- Konow carelessly stated that Daic and Chinese “form one distinct family as compared with the Tibeto-Burman forms of speech” (Linguistic Survey of India, 3[1909], p. 1). Of course he meant sub-family, but the absurdity of having families within a family of languages has been repeated in the Encyclopedia Britanico down to the last edition, which refers to the “Tibeto-Burman family” and the “Siamese-Chinese family” (1953, v. 22, p. 187, and v. 20, p. 596 a).
- Ambrogio Ballini and Carlo Tagliavini correctly refer to sub-families but these are Konow's Sino-Siamese and Tibeto-Burman (Enciclopedia Italiana, v. 19, pp. 46 and 1291. The Diccionario Enciclopedico U. T. E. H. A. mistakenly applies “tibetobirmano” and “siamochino” to race. AU have obviously been following Konow and the Linguistic Survey of India.
- Thus after 20 years the close resemblance of Old Japanese wala “sea” to English water still sticks in my memory, although I do not not believe any genetic relationship exists between the languages.
- Personal communication from Konow.
- Encyclopedia Britanico, 11th ed. (1911), v. 26, p. 929.
- For bibliography, see Shafer, “East Himalayish,” Bull Sch. Or. Afr. St. 15 (1953), 357 n., or “Newari and Sino-Tibetan,” Studia Linguistica (Lund, 1952), 92, n. 1, and 93, n. 3, par. 2 ft.
- “The Vocalism of Sino-Tibetan,” Journ. Amer. Or. Soc. 60 (1940), 302–337; 61 (1941), 18–31; “Problems in Sino-Tibetan Phonetics,” JAOS 64 (1944), 137–143; and “The Initials of Sino-Tibetan,” JAOS 70 (1950), 96–103.
- Bodish refers to Old Bodish (classical Tibetan) and languages closely related to it; for definition see below.
- In 1938 I prepared a list of words showing the lack of precise phonetic and semantic correspondence between very common words in Daic and other (?) Sino-Tibetan languages, words such as those for parts of the body, celestial luminaries, pronouns, etc., and I tried to convince Maspero that Daic was not Sino-Tibetan. It was Maspero's insistence on Sino-Daic genetic relationship which caused me to work over Maspero's and K. Wulff's comparative data and to add my own, which nearly doubled the number of comparisons and filled in to some extent the gaps Wulff's work left in many series of finals. These Sino-Daic comparisons were presented in “The Vocalism of Sino-Tibetan” and subsequent articles with no statement regarding interrelationships.
- I had discussed my skepticism regarding the relationship of Daic to Sino-Tibetan both before leaving for Europe, after talking with Maspero, and after publication of my article, so that there was no basis for Benedict's statement that I followed Maspero and Wulff in setting up an Eastern Division composed of Chinese and Daic in opposition to Tibeto-Burmic (Benedict, “Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian,” American Anthropologist 44 (1942), 588).
- Les phonèmes et le vocabulaire du thai commun,” Journal Asiatique (1948), 235 ff.
- Cited in “Vocalism” (see n. 4 above), Table 4, no. 18, and Table 6, no. 26 respectively. Many comparisons of a similar nature will be found in the essays referred to above.
- I use Sino-Daic, Tibeto-Baric, Tibeto-Burmic always to refer to two or more divisions.
- For some of the recorded Mandarin dialects see Bernhard Karlgren, “Études sur la phonologie chinoise,” Archives d'Études Orientales 15 (1915), pp. 230–1. The classification of the Chinese dialects given here is Karlgren's but with certain modifications by Yuen Renn Chao. For a dialect map of China see Shun Pao, 60th anniversary edition.
- Daic languages show little divergence except in phonetic development, which Maspero used in his classification, “Contribution à l'étude du système phonétique des langues thai,” Bull. Éc. Fr. Exl.-Or. 11 (1911), 158, n. 1. Tai Noir, according to Maspero, and Ahom, in my opinion, are intermediate. A good part of the vocabularies of many of the Hainan languages and dialects is also probably Daic.
- Progressive phonetic degeneration of Bodish dialects from west to east through the dialect of Nganshuenkuan, after which archaic aspects increase through Khams.
- Not to be confused with the Rong which is geographically in the Himalayas and linguistically in the Northern Naga Branch of the Kukish Section (see below).
- The Hanniu of von Rosthorn also belongs somewhere in the Central Bodish Unit; it is not a Rgyarong dialect.
- Characterized by the shift of -r- to -y-, also a characteristic of most of Burmish.
- Not to be confused with Sikkim in Central Bodish.
- Thami and Bhramu, which had been separated by Konow, belong together. From the limited vocabularies of them one can only say that they are placed in West Himalayish because they appear to be closer to that group than any other.
