Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T19:28:01.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

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

Extract

Since the appearance of Stuart N. Wolfenden's monumental Outlines of Tibeto-Burman linguistic morphology in 1929, attention has increasingly focused not only on derivational processes in Tibeto-Burman, but also on the flexional morphology of conjugations and declensions. The first systematic comparison of Tibeto-Burman conjugational and pronominal morphology was James John Bauman's elaborate Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman in 1975. Bauman put to rest any lingering doubts that the conjugations of Tibeto-Burman languages could be attributed to an Austro- Asiatic substrate, and he adduced a vast body of data demonstrating the nativeness and antiquity of conjugational morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Verbal agreement in Tibeto-Burman has traditionally been known by Hodgson's term ‘pronominalization’, based on the assumption that conjugational affixes ultimately derive from ancient independent pronouns. Bauman demonstrated that the conjugational systems of Tibeto-Burman languages, and therefore any ancient pronominal system they may reflect, are more conservative than the independent pronominal systems attested in individual languages. Based on a comparison of these conjugations, Bauman (1975: 195, 237, 247) proposed the prototypical Tibeto-Burman agreement system shown in tables 1 and 2.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 292 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1993

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

Anonymous, 1959. Jĭngpō vŭ yŭfă gāngvào. Peking: Kēxué Chūbanshé (Zhōngguó Kēxué Yuàn Shăoshù MÍnzú Yŭyán Yánjiū'Suŏ).Google Scholar
Barnard, J. T. O. 1934. A handbook of the Răwang dialect of the Nung language. Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing and Stationery, Burma.Google Scholar
Bàrtoli, Matteo. 1942. ‘Figure similari e norme spaziali’, Bollellino dell'Allanle linguistico italiano. 111, 1–22.Google Scholar
Bàrtoli, Matteo. 1945. Saggi di linguistica spaziale. Torino: Vicenza Bona.Google Scholar
Bauman, James John. 1975. ‘Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman’. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert S. P. 1990. Vergelijkende Taalwelenschap: tussen Sanskrit en Nederlands. Utrecht: Uitgeverij het Spectrum.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1975. Austro-Thai: language and culture, with a glossary of roots. New Haven: Human Relations Areas Files Press.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1990. Japanese/Austro-Tai. (Linguistica Extranea, Studia, 20.) Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1991. ‘A note on Proto-Sino-Tibetan-level morphosyntax’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 14, I: 137–41.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Èmile. 1966, 1974. Problimes de linguistique générate. Vol. I, Vol. n. Paris: Èditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Cincius, V. I. (ed). 1949. Sravnitel'nyj slovar 'tunguso-man'čžurskix jazykov. Vols. I, II. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1987. ‘Sino-Tibetan languages’, in Bernard, Comrie(ed.), The world's major languages. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, 797–810.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1989. ‘Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman’, BSOAS, III, 2: 315–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1986. ‘Nominaal hindoeïsme’, Himalaya, 5, 3: 4–6.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1988. ‘The morphology of Dumi Rai simplicia’, Linguistics of the Tibeto- Burman Area, II, 1: 134–207.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1989. ‘Reflexes of the Tibeto-Burman *–l directive suffix in Dumi Rai’, in Bradley, David et al. (ed.), Prosodic analysis and Asian linguistics: to honour R. K. Sprigg. (Pacific Linguistics. C–4) Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies: 157–67.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990a. ‘An exploration of Proto-Kiranti verbal morphology’, Ada 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, IIII, I: 8–36.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990c. Review of La tongue hayu by Michailovsky, Boyd, BSOAS, LIII, 3: 565–71.'Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990d. ‘Ả propos de La tongue hayu par Boyd Michailovsky’, Cahiers de Linguistique: Asie Orientate xix, 2: 267–85.