1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
  4. Volume 43, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper argues that certain phonological similarities between the three Trans-Himalayan languages Gongduk, Bjokapakha (Tshangla) and Black Mountain Mönpa are areal features and discusses the historical and ethnolinguistic implications of this assumption. The similarities between Gongduk and Bjokapakha indicate a situation of areal convergence of recent data. This contact scenario explains certain aberrancies of Bjokapakha with regard to other Tshangla varieties. The attestation of some of the phonological features in Black Mountain Mönpa is analysed as the result of early contact between Gongduk and Black Mountain Mönpa, i.e. dating back to the time before the arrival of the East Bodish peoples in Central Bhutan.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.18015.ger
2020-08-28
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ltba.18015.ger
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andvik, Erik
    2010 A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.10). 10.1163/ej.9789004178274.i‑490
     https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004178274.i-490 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauman, James John
    1974 Pronominal verb morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area11. 108–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 1975 Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California Ph.D. Thesis.
  4. Baxter, William H. & Laurent Sagart
    2014 Old Chinese. A new reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945375.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945375.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bodt, Timotheus A.
    2012 The new lamp clarifying the history, peoples, languages and traditions of Eastern Bhutan and Eastern Mon. Wageningen: Monpasang Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2014 Tshangla phonology and a standard Tshangla orthography. InThomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics. Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 393–435. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol.266).
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bodt, Timotheus A. & Ismael Lieberherr
    2015 First notes on the phonology and classification of the Bangru language of India. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area38.1. 66–123. 10.1075/ltba.38.1.03bod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.38.1.03bod [Google Scholar]
  8. Borchers, Dörte
    2008 A grammar of Sunwar. Descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.7).
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Burling, Robbins
    1959 Proto-Bodo. Language35.3.433–453. 10.2307/411231
     https://doi.org/10.2307/411231 [Google Scholar]
  10. Caughley, Ross
    2000 Dictionary of Chepang. A Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. (Pacific Linguistics, vol.502).
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chelliah, Shobhana L.
    1997 A grammar of Meithei. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol.17). 10.1515/9783110801118
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110801118 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coupe, Alexander R.
    2007 A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol.39). 10.1515/9783110198522
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198522 [Google Scholar]
  13. Das Gupta, Kamalesh
    1968 An introduction to Central Monpa. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. DeLancey, Scott
    1989 Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies52.2. 315–333. 10.1017/S0041977X00035485
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00035485 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics9.1. 1–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2011 Notes on verb agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics10.1. 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2013 Verb agreement suffixes in Mizo-Kuki-Chin. In: Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey & Mark W. Post (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics5, 138–150. Delhi et al.: Cambridge University Press India. 10.1017/9789382993285.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9789382993285.007 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2015 Morphological evidence for a Central branch of Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan). Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale44.2.122–149. 10.1163/19606028‑00442p02
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028-00442p02 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ebert, Karen
    1997 A grammar of Athpare. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa. (Lincom Studies in Asian Linguistics, vol.1).
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Egli-Roduner, Susanna
    1987 Handbook of the Sharchhokpa-lo/Tsangla (language of the people of Eastern Bhutan). Thimpu: Helvetas. Swiss Association for Development and Cooperation.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Funk, Damian, Pascal Gerber, Selin Grollmann, Corinne Mittaz, Simon Plachtzik, Nicolai Rawyler, Sara Rüfenacht & Sereina Waldis
    2017 Aspekte der Brokpa-Phonologie. Talk held at the 61. Studentische Tagung Sprachwissenschaft, 25 May 2017, Universität Zürich, Zürich.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Genetti, Carol
    2007 A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198812
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198812 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gerber, Pascal
    2015 The phylogenetic position of Gongduk. A first inspection. Bern: University of Bern Master Thesis.
  24. . (forthcoming). The sound change *s > t in Gongduk.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gerber, Pascal, Tanja Gerber & Selin Grollmann
    2016 Links between Lhokpu and Kiranti. Some observations. Talk held at theKiranti Workshop, 1 December 2016, Université Paris Diderot, Paris.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Grollmann, Selin
    2013 A sketch grammar of Bjokapakha. Bern: University of Bern Master Thesis.
  27. 2020 Diachronic aspects of Bjokapakha epistemic verbal morphology. The role of nominalisers and copulas. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area43.1. 87-123.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (in press) A Grammar of Bjokapakha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.24). 10.1163/9789004435230
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004435230 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grollmann, Selin & Pascal Gerber
    2018  Lingustic evidence for a closer relationship between Lhokpu and Dhimal. Including some notes on the Dhimalish subgroup. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale47. 1–96. 10.1163/19606028‑04701004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028-04701004 [Google Scholar]
  30. (forthcoming). Some innovations of the Tshangla subgroup of Trans-Himalayan.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hill, Nathan W.
