Proto-Tibeto-Burman language

Last updated
Proto-Tibeto-Burman
PTB
(may be equivalent to Proto-Sino-Tibetan)
Reconstruction of Tibeto-Burman languages
Reconstructed
ancestor
Lower-order reconstructions

Proto-Tibeto-Burman (commonly abbreviated PTB) is the reconstructed ancestor of the Tibeto-Burman languages, that is, the Sino-Tibetan languages, except for Chinese. An initial reconstruction was produced by Paul K. Benedict and since refined by James Matisoff. Several other researchers argue that the Tibeto-Burman languages sans Chinese do not constitute a monophyletic group within Sino-Tibetan, and therefore that Proto-Tibeto-Burman was the same language as Proto-Sino-Tibetan.

Contents

Issues

Reconstruction is complicated by the immense diversity of the languages, many of which are poorly described, the lack of inflection in most of the languages, and millennia of intense contact with other Sino-Tibetan languages and languages of other families. Only a few subgroups, such as Lolo-Burmese, have been securely reconstructed. Benedict's method, which he dubbed "teleo-reconstruction", was to compare widely separated languages, with a particular emphasis on Classical Tibetan, Jingpho, Written Burmese, Garo, and Mizo. [1] Although the initial consonants of cognates tend to have the same place and manner of articulation, voicing and aspiration are often unpredictable. [2] Matisoff attributes this to the effects of prefixes that have been lost and are often unrecoverable. [3] The reconstruction also features "allofams", variant forms of a root postulated to explain inconsistent reflexes in daughter languages. [4] The reconstruction of such "allofams" has been heavily criticized by other researchers in the field. [5]

Homeland

Contrary to other hypotheses suggesting a Proto-Sino-Tibetan homeland in the Yellow River valley of northern China, [6] Matisoff (1991, [7] 2015) suggests that the Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) homeland was located "somewhere on the Himalayan plateau," and gives Proto-Tibeto-Burman a date of approximately 4000 B.C., which is roughly on a par with the age of Proto-Indo-European. Language diversification occurred as speakers then moved downstream through various river valleys. [8]

Phonology

The phonology of Proto-Tibeto-Burman here is from Matisoff's 2003 reconstruction, much of which is based on Benedict's earlier reconstructions.

Consonants

Proto-Tibetan–Burman has at least 23 consonants (Matisoff 2003:15). Some descendants of Proto-Tibetan–Burman, especially the Qiangic languages, have developed dozens of sibilant fricatives and affricates.

Proto-Tibeto-Burman consonants
Labial Alveolar Palatalized
alveolar 		Palatal Velar Glottal
Voiceless stop ptk
Voiced stop bdg
Nasal mnŋ
Fricative s, zś, źh
Affricate ts, dztś, dź
Lateral l
Tap or trill ɾ, r
Approximant wj

According to Matisoff, Proto-Tibeto-Burman also has many final nasals, stops, and liquids.

Vowels

In Matisoff's reconstruction, Proto-Tibeto-Burman vowels can be split into primary and secondary sets. Modern-day Tibeto-Burman languages have anywhere from five vowels (Written Tibetan and Jingpho) to dozens of monophthongs and diphthongs (Loloish and Qiangic languages) (Matisoff 2003:157). Matisoff (2003) also notes that languages which have greatly simplified or eliminated final consonants tend to have more vowels. The open front unrounded vowel *a is by far the most common and stable vowel in Tibeto-Burman languages.

Matisoff (2003) reinterprets diphthongs from Paul Benedict's reconstruction as long vowels.

Proto-Tibeto-Burman primary vowels
Height Front Central Back
Close ī (iy, əy)ū (uw, əw)
Mid ē (ey)(-ə)ō (ow)
Open a
ayaw
āyāw
Proto-Tibeto-Burman secondary vowels
Height Front Back
Close īū
Mid ēō

Preservation of stops

According to Matisoff, Sino-Tibetan languages go through a series of four stages in which final stops and nasals gradually decay (Matisoff 2003:238-239).

