>> Zhen, koj tug kws research txaus lawd ho pum le caag?

>
> 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.