> tnv,
>
> i did not say anything in the affirmative only that the etymology is
> still opened for research.
>
> i completely disagree with you 199%% that suav (as in ethnic han) has
> anything to do with npau suav (dream). in fact, i am a bit bothered
> that you would/could 'reason' your way to such consideration. in fact,
> i see many others doing the same thing with hmong words. for example,
> huab tais = emperor, niam tais = mother's sister (or when niam tais
> laus and laus is omitted, then maternal grandmother). now, it is
> undeniable that huab tais = huang di. huang = yellow, di = emperor.
> when you want to compare huab tais and huang di to niam tias, one
> could come out with a silly conclusion, niam tais = mother emperor. in
> fact, in the old days, ethnic han also called their mother, 'nian',
> which is the sinicized version, of course, of niam. so is nian di =
> niam tias = mother emperor? of course not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> (well, actually, for a lot of you hmong men, your mother-in-law might
> be, hahahahahahhahahahah LOL@B2BH).
>
> i don't think the suav in npau suav has anything to do with suav
> (ethnic han). suav represents more than 1 word; suav = count, suav =
> 'chinese' (and quite possibly, suav=dream). had we truly developed our
> own writing system customized for our language, we would never end up
> with such silly and possible interpretations such as, kuv noog koj = i
> bird you, peb noj peb cuag = three eat us knee. every single writing
> system for hmong people, to date, that i have seen, suffer from this
> limitation and equivocation.
>
> of course, hmong language is largely mono-syllabic, but that is not
> say it is exclusively mono-syllabic. there are many multi-syllable
> words, whos component syllables may have no relation to their single
> syllable forms. and i would argue, that npau suav is one such example.
> npau suav should be taken, at least for now, and as far as i can tell,
> to be one word, referring to a dream.
>
> to say that npau suav could be derived from hmong envy of the
> chinese's way of life is not only ungrounded linguistically, but also
> historically. hmong people never coveted, envied, or were jealous of
> the chinese life, land, government, people. of these items, hmong
> people had developed their own and/or kept to their own. if anything,
> it is the chinese that was probably envious of the hmong, especially
> when they continued to trespass into hmong land and adopt hmong
> culture into their own.
>
> npau could mean boiling or angry too. so, to say, 'nws ua npau suav'
> could mean, he do angry chinese, meaning, he is angry at the chinese,
> which would be quite opposite of your consideration, 'he is envious of
> the chinese'.
>
> believe me, and you are a student of hmong/chinese history, you did
> not have to be raw or cooked hmong to have tax collected. hmong people
> have been taxed whenever, wherever, however---chinese/french/america.
> txawm yog koj tsis txia ua suav los suav yeej tuaj sau se. txawm koj
> yog niag meo xwb los fabkis yeej tuaj sau se. txawm koj yog hmoob xwb
> los amekas yeej tuaj sau se.
>
> On Dec 6, 4:03 pm, Tzianeng Vang gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> zhen and paj,

>

>> tej zaum kuj yuav yog li neb hais; yog li ces suav = counted or taxed,
>> right? yus txawm peem tau muaj txiaj ua tau neej zoo ces luag suav yus
>> nrog luag thiab ho tuaj sau yus se (tax could only be collected if
>> you're counted/census data collected)...

>

>> tsis tag li xwb lo "npau suav" los yog "dream" no ne? puas yog vim
>> tias peb ntshaw suav lub neej heev es thiaj siv tau lo lus "ua npau
>> suav toog...?"

>

>> tso li no es cia nej tham ntxiv tso...

>

>> On Dec 6, 1:16 pm, zhen gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> paj,

>

>>> thanks. i thought shu han was book han (book of han, shu = book).

>

>>> i'm not sure how that would fit into the greater context of things.
>>> the first dynasty, qin, was 'barbaric' in origin. but yet, it was
>>> 'chinese'. after qin fell, then people from the former 'chu' dynasty
>>> rose up and formed the 'han' dynasty. chu dynasty was also considered
>>> 'barbaric'. so, why is it that qin and han, both of 'barbaric'
>>> origins, considered and eventually REVISED by the 'chinese' to be
>>> 'chinese'? this is CLEARLY the 'chinese' taking credit for other
>>> people's work and achievements.

>

>>> so if han is barbaric, and shu han is descended from han, then shu han
>>> must also be barbaric too, right? so, for the 'chinese', what is
>>> barbaric and what is not? all that they claim as barbaric eventually
>>> became their own and recorded as milestones in their history,
>>> development and progress. this would include the hmong people too.
>>> like my father said, 'condoleeza yog neeg dub los yog mekas?' the
>>> rhetorical question points to, 'when you are successful, you lose your
>>> ethnic identity and take on the identity of what is mainstream.' take
>>> OJ simpson, condoleeza, maoze dong, etc.... as examples. when you can
>>> be useful for mainstream, you become a part of mainstream. (dayem, i'm
>>> way off on a tangent now).

>

>>> back to the point. did suav come from shu in shu han? if use can map
>>> consonants, i would say, this is more possible than what tzexa
>>> proposed. the RPA consonant 's' = the pinyin consonant 'sh'. for
>>> example, we say, 'suab' (voice), and the chinese say, 'shuo', both the
>>> 's' and 'sh' spoken like 'shhhhhh' as in 'shit', and both means voice/
>>> sound.

>

>>> a while back, we had some 'mong' power people who claimed that 'hmoob
>>> lees hmoob dawb' came from their fight against the 'shu kingdom'. the
>>> hmoob lees fought the shu and thus, hmoob lees 'lees' kob rog, and
>>> became 'lees'. the hmoob dawb 'ran' (notice how they intended to
>>> portray the hmoob dawb in the worst possible light) or 'gave up' (even
>>> assisted the shu), and became dawb, lawv 'dawb' lawv tsis ua rog nrog
>>> shu. it was an interesting story, to say the least, but when asked,
>>> which shu kingdom was this, of course, no response.

>

>>> raws li kuv paub, it's still an open research problem---both the
>>> etymology of hmoob and suav.

>

>>> On Dec 6, 1:53 pm, Pajnplaimcua yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shu_Han

>

>>>> Shu Han, in some maps i see Han Shu. But it would make sense right?
>>>> Because that was the Chinese kingdom closest to where the Hmongs are?
>>>> I don't know anything, just throwing out some thoughts