C/H Law

Generally, the openness of vowels is used to distinguish between proximal and distal pronouns: the proximal are with closer vowels, whereas the distal with more open ones. In some linguistic works, this fact is thought of even as a semantic rule. Is it really so? Now let’s take a brief look at such instances in English: this / that -> i / æ; these / those -> i: / əu; here / there -> iə / ɛə. And in modern Mandarin Chinese, the same conclusion can be drawn from the case: 这/那 -> ɤ / a.

Well, if you take this “universal law” for granted, you are totally wrong, because the proximal and distal terms in Min Languages provide quite a distinct view. To amply elucidate this, I will use Min Dong (Foochow) terms as examples, all of which come in pairs:

• cuòi / huòi, cī / hī, ciā / hiā. All of the four pairs can be translated as “this / that”, but note that they are significantly different from each other: the “cuòi” or “huòi” is a substitute for a whole noun, and thus can only be used as an independent semantic element in its context, e.g., “Cuòi sê sié-nó̤h?” (What’s this?); the “cī” or “hī” is used to modify a qualifier, an adjective or an adverb, e.g., “cī hăk dê̤ṳ” (this pair of chopsticks), “hī sâ̤ cūi” or “hī-māng sâ̤ cūi” (that much water), etc.; the last pair, “ciā” and “hiā”, can only be used before nouns, e.g., “Ciā cṳ̆-niòng-giāng săng iā cóng.” (This girl is so pretty.)
• cūng-kuāng / hūng-kuāng. This pair can be translated as “like this / like that” or “in this way / in that way”, e.g., “Ciā dâi nṳ̄ mâ̤-sāi cūng-kuāng có̤.” (You shouldn’t do it like this.)
• cŭ-uái / hŭ-uái, cē̤-nē̤ / hē̤-nē̤, ciē-sié / hiē-sié, cuāi-nē̤ / huāi-nē̤, cī-bĕng / hī-bĕng. There is an abundance of locality pronouns in Foochow. All of these words are interchangeable, and can be translated as “here / there”.

As you may have already noticed, a pair of initial consonants, “C” ([ts]) and “H” ([h]), are used in such distinction instead. I name this semantic rule as “C/H law” (C/H giĕ-cáik), and for some time I’d been attempting to make up a reconciliation between the “C/H law” in Min Languages and the “vowel-openness theory” in other major languages: the place of articulation. In a proximal term, the place of articulation is in the front of the mouth; while in a distal term, it is arguably inclined to move to the back…

This explanation sounds unimpeachable, doesn’t it? I was quite convinced by myself until two archaic English words occurred in my mind: “hither” and “thither”. Which is proximal and which distal?

Unfortunately, my limited knowledge of other languages does not add any original insight into this subject. So I hope everyone here can join in this topic. Regardless of what theory you might bring forward, just keep one thing in mind, that no rules apply everywhere.

The proximal and distal terms in Corean are  
이   /i/       cī
그   /kɯ/   hī
and in Vietnamese are
đây   /ʔdəj/  cī
kia    /kiə/    hī

but the terms in Japanese are
‘this-word’
kore
kō
kono

‘that-word’
sore
sō
sono

so... what do you think?

原帖由 Taicytau 於 2007-7-2 22:12 發表
The proximal and distal terms in Corean are  
이   /i/       cī
그   /kɯ/   hī
and in Vietnamese are
đây   /ʔdəj/  cī
kia    /kiə/    hī

but the terms in Japanese are
‘this-word’
kore
k ...

I'm completely at loss.