  1. The six final stops and nasals, *-p, *-t, *-k, *-m, *-n, *-ŋ, are all intact. Written Tibetan, Lepcha, Kanauri, Garo, and Cantonese are currently on this stage.
  2. One or more final consonants have been reduced or dropped. In Jingpho and Nung, the velars (*-k) are replaced by glottal stops (-ʔ), while in other languages they are completely dropped. In Mandarin Chinese, all final stops are dropped, and *-m has merged with *-n.
  3. All finals stops become glottal stops or constrictions (such as creaky voices), and final nasals may be replaced by nasality in the preceding consonant. Languages currently in this stage include modern Burmese and Lahu.
  4. There are no glottal or nasal traces of the former final consonants left in the syllables.

Syntax

Proto-Tibeto-Burman was a verb-final (subject–object–verb or SOV) language.

Most modern-day Tibeto-Burman branches also display SOV word order. However, due to syntactic convergence within the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area, three Tibeto-Burman branches, Karenic, Mruic, and Bai, display SVO (verb-medial) word order. This syntactic realignment has also occurred in Sinitic, which Scott DeLancey (2011) argues to be a result of creolization through intensive language contact and multilingualism during the Zhou dynasty. [9]

Morphology

Syllable structure

According to James Matisoff, Proto-Tibeto-Burman syllables typically consist of the following structure (Matisoff 2003:11-13).

(P2) — (P1) — Ci— (G) — V(:) — Cf— (s)

The following types of changes in syllable structure have been attested in Tibeto-Burman languages (Matisoff 2003:155). (Note: Sesquisyllable , otherwise known as a minor syllable, is a word coined by James Matisoff meaning "one-and-a-half syllables.")

Below are the sources of the syllable changes (i.e., reversal of the list above).

However, Roger Blench (2019) argues that Proto-Sino-Tibetan did not have sesquisyllabic structure; instead, sesquisyllabicity in present-day Sino-Tibetan branches had been borrowed from Austroasiatic languages due to typological convergence. [10]

Verbs

According to many authors such as James Bauman, George van Driem and Scott DeLancey, a system of verbal agreement should be reconstructed for proto-Tibeto-Burman. Verbal agreement has disappeared in Chinese, Tibetan, Lolo-Burmese and most other branches, but was preserved in Kiranti languages in particular. This is a topic of scholarly debate, however, and the existence of a PTB verbal agreement system is disputed by such authors as Randy LaPolla. [11]

Prefixes

Matisoff postulates the following derivational prefixes.

Other constructed prefixes include *l- and *d-.

Circumfixes

Circumfixes have also been reconstructed for Proto-Tibeto-Burman.

In Written Tibetan, s- -n and s- -d are collective circumfixes used in kinship terms (Matisoff 2003:453).

Suffixes

According to Matisoff, three Proto-Tibeto-Burman dental suffixes, *-n, *-t, and *-s, are highly widespread, but their semantics are difficult to reconstruct (Matisoff 2003:439). The suffixes *-s, *-h, and *-ʔ are often developed into tones in many Tibeto-Burman languages, and are thus highly "tonogenetically potent" (Matisoff 2003:474).

Vocabulary

Among other researchers, Paul K. Benedict and James Matisoff have proposed reconstructed vocabulary items for Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Matisoff's Proto-Tibeto-Burman reconstruction is by far the most cited, and with his last version published in the final release of the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus (2015). [12] [13] Allofams (a term coined by Matisoff to mean alternate proto-forms) are marked using ⪤.

Stable roots

Matisoff (2009) [14] lists 47 stable Tibeto-Burman roots (i.e., etyma that have cognates widely distributed in branches throughout the family) and their Proto-Tibeto-Burman reconstructions.

