YTMS,

nyob zoo. YPX took a western linguistic (it seemed) approach to argue
that hmong leng came from hmong der. it is intriguing to say the
least. but i think there are holes and contradictions with the
practice of hmong culture/beliefs. since i have not studied from that
aspect, let me just leave it at that.

tiam si, raws li kuv paub thiab hnov hnov kuv txiv kuv yawg peb kwv
tij xeem vaj tham, "pug thaum, 9 haiv hmoob, 10 haiv hmoob, los yog
tag nrho hmoob lees." what does this mean? that means, that in the
beginning, it is highly likely that everyone was hmoob lees.

like i have said, the words lees and dawb comes from siv yis rooj 4
nrog nws tug npawg sub tuam. thaum siv yis rov qab los noog nws cov
kwv tij kom lawv pab nws, ib co tsis pab. cov tsis pab hais rau siv
yis, "koj twb yog tus ntse, peb yuav ua li cas pab koj?" ib co ho lees
pab. cov tsis pab ces txawm yog "hmoob dawb" vim lawv dawb hu rooj 4
no. cov kwv tij pab txawm yog "hmoob lees" vim lawv lees siv yis rooj
4 no.

thaum siv yis tua yeej sub tuam thiab noog yeeg, siv yis muab noob
yeeg (sub tuam tus tub hlob) cov 4 hau rau pog sub. pog sub coj mus ua
vab cuab ntes ntses. ntev thiab ntev, pog sub noj noj ntses, ces kuj
noj tau cov 4 hau thiab. ces pog sub laus laus thiab dig muag. nws
txawm cia li tsis pom kev, nws mus muaj spider web noj. nws txawm noj
noj ces cia li nce mus saum ntuj lawm. txog saum ntuj, pog sub cia li
tso sub los poob rau ntiaj teb. thaum sub poob los, ces neeg txawm
raug riam, raug qhov txhab... etc.. etc..

niaj hnub no, vim tias hmoob lees tau lees rooj 4 no, sub thiaj li
poob ntau dua rau hmoob lees. sub yeej poob rau hmoob dawb thiab, tiam
si, poob tsawg zog. raws li kuv txiv qhia kuv, "hmoob dawb sau sub
xwb", tiam si, "hmoob lees sau sub thiab muaj qhov ntxhw sub thiab."
meaning, they get more of pog sub's wrath because of their decision to
take side with siv yis.

yaweh, is this true? nej hmoob lees muaj ntxhw sub, right? i asked my
father, "ntxhwv sub" yog dab tsi ua dab tsi? he doesn't know. he's
never seen it. basically (if i am spelling and enunciating it right)
ntxhwv sub = txiav sub. he said even today, hmoob lees practice this
extra step and hmoob dawb doesn't.

it's ironic to me that YPX would say hmoob lees words are more like
suav cov. just from studying lus hmoob lees lus hmoob dawb, kuv xav
(opinion) xwb, lus hmoob lees tseem deb dua ntawm lus suav (compared
to lus hmoob dawb ntawm lus suav). i have personally compiled a list
of words (hmoob dawb) that is a very very long list, of phonetic
matches between hmoob dawb terms and suav terms. my list of hmoob lees
terms matching phonetically with suav terms, is comparatively shorter.
either i am right (hmong der is closer to mandarin), or my knowledge
is incomplete (kuv tsis paub lus hmoob lees kom tag tag).

i don't believe dr PZT that says leeg as in moob leeg means leeg
(veins). also, i don't really buy what YPX said that words deteriorate
from the complicated to the simple. in fact, my argument is that words
progress from the simple to the complex, and the deterioration is not
necessarily at all in the opposite direction. for example, when a
child learns to speak, "iv oj us ua ab i?" notice these are very
simple words, primitive words, nascent words. notice there are no
consonants, just vowels and tones. when the child grows and learns to
control speech via motor skills, then the child says, "txiv koj mus ua
dab tsi?" notice the addition of consonants and at this time, hmoob
people say, "hais lus meej meej lawm." at this time, there are
consonants + vowel + tone. the point is, words progress from the
simple to the complex. so, this means, a complex word should evolve
from a simple word. so, if what YPX is saying is true, that hmoob is
more complex than moob, than moob being more simple, should be the
precursor and preceded hmoob in time.

it is my opinion that when words deteriorate, they more than likely
are bastardize/corrupted and do not regress. for example, if hmoob
were to deteriorate, it would become bastardize or corrupted in the
forms of miao or meo, possibly even hmu. why? why is this so?
because, even according to YPX's argument, words are corrupted b/c of
domination by others. at this point, the domination will impose the
exonym to be the de facto use. words don't regress, they simply
disappear or become substituted by cultural colonization. at this
point, then some research has to be employed to find the "original"
hmong word, which may be kept by a few, embedded in the arts, or what
not. take for instance, the word liam moj. nowadays, i know if i see a
troublesome kid, i say, "niag me nyuam khib dwb ntawv os." see, liam
moj did not regress, it partially disappeared and was replaced by a
word from the dominant culture (lao). i think i have to hear more
examples from YPX where words regress from complex to simple to
believe him. a better example than hmoob to moob. it is no doubt in my
mind, that words progress from simple to complex, per my example
above, and according to time sequence, this would mean that hmoob came
from moob, and not vice-versa as YPX argued. even if what YPX was
saying is true, that words regress from complex to simple, would you
not think that most, if not ALL OF US, would be saying/enunciating
"moob" since indeed we have suffered domination for so long?

interesting stuff. at least YPX makes us think, that's what i take to
be the bright side. i am not advocating "hmong" as original or
premier, nor am i saying to use what's quite likely the "original"
enunciation/endonym. i am saying 1) in hmong culture/beliefs, there is
strong evidence that all hmong were hmong leng in the beginning and 2)
we should understand we are just one people.

i had said this a long time ago, but here it is again. the reason why
"hmong" and "mong" are such big deals is because of NDX said, that we
use other's txuj ci. i am sure, if we use our own txuj ci, "hmong",
"mong", "hmu", "a hmao", etc... would not be such a sore point. we
would have explicit, solid common ground at a linguistic level serving
as a foundation for the higher levels of our progress and challenges.

i wrote a lot and quickly, please let me know if you need
clarification.