even with Lazio it still sounds a little off.
I wonder if it came from mistake, as how Russians call Chinese as "Kitai" (which should be pointing to 契丹).
I see some reference saying the reconstructed Western Han Language 肉 is read as Nh@uk. I guess I can see how Bah, Ngiok, Jiok, Rou derived from this.
For me, "bah" does not seem related.
so appearently in the original 辭海 Cihai, the word was written as Rouzhi.
In the version of my Cihai, the "rou" reading was not explicitly written down (but "zhi" is).
Rather, it quotes from 85th roll of 《說郛》, (?) or《金壼字考》of 適之, "月支,月音肉"
According to the 禺氏 theory, ethomology shows:
all points to n initial with u ending
No. It points to ng- initial (or g- in Minnan).
Ng- can change to N- in Mandarin before -i- (though "far from 100%"),
Examples (left: Sino-Vietnamese, right: Cantonese):
虐 ngược (where ươc rhymes with 腳) yeuk6
孽 nghiệt yit6
凝 ngưng ying4
霓 nghê ngai4
逆 nghịch yik6
牛 ngưu ngau4
All the ng- is preserved in Sino-Vietnamese, but in Cantonese it becomes "y" if the vowel is "i".
The "n|" above might be because of "ŋ" is difficult to write (technical limitation).
say the real pronounciation of 肉 is only nhuk, it'd say 禺氏 actually supports RouZhi rather than YueZhi theory
I think Ngu-Chi 禺氏 supports Nguyệt-Chi 月氏 better than Nhục-Chi 肉氏.
Edited by qrasy, 09 January 2007 - 07:11 AM.