Body parts
  • *s-hywəy 'blood' (STEDT #230)
  • *s-rus ⪤ *m-rus ⪤ *g-rus 'bone' (STEDT #232)
  • *r-na 'ear' (STEDT #811)
  • *s-mik ⪤ *s-myak 'eye' (STEDT #33)
  • *mil ⪤ *mul 'hair (body)/fur/feather' (STEDT #363)
  • *l(y)ak ⪤ *dyak; [*k(r)ut] 'hand' (STEDT #377; #712)
  • *may ⪤ *mey ⪤ *mi 'tail' (STEDT #1288)
  • *l(y)a ⪤ *lay ⪤ *ley 'tongue' (STEDT #621)
  • *g-na 'nose' (STEDT #803)
  • *swa; [*džway] 'tooth' (STEDT #632; #635)
Animals
  • *sya-n 'animal/meat/flesh' (STEDT #5711, 34)
  • *kʷəy 'dog' (STEDT #1764)
  • *ŋ(y)a 'fish' (STEDT #1455)
  • *pʷak 'pig' (STEDT #1006)
  • *s-b-ruːl 'snake/vermin' (STEDT #2623)
Numerals
  • *g-sum 'three' (STEDT #2666)
  • *b-ləy 'four' (STEDT #2409)
  • *b-ŋa ⪤ *l-ŋa 'five' (STEDT #2623)
  • *d-k-ruk 'six' (STEDT #2621)
  • *b-r-gyat ⪤ *b-g-ryat 'eight' (STEDT #2259)
  • *b-r-gya 'hundred' (STEDT #2258)
Natural objects and units of time
  • *r(y)ak 'day (24 hours)/spend the night' (STEDT #2636)
  • *mey; [*bar ⪤ *par] 'fire' (STEDT #2136; #2152)
  • *s-la ⪤ *g-la 'moon/month' (STEDT #1016)
  • *kəw ⪤ *kun ⪤ *kut 'smoke' (STEDT #2361)
  • *nəy 'sun/daytime' (STEDT #85)
People and habitation
  • *tsa ⪤ *za 'child/son' (STEDT #2727)
  • *bəw ⪤ *pəw 'grandfather/elder brother' (STEDT #2582)
  • *k-yim ⪤ *k-yum 'house' (STEDT #1612)
  • *pʷa 'husband/male' (STEDT #1612)
  • *r-mi(y) 'human/person' (STEDT #1002)
  • *r-miŋ; [*s-braŋ] 'name' (STEDT #2450; #2169)
Plants and ingestibles
  • *tsəy; [*s-man] 'medicine/paint/juice' (STEDT #5427; #5434)
  • *duk ⪤ *tuk 'poison' (STEDT #2530)
Pronouns
  • *ŋa-y; [*ka-y] '1st person' (STEDT #2530)
  • *naŋ ⪤ *na '2nd person' (STEDT #2489)
Verbs
  • *ka-n 'bitter' (STEDT #229)
  • *səy 'die' (STEDT #27)
  • *r-maŋ 'dream' (STEDT #126)
  • *dzya 'eat' (STEDT #36)
  • *na ⪤ *nan ⪤ *nat 'ill' (STEDT #160)
  • *g-sat 'kill' (STEDT #1018)
  • *m-lyak; *s-lyam 'lick/tongue' (STEDT #629)
  • *r-kəw 'steal' (STEDT #2365)
Abstract
  • *way ⪤ *ray 'copula' (STEDT #1821)
  • *ma 'negative' (STEDT #2436)
  • *ta ⪤ *da 'negative imperative' (STEDT #2681)

Reconstructed branches

Proto-language reconstructions for Tibeto-Burman branches include:

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sino-Tibetan languages</span> Language family native to Asia

Sino-Tibetan, also cited as Trans-Himalayan in a few sources, is a family of more than 400 languages, second only to Indo-European in number of native speakers. Around 1.4 billion people speak a Sino-Tibetan language. The vast majority of these are the 1.3 billion native speakers of Sinitic languages. Other Sino-Tibetan languages with large numbers of speakers include Burmese and the Tibetic languages. The four UN member states China, Singapore, Myanmar, and Bhutan have a Sino-Tibetan language as their main native language. Other languages of the family are spoken in the Himalayas, the Southeast Asian Massif, and the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. Most of these have small speech communities in remote mountain areas, and as such are poorly documented.

James Alan Matisoff is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a noted authority on Tibeto-Burman languages and other languages of mainland Southeast Asia.

The Kuki-Chin–Naga languages are a geographic clustering of languages of the Sino-Tibetan family in James Matisoff's classification used by Ethnologue, which groups it under the non-monophyletic "Tibeto-Burman". Their genealogical relationship both to each other and to the rest of Sino-Tibetan is unresolved, but Matisoff lumps them together as a convenience pending further research.

