Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-03T04:39:39.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The addition of syllable-final stops in Ganan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2024

Huziwara Keisuke
Huziwara Keisuke*
Affiliation:
Teikyo University of Science, Tokyo, Japan
*
Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses a secondary addition of syllable-final glottal stops in Ganan (Sino-Tibetan > Sal > Jingpho-Luish). In particular, it deals with the phenomenon where words ending with i or u in Luish languages Cak and Kadu have an additional glottal stop in Ganan. This study found that words ending with i or u can be reconstructed as either *i or *iy or *u or *uw respectively, and the secondary glottal stop is added in Ganan when the reconstructed form is *iy or *uw and does not have a high tone.

Keywords

GananKaduLuish languagesTibeto-Burman languagesHistorical linguisticsHigh vowel
Type
Article
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , February 2024 , pp. 189 - 200
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of SOAS University of London

1. Introduction

1.1 Objectives

This paper reports a phenomenon found in Ganan (ISO 639-3 zkn), a Luish language of Tibeto-Burman (TB), which adds a syllable-final glottal stop unseen in other Luish languages, and discusses its historical development.

1.2 Ganan and the Luish languages

Ganan is a Luish language of Tibeto-Burman. The Luish languages include Cak (ISO 639-3 ckh) spoken in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, Sak in tRakhine State in Burma, Chakpa in the Imphal basin in India, Kadu (ISO 639-3 zkd) in Sagaing Region of Burma, Ganan, etc.

Of these languages, Cak and Sak are almost identical as they are mutually intelligible insofar as native words are concerned. However, this is not always the case due to the large number of loanwords in Sak that originate from Burmese and its Arakanese dialect, as well as those from Bangla in Cak. Linguistic studies of Cak have been published by Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2008) (a grammatical description), and Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2016b) (a dictionary). Additionally, Löffler (Reference Löffler1964) dealt with Cak's relationship to the Chakma language, Bernot (Reference Bernot, Shin, Boisselier and Griswold1966) reported several hundred basic words, and Maggard et al. (Reference Maggard, Sangma and Ahmad2007) compared four dialects. As for Sak, Thun Shwe Khaing (Reference Khaing1988) provides an ethnography with a simple grammatical sketch and a list of basic vocabulary, and Moe Sandar (Reference Sandar2010) presents a descriptive grammar of Sak. Luce (1985 vol. II, Chart K, L) has a few hundred basic words from two dialects, Bawtala and Dodem.

Chakpa is already a dead language in terms of its daily use, and is only occasionally used in rituals. For linguistic resources on Chakpa, in addition to McCulloch (Reference McCulloch1859), which contains 423 words from the Andro and Sengmai dialects recorded in the mid-nineteenth century,Footnote 1 the language is sometimes mentioned in ethnographies on the Chakpa people (Rorendrajit Reference Rorendrajit2006; Basanta Reference Basanta2008).

Kadu is further divided into subclasses of Setto Kadu (STK), Moteik Kadu (MTK), Molang Kadu (MLK), Mokhwang Kadu (MWK), of which STK, MTK, and MLK are similar varieties and, although each has unique characteristics, are mutually intelligible. Nevertheless, MTK is not used daily anymore and is hardly passed down to the next generation. STK and MLK, similarly, have only a few villages passing down the varieties. MWK, as mentioned in Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2015), has distinct characteristics from other Kadu varieties, and is relatively close to Ganan concerning linguistic features. However, MWK is mutually intelligible with neither Ganan nor other Kadu varieties. For studies on Kadu, Sangdong (Reference Sangdong2012) is the most detailed research with texts and a vocabulary list, and Khin Moe Moe (Reference Khin2004) and Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2013) deal with the phonetics of Kadu. Other than these, Brown (Reference Brown1920) is one of the primary studies of Kadu, and Luce (1985, vol. II, Chart K, L) contains some 300 words of MLK.

Compared to Kadu, Ganan has less dialectal difference, and speakers of Ganan varieties do not have difficulty in understanding each other. The addition of a syllable-final glottal stop discussed in this paper is found in all Ganan varieties, based on the author's data. Previous works on Ganan are Ma Myo Myo (Reference Myoe2006), which described the grammar of the Nanzar dialect, and Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2012a) on the phonology of the Shwegyaung dialect. Luce (1985, Vol. II, Chart K, L) lists some 300 Ganan words.Footnote 2 This paper treats the Shwegyaung dialect as representative of Ganan, taking into consideration the amount of data owned by the author.

1.3 Data and abbreviations

Below is a list of the sources of data and the abbreviations used in this paper. Data is taken from STEDT unless otherwise noted.

*A

A is a reconstructed form

(A/B)

A and B are allomorphs

{A}

A is a spelled form

A

Andro, taken from McCulloch (Reference McCulloch1859).

ANDV

andative marker

C

Cak, taken from primary sources collected by the author.

