The primary purpose of this work is to undertake a comparative phonological reconstruction for the G?n dialects. To this end the traditional comparative method is applied, and the reconstructed common or proto-system that results, called Common G?n. The reconstruction is multi-layered, in that parallel competing forms in the compared cognate sets are used to posit different lexical strata in the system. The first chapter provides a general introduction to the G?n dialect family and discusses the specific lects to be compared. Reconstructive methodology is outlined with special reference to problems in the comparative reconstruction of multi-stratal Chinese dialects. The second, third, and fourth chapters deal with the reconstruction of syllable initials, finals, and tones respectively. The fifth chapter is an experimental exercise, in which 78 full lexical forms, many of which are polysyllabic rather than monosyllabic, are compared as an illustration of how a comprehensive etymological lexicon of G?n might someday be compiled.

The final chapter addresses a number of different questions connected with the general field of comparative G?n. First, the demographic and migration history of the G?n-speaking area is summarized. Then the lexical layers identified in earlier chapters are seriated and correlated with major demographic and migration-historical events. After this, a special section is devoted to distinguishing G?n from contiguous dialect families. And, finally, all these historical and taxonomic points are brought to bear on the question of subgrouping within G?n. Particular note is taken of the striking similarities between reconstructed Common G?n phonology and Jerry Norman’s Common Dialectal Chinese system. It is then suggested that the core lexical stratum of Common G?n may have developed as a result of colonial leveling, when immigrants from different parts of North China congregated in the G?n River drainage basin during the medieval period.

The full corpus of 1,077 cognate sets used in the reconstruction is given in an Appendix, and a short index to the entire work is provided at the end of the work.The primary purpose of this work is to undertake a comparative phonological reconstruction for the Gàn dialects. To this end the traditional comparative method is applied, and the reconstructed common or proto-system that results, called Common Gàn. The reconstruction is multi-layered, in that parallel competing forms in the compared cognate sets are used to posit different lexical strata in the system. The first chapter provides a general introduction to the Gàn dialect family and discusses the specific lects to be compared. Reconstructive methodology is outlined with special reference to problems in the comparative reconstruction of multi-stratal Chinese dialects. The second, third, and fourth chapters deal with the reconstruction of syllable initials, finals, and tones respectively. The fifth chapter is an experimental exercise, in which 78 full lexical forms, many of which are polysyllabic rather than monosyllabic, are compared as an illustration of how a comprehensive etymological lexicon of Gàn might someday be compiled.

The final chapter addresses a number of different questions connected with the general field of comparative Gàn. First, the demographic and migration history of the Gàn-speaking area is summarized. Then the lexical layers identified in earlier chapters are seriated and correlated with major demographic and migration-historical events. After this, a special section is devoted to distinguishing Gàn from contiguous dialect families. And, finally, all these historical and taxonomic points are brought to bear on the question of subgrouping within Gàn. Particular note is taken of the striking similarities between reconstructed Common Gàn phonology and Jerry Norman’s Common Dialectal Chinese system. It is then suggested that the core lexical stratum of Common Gàn may have developed as a result of colonial leveling, when immigrants from different parts of North China congregated in the Gàn River drainage basin during the medieval period.

The full corpus of 1,077 cognate sets used in the reconstruction is given in an Appendix, and a short index to the entire work is provided at the end of the work.