Search This Blog

Saturday, August 8, 2020

Tibeto-Burman languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Tibeto-Burman
Geographic
distribution		Southeast Asia, East Asia, South Asia
Linguistic classificationSino-Tibetan
  • Tibeto-Burman
Proto-languageProto-Tibeto-Burman
Subdivisions
ISO 639-5tbq
GlottologNone
Lenguas tibeto-birmanas.png

The Tibeto-Burman languages are the non-Sinitic members of the Sino-Tibetan language family, over 400 of which are spoken throughout the highlands of Southeast Asia as well as certain parts of East Asia and South Asia. Around 60 million people speak Tibeto-Burman languages, around half of whom speak Burmese, and 13% of whom speak Tibetic languages. The name derives from the most widely spoken of these languages, namely Burmese (over 35 million speakers) and the Tibetic languages (over 8 million). These languages also have extensive literary traditions, dating from the 12th and 7th centuries respectively. Most of the other languages are spoken by much smaller communities, and many of them have not been described in detail.

Some taxonomies divide Sino-Tibetan into Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman branches (e.g. Benedict, Matisoff), but other scholars deny that Tibeto-Burman comprises a monophyletic group.

History

During the 18th century, several scholars noticed parallels between Tibetan and Burmese, both languages with extensive literary traditions. In the following century, Brian Houghton Hodgson collected a wealth of data on the non-literary languages of the Himalayas and northeast India, noting that many of these were related to Tibetan and Burmese. Others identified related languages in the highlands of Southeast Asia and south-west China. The name "Tibeto-Burman" was first applied to this group in 1856 by James Logan, who added Karen in 1858. Charles Forbes viewed the family as uniting the Gangetic and Lohitic branches of Max Müller's Turanian, a huge family consisting of all the Eurasian languages except the Semitic, "Aryan" (Indo-European) and Chinese languages. The third volume of the Linguistic Survey of India was devoted to the Tibeto-Burman languages of British India.

Julius Klaproth had noted in 1823 that Burmese, Tibetan and Chinese all shared common basic vocabulary, but that Thai, Mon and Vietnamese were quite different. Several authors, including Ernst Kuhn in 1883 and August Conrady in 1896, described an "Indo-Chinese" family consisting of two branches, Tibeto-Burman and Chinese-Siamese. The Tai languages were included on the basis of vocabulary and typological features shared with Chinese. Jean Przyluski introduced the term sino-tibétain (Sino-Tibetan) as the title of his chapter on the group in Antoine Meillet and Marcel Cohen's Les Langues du Monde in 1924.

The Tai languages have not been included in most Western accounts of Sino-Tibetan since the Second World War, though many Chinese linguists still include them. The link between Tibeto-Burman and Chinese is now accepted by most linguists, with a few exceptions such as Roy Andrew Miller and Christopher Beckwith. More recent controversy has centred on the proposed primary branching of Sino-Tibetan into Chinese and Tibeto-Burman subgroups. In spite of the popularity of this classification, first proposed by Kuhn and Conrady, and also promoted by Paul Benedict (1972) and later James Matisoff, Tibeto-Burman has not been demonstrated to be a valid family in its own right.

Overview

Most of the Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken in remote mountain areas, which has hampered their study. Many lack a written standard. It is generally easier to identify a language as Tibeto-Burman than to determine its precise relationship with other languages of the group. The subgroupings that have been established with certainty number several dozens, ranging from well-studied groups of dozens of languages with millions of speakers to several isolates, some only newly discovered but in danger of extinction. These subgroups are here surveyed on a geographical basis.

Southeast Asia and southwest China

Language families of Myanmar

The southernmost group is the Karen languages, spoken by three million people on both sides of the Burma–Thailand border. They differ from all other Tibeto-Burman languages (except Bai) in having a subject–verb–object word order, attributed to contact with Tai–Kadai and Austroasiatic languages.