CKP

Chakpa

cl

classifier

cmpl

completive marker

G

Ganan, taken from primary sources collected by the author.

h

prefix having a high tone in Proto-Luish

J

Jingpho

K

Kadu, in particular the Takotta dialect of STK unless specified; from primary sources collected by the author

Lui

Luish

MT

Moteik Kadu

num

numeral

OB

Old Burmese (taken from Nishi 1999)

PLu

Proto-Luish (taken from Huziwara Reference Huziwara2012b, Reference Huziwara2014, Reference Huziwara2016b)

PKG

Proto-Kadu-Ganan

pred

predicate marker

PTB

Proto-Tibeto-Burman, taken mainly from STEDT

S

Sak

Se

Sengmai (taken from McCulloch Reference McCulloch1859)

STEDT

Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus

TB

Tibeto-Burman

WB

Written Burmese, based on the transcription rules by Duroiselle (Reference Duroiselle1916)

WT

Written Tibetan (Wylie transliteration system)

1.4 Notes on transcription

The primary source used by the author is written in simplified phonological transcription. For Kadu and Ganan, readers should pay heed to the points in (1):

  1. (1)

    1. a. Tones: ´ stands for a high tone (H), ` for a low tone (L), ^ for a falling tone (F). No tonal symbols are attached to unmarked mid tone (M).

    2. b. The low tone in Kadu and Ganan developed as a result of a tonal change of a mid tone that had followed a high tone. Words starting with a low tone show that they used to have a prefix with a high tone.

    3. c. The falling tone in Kadu developed as a result of a tonal change of HM or ML, and regularly occurs as MF.

2. Subclasses of the Luish languages and Ganan

Before discussing the epenthesis of the syllable-final glottal stop in Ganan, I shall note how Luish languages are treated in the Tibeto-Burman language group, and how Ganan is treated in the Luish languages. Matisoff (Reference Matisoff2013) claims the Jingpho-Asakian languages as a subgroup of Tibeto-Burman languages, where Asakian languages have traditionally been called Luish languages. The fact that the Luish languages belong to the Tibeto-Burman language group is evident from the comparison of their basic vocabulary, as exemplified in (2).

  1. (2)

    1. a. “I” WT nga, WB ngaa; PLu *ŋa; C ŋa, K ŋa, G ŋa; J ŋai33;

    2. b. “pig” WT phag, WB wak; PLu *wak; C vaʔ, K waʔ, G waʔ; J waʔ31.

The Luish languages are classed under the Sal group (Burling Reference Burling1983) as evidenced by the following special diagnostic lexicons (cited from Huziwara Reference Huziwara2020: 46, with some modifications), which in turn is based on Benedict (Reference Benedict1972: 7, 34 fn. 108) except for Luish data).

  1. (3) “sun” PLu *ca-mík, C cəmíʔ, S səmíʔ, K/G səmíʔ, A/Se chameet (camit); Chairel sal; Taman pupek cf. J dźān; Namsang (Northern Naga) san, Moshang (Northern Naga) sár; Garo sal.

  2. (4) “fire” PLu *wal, C/S vaiN, K/G wan, A/Se wal; Chairel phal; Taman vè cf. J ʔwàn; Namsang (Northern Naga) van, Moshang (Northern Naga) var; Garo waʔl.

  3. (5) “foot” vs. “hand/arm”

    PLu *ta vs. *tak-, C ʔáta vs. taʔmiŋ “nail”, K/G ta vs. taʔmiŋ “nail”, A/Se ta- vs. takmeng “nail”; Chairel la vs. lak; Taman — vs. la < *lak; cf. Garo dzá vs. dzák, Dimasa ya vs. yau; Tableng ya vs. yak, Tamlu la vs. lak, Banpara tśia vs. tśak, Namsang da vs. dak, Moshang ya vs. yak.

Distinctive characteristics that separate the Luish languages from other Tibeto-Burman languages including Jingpho are: (a) the order of affixes “cl-one”, while “num-cl” from two onward;Footnote 3 (b) a set of directional auxiliary verbs; and (c) a negative prefix a-. Examples of these features are shown in (6).

  1. (6)

    1. a. Order of a classifier and “one” cl-num

      WT No classifier, WB num-cl

      J cl-num; however, the classifier is rarely used. Lui cl- “one”; for other numbers num-cl.

      “cl: man-one” C hú-wa, MT/G hɔ̀-wa

      “two-cl: man” C níŋ-hú, MT kleiŋ-hú, G kɛ-hɔ́;

    2. b. Having an andative auxiliary verb (andv) *-a and a completive auxiliary verb (cmpl) *-aŋ

      WT, WB, J. No such auxiliary verbs

      “drink-andv=pred” C Ɂu-wa=heʔ, MT/G ʔu-wa=ma

      “drink-cmpl=pred” C Ɂu-waŋ=heʔ, MT/G ʔu-waŋ=ma;

    3. c. Negative prefix form; WT ma, WB ma, J ń- “negative prefix-” PLu *á-;Footnote 4 C ʔá/ʔa-, K ʔə-, G ʔə-, A/Se a-.

The Luish languages are divided into Cak and Chakpa-Kadu depending on the innovations they have undergone shown in (7)–(10), namely (A) PLu *ti > kyi;Footnote 5 (B) deletion of PLu *r; (C) PLu *khy > ʃ; (D) marked linker for borrowed verbs.

  1. (7)

    1. a. “sweet” PLu *ti; C kyi,Footnote 6 K ti, G ti; A/Se tī; J tui31;

    2. b. “egg” PLu *ti; C ʔákyi, K təti, G titti; J ti31;

    3. c. “penis” PLu *tí; C ʔakyí, K tí, G tí.

  2. (8)

    1. a. “thick” PLu *rH-thay; C rəthe, K thɛ̀ ~ ʔəthɛ̀, G thɛ̀; A/Se the; J that31;

    2. b. “cord” PLu *ri; C rɨ, K ʔi, G ʔi; J ʒi31;

    3. c. “buffalo” PLu *k-réy;Footnote 7 C krí̵, K cɛ́, G cé; A/Se ké; J wă33loi33;

    4. d. “crab” PLu *a/n-har < *a/n-khar; C nəhaiŋ, K ʔəha, G ʔəha; A aha, Se niha; J tʃă55khan51.

