Thoughts on the Identity of the Chinese ‘phags-pa Dialect
关于识别汉语巴斯巴方言的一些想法
W. South Coblin 柯蔚南

Abstract 摘要

I. INTRODUCTION

The ‘Phags-pa alphabet was created between 1260 and 1269 at the behest of the Mongol emperor Qubilai (known in China as Yuán Shizǔ 元世祖). It was to be used not only to write Mongolian but also to “transcribe all writings” (譯寫一切文字), and one of the scripts for which it was accordingly adapted was Chinese. Since the ‘Phags-pa scripts was alphabetic, it was presumably necessary to select some pronounceable form of Chinese as the basis for the ‘Phags-pa spellings of words; but historical sources do not state what this was. The present paper is a reflection on this question.

There has in fact been considerable discussion of the identity of “Phags-pa Chinese.” Common sense would suggest that the script should have been applied to whatever constituted “standard Chinese” of Yuán times; but there are problems with this assumption. For it is also generally supposed that this standard language, which is by many averred to have been the dialect of the Yuán capital, Dàdū 大都 (occupying the site of present-day Peking), has been codified in a rime dictionary called Zhōngyuán yīnyùn 中原音韻 (published in 1324; hereafter: ZYYY). And the fact is that the spelling conventions found in Chinese ‘Phags-pa sources of various sorts reflect a sound system which is more complex than that inherent in the ZYYY sound classes. Therein lies the conundrum.

Opinions on this matter have for the most part been of two types. The first and now most widely accepted one is exemplified in a number of papers and miscellaneous notes of Paul Pelliot, published in the 1920’s and 30’s in T’oung Pao and the Journal Asiatique. This view holds that the ‘Phags-pa texts basically record the dialect of Dàdū but that they have, on the basis of rime books and other traditional philological sources, been infused with phonetic features and details which did not exist in the actual speech of Yuán times. Essentially the same idea has most recently been espoused by Cheng (1985:46), who in connection with two specific ‘Phags-pa sources remarks (p.46),”… the systems in the MT [Měnggǔ zìyùn 蒙古字韻] and the MY [Měnggǔ yùnluè 蒙古韻略] probably reflect the literary language of Ta-tu (now Peking), the capital of the Yuan dynasty, and the date of their completion could be as early as 1269, the year the hPhags-pa script was announced.” In support of this position Cheng gives an interesting set of examples from Yuán-time ‘Phags-pa inscriptions where, when faced with the practical task of producing Chinese texts in the ‘Phags-pa script, the writers have failed to maintain the so-called zhuó 濁 or “voicing” distinctions in initials, as called for in the spelling conventions of the system (1985:50). The position represented here has been adopted by a number of scholars who, in attempting to reconstruct the sound system underlying the ZYYY, have drawn upon ‘Phags-pa spellings for help on moot points.

The second and opposing view on the dialect identity question was first set forth in detail by Dragunov (1930). He concluded (p.646) that,

" We have not sufficient reasons to consider the phonetic structure of the Ancient Mandarin language to have been homogeneous. On the contrary, our sources enable us to state that there existed two large dialects (or groups of dialects) widely divergent from the point of view of their consonantic system: one of them, let us call it type B – in various transcriptions of foreign names and in the Persian transcription. Moreover, it is very likely that the phonetic forms of the A dialect (i.e. of the hPhags-pa inscriptions) also served for political reasons as a certain official standard for some regions, where the spoken language belonged to the B type. These regions consequently had two parallel pronunciations of the characters – one of them official, registered by the hPhags-pa script, and the other a more modernized vernacular, registered, e.g. by the Persian transcription. In such cases the Ancient Mandarin pronunciation embodied in the hPhags-pa script may be actually archaic.

A rather similar position was adopted by Hashimoto (1978). After considerable discussion he stated (I, p.74),

From these … points we assume that the Chinese characters were actually pronounced in more or less the same way as they are spelled by hPhags-pa script. These pronunciations were used in official proclamations to the literate intellectuals; then the phonological system inferred from these transcriptions should reflect some formal speech which the great majority of the intellectuals of the period spoke or at least understood."

And further on (p.76),

"We may conclude that the language reflected in the hPhags-pa transcriptions is very likely a natural variant of Chinese at that time, though it may not be a stage in the linear development from Ancient Chinese to Mandarin."

Reduced to its essentials, the first view admits the existence of only one linguistic entity underlying both the ‘Phags-pa texts and other contemporary sources such as the ZYYY and certain transcriptional materials. Where the ‘Phags-pa system varies in the direction of increased complexity, these variations are held to be archaizing and artificial. The second view finds at least two varieties of Chinese in the relevant sources. The ‘Phags-pa texts represent a more formal, “official” dialect, while the other sources reflect a vernacular idiom of some sort. With these opposing viewpoints in mind, we shall now embark on some historical and phonological considerations.

II. THE POLITICAL AND LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND
A. Northern Sòng and Liáo
B. Jīn and Southern Sòng
C. The Mongol Period

III. A TRANSLITERATION AND PHONETIC INTERPRETATION OF THE ‘PHAGS-PA CHINESE ORTHOGRAPHY

IV. PHONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Syllable Initials
4.2 Syllable Finals

V. CONCLUSIONS