Reconstruction analysis
Intermediate reconstructions
Connections
Chinese comparandum
鐵 OC *t’iet, GSR #1256b ‘iron’; Coblin 1986:98-99 ST hliek* > PC *hlik > OC *thit; Schuessler 2003:497 *lhêt ~ lhît; B & S 2011: *l̥ˁik; Mand. tiě.
For 鐵, Karlgren posits OC *t’-; later reconstructions have ST, PC and/or OC voiceless lateral *lh-, *hl-, or *l̥- (at the MC stage, all reconstructions for 鐵 show initial *t’-, cf. B & S 2011 MC *thet).
Significantly, the recent ST, PC and OC reconstructions for 鐵 cited above, with initial *lh-, *hl-, or *l̥-, bear close comparison with PTB *l-tsyak ‘iron’. In fact, some scholars would prefer to derive WT lčags ‘iron’ via palatalization of earlier PT *hlyak (Coblin, ibid.) or earlier *lhyaks (Schuessler, ibid.). This looks phonetically plausible; however, it begs the question of subgroup relationships within TB. Is the same shift *hly/lhy- > *lč intended to account not only for WT lčags, but presumably, and ultimately also, WB jak ‘bit of a bridle (of iron)’ and Lotha Naga jon¹ tʃak² ‘iron’ (Bruhn 14 PCN:III.174)? For now, this intriguing issue will be left open for further inquiry. [SPB]
Reflexes & cognates49 reflexes · 5 subgroups
0.1Tibeto-Burman (previously published reconstructions)1
1.3.1Central Naga (Ao Group)8
2.1.2.1Tibetan17
6.1.1Burmish2
7Karenic26
Cite this entry
*l-tsyak ‘IRON / IRON INSTRUMENT’.https://larc-iu.github.io/stedt/etymon/6365BibTeX
@misc{stedt-6365,
title = {{*l-tsyak 'IRON / IRON INSTRUMENT'}},
author = {STEDT},
year = {2017},
note = {Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus (STEDT) v1.0, etymon #6365},
url = {https://larc-iu.github.io/stedt/etymon/6365}
}