  3. (9) “red” PLu *khyá; C ʃá, K há, G há; A/Se ha; J khje33.

  4. (10) “loan verb marker”Footnote 8 PLu *-(t/l)ó; C —, K -tɔ́, G -lɔ́; A/Se -to.

The linguistic innovations dividing Chakpa, Kadu, and Ganan are: (A) PLu *-l > -n; (B) development of an infix -l-;Footnote 9 and (C) change from the two-tone system to the three-tone system.Footnote 10 Examples are shown in (11) and (12):

  1. (11)

    1. a. “fire” PLu *wan < *wal; C vaiŋ, K wan, G wan; A/Se wal; J wan31;

    2. b. “tree” PLu *phón < *phól; C (ʔapháŋ, púŋpháŋ), K phouŋklon, phón “firewood”, G phɔ́ntòn; A phol; J phun55.

  2. (12)

    1. a. “fat” PLu *sáw; C ʔasá, K shəlɔ́, G shəlɔ́; A/Se sa; J sau55.

    2. b. “leaf” PLu *tap; C ʔátaʔ, K təlap ~ tətap, G təlap; A/Se tatup (tatap); J lap31.

3. Point at issue

The issue discussed in this paper is the phenomenon in which Ganan occasionally has an additional glottal stop consonant in a position where other Luish languages do not. This point is prominent evidence for dividing Ganan and Kadu.

  1. (13)

    1. a. “bamboo shoot” G kəmiʔ; K kəmi, C kəmɯkaiŋ;

    2. b. “bone” G maŋkuʔ; K maʔku, C (ʔáməra);

    3. c. “cat” G hánsìʔ; K hanɕî, C háiŋ; Se huljeek (haljik);

    4. d. “comb (v)” G shiʔ; K ɕi, C sɨ;

    5. e. “correct” G hiʔ; K chi, C heʔ, huʔ “copula”;

    6. f. “elbow” G táʔshùʔ; K taʔkəshû, C (táiŋdoŋ);

    7. g. “faeces” G hiʔ; K chi, C ʃi;

    8. h. “horse” G shəpùʔ; K shəpù, S sapú (Hodgson Reference Hodgson1853: 5); A/Se shoorook (shuruk);

    9. i. “medicine” G shiʔ; K ɕi, C sɨ;

    10. j. “porcupine” G kətùʔ; K kətù, C (phaiŋ); A/Se kootook (kutuk);

    11. k. “rat” G cùʔ; K kəyù, C kəyvu; A/Se kooyook (kuyuk);

    12. l. “smoke” G wann̥uʔ; K (wanshuŋ), C vaiŋhvu; A walkhoo (walkhu), Se walhoo (walhu);

    13. m. “steal” G kuʔ; K ku, C kvu; A/Se kook (kuk);

    14. n. “vine” G yəluʔ; K yəlu, C (ʔárəkuʔ); A loohook (luhuk);

    15. o. “wall of a house” G címkùʔ; K cémkù, C kíŋhvu.

From the examples in (13), we find that Ganan has a glottal stop after i (13a, c, d, e, g, i) and u (13b, f, h, j, k, l, m, n, o), whereas Kadu and Cak do not. Based on this point, Hypothesis 1 (14) is established.

  1. (14) Hypothesis 1. When a syllable has i or u at the syllable-final position in the Luish languages (e.g. Kadu and Cak), its corresponding form in Ganan has an additional glottal stop to it.

Nevertheless, there are many cases with no glottal stop after i or u, as shown in (15) and (16).Footnote 11

  1. (15)

    1. a. “barking deer” G ŋəhí; K ʔəchí, C ʔiʃí;

    2. b. “buy” G mí; K mí, C mərí̵;

    3. c. “come” G li; K li, C (vaiŋ)

    4. d. “cord” G ʔi; K ʔi, C rɨ;

    5. e. “die” G shí; K ɕí, C sí̵;

    6. f. “dog” G ci; K ci, C kvu;

    7. g. “egg” G titti; K təti, C ʔákyi, S wa-tí (Hodgson Reference Hodgson1853: 8);

    8. h. “elephant” G ʔəcí; K ʔəcí, C ʔukvú ~ wvukvú;

    9. i. “four” G pí; K pí, C prí̵;

    10. j. “fruit” G shiʔshi; K ɕəɕi, C ʔásɨ;

    11. k. “give” G ʔi; K ʔi, C ʔi;

    12. l. “let out (fart)” G phí; K phí, C phí;

    13. m. “penis” G tí; K tí, C ʔakyí;

    14. n. “smooth” G pit; K pi, C prɨ;

    15. o. “sour” G hí; K chí, C hrí̵;

    16. p. “sweet” G ti; K ti, C; kyi;

    17. q. “wash (clothes)” G hi; K chi, C hrɨ;

    18. r. “woman” G ʔínáʔsha “girl”; K ʔiɕî, C ʔísa “old lady”;

    19. s. “younger brother” G nəshì; K nəɕì, C ʔanésɨ.

