Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:27:54.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tibetan verb: tense and nonsense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Bulcsu I. Siklós
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Written Tibetan (WT) is unusual among Sino-Tibetan (ST) languages in possessing a relatively complex verb morphology which contains—apart from distinctive ‘prefixes' for intransitive/transitive verb pairs, a phenomenon found elsewhere in ST—prefixes and suffixes for certain tenses as well as a morphologically significant ablaut system, none of which can be found, or at least, none of which are common in other ST languages. The simplest ways of dealing with the problem of the origin and development of this system in the light of comparative ST researches are, firstly, ignoring it, and secondly, coming up with ad hoc theories about its independent development, thereby not affecting the apparently stable edifice of ST in any way.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 304 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1986

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

REFERENCES

Allen, W. S. 1953. Phonetics in ancient India. (London Oriental Series i.) London.Google Scholar
Benedict, P. K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, K. 1979. A comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic languages. Vol. IV. (2nd. ed.) Varanasi.Google Scholar
Burrow, T. 1955. The Sanskrit language. London.Google Scholar
Chang, B. S. 1968. ‘Tibetan prenasalized initials', in Proceedings of the Csoma de Kōrös Memorial Symposium. Budapest: 35–46.Google Scholar
Clark, E. W. 1893. Ao Naga grammar with illustrative phrases and vocabulary. Shillong.Google Scholar
Clauson, G. L. M. and Yoshitake, S. 1929. ‘On the phonetic value of the Tibetan characters and , and the equivalent characters in the ẖPhags-pa alphabet, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 843–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coblin, W. S. 1976. ‘Notes on Tibetan verb morphology', T'oung Pao, LXII, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, S. C. 1902. A Tibetan-English dictionary. Calcutta.Google Scholar
Das, S. C. 1915. An introduction to the grammar of the Tibetan language. Darjeeling.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M. C. 1975. Tibetan-English dictionary of modern Tibetan. Kathmandu.Google Scholar
Grüssner, K. H. 1978. Arleng Alam: Die Sprache der Mikir. .WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Henderson, E. A. 1976. ‘Vestiges of morphology in some Tibeto-Burman languages', SEA Linguistic Studies, vol. 2. (= Pacific Linguistics Series C no. 42.) 1–18.Google Scholar
Hermanns, M. 1952. ‘Tibetische Dialekte von A mdo', Anthropos XLVII, 193–202.Google Scholar
Jäschke, H. A. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary. London.Google Scholar
Karlgren, B. 1923. Analytic dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese. Paris.Google Scholar
Koshal, S. 1979. Ladakhi grammar. Varanasi.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1978. The methodology of scientific research programmes. (Philosophical Papers I.) Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B. 1891. Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft der Tibeter: Zamatog. München.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. 1914. ‘Bird divination among the Tibetans', T'oung Pao, xv, 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, F. K. 1933. ‘Certain phonetic influences of the Tibetan prefixes upon the root initials', Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 4: 135–57.Google Scholar
Ligeti, L. 1972. Monuments en écriture' phags pa: pièces de chancellerie en transcription chinoise. (Monumenta Linguae Mongolicae Collecta III.) Budapest.Google Scholar
Main, waring G. B. 1898. Dictionary of the Lepcha language. Revised and completed by A. Grünwedel. Berlin.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1978. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman. (Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics, VI.) Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, B. 1974. ‘Hayu typology and verbal morphology', Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, I, 1–26.Google Scholar
Miller, R. A. 1970. ‘A grammatical sketch of Classical Tibetan', Journal of the American Oriental Society, XC, 1: 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppe, N. N. 1957. The Mongolian monuments in ลP'ags pa script. (Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen 8.) Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Pržewalski, N. M. 1875. Mongoliya i strana tangutov. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. 1963. ‘An interpretation of the vowel system of Old Chinese and Written Burmese', Asia Major, 10.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. 1965. ‘Close/open ablaut in Sino-Tibetan', Lingua, 14: 230–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, P. S. 1965. ‘Kham phonology', Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXV, 3: 336–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, A. F. C. 1934. Balti Grammar. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1966. Tibeto-Mongolica. Budapest.Google Scholar
Shafer, R. 1938. Prefixed m- in Sino-Tibetan. (Sino-Tibetica, 3.) Berkeley.Google Scholar
Shafer, R. 1950, 1951. ‘Studies in the morphology of Bodic verbs', Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, VIII, 3: 702–24; XIII, 4: 1017–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, R. 1952. ‘Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan'. International Journal of American Linguistics, 18: 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, R. 1964. ‘Some Uto-Aztecan—Sino-Tibetan comparisons and their significance', Orbis, 13: 104–9.Google Scholar
Shafer, R. 1969. ‘A few more Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan comparisons', International Journal of American Linguistics, 35, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprigg, R. K. 1968. ‘The role of r in the development of the modern spoken Tibetan dialects', Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XXI, 3: 301–11.Google Scholar
Sprigg, R. K. 1970. ‘Vyañjanabhakti and irregularities in the Tibetan verb', Bulletin of Tibetology, VII, 2: 5–19.Google Scholar
Sprigg, R. K. 1972. ‘A polysystemic approach, in Proto-Tibetan reconstruction, to tone and syllable-initial consonant clusters, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XXXV, 3: 546–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprigg, R. K. 1979. ‘The Golok dialect and written Tibetan past-tense verb forms', Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XLII, 1: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straehan, J. 1949. Old-Irish paradigms and selections from the Old-Irish glosses. Dublin.Google Scholar
Uray, G. 1955. Review of Hermanns, M.: Tibetische Dialekte, in Ada Orientalia Hungarica, IV, 308–14.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, S. N. 1929. Outlines of Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Morphology. (RAS Prize Publication Fund, XII.) London.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, S. N. 1937. ‘Concerning the variation of final consonants in the word families of Tibetan, Kachin and Chinese', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 625–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. 1954. Grammar of the Gothic language. (1st ed., 1910.) Oxford.Google Scholar