Linguists only! Please evaulate my new method of reconstructing mideval Chinese.

I am not a linguist, I know the basics of linguistics and reconstruction, but please correct any issues or give recomendations if you want to.

MY METHOD:

I acknowledge that Middle-Chinese or Mideval Chinese was not a singular unified language, it had dialects, even the Qieyun's preface says so, and it is a compromise between two or more dialects, which is the problem. I try to solve this by reconstructing possible dialects by analyzing a group of geographically and linguistically close set of Chinese languages, for example, Min, although most likely evolving from Old Chinese has had a lot of infulence from Middle Chinese, I will use Min but I will compare Min pronounciations with other Sinitic languages that evolved directly our of Middle-Chinese, ruling out any possible Old Chinese Min pronounciations.

Many modern Southern languages had came to South-China by migration of the speakers, these languages may be more representative of Northern Mideval Chinese, but, of course they had changed in the migration process. The Hakka people brought their langauge with them from the north, I would analyze these languages separatly to get a reconstruction of the nortern dialects, but also compare them to the southern ones to see if there are prominent differences, in case all of them had "southernified", I will only reconstruct southern dialects.

Sino-xenic readings, which are Chinese loanwords mostly in Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese will also be used, as most of them are from the Middle-Chinese period.

Another important part of my reconstruction process is comparing it with the Qieyun to check the plausability of my reconstructions, I will use the Baxtar transcription for the Qieyun.

For the tones, I will use the tones written in the Qieyun, but if I am not lazy anymore, I will comparatively reconstruct tones based on the different dialects being reconstructed.

DEMONSTRATION:

I will use the character的, as it is one of the most common.

Data:

  • Cantonese: /tɪk̚⁵/
  • Gan: /tit̚⁵/
  • Hakka: /tit̚²/, /tit̚¹/
  • Min:
    • Northern Min: /ti²⁴/
    • Eastern Min: /tɛiʔ²⁴/
    • Southern Min: /tiɪk̚³²/, /tiɪk̚³²/, /tiak̚⁵/, /tek̚⁴/

Baxter MC:tek

Japanese: /te̞kʲi/

Korean: /t͡ɕʌ̹k̚/

Vietnamese: /ʔɗïk̟̚˧˦/, /ʔɗïk̟̚˧˨ʔ/

Since we know that Gan and Hakka had originated from Northern Middle Chinese, we see some differences, in Gan and Hakka the stop coda is a /t/ while in originally southern languages from which those that have a stop coda it is /k/. Northern Min dropping the coda is most likely an innovation, Eastern Min evolving the stop coda into a glottal stop is a also most likely an innovation.

Sino-Japanese and Korean readings also indicate an intial /t/ or similar and a /k/ stop coda, the Vietnamese intial consonant is /ɗ/, this, though, might be an innovation or misinterpretation of Chinese pronounciation, the stop coda being /k/, in case my hypothesis of northern Middle-Chinese in this character having /t/ stop coda is true, then Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese borrowed the originally Southern pronounciation. Most of the originally southern langaugeshave dipthongs, while originally Northern ones do not.

Reconstructed Northern MC:/tet̚/tone: checked tone.

Reconstructed Southern MC:/tiek̚/tone: checked tone.