Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area - Volume 40, Issue 1, 2017

Cross-linguistically, fricatives are the rarest types of rhotics, found in a few African and European languages ( Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996 ) and as allophones in some Romance languages ( Jesus & Shadle 2005 ; Recasens 2002 ; Bradley 2006 ; Colantoni 2006 ). Acoustic data from Nusu, phonotactic reasoning, and a cognate comparison demonstrate the presence of alveolar fricative rhotics in Tibeto-Burman. The Nusu rhotic appears in syllable-initial position as the first or second consonant and can be realized as alveolar approximants [ɹ] or [ɹʲ], non-sibilant voiced and voiceless fricatives [ɹ̝, ɹ̥], as well as voiced sibilant [ʐ]. In other studies on Nusu, these fricative rhotics have sometimes been reported as retroflex voiced sibilants ( Sun & Lu 1986 ; Fu 1991 ), but intra-speaker and cross-variety comparison point to classification as rhotics. Evidence from other Tibeto-Burman languages suggests that alveolar fricative rhotics are not limited to Nusu. Together these data challenge the tradition of generally interpreting alveolar fricatives as sibilants.

It is shown how Kiranti languages often express a semantically single clausal negation of a declarative verbal main clause with two clausal negators. We conjecture that the second negator has its origin in a copula and that the reinterpretation and integration of the copula into a negative construction follows the scenario known as a “Jespersen Cycle”.

The development of the Gamale Kham labial-palatal approximants /ɥ/ and /ɥ̊/ has previously been attributed to the loss of the Proto-Kham initial *p- or the coda *-p. The vowels /i/ and /e/ which occurred in the adjacent syllable nucleus were rounded, resulting in the front rounded vowels /y/ and /ø/. Following this development, /w/ and /j/ merged to /ɥ/ in Gamale and Eastern Parbate Kham ( Watters 2002 ; 2004 ; 2005 ). This study evaluates this theory and suggests two alternative explanations: that Proto-Kham may have had either two front rounded vowels *y and *ø, or a *ɥ phoneme. In the second case, the work refers to a possible correspondence between a Proto-Kham *ɥ and the Proto-Tibeto-Burman complex *jw.

I will first describe (1) the linguistic situation in modern-day Assam (Northeast India) and the historical hypotheses that might explain it. These hypotheses are subjected to criticism. Next, I will analyse (2) in detail, the phonological concordances in the Tibeto-Burman languages and dialects of Central Assam that form the Boro-Garo group. I will present detailed criteria – the most detailed of all will concern the diphthongs – with examples, which will enable us to classify the languages. Using these criteria will also allow us to take advantage of certain ancient sources of information on dialects which are, in some cases, extinct. The study (3) of other Tibeto-Burman languages will consolidate our criteria and specify their historical development. Finally (4), I will propose a historical reconstruction of linguistic layers, after which (5) I will emphasise the importance of the distinction, central to our discussion, between language change and ethnic change (where cultural and physical anthropology follow distinct paths) before proposing a basis for a more general investigation of the Boro-Garo languages.

Northeastern India is home to a great number of languages, mainly from the Tibeto-Burman, Mon-Khmer, Tai and Indo-Aryan groups. This paper first summarises the current historical interpretations of this plethora, and concentrates on the Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in the lowlands, sc. the Boro-Garo subgroup. A phonological comparative assessment of the data provides a classification with definite criteria, and suggests historical interpretation. Central to this comparative study are the vowel systems, the analysis of which allows us to understand far better (and to use more appropriately) the older lexical lists from 1805. The result of this assessment is a new direction of research, when it appears that the Zeliangrong languages (traditionally taken as Southern Naga) offer a remarkable and certainly unexpected linguistic link between the Boro-Garo and the Kuki Chin (and Naga) languages. The paper exemplifies how language histories remain distinct from ethnic and political developments, and makes a useful contribution to a finer historical understanding of complex human situations.