STEDT Etymon #1638
1.0 The Body > 1.9 Reproductive System > 1.9.7 Penis
#1638 PTB *b/m-laŋ PENIS / MALE / HUSBAND |
This etymon has been identified in Himalayish, Jingpho, and Qiangic, though more support from the latter group would be welcome. The PTB root initial is taken to have been a *lateral, with both a labial nasal and a labial stop prefix attested.
According to K. P. Malla, the second syllable of Newar mi jɔ̃ ‘male’ is from Skt. jana- ‘man’, not from the present root. The first syllable is from the widespread TB morpheme #1002 PPC *r-mi(y)-n PERSON / MAN.
J. Sun 1993:131 reconstructs Proto-Tani *mrak, but the forms he cites are better assigned to #548 PTB *s-nyak ⪤ *s-nik PENIS / COPULATE, above.
This root seems distinct from #1624 PTB *la MALE.
Also to be brought into this etymon is WB lâŋ, which (as suggested in Matisoff 1995:52-3 [“Sino-Tibetan palatal suffixes revisited”]) is to be compared with Chinese 郎 (Mand. láng) [WHB *C-rāŋ], now meaning ‘young man; bridegroom; clf. for sons’. This word is glossed only as ‘place name (Tso); double roof, one roof above the other’ in GSR #735r. However, it would be rash to infer that the synchronic meaning did not exist at all in spoken OC.
See the remarks by Handel, below.
| rn | analysis | lgid | reflex | gloss | gfn | language | grpid | grpno | grp | genetic | citation | srcabbr | srcid | rn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 441451 | 1002,1638 | 1934 | mi-long | husband; masculine suffix | Padam [Abor] | 74 | 1.1.1.2 | Eastern Tani | 1 | Benedict 2008 | PKB-KSEA | 129 | 0 | |
| 441450 | 1002,1638 | 1933 | mil-bong | husband | Mishing [Miri] | 74 | 1.1.1.2 | Eastern Tani | 1 | Benedict 2008 | PKB-KSEA | 129 | 1 | |
| 118279 | 1638 | 503 | mlõ | penis | Darang [Taraon] | 6 | 1.1.2 | Deng | 1 | Matisoff 87 BP | JAM-Ety | 0 | ||
| 2920 | m,1638 | 905 | ka-lɛ̃ | penis | Liangmei | 64 | 1.3.3 | Zeme Group | 1 | Weidert 87 TBTo | AW-TBT | 142 | 0 | |
| 144763 | 545,1638 | 668 | ne³¹laŋ³³ | penis | n. | Jingpho | 37 | 1.7.3.1 | Jingpho | 1 | Dai 83 Jing | DQ-Jingpho | 0 | |
| 441461 | 1638 | 1096 | long | penis | Tsangla | 22 | 2.1.2 | Bodic | 1 | Das Gupta 68 Mon | KDG-ICM | 67 | 0 | |
| 62034 | 1638 | 1098 | long | penis | m | Tsangla (Central) | 22 | 2.1.2 | Bodic | 1 | Egli-Roduner | SER-HSLT | 34 3 | 0 |
| 441455 | 2731,s,1638 | 1937 | tyang-mo long | male elephant | Lepcha | 21 | 2.1.3 | Lepcha | 1 | Benedict 2008 | PKB-KSEA | 137 | 0 | |
| 79978 | 1638 | 999 | byɯŋ² | male | Manang (Gyaru) | 23 | 2.1.4 | Tamangish | 1 | Nagano 84 Man | YN-Man | 147 | 0 | |
| 129859 | 1638 | 1135 | ʁo³⁵ | male | Muya [Minyak] | 34 | 3.2 | Qiangic | 1 | Sun H 91 MuyQ | SHK-MuyaQ | 10.3 | 0 | |
| 130926 | p,1638 | 618 | tə◦ʁʑa | male | rGyalrong (NW) | 78 | 3.3.1 | rGyalrong | 1 | Sun H 91 rNW | SHK-rGNWQ | 10.3 | 0 | |
| 254595 | 1638 | 392 | laṅ | husband | Burmese (Written) | 44 | 6.1.1 | Burmish | 1 | Marrison 67 Naga | GEM-CNL | 0 | ||
| 438304 | 1638 | 406 | lâŋ | husband | Burmese (Written) | 44 | 6.1.1 | Burmish | 1 | Benedict 76 WBur | PKB-WBRD | 0 | ||
| 441454 | 1638 | 406 | lâŋ | husband | Burmese (Written) | 44 | 6.1.1 | Burmish | 1 | Benedict 76 WBur | PKB-WBRD | 0 | ||
| 357853 | 1638 | 1822 | lɑŋ² | husband | n | Burmese (Written) | 44 | 6.1.1 | Burmish | 1 | Huang and Dai 92 TBL | TBL | 0247.26 | 0 |
| 197165 | 1638 | 411 | lɑŋ² | husband | Burmese (Written) | 44 | 6.1.1 | Burmish | 1 | Sun H 91 ZMYY | ZMYYC | 337.39 | 0 |
郎 OC *lɑ̂ng, GSR #735r ‘husband, young man’ ; Li 1971: *lang; Baxter 1992: *C-rang; Mand. láng.
The meaning ‘husband, young man’ is not attested until quite late. It appears to be derived from the basic sense ‘veranda or corridor (of a palace or mansion)’ via ‘official (doing duty there)’, making it an improbable cognate to PTB roots meaning ‘male’, cf. Schuessler 2007:344. [fn: Schuessler suggests that WB laŋ ‘husband’ is actually a loan from Chinese, though this seems unlikely in view of the paucity of Chinese loanwords in Burmese. [JAM]] Furthermore, nearly all scholars are now in agreement that Middle Chinese l- derives from earlier *r-, and does not normally correspond to PTB *l-.
[ZJH]
Benedict 1941/2008:129 observes that this form “appears to be metathesized”, implying an earlier form mi-b-long.