    2011 An inventory of Tibetan sound laws. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 3rd ser.21.4.441–457. 10.1017/S1356186311000332
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186311000332 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2012 The Six Vowel Hypothesis of Old Chinese in comparative context. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics6.2.1–69. 10.1163/2405478X‑90000100
     https://doi.org/10.1163/2405478X-90000100 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2019 The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316550939
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316550939 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoshi, Michiyo
    1987 A Sharchok vocabulary. A language spoken in Eastern Bhutan. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa (ILCAA).
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Huang, Liangrong & Sun Hongkai
    2002 汉嘉戎语词典 [A Chinese-rGyalrong dictionary]. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hyman, Larry M.
    1975 Phonology. Theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hyslop, Gwendolyn
    2009 Kurtöp tone. A tonogenetic case study. Lingua112. 827–845. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.11.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.11.012 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2010a Kurtöp case. The pragmatic ergative and beyond. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area33.1.1–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2010b On the placement of East Bodish in Tibeto-Burman. Talk given at the16th Himalayan Languages Symposium, 4 September 2010, School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2011 Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics4. 43–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 2014 A preliminary reconstruction of East Bodish. InThomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans Himalayan linguistics. Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 155–179. (Trends in Linguistics, vol.266). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2016a Emergent insights into Proto East Bodish agricultural economy. InMark W. Post, Stephen Morey & Scott DeLancey (eds.), Language and culture in Northeast India and beyond. In honor of Robbins Burling, 276–288. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2016b Worlds of knowledge in Central Bhutan. Documentation of ’Olekha. Language Documentation and Conservation10. 77–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2017 A grammar of Kurtöp. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.18). 10.1163/9789004328747
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004328747 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering
    2010 Preliminary notes on Dakpa (Tawang Monpa). InStephen Morey & Mark W. Post (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics2, 3–21. New Delhi: Foundation Books. 10.1017/UPO9788175968554.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9788175968554.003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jacques, Guillaume
    2007 A shared suppletive pattern in the pronominal systems of Chang Naga and Southern Qiang. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale36.1. 61–78. 10.1163/19606028‑90000161
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028-90000161 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2010 A possible trace of verbal agreement in Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics91. 41–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2012 Agreement morphology. The case of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics131. 83–116.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2015–2016 Dictionnaire Japhug-Chinois-Français, version 1.1. Unpublished manuscript. Projet HimalCo, Paris.
  50. Jacques, Guillaume, Aimee Lahaussois, Boyd Michailovsky & Dhan Bahadur Rai
    2012 An overview of Khaling verbal morphology. Language and Linguistics13.6.1095–1170.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Jacques, Guillaume, Aimée Lahaussois, Dhan Bahadur Rai & Yadav Kumar
    2015 Khaling-Nepali-English verb dictionary. Verison 1.0.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar, M. Fant & Morris Halle
    1952 Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Jäschke, Heinrich August
    1881 A Tibetan-English dictionary. with special reference to the prevailing dialects to which is added an English-Tibetan vocabulary. London: Unger Brothers.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Karma Tshering of Gaselô & George van Driem
    2019 The grammar of Dzongkha, revised and expanded, with a guide to Roman Dzongkha and to phonological Dzongkha. Santa Barbara: Himalayan Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. King, John T.
    2009 A grammar of Dhimal. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.8).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Konnerth, Linda Anna
    2014 A grammar of Karbi. Eugene: University of Oregon Ph.D. Thesis.
  57. Lahaussois, Aimee
    2002 Aspects of the grammar of Thulung Rai. An endangered Himalayan language. Berkeley: University of California Ph.D. Thesis.
