sun, Jackson T.-S. (2014), "Sino-Tibetan: Rgyalrong", in Lieber,
Rochelle; Štekauer, Pavol, The Oxford Handbook of Derivational
Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 630–650,
Tai, James H-Y.; Chan, Marjorie K.M. (1999), "Some reflections on the
periodization of the Chinese language" (PDF), in Peyraube, Alain; Sun,
Chaofen, In Honor of Mei Tsu-Lin: Studies on Chinese Historical Syntax
and Morphology, Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales,
pp. 223–239, ISBN 978-2-910216-02-3.
Wilkinson, Endymion (2012), Chinese History: A New Manual, Harvard
University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-06715-8.
Dobson, W.A.C.H. (1959), Late Archaic Chinese: A Grammatical Study,
Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
——— (1962), Early Archaic Chinese: A Descriptive Grammar,
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, OCLC 186653632.
Jacques, Guillaume (2016), "The Genetic Position of Chinese", in
Sybesma, Rint; Behr, Wolfgang; Gu, Yueguo; Handel, Zev; Huang, C.-T.
James; Myers, James, Encyclopedia of Chinese Languages and
Linguistics, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-18643-9.
Miyake, Marc (2001), "Laurent Sagart : The Roots of Old Chinese",
Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale, 30 (2): 257–268.
(review of Sagart (1999))
Schuessler, Axel (2000), "Book Review: The Roots of Old Chinese"
(PDF), Language and Linguistics, 1 (2): 257–257. (review of
Starostin, Georgiy (2009), "Axel Schuessler : ABC Etymological
Dictionary of Old Chinese" (PDF), Journal of Language Relationship, 1:
155–162. (review of Schuessler (2007))
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Character List for Karlgren's
Southern Peninsular Malaysian Hokkien
Standard Chinese (Mandarin)
Literary and colloquial readings
Mainland Chinese Braille
Two-Cell Chinese Braille
List of varietie