- A poorly defined section of which it can only be said that the languages are related to each other more than to languages of other groups; see “Classification of Some Languages of the Himalayas,” J. Bihar Res. Soc. 36 (1950), 192ff. Interrelationships are approximately:
- Konow mixed in some languages that do not belong here and omitted some that do. See my “East Himalayish,” Bull. Seh. Or. Afr. St. 15 (1953), 356 f.
- Phonetically degenerate compared to Bahing.
- Diverges considerably.
- Approaches Burmish phonetically.
- Kulung and Sangpang are the same language recorded in different localities.
- Tśhingtang is the same language in another locality.
- Baiali is the same language in a different locality.
- Limbu and Yakha diverge somewhat from other East Himalayish languages.
- None of these groups seems to possess features distinctive from Bodic or Burmic and it is a question of classifying them under one or the other. This may have to be done on a weighted statistical basis, similar in principle, perhaps, to that proposed by A. L. Kroeber and C. D. Chrétien in “Quantitative Classification of Indo-European Languages,” Language 13 (1937), 83–103, but weighted to allow for the criticisms made by A. Meillet.
- By Campbell. Comparatively archaic. See my “Hruso,” Bull Sch. Or., Afr. St. 12 (1947), 184–196.
- By the other three recorders of Hruso. Phonetically degenerate.
- By Needham, Hamilton.
- By Robinson.
- This group occupies at least a portion of the Sifan plateau. It probably forms the most northeastern outpost of the Tibeto-Burmic peoples today. The vocabularies I bave seen have been short and poorly recorded. Lexically these languages seem to be predominantly Tibeto-Burmic but with some peculiar features. In recent years, Chinese scholars—notably Wên Yu in Studia Serica—have given some attention to these languages under the name of Ch'iang, assuming that they are spoken by a people mentioned in old documents. But only one bit of the recent literature on the subject has come to my attention. Perhaps some parts of the vocabulary of Sotati-po are Dzorgaish; see Central Bodish Unit above.
- The Northern Unit of the Burmese Branch approaches phonetically and sometimes lexically the Southern Unit of the Lolo Branch; see Shafer, “Phonétique historique des langues lolo,” T'oung Pao 41 (1952), 191–229. In fact the transition may be said to be gradual in the loss of Anal consonants from the Burmese Branch to the Northern Unit of the Lolo Branch, while inversely the loss of initial sonancy is progressive from the Northern Unit of the Lolo Branch to the Burmese Branch. But the languages of the Burmish Section are remarkably uniform lexically considering the vast stretch of territory they cover.
- Perhaps partly non-Lolo.
- Too little data or too irregularly recorded.
- Preserves some preAxes lost in the Burmese and Lolo Branches; somewhat degenerate regarding finals.
- Uncertainty regarding transcription and limited vocabulary make deAnite classification impossible at present, but Hsihsia appears to be the most northern extension of the Burmish section.
- See my article on “The Linguistic Position of Mru”, Journ. Burma Res. Soc. 31 (1941), pt. 2, no. 2.
- Closer genetically to the Burmish than to the Kukish Section.
- More archaic in its prefixes. Only a extremely short vocabulary has been published.
- Records of the Luish languages vary so in extent and the ability of the recorder that it is difficult to establish interrelationships within the section. The finals of Sak are considerably altered compared to those of other Luish languages, and this is perhaps not altogether due to poor recording. It preserves medial *l as r, this phoneme being lost in the rest of the section. Certain Sak forms common to Kukish, such as those for “mother” and “bird,” and not found in the other Luish languages, may be borrowings from Kukish.
- The Taman recorded by R. Grant Brown, JRAI 41 (1911), 305 f., is archaic in prefixes but the phonetics of Taman is not generally clear from the brief vocabulary and probably will not be until have sufficient data to be able to eliminate loan words. We may not be able to classify it until we have larger vocabularies of it and its dialects and of the surrounding languages. It appears to have been under Burmish influence but has a number of rather rare stems found in Luish, but not exclusively there, as words for “buffalo,” “elephant,” “horse,” “salt,” and “father.”
- One of the major points on which Konow's classification errs is in setting up a Naga group. The Naga languages are all Kukish except the northeastern-most, which is Baric. The proof of the first part of this statement was contained in my article on “The Naga Branches of Kukish,” Rocznik Orientalislyczny16 (Krakow, 1950), 467–530, and of the last part of the statement in “Classification of the Northernmost Naga Languages,” J. Bihar Res. Soc. 39 (1953), 225–264.
- Slightly better preserved than most recordings of Śo.
- A slight link with N. Khami. Data on Khimi will be found in “Khimi Grammar and Vocabulary,” Bull. Sch. Or. Afr. St. 11 (1944), 386–434.
- Although Parry thought he was recording the same dialect as the Mara of Savidge, there are a few phonetic differences.
- The Lakher vocabulary of Lewin approaches the Sabeu of Parry but does not correspond exactly. It is probably somewhat intermediate between Sabeu and some of the other dialects recorded by Parry.
