Kho-Bwa languages

Kho-Bwa
Kamengic Bugunish
Geographic distribution	Arunachal Pradesh
Linguistic classification	Sino-Tibetan Kho-Bwa
Subdivisions	Sherdukpen Sartang Chug (Duhumbi) Lish (Khispi) ? Puroik ? Bugun
Language codes
Glottolog	khob1235

The Kho-Bwa languages, also known as Kamengic, are a small family of languages, or pair of families, spoken in Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India. The name Kho-Bwa was originally proposed by George van Driem (2001). It is based on the reconstructed words *kho ("water") and *bwa ("fire"). Blench (2011) suggests the name Kamengic, from the Kameng area of Arunachal Pradesh. Alternatively, Anderson (2014) ^[1] refers to Kho-Bwa as Northeast Kamengic.

Both Van Driem and Blench group the Sherdukpen (or Mey), Lishpa (or Khispi), Chug (Duhumbi) and Sartang languages together. These form a language cluster and are clearly related. The pair of Sulung (or Puroik) and Khowa (or Bugun) languages are included in the family by Van Driem (2001) but provisionally treated as a second family by Blench (2024). ^[2]

These languages have traditionally been placed in the Tibeto-Burman group by the Linguistic Survey of India. ^[3] Jackson Sun, George van Driem, and multiple handbooks and language classification databases after them also label Kho-Bwa languages as Tibeto-Burman or otherwise Sino-Tibetan. ^{[4] [5]} Roger Blench, however, does not accept a Sino-Tibetan origin of these languages, instead claiming that similarities to such could instead be due to an areal effect. ^[3]

The entire language family has about 15,000 speakers (including Puroik) or about 10,000 speakers (excluding Puroik), according to estimates made during the 2000s.

Word lists and sociolinguistic surveys of Kho-Bwa languages have also been conducted by Abraham, et al. (2018).

Classification

The internal structure of the Kho-Bwa group of languages is as follows. ^[2] The similarities between Puroik–Bugun and Sherdukpen/Mey are sporadic and may be due to contact. Lieberherr (2015) considers Puroik to be a Tibeto-Burman language, which would imply that at least Bugun is as well.

Blench & Post (2024) ^[2]

• Puroik–Bugun
  • Puroik (Sulung)
  • Bugun (Khowa)

• Mey (Mö) [dialect cluster]
  • Sherdukpen [2 languages]
    • Shergaon
    • Rupa (Mö)
  • Sartang (But Monpa) [2 languages]
    • Rahung
    • Jergaon
  • Chug–Lish [1 language]
    • Khispi (Lish)
    • Gompatse
    • Duhumbi (Chug)

Lieberherr & Bodt (2017)

Lieberherr & Bodt (2017) ^[6] consider Puroik to be a Kho-Bwa language, and classify the Kho-Bwa languages as follows.

• Kho-Bwa
  • Puroik
  • Bugun
  • Western Kho-Bwa
    • Sherdukpen, Sartang
    • Chug (Duhumbi), Lish (Khispi)

Tresoldi et al. (2022)

Based on computational phylogenetic analyses from Tresoldi et al. (2022), the phylogenetic tree of Kho-Bwa is roughly as follows: ^[7]

• Kho-Bwa
  • Western
    • Duhumbi–Khispi (Chug–Lish): Duhumbi (Chug), Khispi (Lish)
    • Mey–Sartang : Shergaon, Rupa, Jerigaon, Khoina, Rahung, Khoitam
  • Bugun
    • A
      • Bulu, Rawa, Kojo Rojo
      • Sario Saria, Lasumpatte, Chayangtajo
    • B
      • Namphri, Kaspi
      • Wangho, Dikhyang
      • Singchaung, Bichom

Shared characteristics

Common characteristics between Western Kho-Bwa and Puroik are given by Lieberherr & Bodt (2017).

Prefixes

Kho-Bwa languages share the following prefixes:

• *a- in front of adjectives
• *kV- prefix before multiple parts of the head, such as the head itself, eyes, ears, and hair
• Some element in front of the names of a specific subset of objects in the sky, namely the moon, sun, stars, clouds, rain and snow. The prefixes themselves however, although they resemble each other, are not identical; Puroik prefixes *ham- while Western Kho-Bwa prefixes *nam-.

Sound changes

Kho-Bwa languages share the following sound changes:

• The fortition of Sino-Tibetan initial *m- to *b-.
• Outright loss of initial *s-.

