1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Volume 22, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Choswateng Tibetan, spoken in the south-eastern corner of the Khams region, has three negative prefixes: /ȵi-/, /ma-/, and /ka-/. The first two are derived from two morphemes which are ubiquitous across Tibetic languages, whereas the third is a newly generated negative prefix found in Choswateng Tibetan as well as its surrounding dialects belonging to the rGyalthang subgroup of Khams and its neighbours. This article describes the morphological feature and use of the prefix /ka-/ in Choswateng Tibetan. Morphologically, the prefix /ka-/ can co-occur with most verbs except for the copulative verb /ˊreʔ/. Pragmatically, the prefix /ka-/ occurs and is restricted in the following ways: (1) expresses ‘definitely not’ for statements regarding the self, and ‘possibly not, judging from the speaker’s knowledge’ for statements regarding others; (2) co-occurs with egophoric and sensory evidentials; (3) is not used for a negation of accomplished aspect; and (4) does not deprive the function of the other two negative prefixes. These two analyzes are mutually related; it is suggested that the reason why /ka-/ cannot co-occur with the copulative verb /ˊreʔ/ is triggered by a contradiction of implied evidentials: /ka-/ is related to egophoric and sensory, whereas /ˊreʔ/ is statemental. Following the description of its use, we discuss the origin of /ka-/, claiming a possible grammaticalization from an interrogative word (‘where’ in Literary Tibetan and common throughout the rGyalthang area) in a rhetorical question to a prefix. Referring to several morphological features of /ka-/, we consider its grammaticalization as ongoing, but most advanced in Choswateng Tibetan.

© ILAS
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00092.suz
2021-09-29
2025-04-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lali.00092.suz
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00092.suz.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00092.suz&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bartee, Ellen Lynn
    2007 A grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. Santa Barbara: University of California at Santa Barbara. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Caplow, Nancy J.
    2016 Reconstructing stress in Proto-Tibetan: Evidence from Balti and Rebkong Amdo. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area39(2). 180–221. 10.1075/ltba.39.2.01cap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.39.2.01cap [Google Scholar]
  3. Croft, William
    1991 The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics27(1). 1–27. 10.1017/S0022226700012391
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012391 [Google Scholar]
  4. DeLancey, Scott
    1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology1(1). 33–52. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  5. de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, René
    1956 Oracles and demons of Tibet: The cult and iconography of the Tibetan protective deities. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Denwood, Philip
    1999 Tibetan (London Oriental and African Language Library 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/loall.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    2012 Basic linguistic theory, vol. 3: Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2013a Negative morphemes. InDryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (wals.info/chapter/112) (Accessed2017-04-20.)
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013b Position of negative morpheme with respect to subject, object, and verb. InDryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (wals.info/chapter/144) (Accessed2017-04-20.)
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin
    (eds.) 2013 The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (wals.info) (Accessed2020-12-23.)
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ebihara, Shiho
    2011 Amdo Tibetan. InYamakoshi, Yasuhiro (ed.), Grammatical sketches from the field, 41–78. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. (repository.tufs.ac.jp/handle/10108/75512) (Accessed2021-02-20.)
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Gawne, Lauren
    2016 A sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo (Asia-Pacific Linguistics A-PL 30). Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics (College of Asia and the Pacific, the Australian National University). (hdl.handle.net/1885/110258) (Accessed2017-12-06.)
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2017 Egophoric evidentiality in Bodish languages. InGawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 61–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110473742‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Giraudeau, Pierre-Philippe & Goré, Françis Louis Noël
    1956 Dictionnaire français-tibétain (Tibet oriental) [French-Tibetan dictionary (Eastern Tibet)]. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gui, Ming Chao
    2001 Yunnanese and Kunming Chinese: A study of the language communities, the phonological systems, and the phonological developments (LSASL 28). München: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hackstein, Olav
    2004 Rhetorical questions and the grammaticalization of interrogative pronouns as conjunctions in Indo-European. InHyllested, Adam & Jørgensen, Anders Richard & Larsson, Jenny Helena & Olander, Thomas (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV [From difficulty to asterisks: Indogermanic studies in honor of Jens Elmegård Rasmussen on his sixtieth birthday, the 15th of March 2004] (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft [Innsbruck’s Contribution to Linguistics] 112), 167–186. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Haller, Felix
    2004 Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialektes aus Nord-Amdo [Dialect and folktales from Themchen: Linguistic description of a nomadic dialect from north Amdo] (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung [Contributions to Tibetan Narrative Research] 14). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard & Visconti, Jacqueline
    (eds.) 2014 The diachrony of negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.160
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.160 [Google Scholar]
  19. Häsler, Katrin Louise
    1999 A grammar of the Tibetan Dege (Sde dge) dialect. München: Selbstverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Haspelmath, Martin
    2013 Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation. InDryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (wals.info/chapter/115) (Accessed2017-04-20.)