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991a. ‘Taal en identiteit: Indo-Arisch expansionisme in oostelijk Nepal’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-. Land- en Volkenkunde, 147, I: 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991b. ‘Bahing and the Proto-Kiranti verb’, BSOAS, LIV, 2: 336–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991c. ‘Tangut verbal agreement and the patient category in Tibeto- Burman’, BSOAS, LIV, 3: 520–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991d. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991e. Guide to official Dzongkha romanization. Thimphu: Royal Government of Bhutan.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1992. ‘Le proto-kiranti revisité, morphologie verbale du lohorung’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 24: 33–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. (forthcoming (a).) ‘Ancient Tangut manuscripts rediscovered’.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. (forthcoming (b).) ‘The Yakkha verb: interpretation and analysis of the Omruwa material’.Google Scholar
Driem, George van, and Davids., Irene Maria Hendrina 1985. ‘Limbu Kinship terminology: a description’, Kailash. Journal of Himalayan Studies, xil, 1–2: 115–56.Google Scholar
Driem, George van, and Keping, Ksenija Borisovna (= von Kepping). 1991. “The Tibetan transcriptions of Tangut (Hsi-hsia) ideograms’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 14: 117–28. [However see: van Driem, forthcoming (a).]Google Scholar
Driem, George van, and Keping, Ksenija Borisovna (= von Kepping). 1992. ‘Tibetskie transkripcii tangutskix ieroglifov’, Pis'mennye Pamjalniki i Problemy Istorii Kul'tury Narodov Vosloka, vypusk xxv. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1990. ‘On the evidence for the relationship Kiranti-Rung’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 13, I: 57–78.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1991. ‘Inverse and pseudo-inverse prefixes in Kiranti languages: evidence from Belhare, Athpariya and Dungmali’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 14, 1: 73–92.Google Scholar
Hagége, Claude and Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1978. La phonologie panchronique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Austin, Hale (ed.). 1973. Clause, sentence and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal (Part iv: word lists). Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1976. ‘Vestiges of Morphology in some Tibeto-Burman languages’, Ngûyen Ðāng, Liêm (ed.), South-East Asian Linguistic Studies, Vol. 2. (Pacific Linguistics, C-42.) Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies: 1–17.Google Scholar
Hertz, H. F. 1911. A practical hand-book of the Kachin or Chingpaw language. Rangoon: Office of the Superintendent, Government Printing, Burma.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1966. ‘What Algonquian is really like’, International Journal of American Linguistics, 32 (1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin Péng, et al. 1957. ‘Jiāróng yŭ Suomóhuà de yŭyīn hé xíngtài (shàng)’, Yŭyán Yánjiū, 2:123–51.Google Scholar
Jin Péng, et al. . 1958. ‘Jiāróng yŭ Suōmóhuà de yŭyin hé xíngtài (xià)’, Yŭyán Yánjiū, 3: 71–108.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael. 1988. ‘Sardinian’, in Harris, Martin and Vincent, Nigel, (ed.), The Romance languages. London and Sydney: Croom Helm: 314–50.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernard, 1957. Grammata Serica Recensa. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities.Google Scholar
Keping (= von Kepping), Borisovna, Ksenija. 1985. Tangutskij jazyk, morfologija. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy. 1989. ‘Verb agreement, head-marking vs. dependent-marking and the “deconstruction” of Tibeto-Burman Morpho-Syntax’, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change’, Lingua e Stile, xx, 3: 303–18.Google Scholar
Lo Ch‘ang-P‘ei, . 1945. ‘A preliminary study on the Trung language of Kung Shan’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 8: 343–48.Google Scholar
Lorrain, Reginald Arthur. 1951. Grammar and dictionary of the Lakher or Mara language. Gauhati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, Government of Assam.Google Scholar
Shàozūn, Lù. 1980. ‘Pŭmĭ yŭ gàikuàng’, Mínzú Yŭwén, 4: 58–72.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1987. The Japanese language through time. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James Alan. 1973. ‘Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia’, Hyman, Larry, (ed.), Consonant types and Tone, in (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, no. I.) Los Angeles: University of Southern California: 71–95.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James Alan. 1978. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman: the ‘organic’ approach to linguistic comparison. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James Alan. 1991. ‘New Goals for Sino-Tibetan Linguistics’, keynote speech at the 24th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, 7 October 1991.Google Scholar