Examples

In the below tables, the other Sino-Tibetan cognates are taken from Lieberherr & Bodt (2017), but the proto-Western Kho-Bwa forms are taken from Bodt (2024) and the Proto-Puroik forms are from Lieberherr (2015).

Fortition of *m to *b in Kho-Bwa

Word		"fire"	"dream"	"not"	"person"
Kho-Bwa	Proto-Western Kho-Bwa	*baj	*ban	*ba	*bi
	Proto-Puroik	*bai	*baŋ̄	*ba	*bii
Other Sino-Tibetan	Proto-Kuki-Chin	*may	*maŋ	—	*mii
	Tibetan	me	—	ma	mi

Loss of *s- in Kho-Bwa

Word		"die"	"kill"	"three"
Kho-Bwa	Proto-Western Kho-Bwa	*i	*at	*um
	Proto-Puroik	*ii	*at	*ɨm̄
Other Sino-Tibetan	Proto-Kuki-Chin	*thii	*that	*thum
	Tibetan	shi	gsod	gsum

Vocabulary

The following table of Kho-Bwa basic vocabulary items is from Blench (2015). ^[8] Proto-Western Kho-Bwa (Proto-WKB) reconstructions are from Bodt (2024).

Gloss	Mey (Shergaon)	Mey (Rupa)	Sartang (Jergaon)	Sartang (Rahung)	Lish (Khispi)	Chug (Duhumbi)	Proto-WKB
one	hǎn	han	hèn	hân	hin	hin	*hin
two	ɲǐt	ɲik	nìk	ně	ɲes	niʃ	*nʲis
three	ùŋ	uŋ	ùŋ	ùún	ʔum	om	*um
four	pʰʃì	bsi	sì	psì	pʰəhi	psi	*bli
five	kʰù	kʰu	kʰù	kʰu	kʰa	kʰa	*kʰa
six	ʧùk	kit	ʧìk	ʨěy	ʧʰuʔ	ʧyk	*kʰrʲuk
seven	ʃìt	sit	sìk	sǐ, sě	ʃis	his	*sʲit
eight	sàʤát	sarʤat	sàrgè	sàrʤɛ́	saɾgeʔ	saɾgeʔ	*sar.gʲat
nine	tʰkʰí	dʰikʰi	tʰkʰì	tɛ̀kʰɯ́	ṱʰikʰu	ṱʰikʰu	*da.kʰu
ten	sɔ̀ ̃	sõ	sã̀	sɔ	ʃan	ʃan	*sʷan
head	kʰruk	kʰruk	kʰrǔk	kʰruʔ	kʰoloʔ	kʰloʔ	*kʰa.rok
nose	nupʰuŋ	nəfuŋ	nfùŋ	apʰuŋ	hempoŋ	heŋpʰoŋ	*n̥a.pʰoŋ
eye	khibi	kivi	kábì	kʰaʔby	kʰumu	kʰum	*kʰa.bu
ear	kʰtùŋ	gtʰiŋ	gtʰìŋ	ktèíŋ	kʰutʰuŋ	kʰutʰuŋ	*kʰa.tʰuŋ
tongue	laphõ	lapon	?	le	loi	loi	*luj
tooth	nuthuŋ	tokʧe	mísìŋ	nitʰiŋ	ʃiŋtuŋ	hintuŋ	*n̥a.tʰuŋ
arm	ik	ik	ìk	ik	hu	hut	*qʷut
leg	là	lapon	lɛ̌	lɛ̌	lei	lai	*laj
belly	ʃrìŋ	sliŋ	srìŋ	sriŋ	hiɲiŋ	hiliŋ	*sʲa.rʲiŋ, *n̥a.rʲiŋ
bone	skìk	skik	àhík	skik	ʃukuʃ	ʃukuʃ	*sʲa.kʰrus, *a.kʰrus
blood	hà	ha(a)	hɛ̀	ha	hoi	hoi	*hruj
face	dòŋpù	bo	mi	zə̀í	doʔ	doŋpa	(various)
tooth	ntùŋ	tokʧe	mísìŋ	ptə̀íŋ	ʃiŋtuŋ	hintuŋ	*n̥a.tʰuŋ
stomach	àlà	karbu	ʧàk	phriŋ	hiɲiŋ	hiliŋ	(various)
mouth	ʧàw	nəʧaw	so	ʨʨǒ	hoʧok	kʰoʧu	*-tsʰʷa
rain	ʧuuma	nimi	nʧʰù	ʧuʧuba	namu	namu	*nam.tsʰa, *nam.mu