The most widely spoken Tibeto-Burman language is Burmese, the national language of Myanmar, with over 32 million speakers and a literary tradition dating from the early 12th century. It is one of the Lolo-Burmese languages, an intensively studied and well-defined group comprising approximately 100 languages spoken in Myanmar and the highlands of Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, and Southwest China. Major languages include the Loloish languages, with two million speakers in western Sichuan and northern Yunnan, the Akha language and Hani languages, with two million speakers in southern Yunnan, eastern Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam, and Lisu and Lahu in Yunnan, northern Myanmar and northern Thailand. All languages of the Loloish subgroup show significant Austroasiatic influence. The Pai-lang songs, transcribed in Chinese characters in the 1st century, appear to record words from a Lolo-Burmese language, but arranged in Chinese order.

Language families of China, with Tibeto-Burman in orange
 
The Tibeto-Burman languages of south-west China have been heavily influenced by Chinese over a long period, leaving their affiliations difficult to determine. The grouping of the Bai language, with one million speakers in Yunnan, is particularly controversial, with some workers suggesting that it is a sister language to Chinese. The Naxi language of northern Yunnan is usually included in Lolo-Burmese, though other scholars prefer to leave it unclassified. The hills of northwestern Sichuan are home to the small Qiangic and Rgyalrongic groups of languages, which preserve many archaic features. The most easterly Tibeto-Burman language is Tujia, spoken in the Wuling Mountains on the borders of Hunan, Hubei, Guizhou and Chongqing.

Two historical languages are believed to be Tibeto-Burman, but their precise affiliation is uncertain. The Pyu language of central Myanmar in the first centuries is known from inscriptions using a variant of the Gupta script. The Tangut language of the 12th century Western Xia of northern China is preserved in numerous texts written in the Chinese-inspired Tangut script.

Tibet and South Asia

Language families of South Asia, with Tibeto-Burman in orange

Over eight million people in the Tibetan Plateau and neighbouring areas in Baltistan, Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan speak one of several related Tibetic languages. There is an extensive literature in Classical Tibetan dating from the 8th century. The Tibetic languages are usually grouped with the smaller East Bodish languages of Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh as the Bodish group.

Many diverse Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken on the southern slopes of the Himalayas. Sizable groups that have been identified are the West Himalayish languages of Himachal Pradesh and western Nepal, the Tamangic languages of western Nepal, including Tamang with one million speakers, and the Kiranti languages of eastern Nepal. The remaining groups are small, with several isolates. The Newar language (Nepal Bhasa) of central Nepal has a million speakers and literature dating from the 12th century, and nearly a million people speak Magaric languages, but the rest have small speech communities. Other isolates and small groups in Nepal are Dura, Raji–Raute, Chepangic and Dhimalish. Lepcha is spoken in an area from eastern Nepal to western Bhutan. Most of the languages of Bhutan are Bodish, but it also has three small isolates, 'Ole ("Black Mountain Monpa"), Lhokpu and Gongduk and a larger community of speakers of Tshangla.

The Tani languages include most of the Tibeto-Burman languages of Arunachal Pradesh and adjacent areas of Tibet. The remaining languages of Arunachal Pradesh are much more diverse, belonging to the small Siangic, Kho-Bwa (or Kamengic), Hruso, Miju and Digaro languages (or Mishmic) groups. These groups have relatively little Tibeto-Burman vocabulary, and Bench and Post dispute their inclusion in Sino-Tibetan.

Northeastern states of India (most of Arunachal Pradesh and the northern part of Assam are also claimed by China)
 
The greatest variety of languages and subgroups is found in the highlands stretching from northern Myanmar to northeast India.

Northern Myanmar is home to the small Nungish group, as well as the Jingpho–Luish languages, including Jingpho with nearly a million speakers. The Brahmaputran or Sal languages include at least the Bodo–Garo and Konyak languages, spoken in an area stretching from northern Myanmar through the Indian states of Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Tripura, and are often considered to include the Jingpho–Luish group.

The border highlands of Nagaland, Manipur and western Myanmar are home to the small Ao, Angami–Pochuri, Tangkhulic, and Zeme groups of languages, as well as the Karbi language. Meithei, the main language of Manipur with 1.4 million speakers, is sometimes linked with the 50 or so Kuki-Chin languages are spoken in Mizoram and the Chin State of Myanmar.