- Slightly more archaic than the other Lakher recordings, as it was taken down earlier.
- Precise classification here is doubtful.
- Belongs here? Eliminating borrowings from Southern Kukish, Kyau is probably close to the Western Unit of the Old Kuki Branch.
- Provisional classification. Certainly not a Luhupa language, although it has borrowed a few words from that group, as those for “horse” and “cow,” and has undergone some vocalic changes—particularly to *u and *ui—which are not characteristic of Old Kuki.
- Precise classification doubtful. Probably transitional to Lamgang Unit, but in its main characteristics belongs with the Kolhreng Unit.
- A slightly degenerate form of Lamgang; see the author's “Phonetik der Alt-Kuki- Mundarten,” ZDMG 102 (1952), 262–279.
- A “Central Core” Kukish language whose precise classification is doubtful. It is spoken in southern territory but probably by migrants from the Central Branch of Kukish.
- Has some special links with Bandiogi, but probably mainly in the vocabularies of Lewin, because both languages are more archaic there than in later recordings.
- Spoken in Southern Kukish territory but belongs essentially to the Haka Unit of Central Kukish. This is not clear from a cursory examination, as Taungtha has borrowed some words from Southern Kukish languages and has developed to some extent along individual lines.
- Precise Classification here questionable. But not to be confused with Kabui, as Konow did.
- Has a few minor links with Vuite.
- Pròbably genetically closest to Old Kuki, but not its Western Unit.
- Diverges toward Kukish proper more than the two following Luhupa units, as already noted by Konow, p. 451.
- Sharply divergent.
- The subordination of Kwoireng and Khoirao noted below is not marked.
- Butler's Empeo is a different dialect from that of Soppitt and Stewart.
- Kyō or Kyontsii would perhaps be a better designation.
- Rong is slightly closer to Tengsa than Yatśam, but the latter are closer to each other.
- Perhaps better designated Yimtśurr.
- Perhaps better Nzong or Nzonyu. Grierson's Rengma is slightly more altered than Butler's. Ntenyi, of the northern group of Western “Rengma,” actually forms a connecting link between Hlota and Simi, while the Iseni-Kotsenu of Hutton is intermediate between Ntenyi and Anyo (Eastern or Naked “Rengma”). These meagerly recorded languages cannot be more definitely placed at present.
- In accord with the standard outlined above of using the oldest form of the native name known, I use Meithlei instead of the usual Meithei, the present pronunciation. For the Assamese call these people M ekle (Konow, p. 20), which is about as close to 'Meithlei as the Assamese could make (the Kukish lateral affricates are frequently written kl, k'l). Singh (p. 71) recorded the Thado name of the Manipuris as Mailhai, i. e., Mei-hlei; and *t'l is usually recorded as hi in Thado. And since 'fl became f in the language of Manipur, we must conclude that the earlier name was 'Meithlei, which became the present Meithei by regular phonetic change.
- Greatly aberrant, but definitely Kukish.
- Lexically predominantly Burmic, but also strongly Bodic, although it is one of the most southern of the Sino-Tibetan groups. It might almost be called intermediate between Bodic and Burmic, but certain phonetic and lexical peculiarities make it preferable to regard it for the present as a separate division. Due to lack of any sharp division of the Karenic languages and the inadequate materials on some of them, the following classification is only tentative.
- Not to be confused with Taungtha in Central Kukish.
- p. 418.
- p. 379. “
- I. e., Empeo.
- Vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 66, n. 2.
- p. 69.
- But Konow observed (p. 451) that “Sopvomā is so closely connected with all the languages of the Western sub-group, that it might with equal propriety be classed as belonging to it as to to the Nāgā-Kuki one” and in following pages all Konow's comparisons are between Sopvoma and Angami. One may suspect that Konow discovered Sopvoma's correct classification too late to change it without inconsistency in the text, so he resorted to compromise.
- p. 451.
- One may get some idea of the correct classification of Rong in “Classification of Some Languages of the Himalayas,” Journ. Bihar Bes. Soc. 36 (1950), insert between pp. 173 and 174.
- “L'annamite et le tibéto-birman,” Bull. Éc. Fr. Ext.-Or. 40 (1940), 439–442, or “Annamese and Tibeto-Burmic,” Haru. Journ. As. St. 6 (1942), 399–402; “Le vietnamien et le tibeto-birman,” Dân Việl Nam, No. 1 (Hanoi, 1948), 1–10.
- “Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan,” Internat. Journ. Am. Ling. 18 (1952), 12–19.
- “Études sur l'austroasien,” Bull. Soc. Ling. 48 (1952), fasc. 1, pp. 133–158.
- I make this statement on the basis of some manuscript pages sent me by M. Haudricourt. It is probable that the Manic languages are also Austroasian, judging from his “Introduction à la phonologie historique des langues miao-yao,” BEFEO 44 (1954), 554–576.
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research