  2. (16)

    1. a. “bathe” G kú; K kú, C krvú;

    2. b. “burn” G hu; K hu, C hru;

    3. c. “burn/roast” G su; K su, C cu;

    4. d. “cut(vi)” G tu; K tu, C tvu;

    5. e. “emerge” G pu; K pu, C pru;

    6. f. “dig” G thu; K thu, C thu;

    7. g. “drink” G ʔu; K ʔu, C ʔu;

    8. h. “fishy” G shú; K shú, C svú;

    9. i. “fowl” G ʔu; K ʔu, C ʔu;

    10. j. “get” G lu; K lu, C lu;

    11. k. “grind/pound” G thu; K thu, C thvu ~ thu;

    12. l. “open (umbrella)” G phú; K phú, C ʔahvú;

    13. m. “mushroom” G kúʔmú; K kəmú, C kəmúkaiŋ;

    14. n. “rot” G mú; K kəpú, C ɓú;

    15. o. “seed” G tuttu; K tətu, C ʔátvu;

    16. p. “snake” G kəphú; K kəphú, C kəhvú;

    17. q. “watch” G yu; K yu, C yu.

However, there are cases where both Ganan and Kadu have a glottal stop after i and u, as exemplified in (17).

  1. (17)

    1. a. “mosquito” G pəsíʔ; K pəsíʔsáuʔ, C pəcíʔ;

    2. b. “sun” G səmíʔ; K səmíʔ, C cəmíʔ;

    3. c. “belly” G púʔ; K púʔ, C ʔapí̵ʔ.

Therefore, it is far-fetched to conclude that a lexical form ending with i or u in the Luish languages unconditionally corresponds to a form with an additional glottal stop in Ganan. Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2012b, Reference Huziwara2014) then assumed that a glottal stop in Ganan enumerated in (13) is a derived form originating from the Proto-Luish language, and proposed a reconstructed form *-k as in (18). Below are instances with a reconstructed PLu form.

  1. (18)

    1. a. “bamboo shoot” PLu *k-muy-k;

    2. b. “comb (v)” PLu *si-k;

    3. c. “faeces” PLu *khyi-k;

    4. d. “horse” PLu *sH-pu-k;

    5. e. “medicine” PLu *si-k;

    6. f. “rat” PLu *kH-yuw-k;

    7. g. “smoke” PLu *wán-huw-k < *wál-khuw-k;

    8. h. “steal” PLu *kuw-k;

    9. i. “wall of a house” PLu *kím-(k/kh)uw-k.

However, the reconstructed form *-k is unnecessary if the syllable-final glottal stop in Ganan in (13) is predictable. This paper now goes on to discuss whether or not the secondary addition of the syllable-final stop in Ganan can be predicted.

4. Rhyme reconsidered

Supposing that the addition of syllable-final stops in Ganan is predictable, what conditions are at work?

To discuss this, it is helpful to look into similar phenomena found in neighbouring languages.Footnote 12 Burling (Reference Burling1966) reported a phenomenon where a stop consonant is secondarily inserted in Maru,Footnote 13 one of the Burmish languages.Footnote 14 According to Burling (Reference Burling1966), for words ending with i or u in Atsi,Footnote 15 which belongs to the same language group as Maru, their corresponding form in Maru is it or uk when they correspond to {e} or {ui} in WB.Footnote 16 A list of examples is given in (19):Footnote 17

  1. (19)

    1. a. “die” WB {se}, Atzi šî, Maru šit;

    2. b. “parrot” WB {kye:}, Atzi jì, Maru jìt;

    3. c. “in front” WB {hre.}, Atzi hı̌, Maru ɣʔít;

    4. d. “horn” WB {khyui}, Atzi khyúi, Maru khyùk;

    5. e. “steal” WB {khui:}, Atzi kháu, Maru khúk;

    6. f. “breast” WB {nui.}, Atzi nàu, Maru núk.

In Maru, there are words ending with i or u as well, and they by-and-large correspond to WB {ii} or {uu}. Below (20) shows examples from Sawada (Reference Sawada2017):

  1. (20)

    1. a. “fire” WB {mii:}, Zaiwa mi21, Lhaovo mjiL;

    2. b. “to be white” WB {phruu}, Zaiwa phyu41, Lhaovo phjuF.

Below, (21) is a list of Ganan word forms shown in (13), together with corresponding Burmese forms.

  1. (21)

    1. a. “faeces” G hiʔ; K chi; WB {khye:}, OB {khliy};

    2. b. “medicine” G shiʔ; K ɕi, C sɨ; WB {che:};

    3. c. “smoke” G wann̥uʔ; K (wanshuŋ), C vaiŋhvu; WB {khui:}.

From the examples in (21), all word forms correspond to either {e} or {ui} in WB, which can be reconstructed as *iy or *uiw respectively (Hill Reference Hill2019). As such, I shall modify Hypothesis 1 in (14) as (22).

  1. (22) Hypothesis 2. Forms corresponding to {e} or {ui} in Burmese (*iy or *uiw in the proto-language) correspond with a form with an additional syllable-final glottal stop in Ganan.

That said, as we will see in (23), there are some cases where cognate Burmese forms have {e} or {ui} even though their corresponding Ganan forms have no glottal stop. For this reason, Hypothesis 2 in (22) still seems incorrect.

  1. (23)

    1. a. “barking deer” G ŋəhí; WB {khye}, {gyii} (Judson Reference Judson and Stevenson1893);

    2. b. “die” G shí; WB {se}, OB {siy};

    3. c. “four” G pí; WB {le:} PTB b-ləy;

    4. d. “mushroom” G kúʔmú; WB {hmui};

    5. e. “dog” G ci; WB {khwe:}, OB {khuy};

    6. f. “snake” G kəphú; WB {pui:} “insect”;

    7. g. “bathe” G kú; WB {khyui:}, OB {khluiw}.

