The rime dictionaries have been intensively studied as important sources on the
phonology of medieval Chinese, and the system they reveal has been dubbed
Middle Chinese. Since the itself was believed lost until the mid-20th century, most of this work was based on the . The books exhaustively list the syllables and give pronunciations, but do not describe the phonology of the language. This was first attempted in the
rime tables, the oldest of which date from the Song dynasty, but which may represent a tradition going back to the late Tang dynasty. Though not quite a phonemic analysis, these tables analysed the syllables of the rime books using lists of initials, finals and other features of the syllable. The initials are further analysed in terms of place and manner of articulation, suggesting inspiration from
Indian linguistics, at that time the most advanced in the world. However the rime tables were compiled some centuries after the
Qieyun, and many of its distinctions would have been obscure.
Edwin Pulleyblank treats the rime tables as describing a Late Middle Chinese stage, in contrast to the Early Middle Chinese of the rime dictionaries.
Structural analysis In his
Qièyùn kǎo (1842), the Cantonese scholar
Chen Li set out to identify the initial and final categories underlying the fanqie spellings in the
Guangyun. The system was clearly not minimal, employing 452 characters as initial spellers and around 1200 as final spellers. However no character could be used as a speller for itself. Thus, for example, • was spelled + . • was spelled + . • was spelled + . From this we may conclude that, and must all have had the same initial. By following such chains of equivalences Chen was able to identify categories of equivalent initial spellers, and similarly for the finals. More common segments tended to have the most variants. Words with the same final would rhyme, but a rhyme group might include between one and four finals with different medial glides, as seen in the above table of rhyme groups. The inventory of initials Chen obtained resembled the
36 initials of the rime tables, but with significant differences. In particular the "light lip sounds" and "heavy lip sounds" of the rime tables were not distinguished in the fanqie, while each of the "proper tooth sounds" corresponded to two distinct fanqie initial categories. Unaware of Chen's work, the Swedish linguist
Bernard Karlgren repeated the analysis identifying the initials and finals in the 1910s. The initials could be divided into two broad types:
grave initials (labials, velars and laryngeals), which combine with all finals, and acute initials (the others), with more restricted distribution. Like Chen, Karlgren noted that in syllables with grave initials, the finals fell into two broad types, now usually referred to (following
Edwin Pulleyblank) as types A and B. He also noted that these types could be further subdivided into four classes of finals distinguished by the initials with which they could combine. These classes partially correspond to the four rows or "divisions", traditionally numbered I–IV, of the later rime tables. The observed combinations of initials and finals are as follows: Some of the "mixed" finals are actually pairs of type B finals after grave initials, with two distinct homophone groups for each initial, but a single final after acute initials. These pairs, known as , are also marked in the rime tables by splitting them between rows 3 and 4, but their interpretation remains uncertain. There is also no consensus regarding which final of the pair should be identified with the single final occurring after acute initials.
Reconstructed sound values Karlgren also sought to determine the phonetic values of the abstract categories yielded by the formal analysis, by comparing the categories of the
Guangyun with other types of evidence, each of which presented their own problems. The Song dynasty rime tables applied a sophisticated featural analysis to the rime books, but were separated from them by centuries of sound change, and some of their categories are difficult to interpret. The so-called
Sino-Xenic pronunciations, readings of Chinese loanwords in Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese, were ancient, but affected by the different phonological structures of those languages. Finally modern
varieties of Chinese provided a wealth of evidence, but often influenced each other as a result of a millennium of migration and political upheavals. After applying a variant of the
comparative method in a subsidiary role to flesh out the rime dictionary evidence, Karlgren believed that he had reconstructed the speech of the Sui-Tang capital
Chang'an. Later workers have refined
Karlgren's reconstruction. In most cases, the simpler inventories of initials of modern varieties of Chinese can be treated as varying developments of the
Qieyun initials. The voicing distinction is retained in
Wu Chinese dialects, but has disappeared from other varieties. Except in the
Min Chinese dialects, a
labiodental series has split from the labial series, a development already reflected in the Song dynasty rime tables. The retroflex and palatal sibilants had also merged by that time. In Min dialects the retroflex stops have merged with the dental stops, while elsewhere they have merged with the retroflex sibilants. In the south these have also merged with the dental sibilants, but the distinction is maintained in most
Mandarin Chinese dialects. The palatal series of modern Mandarin dialects, resulting from a merger of palatal allophones of dental sibilants and velars, is a much more recent development. Assigning phonetic values to the finals has proved more difficult, as many of the distinctions reflected in the
Qieyun have been lost over time. Karlgren proposed that type B finals contained a
palatal medial , a position that is still accepted by most scholars. However Pulleyblank, noting the use of these syllables in the transcription of foreign words without such a medial, claims the medial developed later. A
labiovelar medial is also widely accepted, with some syllables having both medials. The codas are believed to reflect those of many modern varieties, namely the glides and , nasals , and and corresponding stops , and . Some authors argue that the placement of the first four rhyme groups in the
Qieyun suggests that they had distinct codas, reconstructed as
labiovelars and . Most reconstructions posit a large number of vowels to distinguish the many
Qieyun rhyme classes that occur with some codas, but the number and the values assigned vary widely. The Chinese linguist
Li Rong published a study of the early edition of the
Qieyun found in 1947, showing that the expanded dictionaries had preserved the phonological structure of the
Qieyun intact, except for a merger of initials and . For example, although the number of rhyme groups increased from 193 in the earlier dictionary to 206 in the
Guangyun, the differences are limited to splitting rhyme groups based on the presence or absence of a medial glide Labio-velar approximant|. However the preface of the recovered
Qieyun suggests that it represented a compromise between northern and southern reading pronunciations. Most linguists now believe that no single dialect contained all the distinctions recorded, but that each distinction did occur somewhere. For example, the
Qieyun distinguished three rhyme groups and (all pronounced in modern Chinese), although and were not distinguished in parts of the north, while and rhymed in the south. The three groups are treated as in the and have merged in all modern varieties. Although Karlgren's identification of the
Qieyun system with a Sui-Tang standard is no longer accepted, the fact that it contains more distinctions than any single contemporary form of speech means that it retains more information about earlier stages of the language, and is a major component in the reconstruction of
Old Chinese phonology. ==
Pingshui rhyme categories==