Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:14:13.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Yakkha verb: interpretation and analysis of the Omruwa material (a Kiranti language of eastern Nepal)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

George van Driem
George van Driem
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Leiden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1989 Jadranka Gvozdanović published data of the ‘Yakkhaba’ transitive verbal paradigm. In the present paper these data are identified as Yakkha, re-arranged and interpreted. Comparisons are made with other Kiranti verbal agreement systems and with my model of the Proto-Kiranti verb.

1. Yakkhaba, Yakkha and Yakthungba

Kiranti languages are native to eastern Nepal and the western fringe of Sikkim. The Kiranti branch of the Tibeto-Burman is characterized by verbal morphologies which by Tibeto-Burman standards may be called complex. The Kiranti languages are traditionally divided into Limbu, Yakkha and the Rai languages. Limbu, at the far eastern extent of the Kiranti homeland, has several dialects, of which (Weidert and Subba, 1985) and Phedāppe (van Driem, 1987) are the best described. Yakkha occupies an intermediate position and is spoken in the vicinity of Cainpur in Saṅkhuvā Sabhā district on the slopes east of the Arūṇ river. Rai (Nep. Rāī) is a highly heterogeneous group of languages. This has to do with the fact that the name Rai, although convenient, is not a proper linguistic designation, but represents what in Nepal is perceived to be an ethnic grouping.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 347 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev. 1961. A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar. Baroda: Oriental Institute.Google Scholar
Dyscolos, Apollonius. 1878. Apollonii Scripta Minora a Richardo Schneidero edita continens (Grammatici Graeci recogniti et apparatu critico instructi, Partis II; Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt recensuerunt apparatum criticum commentarium indices adiecerunt Richardus Schneidero et Gustavus Uhlig, Vol. i), Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1989. ‘Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman’, BSOAS, LII, 2: 315–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990a. ‘An exploration of Proto-Kiranti verbal morphology’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 22: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990b. ‘The fall and rise of the phoneme /r/ in Eastern Kiranti: sound change in Tibeto-Burman’, BSOAS, LIII, 1: 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991a. ‘Bahing and the Proto-Kiranti verb’, BSOAS, LIV, 2: 336–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991b. ‘Taal en identiteit: Indo-Arisch expansionisme in oostelijk Nepal’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 147/1: 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1992. ‘Le proto-kiranti revisité, morphologie verbale du lohorung’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 24: 33–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1993a. ‘The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system’, BSOAS, LVI, 2: 292–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1993b. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton de Gniyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. forthcoming a. ‘A new analysis of the Limbu verb’.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. forthcoming b. A Grammar of Lohorung.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1991. ‘Inverse and pseudoinverse prefixes in Kiranti languages: evidence from Belhare, Athpare and Dungmali’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 14/1: 73–92.Google Scholar
Grierson, George A. 1909. Linguistic Survey of India. Vol. III: Tibeto-Burman family, Part I, General introduction, specimens of the Tibetan dialects, the Himalayan dialects and the North Assam group. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India.Google Scholar
Gvozdanović, Jadranka. 1989. ‘How synchrony of a language reveals its diachrony (principles of analysis and classification)’, Folia Linguistica Historica, Acta Societatis Linguistics Europœœ, VIII (1–2), 421–445.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Brian Houghton. 1826. ‘Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Népál’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, XXVI (no. v), 317–522.Google Scholar
Rutgers, Roland. 1992a. ‘De naald en de koeievlaai, een verkenning van Yamphu morfologie aan de hand van een tekst’, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden: unpublished Master's thesis (kleine doctoraalscriptie).Google Scholar
Rutgers, Roland. 1992b. ‘Een morfeemanalyse van het Yamphu simplex-werkwoord’, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden: unpublished Master's thesis (grote doctoraalscriptie).Google Scholar
Sluiter, Ineke. 1990. Ancient grammar in context: contributions to the study of ancient linguistic thought. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij van de Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar
Frits, Staal (ed.). 1972. A reader on the Sanskrit grammarians. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Weidert, Alfons and Subba, Bikram ( = Dillī Vikram Iṅvābā). 1985. Concise Limbu grammar and dictionary. Amsterdam: Lobster Publications.Google Scholar