From the words listed in (23), we see that all the Ganan word forms but (23e) have a high tone, while the Ganan forms with a syllable-final glottal stop in (13) have a mid or low tone. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 in (22) is revised as (24):

  1. (24) Hypothesis 3. For word forms with {e} or {ui} in Written Burmese, the corresponding word forms in Ganan have an additional syllable-final glottal stop when they do not have a high tone in Ganan.Footnote 18

Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2012b, Reference Huziwara2014) reconstructed PLu *i and *uw for PTB *əy and *əw, namely {e} and {ui} in Written Burmese, and for words with a syllable-final stop in Ganan they assumed PLu *i-k and *uw-k, respectively. Given (24), however, it is possible to predict the addition of the syllable-final stop in Ganan by supposing, for example, *iy and *uw to PLu.

Thus, the PLu or PKG forms of the word samples in (13) can be reconstructed as (25). PLu is reconstructed if a Cak word is cognate with either Kadu or Ganan, and PKG if only Kadu and Ganan are cognate.

  1. (25)

    1. a. “bamboo shoot” G kəmiʔ; K kəmi, C kəmɯkaiŋ; PLu *k-muy;Footnote 19

    2. b. “bone” G maŋkuʔ; K maʔku, C (ʔáməra); PKG *má(k/ŋ)-kuw;

    3. c. “cat” G hánsìʔ; K hanɕî, C háiŋ; PLu *hán-(c/s)iy < *hál-(c/s)iy;Footnote 20

    4. d. “comb (v)” G shiʔ; K ɕi, C sɨ; PLu *siy;

    5. e. “correct” G hiʔ; K chi, C (heʔ, huʔ) “copula”; PKG *khyiy;

    6. f. “elbow” G táʔshùʔ; K taʔkəshû, C (táiŋdoŋ); PKG *ták-suw;

    7. g. “faeces” G hiʔ; K chi, C ʃi; PLu *khyiy;

    8. h. “horse” G shəpùʔ; K shəpù, S sapú (Hodgson Reference Hodgson1853: 5); PLu *sH-puw;

    9. i. “medicine” G shiʔ; K ɕi, C sɨ; PLu *siy;

    10. j. “porcupine” G kətùʔ; K kətù, C pədvu; PLu *kH-tuw;

    11. k. “rat” G cùʔ; K kəyù, C kəyvu; PLu *kH-yuw;

    12. l. “smoke” G wann̥uʔ; K (wanshuŋ), C vaiŋhvu; PLu *wán-khuw;

    13. m. “steal” G kuʔ; K ku, C kvu; PLu *kuw;

    14. n. “vine” G yəluʔ; K yəlu, C (ʔárəkuʔ); PKG *yəluwFootnote 21 < *yuw;

    15. o. “wall of a house” G címkùʔ; K cémkù, C kíŋhvu; PLu *kím-(k/kh)uw.

5. Similar phenomena in related languages

Taman,Footnote 22 reportedly closely related to Luish languages, including Chakpa, has phonological phenomena similar to Ganan.

In Chakpa (Andro and Sengmai), a stop consonant is found in cognate words ending with a secondary glottal stop in Ganan, as shown in (26).

  1. (26)

    1. a. “cat” G hánsìʔ; K hanɕî, C háiŋ; Se huljeek (haljik);

    2. b. “medicine” G shiʔ; K ɕi, C sɨ; A/Se seek (sik) “tobacco”;

    3. c. “porcupine” G kətùʔ; K kətù, C (phaiŋ); A/Se kootook (kutuk);

    4. d. “rat” G cùʔ; K kəyù, C kəyvu; A/Se kooyook (kuyuk);

    5. e. “steal” G kuʔ; K ku, C kvu; A/Se kook (kuk);

    6. f. “vine” G yəluʔ; K yəlu, C (ʔárəkuʔ); A loohook (luhuk).

Occasionally, however, Chakpa has words without an additional stop where its Ganan counterpart does have it, as in (27):

  1. (27) “smoke” G wann̥uʔ; K (wanshuŋ), C vaiŋhvu; A walkhoo (walkhu), Se walhoo (walhu).

Example (28) might be a case of a secondary stop insertion; however, it remains uncertain because few cognate forms can be found.

  1. (28) “man” A tik “he/she”; G tìʔsha; Sema [Sumi] ti mi (cited from STEDT Database, which is based on Marrison Reference Marrison1967).

As for Taman, there are no words cognate with Ganan where a stop is added, but some words, as for example in (29), seemingly have a secondary stop added to the end of the syllable compared to other Tibeto-Burman languages.

  1. (29)

    1. a. “cat” Taman mətʃeksɔ; C háiŋ, K hanɕî, G hánsìʔ; A hunggen (hanggen), Se huljeek (haljik).

    2. b. “horse” Taman tʃipòùk; C (məráŋ), S sapù (Hodgson Reference Hodgson1853: 5) shəpù, G shəpùʔ; A/Se shoorook (shuruk).

In (30), Ganan and Chakpa do not have any secondary syllable-final stop added, while Taman does in comparison with other Tibeto-Burman languages.

  1. (30)

    1. a. “man (human being)” Taman mek; C (lú), Kadu təmìsha, Ganan tìʔsha;

      A teeksahora (tiksahora), Se teekhora (tikhora).