The Mru language is spoken by a small group in the Chittagong Hill Tracts between Bangladesh and Myanmar.

Classification

There have been two milestones in the classification of Sino-Tibetan and Tibeto-Burman languages, Shafer (1955) and Benedict (1972), which were actually produced in the 1930s and 1940s respectively.

Shafer (1955)

Shafer's tentative classification took an agnostic position and did not recognize Tibeto-Burman, but placed Chinese (Sinitic) on the same level as the other branches of a Sino-Tibetan family. He retained Tai–Kadai (Daic) within the family, allegedly at the insistence of colleagues, despite his personal belief that they were not related.
Sino-Tibetan
I. Sinitic
II. ?? Daic
III. Bodic
a. Bodish (Gurung, Tshangla, Gyarong, Tibetic)
b. West Himalayish (incl. Thangmi, Baram, Raji–Raute)
c. West Central Himalayish (Magar, Chepang, Hayu [misplaced])
d. East Himalayish
e. Newarish
f. Digarish
g. Midźuish
h. Hruish
i. Dhimalish
j. Miśingish
k. Dzorgaish
IV. Burmic
a. Burmish
b. Mruish
c. Nungish
d. Katśinish (Jingpho)
e. Tśairelish
f. Luish
g. Taman
h. Kukish
V. Baric
a. Barish
b. Nagish
VI. Karenic

Benedict (1972)

A very influential, although also tentative, classification is that of Benedict (1972), which was actually written around 1941. Like Shafer's work, this drew on the data assembled by the Sino-Tibetan Philology Project, which was directed by Shafer and Benedict in turn. Benedict envisaged Chinese as the first family to branch off, followed by Karen.
Sino-Tibetan
  1. Chinese
  2. Tibeto-Karen
    • Karen
    • Tibeto-Burman
The Tibeto-Burman family is then divided into seven primary branches:
I. Tibetan–Kanauri (a.k.a. Bodish–Himalayish)
A. Bodish
(Tibetic, Gyarung, Takpa, Tsangla, Murmi & Gurung)
B. Himalayish
i. "major" Himalayish
ii. "minor" Himalayish
(Rangkas, Darmiya, Chaudangsi, Byangsi)
(perhaps also Dzorgai, Lepcha, Magari)
A. Bahing (Sunuwar, Khaling)
B. Khambu (Sampang, Rungchenbung, Yakha, and Limbu)
C. Vayu–Chepang
(perhaps also Newar)
(perhaps also Aka, Digaro, Miju, and Dhimal)
IV. Kachin
(perhaps including Luish)
A. Burmese–Maru
B. Southern Lolo
C. Northern Lolo
D. Kanburi Lawa
E. Moso
F. Hsi-fan (Qiangic and Jiarongic languages apart from Qiang and Gyarung themselves)
G. Tangut
(perhaps also Nung)
VI. Bodo-Garo
A. Bodo
B. Garo (A·chik)
C. Borok (Tripuri (Tøipra))
D. Dimasa
E. Mech
F. Rava (Koch)
G. Tiwa (Lalung)
H. Sutiya
I. Saraniya
J. Sonowal
(Perhaps also "Naked Naga" a.k.a. Konyak)
VII. Kuki–Naga (a.k.a. Kukish)
(perhaps also Karbi, Meithei, Mru)

Matisoff (1978)

James Matisoff proposes a modification of Benedict that demoted Karen but kept the divergent position of Sinitic. Of the 7 branches within Tibeto-Burman, 2 branches (Baic and Karenic) have SVO-order languages, whereas all the other 5 branches have SOV-order languages.
Sino-Tibetan
  1. Chinese
  2. Tibeto-Burman
Tibeto-Burman is then divided into several branches, some of them geographic conveniences rather than linguistic proposals:
Matisoff makes no claim that the families in the Kamarupan or Himalayish branches have a special relationship to one another other than a geographic one. They are intended rather as categories of convenience pending more detailed comparative work.

Matisoff also notes that Jingpho–Nungish–Luish is central to the family in that it contains features of many of the other branches, and is also located around the center of the Tibeto-Burman-speaking area.

