Article published in:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 23:2 (2022) ► pp. 240273
References
Bauman, James John
1975Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Baxter, William H. & Sagart, Laurent
2014Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction (https://​ocbaxtersagart​.lsait​.lsa​.umich​.edu​/BaxterSagartOCbyMandarinMC2014​-09​-20​.pdf) (Accessed 2021-07-05.) (Version 1.1 20 September 2014.) Crossref
Benedict, Paul K.
1972Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caughley, Ross
2000Dictionary of Chepang: A Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal (Pacific Linguistics 502). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (The Australian National University).Google Scholar
Coblin, W. South
1976Notes on Tibetan verbal morphology. T’oung Pao: International Journal of Chinese Studies 62(1). 45–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2003Lhasa Tibetan. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 270–288. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius
2009A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal (LOT Dissertation Series 222). Utrecht: LOT Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Gerber, Pascal
2019Gongduk agreement morphology in functional and diachronic perspective. (Paper presented at the ISBS Inaugural Conference, Magdalen College, University of Oxford, 10 January 2019.)
2020Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Mönpa phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43(1). 55–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Pascal & Grollmann, Selin
2018What is Kiranti? A critical account. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 11(1-2). 99–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grollmann, Selin & Gerber, Pascal
2018Linguistic evidence for a closer relationship between Lhokpu and Dhimal: Including some remarks on the Dhimalish subgroup. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 47(1). 1–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W.
2014Grammatically conditioned sound change. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(6). 211–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume
2012An internal reconstruction of Tibetan stem alternations. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(2). 212–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016How many *-s suffixes in Old Chinese? Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 9(2). 205–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017A reconstruction of Proto-Kiranti verb roots. Folia Linguistica Historica 381. 177–215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Lahaussois, Aimée & Rai, Dhan Bahadur & Kumar, Yadav
Jäschke, Heinrich August
1881A Tibetan-English dictionary: With special reference to the prevailing dialects, to which is added an English-Tibetan vocabulary. London: Unger Brothers.Google Scholar
King, John T.
2009A grammar of Dhimal (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 8). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimée
2002Aspects of the grammar of Thulung Rai: An endangered Himalayan language. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation.)
LaPolla, Randy J.
2003Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 22–42. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A.
2003Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction (University of California Publications in Linguistics 135). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd
1985Tibeto-Burman dental suffixes: Evidence from Limbu (Nepal). In Thurgood, Graham & Matisoff, James A. & Bradley, David (eds.), Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area: The state of the art, papers presented to Paul K. Benedict for his 71st birthday (Pacific Linguistics Series C87), 363–375. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (The Australian National University).Google Scholar
1988La langue hayu (Collection Sciences du Langage). Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Opgenort, Jean Robert
2004A grammar of Wambule: Grammar, lexicon, texts and cultural survey of a Kiranti tribe of Eastern Nepal (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 2). Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plaisier, Heleen
2007A Grammar of Lepcha (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5). Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Post, Mark W. & Modi, Yankee
2018Not quite “middle”: Subject autonomy marking in Milang, Tani and Tibeto-Burman. (Talk given at the ICSTLL 51, Kyoto University, 28 September 2018.)
Rüfenacht, Sara
2018Die kritische Betrachtung eines Klassifikationsvorschlags der Sprache Thangmi [The critical examination of a classification proposal of the Thangmi language]. Bern: University of Bern. (Bachelor’s thesis.)
Rutgers, Roland
1998Yamphu: Grammar, texts and lexicon (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 2). Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), Leiden University.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent
1999The roots of Old Chinese (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sotrug, Yeshy T.
2015Linguistic evidence for madeskā kirãtī: The phylogenetic position of Dhimalish. Bern: University of Bern. (Master’s thesis.)
Tolsma, Gerard Jacobus
2006A grammar of Kulung (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 4). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Turin, Mark
2012A grammar of the Thangmi language: With an ethnolinguistic introduction to the speakers and their culture (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 6). Leiden: Brill. (21 vols.)Google Scholar
van Breugel, Seino
2014A grammar of Atong (Brill’s Studies in South and Southwest Asian Languages 5). Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George
1987A grammar of Limbu (Mouton Grammar Library 4). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990The fall and rise of the phoneme /r/ in Eastern Kiranti: Sound change in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53(1). 83–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993aA grammar of Dumi (Mouton Grammar Library 10). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993bThe Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 56(2). 292–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Dzongkha (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 1). Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), Leiden University.Google Scholar
2001Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnolinguistic handbook of the Greater Himalayan region containing an introduction to the symbiotic theory of language (Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 2 South Asia 10). Leiden: Brill. (21 vols.) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Biactantial agreement in the Gongduk transitive verb in the broader Tibeto-Burman context. In Thornes, Timothy J. & Andvik, Erik & Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Jansen, Joana (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey (Typological Studies in Language 103), 69–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watters, David E.
2002A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolfenden, Stuart Norris
1929Outlines of Tibeto-Burman linguistic morphology: With special reference to the prefixes, infixes and suffixes of classical Tibetan and the languages of the Kachin, Bodo, Nâgâ, Kuki-Chin and Burma groups (Prize Publication Fund XII). London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Verb stem alternation in Gongduk