Rhinoglottophilia–an affinity between the feature of nasality and the articulatory involvement of the glottis–is more prevalent than is generally rea… - James Alan Matisoff

The long drought in Tibeto-Burman and Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics is over. The field is opening up now as never before. Where once it was the esoteric preserve of a few, it is now being enthusiastically taken up by a new generation of lively, inquiring, talented students. For much of this exciting new activity, we have Paul K. Benedict to thank.

It is a remarkable fact that a tremendous spate of tonogenetic and registrogenic activity occurred all over the South-East Asian linguistic area in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, triggered by the devoicing of the previously *voiced series of obstruents in many Middle Chinese and Hmong-Mien dialects, in Siamese and other Tai languages, in Karenic, in Burmese and many Loloish languages, and in Vietnamese, Khmer, and other Mon-Khmer languages. It is interesting to note that this period was roughly contemporaneous with the Mongol invasions that convulsed Eurasia in those centuries. Is it going too far to regard these extralinguistic events as a sort of punctuation in the sense of Dixon (1997), a period of upheaval that shook up a previously stable prosodic constellation in South-East Asia? Could the peoples of the region have been so terrified by the Golden Hordes that they hardly dared to vibrate their vocal cords, dooming the voiced obstruents to transphonologize into mere breathy voice or lower tone?

I decided to select the Reproductive System as a pilot project, not merely for its prurient interest, but also because this semantic field tends to be neglected in historical linguistic studies, despite the fact that it is particularly rich in metaphorical associations with other areas of the lexicon.