1887
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

We examine kinship terms in three closely related Tamangic varieties: Manange, Nar, and Phu. Using Proto-Tamangic and Proto Tibeto-Burman reconstructions, we track cognate forms as well as structural innovations. Our account allows a first examination of lexico-semantic aspects of Phu, an under-documented representative of the Nar-Phu complex. While Nar-Phu is usually treated as a single language, considerable differences exist in the organization of all three kinship term systems. Kinship terms are considered to be conservative, basic vocabulary and thus indicative of close within-family relationships, but our study shows that even closely related varieties can show considerable differences in kin nomenclature.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17002.hil
2018-07-20
2018-12-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Benedict, Paul K.
    1942 Tibetan and Chinese kinship systems. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies6(3/4): 313–337.10.2307/2717980
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2717980 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bohannon, Paul & John Middleton
    (eds.) 1968Kinship and social organization. Garden City, NJ: Natural History Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradley, David
    1989 Uncles and aunts: Burmese kinship and gender. In Jeremy H. C. S. Davidson (ed.), South-east Asian Linguistics: Essays in Honour of Eugénie J. A. Henderson, 147–161. University of London: SOAS.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chambers, J. K. & P. Trudgill
    1998Dialectology (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805103
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805103 [Google Scholar]
  5. Doherty, Victor S.
    1974 Gurung kinship. Kailash2(4): 273–301.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dousset, Laurent
    2011 Understanding human relations (kinship systems). In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.), Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork, 209–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dziebel, German V.
    2007The genius of kinship: The phenomenon of human kinship and the global diversity of kinship. Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Georg, Stephan
    1996Marphatan Thakali. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Glover, Warren W. , Jessie R. Glover & Dev Bahadur Gurung
    1977Gurung-English-Nepali dictionary. Canberra: ANU Department of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hammarström, Harald , Robert Forkel , Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank
    2016Glottolog 2.7. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Available online atglottolog.org, Accessed on2016-11-08.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hildebrandt, Kristine A.
    2013 Converb and aspect marking polysemy in Nar. In Elena Mihas , Bernard Perley , Gabriel Rei-Doval , & Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Responses to language endangerment: In honor of Mickey Noonan, 97–117. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.142.06hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.142.06hil [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 Loanwords in Manange, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmoor (eds.), Loanword typology, 447–470. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007a Tone in Tibeto-Burman languages: Typological and sociolinguistic approaches. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), New trends in typology: Young typologists’ contributions to linguistic theory, 67–90. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2007b Manange [Nyeshangte]. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 283–300. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2005 A phonetic analysis of Manange segmental and suprasegmental properties. LTBA28(1): 1–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2004 A grammar and dictionary of the Manange [Nyeshangte] language. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange [Nyeshangte] and Sherpa, 2–189. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hildebrandt, Kristine A. & Oliver Bond
    2011 Negation in Nar. In Peter K. Austin , Oliver Bond , David Nathan & Lutz Marten (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory3, 141–150. London: SOAS.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 Manange. In Randy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edition), 516–533. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hildebrandt, Kristine A. , Dubi Nanda Dhakal , Oliver Bond , Matthew Vallejo , & Andrea Fyffe
    2015 A sociolinguistic survey of the languages of Manang, Nepal: Co-existence and endangerment. Nepal Journal of Indigenous Nationalities14(6): 106–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoshi, M.
    1986An outline of the Prakaa grammar: A dialect of the Manang language. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, Bufan & Dai, Qingxia
    eds. 1992Zangmianyuzu yuyan cihui《藏緬語族語言詞匯 [A Tibeto-Burman lexicon]. Beijing: Central Institute of Minorities. Accessed via STEDT database stedt.berkeley.edu/search/ on2016-11-08.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jacques, Guillaume
    2012 The Tangut kinship system in Qiangic perspective. In Nathan W. Hill (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages IV, 211–258. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004233454_010
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004233454_010 [Google Scholar]
  23. Levi-Strauss, Claude
    1969The elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewis, M. Paul , Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig
    (eds.) 2016Ethnologue: Languages of the world (19th edition). Dallas: SIL International. Online version: www.ethnologue.com. Accessed on2016-11-08.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Matisoff, James A.
    2003Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mazaudon, Martine
    1996 An outline of the historical phonology of the dialects of Nar-Phu (Nepal). LTBA19(1): 103–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Murdock, George Peter
    1968 Patterns of sibling terminology. Ethnology7(1): 1–24.10.2307/3772805
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3772805 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nagano, Y.
    1984A Manang glossary [Anthropological and Linguistic Studies of the Gandaki Area in Nepal 12]. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Language and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Noonan, Michael
    2003 Nar-Phu. In Randy LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 336–352. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2011 Aspects of the historical development of nominalizers in the Tamangic languages. In Ha Yap Foong , Karen Grunow-Harsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages [Typological Studies in Language 96], 195–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Noonan, Michael & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
    2017 Nar-Phu. In Randy LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (2nd edition), 534–556. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pohle, P.
    1990Useful plants of Manang District: A contribution to the ethnobotany of the Nepal Himalaya. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Thurgood, Graham
    2017 Sino-Tibetan: Genetic and areal subgroups. In Randy LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 3–39. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Toffin, G.
    1986 Unités de parenté, systèmed’alliance et de presentations chez les Tamang de l’Ouest (Népal). Anthropos81: 21–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Turin, Mark
    2008A grammar of the Thangmi language. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2001 Call me uncle: An outsider’s experience of Nepali kinship. Contributions to Nepalese Studies28(2): 277–283.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Vinding, Michael
    1998The Thakali: A Himalayan ethnography. London: Serindia Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Yadava, Yogendra P.
    2014Language use in Nepal. Population Monograph of NepalVol.II, 51–72. Kathmandu: CBS.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Zeitlyn, David
    2005Words and processes in Mambila kinship: The theoretical importance of the complexity of everyday life. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17002.hil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.17002.hil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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