    2. b. “write” Taman rek; C (rwé < Marma), K ʔəchìn, khù, G (yé < Burmese); A/Se —; OB riy (Nishi 1999: 39).

As is observed, an addition of a secondary stop after a high vowel does not consistently occur in cognate forms. This implies that this innovation did not happen in the proto-language which Ganan, Chakpa and Taman commonly share, but happened independently in each language.

6. Conclusion

This paper has discussed the phenomenon whereby Ganan has an additional syllable-final glottal stop in words whose Luish counterparts do not. As a result, it demonstrated that, by assuming *iy and *uw in PLu, such Ganan forms are mostly predictable if they do not have a high tone.Footnote 23

There are remaining issues as in (31):

  1. (31)

    1. a. Rhyme system of PLu: If we reconstruct *iy for words with a glottal stop at their coda position in Ganan, there is a contradiction with the form *iy reconstructed earlier in Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2012b, Reference Huziwara2014, Reference Huziwara2016b). Therefore, it would be necessary to change *iy to *ey, and *ey to *ay. The problem remains unsolved as to how PLu rhymes should be reconstructed.

    2. b. It has not been explained yet why a glottal stop is added not after *i and *u but after *iy and *uw, and also why it is not added to high-tone words.Footnote 24

Footnotes

1 Luce (1985, vol. II, Chart K, L) also lists Chakpa words, though they are all taken from McCulloch (Reference McCulloch1859).

2 Although it is unknown which dialect the work is based on, it is possibly the Nanzar dialect spoken in the prominent habitat of Ganans.

3 This characteristic might be a result of language contact with the Tai languages.

4 Negative prefix a- is reported in some Tamangic and the Lolo-Burmese languages, as well as in OB ’a- (Yabu Reference Yabu2004: 75). Besides, the author's fieldwork found the form ʔə- also in Taman, reportedly related to the Luish languages (Huziwara Reference Huziwara2016a). The Luish languages are characteristic in the fact that they all share the common form of the negative prefix.

5 The Naikhyongchari dialect of Cak, spoken in the area bordered with Burma, has the corresponding form cyi, and Sak in the Burmese territory has ci.

6 Although this may be cognate with PTB *kyəw (STEDT #2380), it is reasonable to assume PLu *ti by analogy from “egg” and “penis”.

7 Proto-Tai *grwaay < Siamese khwaay (GSTC #75), a regional word in Mainland Southeast Asia according to Matisoff (Reference Matisoff1985: 33).

8 Some Tibeto-Burman languages in Nepal are known to have particles exclusively used for loan verbs. In Kiranti languages, Jero -ʌi (Opgenort Reference Opgenort2005: 186–7), Wambule Rai -ʌi (Opgenort Reference Opgenort2004: 361–2; 2019: 751), Yakkha -a (Schackow Reference Schackow2015: 265–7), and Belhare -ap (Bickel Reference Bickel, Thurgood and LaPolla2019: 710) are probably Nepali loans, while in Tamangic languages, Gurung -di (Glover et al. Reference Glover, Glover and Gurung1977: 27) and Manange 2ti (Hildebrandt Reference Hildebrandt, Matras and Sakel2007: 296) are of unknown origin. None of these, however, seems to be cognate with Luish ones.

9 Infixes reported in the Tibeto-Burman languages are the secondary infix y deriving a transitive verb from an intransitive in Lepcha (Benedict Reference Benedict1943; Plaisier 2007: 50–51) and Tibetan *y used for honorific expressions (Gong Reference Hwang-cherng1977; Hill Reference Hill2019: 14–15). However, in Kadu and Ganan, the chief function of the infix is nominalization. Among their surrounding languages, the Austroasiatic languages commonly have such an infix, particularly *-n- traced back to the Proto-Austroasiatic language (Sidwell and Rau Reference Sidwell, Rau, Jenny and Sidwell2014: 235).

10 Strictly speaking, one can never tell the tonal system of Chakpa, since it is extinct; however, it is conjectured that it was a two-tonal language from the fact that (A) the Proto-Luish language was probably two-tonal and that (B) minimal pairs are observed for two tones in the ritual usage of Chakpa.

11 In Cak, i is realized as ɨ after r/s/c/j.

12 Similar phenomena are seen in languages other than Maru which is dealt with in this paper. According to Mortensen (Reference Mortensen2004, Reference Mortensen2012), in Huishu of the Tangkhulic languages of TB, k is almost always added after *i or *u in the Proto-Tangkhulic language. Also, Sawada (Reference Sawada2017) mentions that in Gyannoʔ, a variety of Lhaovo (Maru), the sporadic addition of a stop is reported in vocabulary corresponding to {e} and {ui} of WB, and that in Lashi, which belongs to the same language group as Lhaovo, a stop consonant is added in the similar conditions with almost no exception. (Bradley (Reference Bradley1979: 84) writes that this phenomenon in Lashi is reported by Benedict. However, I could not find the source.) Burling (Reference Burling1966) and Sawada (Reference Sawada2017) are based on fieldwork in Burma, and syllable-final stop consonants in Maru are either it or uk. In contrast, Nishi (1999: Appendix 4), from Chinese sources, reports that the Maru syllable-final stop is only k and that there is no syllable-final stop in Lashi. This might be an areal feature, as it is a phenomenon only observed in TB languages from Northeast India to Northern Burma.

13 Maru is an exonym. The autonym is Lhaovo, and it has begun to be a trend among researchers to refer to the language as Lhaovo.