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
    2002 World lexcion of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hongladarom, Krisadawan
    1996 Rgyalthang Tibetan of Yunnan: A preliminary report. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area19(2). 69–92. 10.15144/LTBA‑19.2.69
     https://doi.org/10.15144/LTBA-19.2.69 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2000 Rgyalthang Tibetan lexicon and an appraisal of a Southeast Asian wordlist. Mon-Khmer Studies301. 83–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007a Grammatical peculiarities of two dialects of southern Kham Tibetan. InBielmeier, Roland & Haller, Felix (eds.), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond, 119–152. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110968996.119
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110968996.119 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2007b Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30(2). 17–44. 10.15144/LTBA‑30.2.17
     https://doi.org/10.15144/LTBA-30.2.17 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoshi, Izumi
    2016 Koten Tibettogo bunpoo: Ootoo meikyoosi (14 seiki) ni motoduite [A grammar of classical Tibetan based on The clear mirror of royal genealogies (the 14th century)]. Tokyo: Research Institute of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ilie, Cornelia
    1994 What else can I tell you?: A pragmatic study of English rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jäschke, Heinrich August
    1881 A Tibetan-English dictionary: With special reference to the prevailing dialects; to which is added an English-Tibetan vocabulary. London: Secretary of State for India in Council.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kitamura, Hajime
    1977 Tibetan (Lhasa dialect). Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Koshal, Sanyukta
    1979 Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Les missionnaires Cathoriques du Thibet
    Les missionnaires Cathoriques du Thibet 1899 Dictionnaire thibétain-latin-français [Tibetan-Latin-French dictionary]. Hong Kong: Imprimerie de la Société des Missions Étrangères.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lu, Shaozun
    1990 Zangyu Zhongdianhua de yuyin tedian [Phonetic characteristics of rGyalthang Tibetan]. Yuyan Yanjiu [Studies in Language and Linguistics] 1990(2). 147–159.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 1992 Yunnan Zangyu yuyin he cihui jianjie [Introduction to the phonetics and lexicon in Yunnan Tibetan]. Zangxue yanjiu luncong [Papers on Tibetology], vol.41, 120–131. Lhasa: Tibet People’s Publishing House.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Miestamo, Matti
    2007 Negation – An overview of typological research. Language and Linguistics Compass1(5). 552–570. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00026.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00026.x [Google Scholar]
  35. 2013 Symmetric and asymmetric standard negation. InDryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (wals.info/chapter/113) (Accessed2017-04-20.)
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Nagano, Yasuhiko
    2005 Gyarong-go no hiteizi [Negation particles of Gyarong language]. Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology29(3). 357–374. (hdl.handle.net/10502/3292) (Accessed2017-04-04.)
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2018 Gyarongo bunpoo kenkyuu [A reference grammar of the rGyalrong language: Bhola dialect]. Tokyo: Kyuuko Syoin.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Oisel, Guillaume
    2017 Re-evaluation of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan Linguistics16(2). 90–128. 10.5070/H916229119
     https://doi.org/10.5070/H916229119 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rig-’dzin dBang-mo
    Rig-’dzin dBang-mo 2013 Diebu Zangyu yanjiu [Study on Thewo Tibetan]. Beijing: Minzu University of China Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Roche, Gerald & Suzuki, Hiroyuki
    2018 Tibet’s minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern Asian Studies52(4). 1227–1278. 10.1017/S0026749X1600072X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X1600072X [Google Scholar]
  41. Sprigg, Richard Keith
    2002 Balti-English English-Balti dictionary. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Suzuki, Hiroyuki
    2011a Kamutibettogo Gagatang Shaoluo [Zhollam] hoogen no bunpoo suketti [Sketch grammar of the Zhollam dialect of Khams Tibetan]. Tikyuuken Gengo Kizyutu Ronsyuu [Journal of RIHN Descriptive Linguistics Circle] 31. 1–35. (id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000837/) (Accessed2018-01-14.)