Bradley (2002)

Since Benedict (1972), many languages previously inadequately documented have received more attention with the publication of new grammars, dictionaries, and wordlists. This new research has greatly benefited comparative work, and Bradley (2002) incorporates much of the newer data.

I. Western (= Bodic)
A. Tibetan–Kanauri
i. Tibetic
ii. Gurung
iii. East Bodic (incl. Tsangla)
iv. Kanauri
B. Himalayan
i. Eastern (Kiranti)
ii. Western (Newar, Chepang, Magar, Thangmi, Baram)
II. Sal
A. Baric (Bodo–Garo–Northern Naga)
B. Jinghpaw
C. Luish (incl. Pyu)
D. Kuki-Chin (incl. Meithei and Karbi)
III. Central (perhaps a residual group, not actually related to each other. Lepcha may also fit here.)
A. Adi–Galo–Mishing–Nishi
B. Mishmi (Digarish and Keman)
C. Rawang
IV. North-Eastern
A. Qiangic
B. Naxi–Bai
C. Tujia
D. Tangut
V. South-Eastern
A. Burmese–Lolo (incl. Mru)
B. Karen

van Driem

George van Driem rejects the primary split of Sinitic, making Tibeto-Burman synonymous with Sino-Tibetan.

Matisoff (2015)

The internal structure of Tibeto-Burman is tentatively classified as follows by Matisoff (2015: xxxii, 1123-1127) in the final release of the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus (STEDT).

Other languages

The classification of Tujia is difficult due to extensive borrowing. Other unclassified Tibeto-Burman languages include Basum and the recently described Lamo language. New Tibeto-Burman languages continue to be recognized, some not closely related to other languages. Recently recognized distinct languages include Koki Naga.

Randy LaPolla (2003) proposed a Rung branch of Tibeto-Burman, based on morphological evidence, but this is not widely accepted.

Scott DeLancey (2015) proposed a Central branch of Tibeto-Burman based on morphological evidence. 

Roger Blench and Mark Post (2011) list a number of divergent languages of Arunachal Pradesh, in northeastern India, that might have non-Tibeto-Burman substrates, or could even be non-Tibeto-Burman language isolates:
Blench and Post believe the remaining languages with these substratal characteristics are more clearly Sino-Tibetan:
at

Tibetic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Tibetic
Tibetan
Central Bodish
EthnicityTibetans
Sherpa
Geographic
distribution		China (Tibet Autonomous Region, Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, Yunnan); India (Ladakh, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam); Pakistan (Gilgit-Baltistan); Nepal; Bhutan
Linguistic classificationSino-Tibetan
Early forms
Subdivisions
Glottologoldm1245
Tibet provinces.png
Division of Tibetic Cultural Areas

The Tibetic languages are a cluster of Tibeto-Burman languages descended from Old Tibetan, spoken across a wide area of eastern Central Asia bordering the Indian subcontinent, including the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas in Baltistan, Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Classical Tibetan is a major regional literary language, particularly for its use in Buddhist literature.

Tibetic languages are spoken by some 6 million people. With the worldwide spread of Tibetan Buddhism, the Tibetan language has spread into the western world and can be found in many Buddhist publications and prayer materials; with some western students learning the language for translation of Tibetan texts. Outside Lhasa itself, Lhasa Tibetan is spoken by approximately 200,000 exile speakers who have moved from modern-day Tibet to India and other countries. Tibetan is also spoken by groups of ethnic minorities in Tibet who have lived in close proximity to Tibetans for centuries, but nevertheless retain their own languages and cultures.

Although some of the Qiang peoples of Kham are classified by China as ethnic Tibetans (see rGyalrongic languages; rGyalrong people are identified as 'Tibetan' in China), the Qiangic languages are not Tibetic, but rather form their own branch of the Tibeto-Burman language family.

Classical Tibetan was not a tonal language, but some varieties such as Central and Khams Tibetan have developed tone registers. Amdo and Ladakhi-Balti are without tone. Tibetic morphology can generally be described as agglutinative.