See also

• Kho-Bwa comparative vocabulary lists (Wiktionary)

Further reading

• Ismail Lieberherr and Timotheus Adrianus Bodt. (2017) Sub-grouping Kho-Bwa based on shared core vocabulary. Himalayan Linguistics 16(2). 26–63. Paper (CLDF Dataset on Zenodo doi : 10.5281/zenodo.2553234)
• Binny Abraham, Kara Sako, Elina Kinny, Isapdaile Zeliang (2018). Sociolinguistic Research among Selected Groups in Western Arunachal Pradesh: Highlighting Monpa. SIL Electronic Survey Reports 2018–009. (CLDF Dataset on Zenodo. doi : 10.5281/zenodo.3537601)
• Bodt, T. and J.-M. List (2019). Testing the predictive strength of the comparative method: An ongoing experiment on unattested words in Western Kho-Bwa languages. Papers in Historical Phonology 4.1. 22–44. doi : 10.2218/pihph.4.2019.3037 (CLDF Dataset on Zenodo doi : 10.5281/zenodo.3537604)
• Bodt, Timotheus A.; List, Johann-Mattis (2021). "Reflex prediction: A case study of Western Kho-Bwa". Diachronica. doi: 10.1075/dia.20009.bod .

References

1. Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2014. On the classification of the Hruso (Aka) language. Paper presented at the 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
2. Roger Blench & Mark Post (ms, 2024) (De)Classifying Arunachal Languages: Reconsidering the Evidence, p. 4–8.
3. Blench (2011): "Certainly, the phonology and morphology of Arunachali languages looks superficially like Tibeto-Burman, which explains their placing in the Linguistic Survey of India. Unfortunately, this is rather where matters have remained [... this paper] proposes we should take seriously the underlying presumption probably implied in Konow's statement in Linguistic Survey of India. Volume III, 1, Tibeto-Burman family, Calcutta (1909:572)], that these languages may not be Sino-Tibetan but simply have been influenced by it; that they are language isolates."
4. van Driem (2001), vol. 2, p. 473.
5. Wu, Bodt & Tresoldi (2022). The three authors also note that "Despite these doubts [regarding Puroik], the most commonly consulted handbooks (Burling 2003; Genetti 2016) and online language catalogues (Eberhard et al. 2019; Hammarström et al. 2021) list Kho-Bwa as a branch of the Trans-Himalayan family."
6. Lieberherr, Ismael; Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus. 2017. Sub-grouping Kho-Bwa based on shared core vocabulary. In Himalayan Linguistics, 16(2).
7. Tiago Tresoldi; Christoph Rzymski; Robert Forkel; Simon J. Greenhill; Johann-Mattis List; Russell D. Gray (2022). "Managing Historical Linguistic Data for Computational Phylogenetics and Computer-Assisted Language Comparison". The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management. The MIT Press. pp. 345–354. doi:10.7551/mitpress/12200.003.0033. ISBN   978-0-262-36607-6.
8. Blench, Roger. 2015. The Mey languages and their classification. Presentation given at the University of Sydney, 21 August 2015.

• van Driem, George (2001). Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. Brill.
• Blench, Roger. 2011. (De)classifying Arunachal languages: Reconsidering the evidence
• Lieberherr, Ismael (2015). "A progress report on the historical phonology and affiliation of Puroik". In Linda Konnerth; Stephen Morey; Priyankoo Sarmah; Amos Teo (eds.). North East Indian Linguistics (NEIL) 7,. Canberra: College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University. pp. 235–286.
• Lieberherr, Ismael; Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus (2017). "Sub-grouping Kho-Bwa based on shared core vocabulary". Himalayan Linguistics. 16 (2).
• Abraham, Binny, Kara Sako, Elina Kinny, Isapdaile Zeliang. 2018. Sociolinguistic Research among Selected Groups in Western Arunachal Pradesh: Highlighting Monpa . SIL Electronic Survey Reports 2018–009.
• Wu, Mei-Shin; Bodt, Timotheus A.; Tresoldi, Tiago (2022). "Bayesian phylogenetics illuminate shallower relationships among Trans-Himalayan languages in the Tibet-Arunachal area". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 45 (2): 171–210. doi:10.1075/ltba.21019.wu. ISSN   0731-3500.
• Bodt, Timotheus A. (2024). Proto-Western Kho-Bwa: Reconstructing a Community's Past through Language. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series. Vol. 67. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. ISBN   978-626-7341-64-3.