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2011b Kamutibettogo Xiaozhongdian Jinianpi [Yangthang/Gyennyemphel] hoogen no onsei bunseki [Khams Tibetan Yangthang/Gyennyemphel [Xiaozhongdian] dialect: Phonetic analysis]. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics61. 137–173. (hdl.handle.net/10108/69377) (Accessed2018-01-04.)
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2013a Kamutibettogo Suopo [Sogpho] hoogen (Danba-ken) ni okeru bun no kai bunrui [Subclassification of sentences in the Sogpho dialect of Khams Tibetan (Rongbrag County)]. InSawada, Hideo (ed.), Grammatical phenomena of Tibeto-Burman languages 2: Subclassification of sentences with respect to the types of predicates and speech acts, 139–150. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2013b Kamutibettogo sDerong-nJol hoogengun no syohoogen ni okeru zyakukyoogata no inritu koozoo to bunsetuon ni mieru sono han’eikei [Iambic prosodic feature in dialects of the sDerong-nJol group of Khams Tibetan and its reflection in segmental features]. Tikyuuken Gengo Kijutsu Ronshuu [Journal of RIHN Descriptive Linguistics Circle] 51. 1–15. (id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000854/) (Accessed2018-01-14.)
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2014 Kamutibettogo Xianggelila-ken Xiaozhongdian-xiang Chuiyading [Choswateng] hoogen no onsei bunseki to goi: rGyalthang kaihoogengun ni okeru hoogen sai ni kansuru koosatu wo soete [A phonetic analysis of Choswateng [Chuiyading] Tibetan spoken in Shangri-La County and a wordlist: With reference to dialectal variations in the rGyalthang subgroup]. Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology39(1). 45–122. 10.15021/00003815
     https://doi.org/10.15021/00003815 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2016 In defense of prepalatal non-fricative sounds and symbols: Towards the Tibetan dialectology. Researches in Asian Languages101. 99–125. (id.nii.ac.jp/1085/00002195/) (Accessed2018-12-24.)
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2017a The vitality of Khams Tibetan varieties in Weixi County. Asian Highland Perspectives441. 256–284. (himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ahp/pdf/AHP_44.pdf) (Accessed2019-02-22.)
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2017b On-in gensyoo no ABA bunpu wo meguru kaisyaku no hoohoo to sono zissai – Tibetto bunkaken nantootan no Tibetto kei syogengo wo rei ni [How to interpret an ABA-distribution of phonological phenomena and its practice – A case study on Khams Tibetan at the south-eastern corner of the Tibetosphere]. Journal of Kijutsuken91. 43–64. (id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000911/) (Accessed2019-02-22.)
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 2018a Xianggelila-si hokubu no Kamutibettogo syohoogen no hoogen tokutyoo to sono keisei [Dialectal variation and development of Khams Tibetan in Northern Shangri-La Municipality]. Journal of Asian and African Studies951. 5–63. 10.15026/92458
     https://doi.org/10.15026/92458 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2018b 100 linguistic maps of the Swadesh word list of Tibetic languages from Yunnan. Fuchu: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. (https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag_mono3_tibet_yunnan_2018.pdf) (Accessed2021-01-18.)
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Lozong Lhamo
    2020 ‘Where’ as a negative prefix in Khams Tibetan: A geolinguistic approach towards a grammaticalisation process. InAsahi, Yoshiyuki (ed.), Proceedings of Methods XVI: Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 2017 (Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics 59), 289–296. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo
    2016 Kamutibettogo Tagong [Lhagang] hoogen no bunpoo suketti [A sketch grammar of Lhagang Tibetan, a dialect of Minyag Rabgang Khams]. Journal of Kijutsuken81. 21–90. (id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000897/) (Accessed2018-01-18.)