Languages

Nicolas Tournadre (2008) describes the language situation of Tibetan as follows:
Based on my 20 years of field work throughout the Tibetan language area and on the existing literature, I estimate that there are 220 'Tibetan dialects' derived from Old Tibetan and nowadays spread across 5 countries: China, India, Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan [which] may be classed within 25 dialect groups, i.e. groups which do not allow mutual intelligibility. The notion of ‘dialect group’ is equivalent to the notion of language but does not entail any standardization. Thus if we set aside the notion of standardization, I believe it would be more appropriate to speak of 25 languages derived from Old Tibetan. This is not only a terminological issue but it gives an entirely different perception of the range of variation. When we refer to 25 languages, we make clear that we are dealing with a family comparable in size to the Romance family which has 19 groups of dialects.
Ethnolinguistic map of Tibet

The 25 languages include a dozen major dialect clusters:
Central Tibetan (Ü-Tsang), Khams (Chamdo, Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan), Amdo (Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan), Choni (Gansu, Sichuan), Ladakhi (Jammu and Kashmir), Balti (Gilgit-Baltistan), Burig (Jammu and Kashmir), Lahuli–Spiti (Himachal Pradesh), Dzongkha (Bhutan), Sikkimese (Sikkim), Sherpa (Nepal, Tibet), Kyirong-Kagate (Nepal, Tibet)
and another dozen minor clusters or single dialects, mostly spoken by a few hundred to a few thousand people:
Jirel (Nepal), Chocangaca (Bhutan), Lakha (Bhutan), Brokkat (Bhutan), Brokpa (Bhutan), Groma (Tibet), Zhongu (Sichuan), Gserpa (Sichuan), Khalong (Sichuan), Dongwang (Yunnan), Zitsadegu (Sichuan) and Drugchu (Gansu).
In addition, there is Baima, which retains an apparent Qiangic substratum, and has multiple layers of borrowing from Amdo, Khams, and Zhongu, but does not correspond to any established branch of Tibetic. The more divergent dialects such as this are spoken in the north and east near the Qiangic and Rgyalrongic languages, and some, such as Khalong, may also be due to language shift. 

The Tibetic languages used for broadcasting within China are Standard Tibetan (based on the Ü dialect of Lhasa and used as a lingua franca throughout Ü-Tsang), Khams and Amdo.

Origins

Marius Zemp (2018) hypothesizes that Tibetan originated as a pidgin with the West Himalayish language Zhangzhung as its superstratum, and Rgyalrongic as its substratum. Similarly, Tamangic also has a West Himalayish superstratum, but its substratum is derived from a different Sino-Tibetan branch.

Classification

Tournadre (2014)

Tournadre (2014) classifies the Tibetic languages as follows.
  • North-Western: Ladakhi, Zangskari, Balti, Purki
  • Western: Spiti, Garzha, Khunu, Jad
  • Central: Ü, Tsang, Phenpo, Lhokha, Tö, Kongpo
  • South-Western: Sherpa and Jirel; other languages/dialects along the Sino-Nepalese border: Humla, Mugu, Dolpo, Lo-ke, Nubri, Tsum, Langtang, Kyirong, Yolmo, Gyalsumdo, Kagate, Lhomi, Walung, and Tokpe Gola.
  • Southern: Dzongkha, Drengjong, Tsamang, Dhromo Lakha, Dur Brokkat, Mera Sakteng Brokpa-ke
  • South-Eastern: Hor Nagchu, Hor Bachen, Yushu, Pembar, Rongdrak, Minyak, Dzayul, Derong-Jol, Chaktreng, Muli-Dappa, Semkyi Nyida; other Khams dialects
  • Eastern: Drugchu, Khöpokhok, Thewo, Chone, Baima, Sharkhok, Palkyi [Pashi], and Zhongu; other Khams dialects
  • North-Eastern: Amdo, gSerpa, Khalong

Tournadre (2005, 2008)

Tournadre (2005) classifies the Tibetic languages as follows.
The other languages (Thewo-Chone, Zhongu, Khalong, Dongwang, Gserpa, Zitsadegu, Drugchu, Baima) are not mutually intelligible, but are not known well enough to classify.

