Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area - Volume 45, Issue 1, 2022

Languages with sortal classifiers (clf) are distributed across the world, with a large concentration in East and South (east) Asia. Across the world’s classifier languages, few are attested which order classifiers before numerals in counted noun phrases (clf num). The Sino-Tibetan language family includes languages without sortal classifiers, languages with the more typical num clf order, as well as languages with clf num order. The latter group of languages are concentrated in Northeast India and neighboring regions. The Sino-Tibetan languages with clf num order do not fit under one genealogical node. The present hypothesis is that the classifiers arose through repetition of the counted noun, following which the order spread via contact. The clf num order appears to have arisen at least as early as the time of Proto-Bodo-Garo. However, we do not yet find cognate classifiers at a time depth beyond Proto-Bodo-Garo. A remaining mystery is why such a cross-linguistically rare morpheme order spread so easily within the Northeast India linguistic area.

The relative constructions in several Palaungic languages (Htanaw, Wa, Lawa, Rumai Palaung, Samlong Palaung, and Rucing Palaung), here shown to be participant nominalizations, display striking mutual similarities, while conspicuously diverging from the dominant relativization strategy within the Austroasiatic family. Instead of the common n [rel (s) v (o)] pattern, the Palaungic constructions examined exhibit the following structural features: (a) rel invariably precedes the verb complex directly; (b) internal constituent order is vs(o), with the exception of Htanaw. An unusual functional trait is additionally found in the three Palaung varieties: the construction only performs object relativization. By placing the findings in a diachronic perspective, we propose two new pathways of branch-internal syntactic change that may explain this unusual synchronic status. Among these, the lexical-to-clausal-nominalization pathway in particular offers a plausible alternative scenario to the earlier hypothesis that such verb-initial structures are inherited from Proto-Austroasiatic (Jenny 2020). Furthermore, a tentatively suggested etymological origin of the relativizer, pAA *pa ‘place’, provides an account of the narrow semantics in Palaung.

Hmongic languages exhibit a single nasal coda -ŋ corresponding to three codas in Mienic: -m, n, -ŋ, which suggests that Hmongic languages have lost place distinctions in nasal codas. However, in some words, Hmongic syllables with a nasal coda -ŋ correspond to Mienic syllables with no nasal coda, which has been recognized as posing a problem in reconstructing Proto-Hmong-Mien. This paper provides an explanation for this exceptional correspondence by hypothesizing a phonological change in Proto-Hmongic and in later stages whereby nasality transfers from a syllable-initial nasal to a tautosyllabic coda. This paper also explores the Proto-Hmongic rime categories to which the relevant words would be expected to belong if the nasal transfer did not apply.

The Tangut language is of particular importance to the field of Sino­Tibetan Studies, notably because of its morphological conservatism, which is unexpectedly correlated with a simplification of its syllable structure, a consequence of a process Miyake (2012) called “compression”. Such conservatism is evident in the syllable qualities reconstructed, which sometimes reflect proto­ Tangut’s ancient derivational processes. Verbs also exhibit various flectional phenomena, mainly due to conversion of agreement rules and referential hierarchy rules (Silverstein 1976), in a manner reminiscent of the indexation system of languages of the rGyalrongic taxon within the Qiangic family. The present paper attempts to explain the absence of indexation in the Tangut verb, a key phenomenon in the history of verb agreement analysis. First, I recall the main rules of the Tangut verb’s agreement system, as shown by Kepping (1975) and Gong (2001). Second, cases of non­agreement are analyzed. Apart from the case of non­local contexts, we see that the absence of agreement occurs in non­finite forms resulting from a dependency pattern, such as clause chaining, topic/comment context, and semantically dependent modality.1

This paper describes the interrogative system of Liangshan Yi, a Loloish language spoken in Southwest China, by investigating its two major dialects: Nuosu and Niesu. Ten interrogative categories are addressed, including ‘who’, ‘which’, ‘what’, ‘how many/much’, ‘what kind’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘for what’ and ‘why’. The following syntactic categories are revealed for the basic functions of the interrogatives: person ‘who’, thing ‘what’, place ‘where’ and time ‘when’ are all nouns, selection ‘which’ is an adjective, quantity ‘how many/much’ is a numeral, manner ‘how’ is a verb, kind ‘what kind’ is a verb phrase, purpose ‘for what’ is a verb phrase, and cause ‘why’ is a verb. Both purpose and cause interrogatives are based on the meaning ‘to do what’. All interrogatives have the same syntactic categories in Niesu and Nuosu. Both Niesu and Nuosu distinguish purpose from cause by using word/phrase distinction and positional differences in sentences. The grammaticalization of the verb phrase ‘to do what’ into the cause interrogative is facilitated by three structural conditions of Liangshan Yi. Moreover, the (proto-)which-word and the what-word are the basis for most of the interrogatives in Liangshan Yi. However, the derivation between which and how is no longer visible in Nuosu, while this connection is still clear in Niesu. Three crossover functions are described: asking for ‘why’ with ‘how’, asking for ‘why’ with ‘what’, and asking for ‘how’ with ‘where’; the word classes of the interrogatives may also change due to the functional changes. Finally, the non-interrogative functions of the interrogatives are discussed, including indefinites, intensification of a state, and exclamation.

This paper provides a systematic description of the kinship system of Tiwa, a Boro-Garo language of northeast India. It complements existing partial descriptions by Ramirez (2014) and Bouchery and Longmailai (2018), including documentation of affinal relationship terminology and kinship-based politeness strategies. A key new finding of this work is that Tiwa has a series of dyadic group kin terms which behave in similar (though not identical) ways to what Bradley (2001) identifies as family group classifiers in several Ngwi languages. To my knowledge, this is the first time such dyadic kin terms have been identified beyond the Ngwi and Ersuic branches, suggesting they may be more widespread throughout the Tibeto-Burman family than previously believed.