User:Frigoris/Rhymes

"Hidden" rhymes due to phonetic shifts

 * 天下熙，皆爲利. [Imperfect rhyming common in vernacular proverbs. Cf.: other characters in the series, e.g. ， ] (Shiji)
 * 前車而後車.
 * Reading of 覆 here follows the suggestion of the Guangyun system as a variant of the more common <  reading.
 * Vowel harmony + rhyme: 明夷于，垂其，君子于行，三日不 (Zhouyi)
 * might have had a *-p final, thus becoming the reverse of ~ *lɯp, like verlan.
 * 黍稷無，不能為 (Guoyu)
 * 寧誅鋤草茅，以力乎？將游大人，以成乎？ (Chuci)
 * Phono-semantic harmony/compromise: 鳥窮則，獸窮則，人窮則 (Xunzi)
 * Likely originally a vernacular proverb, with imperfect/dialectal rhyming (consonantal harmony).
 * with *-k/g(-s) plosive (near-)final were lost later [=], perhaps during the same process as tonogenesis. The *-s suffix might be uncertain or unstable. See also: in the  series, whose main entry appeared in Guangyun under 入 [=] (as is prevalent in modern dialects) instead of the 去 [=] tone.
 * All the three characters may have had some sort of weak syllable as proclitic.
 * See also: another vernacular verse attested as 佞之見，果喪其. 詐之見，果喪其 (Guoyu)
 * : vowel also reconstructed as *i, /*nˤiŋ-s/.
 * 循循善誘 (Analects), possibly something like, see etymology at ~

齊桓身殺

 * 《楚辭·天問》: 天命反側，何罰何？齊桓九會，卒然身

殺 appears out of place here, because
 * The circumstances of 's death couldn't be said to be 殺, and, more importantly,
 * The character appears out of rhyme with the surrounding verses, which resolve around the rhyme-group (*-ɯ, *-ɯC).

It might be that 殺 here could have been a textual error, with some possible candidates:


 * [in the group, still harmonious with the rhyme, semantically acceptable, and good w.r.t. character-composition]
 * . His death: 後任豎刁，蟲流出戶.
 * or even
 * or even

The last one appears even less likely from a character-composition point of view.

It could also be that was deliberately used to cause alarm by breaking the rhyme.

其即 as 其次
其即 as. This was unambiguously attested across geographic (and ethnic) boundaries, in Zhongshan bronze-script archived link and Chu manuscripts (郭店《老子丙》). On the Zhongshan bronze it was inscribed:

The problem is that is fairly firmly established as derivative of PST, while , extremely high-frequency yet not well understood phonetically, was thought to have had /*s-/ or /*ts-/ initial and plosive *-k final without the *-s suffix. It doesn't seem obvious how 其即 could be used as 其次. If this is to be harmonized, there could be several routes:
 * The re-reconstruction of PST with unstable final *-s/k, at least in some grammatical contexts. This is also hinted at by the Myanmar.
 * Unlike Baxter–Sagart but agreeing with Zhengzhang, let the initial of 次 be *s-, or even *ʔs-
 * Unlike Zhengzhang and like Baxter–Sagart, the vowel goes fronter, as *-i-
 * Overall for 即 it becomes /*sik/, perhaps even /*[sC]ik/ as variant, where /*s-/ is modified consonantally, e.g. by a medial, e.g. /*sl̥ik/ etc.
 * This way in both systems the phonetic links with both 次 and might get a bit more straightforward. The latter character was a fairly late creation, obviously derivative of 即, in the Warring-States period (since which it also got used in received, transcribed, and edited earlier texts such the Shi, Yi, and Shu, etc.). As a late coinage it was then used in highly inconsistent ways (including phonetic loading for the sense "knot; bend", "segment; one-by-one countable thing" >1 "regulate" 2> "festival day; key days in the solar calendar", etc.). On the Zhongshan bronze, 節 was used as 即 itself, as in 節于𬪭𨣧. Similar usage was also seen in Shuihudi Qin codices.
 * Also 節 and might be both coined in Warring-States. The link to PST  may not be so direct as it seems.

原田每每 品庶每生
The ominous song by "the masses" (輿人, commoners) before the, one of the decisive wars narrated in the . The narration was termed, implying poetic diction.

原田每，舍其舊而新是

As it is strongly implied that  and  were phonetically related. This is indeed the case in current reconstructions where the vowels are much more harmonic than in modern dialects. In early writing, the character simply uses  as the phonetic component.

This may even enable an alternative understanding of a difficult place of the by, The Owl (《鵩鳥賦》), recorded in the ' and '. What does 每 in 品庶每生 mean? It should be a verb, as the previous line implies. glosses it as "to covet" (每，貪也). believes this to be a variant of the rare character >, with the same meaning. Alternatively, if one feels hesitant to accept Wang's explanation via a rare character, the unclear gloss might have been understood to be related to semantically, in the sense of "to want, to seek," etc.

But the link to further helps us to understand the Chengpu song in the Zuo. Traditionally, the song was explained to mean that the should not have felt hesitant to wage war against Chu, if he felt an obligation to Chu might have existed on his part (due to Chu's support in his rise to power); it was "worth it" to do this, as the establishment of a new order far outweighed the shame of defaulting on an old, petty obligation. But there might have been a linguistic support, too. In the  it was written:

in the original song might have as well been a pun for = shame; regret. And it would have been in the character of the Jin commoners to use this dialectal form (and the layering of meanings in a vernacular song).

虢季子白盤
The inscriptions are an unusually early attestation of rhyming text. Assuming that the item is genuine, this is one of the earliest artefact bearing Chinese text with rhyme (and meter, to some extent).



隹十又[⿱二年]正月初吉丁亥，虢季子白乍[> 作]寶盤. 不[> 丕]顯子白[⿱𤰔爿?> ?]，武于戎工，經[⿸維攵> 護?]亖[> 四]，[ 博/搏/[⿰干尃] ][~ 薄?]伐[𠪚?][> 嚴?> 玁?][ [ ⿰[⿱來禾]?允 ]? ][> 狁?]，于洛之，折首[⿱五百]，執[⿲口[寺?/丮？]糸> 訊?][⿱五十]，是㠯[> 以]先. [𧻚> 桓?][𧻚]子白，獻𢦞[> 馘]于. 王孔加[> 嘉]子白義. 王各[> 格]周廟，宣𫷺[⿸广射> 榭?]爰[> [> ]. 王曰白父，孔[⿰[⿱日尹?]見][> 勛?]又. 王睗[> 賜]乘馬，是用左[> 佐]，晹[> 賜]用弓，彤矢其. 易[> 賜]用戉，用政[> 征]䜌[> 蠻]. 子子孫孫，萬年無彊[> ].


 * Notable is the use of alternating velar-uvular initials (*gr, *ɢʷ, *kʰr > *qʰ, *kʷ, *ɢʷ, *q, *k) in the rhyming syllable, except, , and the possibly-rhyming, uncertain character transcribed here as.
 * Transcriptions: cf.