14 This phenomenon itself in Maru was, according to Lyovin (Reference Lyovin1968), reported by Karlgren (Reference Karlgren1931: 56) for the first time, and later also pointed out by Benedict (Reference Benedict1948: 204). The contribution of Burling (Reference Burling1966) was that he precisely determined the conditions of the occurrence and listed a larger number of examples of such words.

15 Atsi is an exonym. The autonym is Zaiwa, and it has begun to be a trend among researchers to refer to the language as Zaiwa.

16 Burling (Reference Burling1966) lists the word forms in spoken Burmese, but in this paper they are unified into WB.

17 Both {e} and {ui} in WB are reconstructed by Benedict (Reference Benedict1972: particularly 59–61) as PTB *iy and *uw, respectively, based on their OB forms. Matisoff (Reference Matisoff2003: particularly 178–97) reconstructs *əy and *əw, respectively.

18 (20e) “dog” is a counter-example against this hypothesis. However, this might be an exception because it corresponds to OB -uy.

19 Only for this word, we cannot explain the structure of the rhyme without reconstructing PLu *uy. It remains problematic that “dog” (G ci, C kvu; PLu *kuy) also contains *uy.

20 It is conventional that s in Ganan corresponds to *c in the Proto-Luish language, and ɕ(i) in Kadu to s(i) in Proto-Luish. However, it might be the case that *s in Proto-Luish changed to c [ts] when preceded by n. Phonological change from -ns to -nts is reported cross-linguistically (Zwicky Reference Zwicky, Stockwell and Macaulay1972: 291 (English), Kurabe Reference Kurabe2013 (the Dingga dialect of Jingpho)).

21 The əl here is an infix.

22 As Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2016a) argued, there has been no clear evidence to determine that Taman should be classed under Luish.

23 Although “cut(vi)”, “grind/pound”, “seed” listed in (16) have no precise cognate forms in WB and PTB, they are reconstructed with PLu *uw in Huziwara (Reference Huziwara2012b, Reference Huziwara2014), considering C vu. However, the Ganan counterparts do not have a glottal stop. This fact tells us a possibility that the Cak rhyme vu is not a feature of the proto-language but is an innovation within Cak.

24 It is pointed out that the addition of word-final consonant is related to glide fortition (Blust Reference Blust1994), chain shift, devoicing of a vowel, and accentuation (Mortensen Reference Mortensen2012). In Ganan, glide fortition and accentuation possibly caused the consonant addition. Examples of the relationship between high tone and glottal stop are seen in the Garo language of TB. Garo has no tonal distinctions, but it instead has a glottal stop in words which have an open syllable structure with a high tone in other Boro-Garo languages (Joseph and Burling Reference Joseph and Burling2006: 21–22). In addition, speakers of the Kyonbaw dialect of Western Pwo occasionally add a glottal stop to an open syllable with a falling tone (pointed out by KATO Atsuhiko).