Tournadre (2013) adds Tseku and Khamba to Khams, and groups Thewo-Chone, Zhongu, Baima as an Eastern branch of Tibetic.

Bradley (1997)

According to Bradley, the languages cluster as follows (dialect information from the Tibetan Dialects Project at the University of Bern):
Other
Some classifications group Khams and Amdo together as Eastern Tibetan (not to be confused with East Bodish, whose speakers are not ethnically Tibetan). Some, like Tournadre, break up Central Tibetan. Phrases such as 'Central Tibetan' and 'Central Bodish' may or may not be synonymous: Southern (Central) Tibetan can be found as Southern Bodish, for example; 'Central Tibetan' may mean dBus or all dialects apart from Khams; Tibeto-Kanauri languages.

Writing systems

Most Tibetic languages are written in one of two Indic scripts. Standard Tibetan and most other Tibetic languages are written in the Tibetan script with a historically conservative orthography (see below) that helps unify the Tibetan-language area. Some other Tibetan languages (in India and Nepal) are written in the related Devanagari script, which is also used to write Hindi, Nepali and many other languages. However, some Ladakhi and Balti speakers write with the Urdu script; this occurs almost exclusively in Pakistan. The Tibetan script fell out of use in Pakistani Baltistan hundreds of years ago upon the region's adoption of Islam. However, increased concern among Balti people for the preservation of their language and traditions, especially in the face of strong Punjabi cultural influence throughout Pakistan, has fostered renewed interest in reviving the Tibetan script and using it alongside the Arabic-Persian script. Many shops in Baltistan's capital Skardu in Pakistan's "Northern Areas" region have begun supplementing signs written in the Arabic-Persian script with signs written in the Tibetan script. Baltis see this initiative not as separatist but rather as part of an attempt to preserve the cultural aspects of their region which has shared a close history with neighbors like Kashmiris and Punjabis since the arrival of Islam in the region many centuries ago.

Historical phonology

Old Tibetan phonology is rather accurately rendered by the script. The finals were pronounced devoiced although they are written as voiced, the prefix letters assimilated their voicing to the root letters. The graphic combinations hr and lh represent voiceless and not necessarily aspirate correspondences to r and l respectively. The letter ' was pronounced as a voiced guttural fricative before vowels but as homorganic prenasalization before consonants. Whether the gigu verso had phonetic meaning or not remains controversial.

For instance, Srongbtsan Sgampo would have been pronounced [sroŋpʦan zɡampo] (now pronounced [sɔ́ŋʦɛ̃ ɡʌ̀mpo] in Lhasa Tibetan) and 'babs would have been pronounced [mbaps] (pronounced [bapˤ] in Lhasa Tibetan). 

Already in the 9th century the process of cluster simplification, devoicing and tonogenesis had begun in the central dialects can be shown with Tibetan words transliterated in other languages, particularly Middle Chinese but also Uyghur.

The concurrence of the evidence indicated above enables us to form the following outline of the evolution of Tibetan. In the 9th century, as shown by the bilingual Tibetan–Chinese treaty of 821–822 found in front of Lhasa's Jokhang, the complex initial clusters had already been reduced, and the process of tonogenesis was likely well underway.

The next change took place in Tsang (Gtsang) dialects: The ra-tags were altered into retroflex consonants, and the ya-tags became palatals.

Later on the superscribed letters and finals d and s disappeared, except in the east and west. It was at this stage that the language spread in Lahul and Spiti, where the superscribed letters were silent, the d and g finals were hardly heard, and as, os, us were ai, oi, ui. The words introduced from Tibet into the border languages at that time differ greatly from those introduced at an earlier period.

The other changes are more recent and restricted to Ü and Tsang. In Ü, the vowel sounds a, o, u have now mostly umlauted to ä, ö, ü when followed by the coronal sounds i, d, s, l and n. The same holds for Tsang with the exception of l which merely lengthens the vowel. The medials have become aspirate tenues with a low intonation, which also marks the words having a simple initial consonant; while the former aspirates and the complex initials simplified in speech are uttered with a high tone, shrill and rapidly.