  58. LaPolla, Randy J.
    1989 Verb agreement, head-marking vs. dependent-marking, and the “deconstruction” of Tibeto-Burman morpho-syntax. InKira Hall (ed.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 356–367. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 1992 On the dating and nature of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies55.2.298–315. 10.1017/S0041977X00004638
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00004638 [Google Scholar]
  60. 1994 Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman languages. Evidence of Sapir’s “Drift”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area17.1. 61–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2001 The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. InAlexandra Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, 225–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2003a A grammar of Qiang. With annotated texts and glossary. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol.31). 10.1515/9783110197273
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197273 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2003b Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. InGraham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 22–42. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2012 Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan Comparative Linguistcs. Language and Linguistics13.1.117–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Matisoff, James A.
    1975 Rhinoglottophilia. The mysterious connection between nasality and glottality. InCharles A. Ferguson, Larry M. Hyman & John J. Ohala (eds.), Nasálfest. Papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalization, 265–287. Stanford: Language Universals Project, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 2003 Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol.135).
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Michailovsky, Boyd
    1975 A case of Rhinoglottophilia in Hayu. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area2.2.293.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Mortensen, David
    . Comparative Tangkhul. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
  69. Nishi, Yoshio
    1995 A brief survey of the controversy in verb pronominalization in Tibeto-Burman. InYoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 1–16. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. (Senri Ethnological Studies, vol.41).
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Noonan, Michael
    2011 Aspects of the historical development of nominalizers in the Tamangic languages. InFoong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Harsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nom-inalization in Asian languages, 195–214. Hongkong/Oxford: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol.96). 10.1075/tsl.96.07noo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.96.07noo [Google Scholar]
  71. Opgenort, Jean Robert
    2004 A Grammar of Wambule. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.2).
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 2005 A Grammar of Jero. With a historical comparative study of the Kiranti languages. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.3).
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 2014 Initial grammatical sketch of Tilung. Field report on a moribund Kiranti language of Eastern Nepal. With some historical observations and a vocabulary. InThomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan Linguistics. Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan Area, 329–392. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol.266).
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Pema Wangdi
    2004 Sharchokpa-lo phonology and morphosyntax. Syndey: ANU’ Master Sub-thesis.
  75. Plaisier, Heleen
    2007 A Grammar of Lepcha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.5).
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Post, Mark W.
    2007 A Grammar of Galo. Melbourne: La Trobe University Research Centre for Linguistic Typology.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Rāī, Noval Kiśora, Manoj Rāī, Netra Prasād Pauḍyāl, Roberṭ Śikovski, Bālthājār Bikal, Sabīne Sṭol, Mārṭin Gyānsle, Gomā Banjāḍe, Icchā Pūrṇa Rāī, Toyā Nātha Bhaṭṭa, Sebāsṭiyān Sāuppe, Rikhī Māyā Rāī, Janak Kumārī Rāī, Lās Kumārī Rāī, Durgā Bahādur Rāī, Gaṇeś Rāī, Dayārām Rāī, Durgā Kumārī Rāī, Atitā Rāī, Candra Kumārī Rāī, Śānti Māyā Rā, Ravendra Kumār Rāī, Juḍī Peṭigru, Ṭiko Ḍirksamāyar
    VS 2067 [2011] Chintāṅ śabdakoś tathā vyākaraṇ [Chintang dictionary and grammar]. Lalitpur: Chintang Language Research Program, Tribhuvan University Kathmandu/University of Leipzig.
  78. Rutgers, Roland
    1998 Yamphu grammar, texts and lexicon. Leiden: Research School CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.2).
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Schackow, Diana
    2015 A grammar of Yakkha. Berlin: Language Science Press. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics, vol.7). 10.26530/OAPEN_603340
     https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603340 [Google Scholar]
  80. Shafer, Robert
    1974 Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Sprigg, Richard Keith
    1987 “Rhinoglottophilia” revisited. Observations on “the mysterious connection between nasality and glottality”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area10.1. 44–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Sun, Hongkai
    1995 A further discussion on verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. InYoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 17–29. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. (Senri Ethnological Studies, vol.41).
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Thurgood, Graham
    1985 Pronouns, verb agreement systems, and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. InGraham Thurgood, James A. Matisoff & David Bradley (eds.), Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area. The state of the art, 376–400. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University. (Pacific Linguistics Series, vol.87).