The Kiranti languages are a major family of Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Nepal and India by the Kirati people.

The Sal languages, also known as the Brahmaputran languages, are a branch of Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in northeast India, as well as parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), and China.

The Boro–Garo languages are a branch of Sino-Tibetan languages, spoken primarily in Northeast India and parts of Bangladesh.

The Jingpho-Luish, Jingpho-Asakian, Kachin–Luic, or Kachinic languages are a group of Sino-Tibetan languages belonging the Sal branch. They are spoken in northeastern India, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and consist of the Jingpho language and the Luish languages Sak, Kadu, Ganan, Andro, Sengmai, and Chairel. Ethnologue and Glottolog include the extinct or nearly extinct Taman language in the Jingpo branch, but Huziwara (2016) considers it to be unclassified within Tibeto-Burman.

The Tangkhulic and Tangkhul languages are a group of Sino-Tibetan languages spoken mostly in northeastern Manipur, India. Conventionally classified as "Naga," they are not clearly related to other Naga languages, and are conservatively classified as an independent Tangkhul–Maring branch of Tibeto-Burman, pending further research.

The Tibeto-Kanauri languages, also called Bodic, Bodish–Himalayish, and Western Tibeto-Burman, are a proposed intermediate level of classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages, centered on the Tibetic languages and the Kinnauri dialect cluster. The conception of the relationship, or if it is even a valid group, varies between researchers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tibeto-Burman languages</span> Group of the Sino-Tibetan language family

The Tibeto-Burman languages are the non-Sinitic members of the Sino-Tibetan language family, over 400 of which are spoken throughout the Southeast Asian Massif ("Zomia") as well as parts of East Asia and South Asia. Around 60 million people speak Tibeto-Burman languages. The name derives from the most widely spoken of these languages, Burmese and the Tibetic languages, which also have extensive literary traditions, dating from the 12th and 7th centuries respectively. Most of the other languages are spoken by much smaller communities, and many of them have not been described in detail.

Proto-Hmong–Mien (PHM), also known as Proto-Miao–Yao, is the reconstructed ancestor of the Hmong–Mien languages. Lower-level reconstructions include Proto-Hmongic and Proto-Mienic.

Paul King Benedict was an American anthropologist, mental health professional, and linguist who specialized in languages of East and Southeast Asia. He is well known for his 1942 proposal of the Austro-Tai language family and also his reconstruction of Proto-Sino-Tibetan and Proto-Tibeto-Burman. He was also a practicing psychiatrist in the New York area for 20 years and was also a pioneer in the field of ethnopsychiatry.

The Luish, Asakian, or Sak languages are a group of Sino-Tibetan languages belonging to the Sal branch. They are spoken in Burma and Bangladesh, and consist of the Sak, Kadu, and Ganan languages. In recent years, Luish languages have been influenced by Burmese and Chakma.

Mruic or Mru–Hkongso is a small group of Sino-Tibetan languages consisting of two languages, Mru and Anu-Hkongso. Their relationship within Sino-Tibetan is unclear.

Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) is the hypothetical linguistic reconstruction of the Sino-Tibetan proto-language and the common ancestor of all languages in it, including the Sinitic languages, the Tibetic languages, Yi, Bai, Burmese, Karen, Tangut, and Naga. Paul K. Benedict (1972) placed a particular emphasis on Old Chinese, Classical Tibetan, Jingpho, Written Burmese, Garo, and Mizo in his discussion of Proto-Sino-Tibetan.

Jackson T.-S. Sun, also known as Jackson Tianshin Sun, is a Taiwanese linguist working on languages of the Sino-Tibetan and Austroasiatic families. He is best known for his pioneering documentation and historical-comparative work in Tani, Rgyalrongic, and Tibetic languages. Sun is a research fellow at Academia Sinica in Taipei, Taiwan.

Central Tibeto-Burman or Central Trans-Himalayan is a proposed branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family proposed by Scott DeLancey (2015) on the basis of shared morphological evidence.

