todspengo,
I appreciate your perspective/input - coming from the linguistic angle versus other folks who were just blabbering "bs", not knowing top from bottom. Whereas linguistic markers are the primary ammo of an ethnographer, sociologist and anthropologist are rooted in custom, culture, and daily life routines; such as farming, hunting, and gathering etc.. Admittingly, I have not read much scholarship on ethnography, the linguistics perspective, as those are not as popular or publicly advertised over their peers, but know all too well anthropologist s, sociologists, and ethnographers do not always see "eye to eye". And each school has arguably made just as plausible an explanation to dismiss the other. That said, I have not seen nor read enough scholarships on the Hmong language - specifically linguistics, to uphold or refute your perspective. We, those who are remotely educated, rationale/reasoned, and of sound mind, all know too well that the Hmong language has borrowed from Chinese, Lao, Thai, English, and who knows what other non-Hmong language. This is a global fact for any and all language. The reverse can be said or argued as well, for ep., Mong (English, wrong pronunciation by the way) for Hmoob/Moob. My point here is, much like what is within this thread among plenty of other Hmong topics/discussion, we really just do not know or know enough one way or another. What I do know, is that the more I learn about Hmong history, language, culture, and customs, the more I am prone (convinced) to be very opinionated about specific subject matters. Why? Because afterwards I have some or seemingly enough information to logically (sometimes even bias) conceptualize a plausible conclusion - truth if you want to call it that. That has been my "argument/point" more than not. And yes, I do not take lightly to those who want to "rant", believing they know a thing or two solely based on second-hand scholarship or "hearsay" - yet cannot make a sound argument or cite any scholarship when pressed.
As for the "daus" and "kiab" words, yes, from my personal field inquiries/conversation (research) with the elders, they do mean "snow/ice" and "market/store" respectively. As for your other insight, I am not sure I completely agree with you. Specific to "daus", how can one simply come up with a word or phrase just to explain something they have never seen firsthand. Hmong, our ancestors, must have either lived in a land, or seen "snow/ice" firsthand else they would have never had a word for it. It is unfathomable. The Hmong language, unlike English and other worldly language, sometimes do not have a single word or vocabulary for a thing, place, or item; thus the word is typically a "descriptive phrase", using several word(s) combination. Here is just but one example of many. Take the word "airplane". The borrowed or re-interpreted Hmong word from the Lao word "ngoo hoo" (typo I'm sure) is "nyob hoom". Those who do not know better will argue that this is in fact a native Hmong word. It is not. The actual Hmong word for "airplane" is "dav hlau" - literally "iron bird/hawk" - a "descriptive phrase" as we can see. "Daus" and "kiab/khws(v)" are not descriptive to my knowledge, as far as how I know/understand Hmong. The point here is, one cannot simply just make up a "description" or "phrase" for something they have not witnessed first-hand. The "airplane" being "dav hlau", thus it is only logical that "snow/ice" was called "daus" or "npuag dub npuag dau" or "daus xib dau nphoo".
Sorry, but I am not going to comment on the "lusheng" or "qeej" thing. That gets too diluted and is out of context imho.
Anyway, good points and good research. Thanks for sharing. These are the kind of comments/posts I enjoy reading and commenting to. (I'm always open to broadening my personal study of Hmong history and knowledge data-bank.)