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 2018 Kamutibettogo Tagong [Lhagang] hoogen ni okeru zyutubu ni hyoozi sareru syookosei [Evidential system of verb predicates in Lhagang Tibetan]. Journal of Kijutsuken101. 13–42. (id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00002000/) (Accessed2018-12-08.)
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Tournadre, Nicolas
    2008 Arguments against the concept of “conjunct”/“disjunct” in Tibetan. InHuber, Brigitte & Volkart, Marianne & Widmer, Paul & Schwieger, Peter (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65 Geburtstag [Qomolangma, Demawend and Kasbek: Commemorative volume for the 65th birthday of Roland Bielmeier], vol.11, 281–308. Halle (Saale): International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2010 The Classical Tibetan cases and their transcategoriality: From sacred grammar to modern linguistics. Himalayan Linguistics9(2). 87–125. doi:  10.5070/H99223480
     https://doi.org/10.5070/H99223480 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2014 The Tibetic languages and their classification. InOwen-Smith, Thomas & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 266), 105–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110310832.105
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110310832.105 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2017 A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. InGawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 302), 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110473742‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473742-004 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tournadre, Nicolas & Karma Rigzin
    2015 Outlines of Chocha-ngachakha: An undocumented language of Bhutan related to Dzongkha. Himalayan Linguistics14(2). 49–87. doi:  10.5070/H914225395
     https://doi.org/10.5070/H914225395 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy J.
    2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(2). 240–263. 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
  61. Tournadre, Nicolas & Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa & Chodrak Gyurme & Oisel, Guillaume
    2009 Sherpa-English and English-Sherpa dictionary: With literary Tibetan and Nepali equivalents. Kathmandu: Vajra Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje
    2010 Manuel de tibétain standard: Langue et civilization [Manual of standard Tibetan: Language and civilization]. 3rd edn.Paris: L’Asiathèque.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Tsering Samdrup & Suzuki, Hiroyuki
    2019 Humilifics in Mabzhi pastoralist speech of Amdo Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area42(2). 222–259. 10.1075/ltba.17008.sam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.17008.sam [Google Scholar]
  64. Vokurková, Zuzana
    2008 Epistemic modalities in spoken Standard Tibetan. Prague and Paris: Karel University and the University of Paris 8. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang, Li
    2014 Hanyu yufashi [History of the Chinese grammar]. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Wu, Guangfan
    2009 Diqing Xianggelila lüyou fengwuzhi: Yanzhe diming de xiansuo [Gazetteer of Shangri-La travel scenery spots: Along the clue of toponyms]. Kunming: Yunnan People’s Publishing House.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Yang, Hui-Ling
    2012 The grammaticalization of Hakka, Mandarin and Southern Min: The interaction of negatives with modality, aspect, and interrogatives. Tempe: Arizona State University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Yliniemi, Juha
    2016 Attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area39(1). 105–160. 10.1075/ltba.39.1.05yli
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.39.1.05yli [Google Scholar]
  69. Yunnan shengzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui
    Yunnan shengzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui 1998 Yunnan shengzhi 59 shaoshuminzu yuyan wenzi zhi [Annals of Yunnan Province 59 on the languages and scripts of the ethnic minority groups]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Zeisler, Bettina
    2004 Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative study (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 150). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110908183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908183 [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang, Yisun
    (ed.) 1985 Bod-rgya tshig-mdzod chen-mo [Tibetan-Chinese big dictionary]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhao, Jincan & Li, Yupeng
    2014 Jiantang Zangyu shengdiao shiyan [Experiment of the tone in rGyalthang Tibetan]. Sichuan Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Sichuan University for Nationalities] 2014(1). 64–68.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00092.suz
Loading
/ka-/ negative prefix of Choswateng Tibetan of Khams (Shangri-La, Yunnan)
Language and Linguistics 22, 593 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00092.suz
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00092.suz
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00092.suz
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): egophoric evidential; Khams Tibetan; negation; prefix; rGyalthang subgroup; sensory evidential

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error