Taman is an extinct Sino-Tibetan language that was spoken in Htamanthi village in Homalin Township, Sagaing Region, northern Myanmar. It was documented in a list of 75 words in Brown (1911). Keisuke Huziwara (2016) discovered an elderly rememberer of Taman in Htamanthi who could remember some Taman phrases as well as a short song, but was not fluent in the Taman language. However, no fluent speakers of Taman remained in the area.

Proto-Karenic or Proto-Karen is the reconstructed ancestor of the Karenic languages.

The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus was a linguistics research project hosted at the University of California at Berkeley. The project, which focused on Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics, started in 1987 and lasted until 2015.

References

  1. ↑ Handel (2008), p. 434.
  2. ↑ Handel (2008), pp. 425–426.
  3. ↑ Matisoff (2003), p. 16.
  4. ↑ Matisoff (2003), pp. 3, 16.
  5. ↑ Fellner, Hannes and Hill, Nathan W. (2019) 'Word families, allofams, and the comparative method'. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale, (48) 2, pp 91-124.
  6. ↑ Sagart, Laurent; Jacques, Guillaume; Lai, Yunfan; Ryder, Robin; Thouzeau, Valentin; Greenhill, Simon J.; List, Johann-Mattis (2019), "Dated language phylogenies shed light on the history of Sino-Tibetan", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116 (21): 10317–10322, Bibcode:2019PNAS..11610317S, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1817972116 , PMC   6534992 , PMID   31061123.
  7. ↑ Matisoff, James A. (1991), "Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects", Annual Review of Anthropology, 20: 469–504, doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.20.1.469, JSTOR   2155809.
  8. ↑ Matisoff, James A. 2015. The Sino-Tibetan Language Family: Description of the Sino-Tibetan Language Family. The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus.
  9. ↑ DeLancey, Scott. 2011. "On the Origins of Sinitic." Proceedings of the 23rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-23), 2011. Volume 1, edited by Zhuo Jing-Schmidt, University of Oregon, Eugene. Pages 51-64.
  10. ↑ Blench, Roger. 2019. If sesquisyllabic structures in Sino-Tibetan (Trans-Himalayan) are a result of contact then existing reconstructions are compromised .
  11. ↑ LaPolla, Randy J. (1992). "On the Dating and Nature of Verb Agreement in Tibeto-Burman" (PDF). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 55 (2): 298–315. doi:10.1017/s0041977x00004638. hdl:10356/100281. JSTOR   619625. S2CID   144632981. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-06-10. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  12. ↑ Matisoff, James A. 2015. The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus. Berkeley: University of California. (PDF)
  13. ↑ Bruhn, Daniel; Lowe, John; Mortensen, David; Yu, Dominic (2015). Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Database Software. Software, UC Berkeley Dash. doi : 10.6078/D1159Q
  14. ↑ Matisoff, James A (2009). "Stable Roots in Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman". Senri Ethnological Studies. 75: 291–318. doi:10.15021/00002570.
  15. ↑ Mazaudon, Martine. 1994. Problèmes de comparatisme et de reconstruction dans quelques langues de la famille tibéto-birmane. Thèse d'Etat, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.
  16. ↑ Tournadre, Nicolas. 2014. "The Tibetic languages and their classification." In Trans-Himalayan linguistics, historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  17. ↑ Backstrom, Peter C. 1994. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Western Tibetan. M.A. dissertation. Arlington, TX: University of Texas, Arlington.
  18. ↑ Michailovsky, Boyd. 1991. Big black notebook of Kiranti, proto-Kiranti forms. (unpublished ms. contributed to STEDT).
  19. ↑ Opgenort, Jean Robert (2011). "A note on Tilung and its position within Kiranti". Himalayan Linguistics. 10 (1): 253–271.
  20. ↑ Jacques, Guillaume (2017). "A reconstruction of Proto-Kiranti verb roots". Folia Linguistica Historica. 38 (s38–s1): 177–215. doi:10.1515/flih-2017-0007. S2CID   149278651.
  21. ↑ Widmer, Manuel. 2014. "A tentative classification of West Himalayish." In A descriptive grammar of Bunan, 33-56. Bern: University of Bern.
  22. ↑ Widmer, Manuel. 2017. The linguistic prehistory of the western Himalayas: endangered minority languages as a window to the past . Presented at Panel on Endangered Languages and Historical Linguistics, 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 23), San Antonio, Texas.