Reconstruction

Proto-Tibetic

Proto-Tibetic, the hypothetical proto-language ancestral to the Tibetic languages, has been reconstructed by Tournadre (2014). Proto-Tibetic is similar to, but not identical to, written Classical Literary Tibetan. The following phonological features are characteristic of Proto-Tibetic (Tournadre 2014: 113).
  • The prefixes *s(ǝ)-, *d(ǝ)-/g(ǝ)-, *m(ǝ)-, and *b(ǝ)-, which have been retained from Proto-Tibeto-Burman. *s(ǝ)- is primarily used with animals and body parts, as well as *d(ǝ)-/*g(ǝ)- and *m(ǝ)-/*r(ǝ)-.
  • Palatalization of dental and alveolar consonants before y (/j/).
  • Consonant change from lateral to dental position after /m/ (e.g., *ml > *md).
  • Distinctive aspirated initial stops. This phenomenon is attested by alternating aspirated and non-aspirated consonants in Old Tibetan orthography. Examples include gcig ~ gchig (གཅིག་ ~ གཆིག་) ‘one’; phyin-chad ~ phyin-cad (ཕྱིན་ཆད་ ~ ཕྱིན་ཅད་) ‘from now on’; ci ~ chi (ཅི་ ~ ཆི་) ‘what’; and cu ~ chu (ཅུ་ ~ ཆུ་) ‘water’.
Reconstructed Proto-Tibetic forms from Tournadre (2014) include:
  • *g(ǝ)-tɕik ‘one’
  • *g(ǝ)-nyis ‘two’
  • *g(ǝ)-su- ‘three’
  • *b(ǝ)-ʑi ‘four’
  • *l(ǝ)-ŋa ‘five’
  • *d(ǝ)-ruk ‘six’
  • *b(ǝ)-dun ‘seven’
  • *b(ǝ)-rgyat ‘eight’
  • *d(ǝ)-gu ‘nine’
  • *b(ǝ)-tɕu ‘ten’
  • *s(ǝ)-dik-pa ‘scorpion’
  • *s(ǝ)-bal ‘frog’
  • *s(ǝ)-tak ‘tiger’
  • *s(ǝ)-b-rul ‘snake’
  • *s(ǝ)-pra ‘monkey’
  • *s(ǝ)-kra ‘hair’
  • *s(ǝ)-nyiŋ ‘heart’
  • *s(ǝ)-na ‘nose’
  • *d(ǝ)-myik ‘eye’
  • *m(ǝ)-go ‘head’
  • *r(ǝ)-na ‘ear’

Pre-Tibetic

Pre-Tibetic is a hypothetical pre-formation stage of Proto-Tibetic.

*ty-, *ly-, *sy- were not palatalized in Pre-Tibetic, but underwent palatalization in Proto-Tibetic (Tournadre 2014: 113-114). Posited sound changes from Pre-Tibetic to Proto-Tibetic include *ty- > *tɕ-, *sy- > *ɕ-, *tsy- > *tɕ-, and *ly- > *ʑ-. However, Tournadre (2014: 114) notes that many Bodish languages such as Basum, Tamang, and Kurtöp (East Bodish) have not undergone these changes (e.g., Bake (Basum) ti ‘what’ vs. Proto-Tibetic *tɕ(h)i and Bake tɨ ‘one’ vs. Proto-Tibetic *g(ǝ)-tɕ(h)ik; Kurtöp Hla: ‘iron’ and Bumthap lak ‘iron’ vs. Proto-Tibetic *ltɕaks).
  • Beyer, Stephan V. (1992). The Classical Tibetan Language. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-1099-4.
  • Denwood, Philip (1999). Tibetan. John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN 90-272-3803-0.
  • Denwood, Philip (2007). "The Language History of Tibetan". In Roland Bielmeier; Felix Haller (eds.). Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 47–70. ISBN 978-3-11-019828-7.
  • van Driem, George (2001). Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region containing an Introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of Language. Brill. ISBN 9004103902.
  • AHP43 Amdo Tibetan Language
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Marriage in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

  • Islamic State and the Levant
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام   ( ...
  • Heart Sutra
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...
  • Slum
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...