Miller, Roy Andrew. 1971. Japanese and the other Altaic languages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nagano, Yasuhiko. 1984. A historical study of the verb in rGya-rong. Tokyo: Seishido.Google Scholar
Needham, J. F. 1989. Outline grammar of the Singpho language as spoken by the Singphos Dowanniyas. and others residing in the neighbourhood of Sadiya. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Press.Google Scholar
Johanna, Nichols. 1986. ‘Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar’ Language, 62, I: 56–119.Google Scholar
Patrie, James. 1982. The genetic relationship of the Ainu language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin George. 1984. Middle Chinese: a study in historical phonology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Puzickij, Evgenij Vladimirovič. 1968. Kačinskij jazyk, Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Puzickij, Evgenij Vladimirovitč 1970. ‘Nekotorye osobennosti glagol'noj affiksacii v kačnskom jazyke’, in Solnceva, N. V., (ed.), Jazyki Jugo-vostočnoj Azii, Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Ramsey, S. Robert. 1987. The languages of China. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Refsing, Kirsten. 1986. The Ainu language: the morphology and syntax of the Shizunai dialect. Århus: Århus Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1990. ‘Chinese and Austronesian are genetically related’, Twenty-third International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (5 to 7 October 1990), Arlington, Texas.Google Scholar
Savidge, Fred, W. 1908. A grammar and dictionary of the Lakher language. Allahabad: Pioneer Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spano, Giovanni. 1851. Vocabulario sardo-italiano e italiano-sardo, Vols. 1 and 2. Cagliari: Tipografia Nazionale.Google Scholar
Sūn, Hóngkāi. 1962. ‘Qiāng yŭ gàikuàng’, Zhōngguó Yŭwén, 12: 561–71.Google Scholar
Sūn, Hóngkāi. 1979. ‘Dúlóng yŭ gàikuàng’, Minzú Yŭwén, 4: 292–303.Google Scholar
Sūn, Hóngkāi. 1981. Qiāng yŭ jiăn zhi. Peking. Mínzú Chūbăn Shé.Google Scholar
Sūn, Hóngkāi. 1983. ‘Wŏ guó Zángmăn yŭ dóngí de rénchēng fànchóu’, Mínzú Yŭwén, 2: 17–29.Google Scholar
Sūn, Hóngkāi. 1991. ‘Cón cĭhuì bĭjiāo kán Xixiá yŭ yŭ Zànmiān yŭzhú Qiāng yŭzhi de guānxí’, Mìnzú Yŭwén, 2: 1–11.Google Scholar
Sūn, Hóngkāi and Liù, Lù. 1986. Nù zù yŭyán jiăn zhi (Nŭsū yŭ). Peking. Rénmín Chūbān Shé.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1984. ‘The “Rung” languages: a major new Tibeto-Burman subgroup’, Proceedings of the tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toba, Sueyoshi. 1989. ‘The pronominal affix system in Khaling’, in Bradley, David et al. (ed.), Prosodic analysis and Asian linguistics: to honour R. K. Sprigg. (Pacific Linguistics. C-4.) Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies: 201–4.Google Scholar
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1976. Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic phonology. Tokyo: Institute for the Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Watters, David, E. 1973. ‘Clause Patterns in Kham’, Hale, Austin (ed.), Clause, sentence and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal (Part I: General Approach). Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University Press, 391–202.Google Scholar
Watters, David, E. 1991. ‘Some preliminary observations on the interreiatedness of Kham dialects’, papar presented at the 24th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, 8 October 1991.Google Scholar
Watters, David, E. and Nancy, Watters. 1973. An English-Kham. Kham-English Glossary. KirtipurInstitute of Nepal and Asian Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Weidert, Alfons. 1985. ‘Paradigmatic typology and its application to verb agreement analysis’, in Pieper, Ursula and Stickel, Gerhard (ed.), Studia Linguistica et Diachronica. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 903–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfenden, Stuart, N. 1929. Outlines of Tibeto-Burman linguistics morphology. (Royal Asiatic Society Prize Publication, Vol. xn.) London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Zhang, Kun. 1967. ‘A comparative study of the Southern Ch'iang dialects’, Monumenta Serica, XXVI, 422–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar