24.12.2012 Views

himalayan linguistics - UCSB Linguistics - University of California ...

himalayan linguistics - UCSB Linguistics - University of California ...

himalayan linguistics - UCSB Linguistics - University of California ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Abstracts<br />

Notes on verb agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman<br />

Scott DeLancey<br />

<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Oregon<br />

abstract<br />

Research on comparative Tibeto-Burman verbal morphology has achieved preliminary reconstructions<br />

<strong>of</strong> the hierchical patterns and position classes <strong>of</strong> the agreement system. The status <strong>of</strong> the prefixes which<br />

are part <strong>of</strong> the system in some branches remains problematic. Only one true personal agreement prefix,<br />

2 nd person #te-, appears to be as ancient as the suffixal agreement series. Others are language-specific<br />

innovations more recent than PTB. One clue to the origin <strong>of</strong> these secondary prefixes, as David Watters<br />

and Sun Hongkai have suggested, is their resemblance to possessive pronominal prefixes. The 2 nd person<br />

k- prefix which several scholars reconstruct is a secondary intrusion <strong>of</strong> a 2 nd person possessive prefix into<br />

the verb paradigm. The “marked scenario” prefix found in some Nung and Kiranti languages is likewise a<br />

secondary innovation in which original #te- was replaced by 2nd person #na- or #i-, the latter originally a<br />

1pl Inclusive index.<br />

keywords<br />

Tibeto-Burman, Kiranti, rGyalrong, Nung, Kuki-Chin, Meyor, Jinghpaw, verb agreement, morphology,<br />

prefixes, possessive prefixes<br />

Tibeto-Burman subgroups and historical grammar<br />

George van Driem<br />

Universität Bern<br />

abstract<br />

Several distinct strains <strong>of</strong> thought on subgrouping, presented in memory <strong>of</strong> David Watters and Michael<br />

Noonan, are united by a golden thread. Tamangic consists <strong>of</strong> Tamangish and maybe something else,<br />

just as Shafer would have wanted it. Tamangic may represent a wave <strong>of</strong> peopling which washed over<br />

the Himalayas after Magaric and Kiranti but before Bodish. There is no such language family as Sino-<br />

Tibetan. The term ‘trans-Himalayan’ for the phylum merits consideration. A residue <strong>of</strong> Tibeto-Burman<br />

conjugational morphology shared between Kiranti and Tibetan does not go unnoticed, at least twice. Black<br />

Mountain Mönpa is not an East Bodish language, and this too does not go unnoticed.<br />

keywords<br />

Tibeto-Burman, subgrouping, Tamangic , Tamangish, Limbu, Tibetan, Black, Mountain Mönpa, Michael<br />

Noonan, David Watters, Richard Keith Sprigg

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!