*kʷəy

Besides Lolo-Burmese, where it is widely attested (even in Jinuo), this etymon has solid reflexes in Qiangic (Shixing) and Bai. The suggested NE Indian Areal Group cognate (in Mao) is uncertain; this form might better be assigned to #1632 PTB *r-ku ⪤ *kru NEST / UTERUS / AMNIOTIC SAC (above), like Angami kru. This root was reconstructed for PLB in Matisoff 1978b:6 (“Mpi and Lolo-Burmese microlinguistics”); cf. also Matisoff 1988a:917-8. This is a good example of the development of *labiovelar initials into Lahu labials, as also in DOG (PTB *kʷəy > Lahu phɨ̂); see also STC n. 83 (p. 26). Note the doublets in Hani (Khatu) and Naxi (Lijiang); the Naxi forms clearly show alternative labial and velar reflexes of the complex *labiovelar initial. Compounds for WOMB/PLACENTA typically have the structure CHILD + NEST. Compounds for SCROTUM have the structure TESTICLE + NEST.

窠 ‘burrow, nest’; GSR: not in #351; Li 1971: (*khwar); Baxter 1992: (*kʷhaj); Mand. kē.

This character is not in GSR and is not reconstructed by either Li or Baxter. Based on its phonetic element and its Middle Chinese reading, however, its OC reconstruction is not in doubt. The word occurs in the Shuowen Jiezi, attesting to its existence in the first century AD. The Shuowen entry reads 空也。從穴。果聲。一曰鳥巢也。在樹曰巢。在穴曰窠。 (“Empty. [The character is formed] from [semantic element] 穴 and 果 is the phonetic. Another meaning is bird’s nest. When in a tree it is called cháo, in a cave it is called kē.”) The element 果 depicts an object in a tree and is part of the pictograph in 巢, Mand. cháo ‘nest’. In 窠 it may be serving as a semantic as well as a phonetic element.

The connection with PTB was proposed by Handel (1998). It establishes a correspondence between PTB labiovelar initials and Chinese labiovelar initials. The vowel correspondence, however, is problematic, since PTB final *əy usually corresponds to OC *-id (Li)/*-əj (Baxter); see the examples under the discussion for #300 PTB *d(w)əy EGG / TESTICLE.
[ZJH]