  23. ↑ Schorer, Nicolas. 2016. The Dura Language: Grammar and Phylogeny. Leiden: Brill.
  24. 1 2 Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham, Cambridge grammatical descriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-521-81245-3
  25. ↑ Post, Mark W. and Roger Blench (2011). "Siangic: A new language phylum in North East India", 6th International Conference of the North East India Linguistics Society, Tezpur University, Assam, India, Jan 31 – Feb 2.
  26. ↑ Lieberherr, Ismael. 2015. A progress report on the historical phonology and affiliation of Puroik. North East Indian Linguistics (NEIL), 7. Canberra, Australian National University: Asia-Pacific Linguistics Open Access.
  27. ↑ Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus; Lieberherr, Ismael (2015). "First notes on the phonology and classification of the Bangru language of India". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 38 (1): 66–123. doi: 10.1075/ltba.38.1.03bod .
  28. ↑ Sun, Tianshin Jackson. 1993. A Historical–Comparative Study of the Tani (Mirish) Branch in Tibeto-Burman. Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine Berkeley, University of California Ph.D. dissertation.
  29. ↑ Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2014. "A preliminary reconstruction of East Bodish." In Nathan Hill and Thomas Owen-Smith (eds.), Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, 155-179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  30. ↑ Bruhn, Daniel Wayne. 2014. A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto-Central Naga . Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
  31. ↑ Mortensen, David R. 2012. Database of Tangkhulic Languages. (unpublished ms. contributed to STEDT).
  32. ↑ VanBik, Kenneth. 2009. Proto-Kuki-Chin: A Reconstructed Ancestor of the Kuki-Chin Languages . STEDT Monograph 8. ISBN   0-944613-47-0.
  33. ↑ Joseph, U.V.; and Burling, Robbins. 2006. Comparative phonology of the Boro Garo languages. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages Publication.
  34. ↑ Wood, Daniel Cody. 2008. An Initial Reconstruction of Proto-Boro-Garo. M.A. Thesis, University of Oregon.
  35. ↑ French, Walter T. 1983. Northern Naga: A Tibeto-Burman mesolanguage. Ph.D. Dissertation, The City University of New York.
  36. ↑ Huziwara, Keisuke (2012). "Toward a reconstruction of Proto-Luish". Kyoto University Linguistic Research. 31: 25–131. doi:10.14989/182194. hdl:2433/182194.
  37. ↑ Matisoff, James A (2013). "Re-examining the genetic position of Jingpho: putting flesh on the bones of the Jingpho/Luish relationship". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 36 (2): 1–106.
  38. ↑ Jones, Robert B., Jr. 1961. Karen linguistic studies: Description, comparison, and texts. (University of California Publications in Linguistics #25.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  39. ↑ Luangthongkum, Theraphan. 2013. A view on Proto-Karen phonology and lexicon. (unpublished ms. contributed to STEDT).
  40. ↑ Luangthongkum, Theraphan. 2014. Karenic As A Branch of Tibeto-Burman: More Evidence From Proto-Karen . Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS 24), Yangon, Burma.
  41. 1 2 Sims, Nathaniel. 2017. The suprasegmental phonology of proto-Rma (Qiang) in comparative perspective. Presented at the 50th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Beijing, China.
  42. ↑ Yu, Dominic. 2012. Proto-Ersuic . Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Department of Linguistics.
  43. ↑ Jacques, Guillaume; Michaud, Alexis (2011). "Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na and Laze". Diachronica. 28: 468–498. doi:10.1075/dia.28.4.02jac. S2CID   54013956.
  44. ↑ Bradley, David. 1979. Proto-Loloish. London: Curzon Press. ISBN   978-0-7007-0128-5.
  45. ↑ Wang, Feng (2006). Comparison of languages in contact: the distillation method and the case of Bai. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series B: Frontiers in Linguistics III. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. ISBN   986-00-5228-X. Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2018-06-03.
  46. ↑ Zhou, Yulou. 2020. Proto-Bizic: A Study of Tujia Historical Phonology. B.A. honors thesis, Stanford University.

Book reviews

Further reading

Data sets
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.