References

Basanta, Ningombam. 2008. Modernisation, Challenge and Response: A Study of the Chakpa Community of Manipur. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1943. “Secondary infixation in Lepcha”, Studies in Linguistics 1/19, 1–2.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1948. “Archaic Chinese *g and *d”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 11, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernot, Lucien. 1966. “Eléments de vocabulaire Cak recueilli dans le Pakistan Oriental”, in Shin, Ba, Boisselier, Jean and Griswold, A.B. (eds), Papers on Asian History, Religion, Languages, Literature, Music Folklore, and Anthropology: Essays offered to G.H. Luce by His Colleagues and Friends in Honour of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Volume I. Ascona, Switzerland: Artibus Asiæ Publishers, 67–91.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2019. “Belhare”, in Thurgood, Graham and LaPolla, Randy J. (eds), The Sino-Tibetan Languages: Second Edition, 696–721. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1994. “Obstruent epenthesis and the unity of phonological features”, Lingua 93, 111–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David. 1979. Proto-Loloish. (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Monograph Series 39.) London and Malmö: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. Grant. 1920. “The Kadus of Burma”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 1/3, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 1966. “The addition of final stops in the history of Maru”, Language 42/3, 581–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 1983. “The Sal languages”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7/2, 1–32.Google Scholar
Duroiselle, Charles. 1916. “Literal transliteration of the Burmese alphabet”, Journal of the Burma Research Society 6, 81–90.Google Scholar
Glover, Warren W., Glover, Jessie and Gurung, Deu Bahadur. 1977. Gurung–Nepali–English Dictionary, with English–Gurung and Nepali–Gurung Indexes. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hwang-cherng, Gong. 1977. 古蔵文的 y 及其相関問題 (Ancient Tibetan y and related questions), Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 48/2, 205–28 [Chinese].Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2007. “Grammatical borrowing in Manange”, in Matras, Yaron and Sakel, Jeanette (eds), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 283–300. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan. 2019. The Historical Phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, Brian Houghton. 1853. “On the Indo-Chinese borderers and their connexion with the Himálayans and Tibetans”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke 藤原敬介. 2008. 「チャック語の記述言語学的研究」京都大学博士論文. (A descriptive linguistic study of the Cak language) [Japanese].Google Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke 藤原敬介. 2012a. 「ガナン語音韻論」『大阪大学世界言語研究センター論集』(Ganan phonology) 7, 122–44 [Japanese].Google Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke 藤原敬介. 2012b. 「ルイ祖語の再構にむけて」『京都大学言語学研究』31, 25–131. (Toward a reconstruction of Proto-Luish) [Japanese].Google Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke 藤原敬介. 2013. 「カドゥー語音韻論」『東南アジア研究』 (Kadu phonology) 51/1, 3–33 [Japanese].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke 藤原敬介. 2014. 「ルイ祖語の再考」『京都大学言語学研究』 (Proto-Luish reconsidered) 33, 1–32 [Japanese].Google Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke 藤原敬介. 2015. 「カドゥー語諸方言におけるモークワン・カドゥー語の位置について」『日本言語学会第 150 回大会予稿集』 (On the genetic position of Mokhwang Kadu within Kadu dialects), 326–31 [Japanese].Google Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke. 2016a. Cak–English–Bangla Dictionary: A Tibeto-Burman Language Spoken in Bangladesh. Dhaka: A.H. Development Publishing House.Google Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke. 藤原敬介. 2016b. 「タマン語の系統再考」『京都大学言語学研究』 (On the genetic position of Taman reconsidered) 35, 1–34 [Japanese].Google Scholar
Huziwara, Keisuke. 2020. “On the genetic position of Chakpa within Luish languages”, Himalayan Linguistics 19/2, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, U.V. and Burling, Robbins. 2006. The Comparative Phonology of the Boro-Garo Languages. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Judson, Adoniram. 1893. Judson's Burmese–English Dictionary. Revised and enlarged by Stevenson, Robert C.. Repr. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1993.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1931. “Tibetan and Chinese”, T'oung Pao 28/1, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khin, Moe Moe 2004. (A study of the phonology of the Kadu language). PhD dissertation, Yangon University [Burmese].Google Scholar
Kurabe, Keita. 2013. “A preliminary report on Dingga phonology: a new dialect of Jingpho”, paper presented at The 46th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Dartmouth College, USA.Google Scholar
Löffler, Lorenz G. 1964. “Chakma und Sak: ethnolinguistische Beiträge zur Geschichte eines Kulturvolkes”, Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie 50/1, 72–115.Google Scholar
Lyovin, Anatole. 1968. “Notes on the addition of final stops in Maru”, Project on Linguistic Analysis Reports, Second Series, No. 7, pp. L1–L22.Google Scholar
Myoe, Ma Myoe 2006. (Ganan language). PhD dissertation, Mandalay University [Burmese].Google Scholar
Maggard, Loren, Sangma, Mridul and Ahmad, Sayed. 2007. The Chak of Bangladesh: A Sociolinguistic Study. Dhaka: SIL Bangladesh.Google Scholar
Marrison, Geoffrey E. 1967. “The classification of the Naga languages of North East India”, Doctoral dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1985. “God and the Sino-Tibetan copula with some good news concerning selected Tibeto-Burman rhymes”, Journal of Asian and African Studies 29, 1–81.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 2013. “Re-examining the genetic position of Jingpho: putting flesh on the bones of the Jingpho/Luish relationship”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 36/2, 15–95.Google Scholar
McCulloch, Major W. 1859. Account of the Valley of Munnipore and of the Hill Tribes, with a Comparative Vocabulary of the Munnipore and Other Languages. (Selections from the Records of the Government of India (Foreign Department). No. XXVII.) Calcutta: Bengal Printing Company Limited.Google Scholar
Sandar, Moe 2010. (A study of the Sak language). PhD dissertation, Yangon University [Burmese].Google Scholar
Mortensen, David. 2004. “The emergence of dorsal stops after high vowels in Huishu”, Berkeley Linguistics Society 30, 292–303.Google Scholar
Mortensen, David R. 2012. “The emergence of obstruents after high vowels”, Diachronica 29/4, 434–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishi, Yoshio. 1999. Four Papers on Burmese: Toward the History of Burmese (the Myanmar Language). Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2004. A Grammar of Wambule. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2005. A Grammar of Jero. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2019. “Wambule Rai”, in Thurgood, Graham and LaPolla, Randy J. (eds), The Sino-Tibetan Languages: Second Edition, 736–55. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rorendrajit, Kh. 2006. “The Chakpa of Manipur: a brief historical account”, Proceedings of North East India History Association 26, 299–313.Google Scholar
Sangdong, David. 2012. “A grammar of the Kadu (Asak) language”, PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Sawada, Hideo. 2017. “Two undescribed dialects of Northern Burmish sub-branch: Gyannoʔ and Thoʔlhang”, paper presented at ICSTLL 50.Google Scholar
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A Grammar of Yakkha. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidwell, Paul and Rau, Felix. 2014. “Austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction: an overview”, in Jenny, Mathias and Sidwell, Paul (eds), The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, volume 1, 221–363. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
STEDT Database. The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus. https://stedt.berkeley.edu/ (last accessed 10 July 2020).Google Scholar
Khaing, Thun Shwe 1988. (Sak people in Northern Arakan.) Sittwe College [Burmese].Google Scholar
Yabu, Shiro 藪司郎. 2004. 「ミャゼディ碑文における古ビルマ語 (OB) 覚書」 (Notes on Old Burmese (OB) of Myazedi inscription)『EX ORIENTE』11, 59–103.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1972. “Note on a phonological hierarchy in English”, in Stockwell, Robert P. and Macaulay, Ronald K.S. (eds), Linguistic Change and Generative Theory: Essays from the UCLA Conference on Historical Linguistics in the Perspective of Transformational Theory, February 1969. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 275–301.Google Scholar