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 2003 A Subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan Languages. The Interaction between language contact, change and inheritance. InGraham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 3–21. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Tolsma, Gerard Jacobus
    2006 A grammar of Kulung. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.4).
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Trubetzkoy, Nicolai
    1930 Proposition 16. Actes du premier congrès international de linguistes à La Haye, du 10–15 avril 1928, 17–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Turin, Mark
    2012 A grammar of the Thangmi language. With an ethnolinguistic introduction to the speakers and their culture. 2vols.Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.6).
     [Google Scholar]
  88. van Coetsem, Frans
    1988 Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110884869
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884869 [Google Scholar]
  89. 2000 A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. van Driem, George
    . A grammar of Lohorung. Unpublished manuscript a.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. . Black Mountain Mönpa. Unpublished manuscript b.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. . The Toto language of the Bhutanese duars. being first impressions of the Toto language and reflections on the Western Tibeto-Burman hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript c.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 1987 A grammar of Limbu. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol.4). 10.1515/9783110846812
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846812 [Google Scholar]
  94. 1993a A grammar of Dumi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol.10). 10.1515/9783110880915
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880915 [Google Scholar]
  95. 1993b The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies56.2.292–334. 10.1017/S0041977X00005528
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00005528 [Google Scholar]
  96. 1994a East Bodish and Proto-Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax. InHajime Kitamura, Tatsuo Nishida & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 608–617. Osaka: The Organizing Committee of the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 1994b Language policy in Bhutan. InMichael Aris & Michael Hutt (eds.), Bhutan. Aspects of culture and development, 87–105. Gartmore: Kiscadale Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 1995a Black Mountain Conjugational Morphology, Proto-Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, and the Linguistic Position of Chinese. In: Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyn-tax, 229–259. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. (Senri Ethnological Studies, vol.41).
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 1995b Een eerste grammaticale verkenning van het Bumthang, een taal van Midden-Bhutan. met een overzicht van de talen en volkeren van Bhutan. Leiden: Centrum voor Niet-Westerse Studiёn.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 1998 Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol.1).
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 2001 Languages of the Himalayas. An ethnolinguistic handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. 2vols.Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 2004 Bhutan’s endangered languages programme under the Dzongkha Development Authority. Three rare gems. InKarma Ura & Sonam Kinga (eds.), The Spider and the Piglet. Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Bhutan Studies, 294–326. Thimphu: Centre for Bhutan Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 2007 Dzala and Dakpa form a coherent subgroup within East Bodish, and some related thoughts. InRoland Bielmeier & Felix Haller (eds.), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond, 71–95. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol.196). 10.1515/9783110968996.71
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110968996.71 [Google Scholar]
  104. 2011 Tibeto-Burman subgroups and historical grammar. Himalayan Linguistics10.1.31–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 2013 Biactantial agreement in the Gongduk transitive verb in the broader Tibeto-Burman context. InTimothy J. Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation. In honor of Scott DeLancey, 69–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol.103). 10.1075/tsl.103.04van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.04van [Google Scholar]
  106. 2015a Synoptic grammar of the Bumthang language, a language of the central Bhutan highlands. Himalayan Linguistics Archive6. 1–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 2015b Tibeto-Burman. InWilliam S.-Y. Wang & Chaofen Sun (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, 135–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. VanBik, Kenneth
    2009 Proto-Kuki-Chin. A reconstructed ancestor of the Kuki-Chin languages. Berkeley: University of California. (STEDT Monograph Series, vol.8).
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Widmer, Manuel
    2017 A grammar of Bunan. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol.71.)
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Winford, Donald
    2005 Contact-induced changes. Classification and processes. Dia-chronica22.2.373–427. 10.1075/dia.22.2.05win
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22.2.05win [Google Scholar]
  111. Wylie, Turrell
    1959 A standard system of Tibetan transcription. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies22. 261–267. 10.2307/2718544
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2718544 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.18015.ger
Loading
Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Mönpa phonology
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43, 55 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.18015.ger
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.18015.ger
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.18015.ger
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Bhutan; Bjokapakha; Black Mountain Mönpa; Gongduk; phonology; Sprachbund; Tshangla

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