Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 43:1 (2020) ► pp.55–86

Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Mönpa phonology

| Universität Bern
This paper argues that certain phonological similarities between the three Trans-Himalayan languages Gongduk, Bjokapakha (Tshangla) and Black Mountain Mönpa are areal features and discusses the historical and ethnolinguistic implications of this assumption. The similarities between Gongduk and Bjokapakha indicate a situation of areal convergence of recent data. This contact scenario explains certain aberrancies of Bjokapakha with regard to other Tshangla varieties. The attestation of some of the phonological features in Black Mountain Mönpa is analysed as the result of early contact between Gongduk and Black Mountain Mönpa, i.e. dating back to the time before the arrival of the East Bodish peoples in Central Bhutan.
Keywords: Gongduk, Black Mountain Mönpa, Bjokapakha, Tshangla, Sprachbund, phonology, Bhutan
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Gongduk
    • 1.2Bjokapakha
    • 1.3Black Mountain Mönpa
    • 1.4Sociocultural interaction between Gongduk and Bjokapakha
  • 2.Shared phonological features
    • 2.1Dental fricatives
    • 2.2Realisation of dental affricates
    • 2.3High central vowel
    • 2.4Glottalisation
    • 2.5Uvular plosives
    • 2.6Realisation of velar nasals as nasalisation
  • 3.Explanatory potential of the parallels
    • 3.1Contact as explanation for the parallels
    • 3.2The contact history of Tshangla and Gongduk
    • 3.3The phonological genesis of Bjokapakha
    • 3.4Prehistorical ties between Gongduk and Black Mountain Mönpa
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations used in this paper
  • References
Published online: 28 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.18015.ger
References (111)
References
Andvik, Erik. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 101). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, James John. 1974. Pronominal verb morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 111. 108–155.Google Scholar
. 1975. Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
Baxter, William H. & Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese. A new reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bodt, Timotheus A. 2012. The new lamp clarifying the history, peoples, languages and traditions of Eastern Bhutan and Eastern Mon. Wageningen: Monpasang Publications.Google Scholar
2014. Tshangla phonology and a standard Tshangla orthography. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics. Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 393–435. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol. 2661).Google Scholar
Bodt, Timotheus A. & Ismael Lieberherr. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Borchers, Dörte. 2008. A grammar of Sunwar. Descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 71).Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 1959. Proto-Bodo. Language 35.3.433–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caughley, Ross. 2000. Dictionary of Chepang. A Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. (Pacific Linguistics, vol. 5021).Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. 1997. A grammar of Meithei. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 171). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 391). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das Gupta, Kamalesh. 1968. An introduction to Central Monpa. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1989. Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52.2. 315–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 9.1. 1–39.Google Scholar
. 2011. Notes on verb agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 10.1. 1–29.Google Scholar
. 2013. Verb agreement suffixes in Mizo-Kuki-Chin. In: Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey & Mark W. Post (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics 51, 138–150. Delhi et al.: Cambridge University Press India. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Morphological evidence for a Central branch of Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan). Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 44.2.122–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1997. A grammar of Athpare. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa. (Lincom Studies in Asian Linguistics, vol. 11).Google Scholar
Egli-Roduner, Susanna. 1987. Handbook of the Sharchhokpa-lo/Tsangla (language of the people of Eastern Bhutan). Thimpu: Helvetas. Swiss Association for Development and Cooperation.Google Scholar
Funk, Damian, Pascal Gerber, Selin Grollmann, Corinne Mittaz, Simon Plachtzik, Nicolai Rawyler, Sara Rüfenacht & Sereina Waldis. 2017. Aspekte der Brokpa-Phonologie. Talk held at the 61. Studentische Tagung Sprachwissenschaft, 25 May 2017, Universität Zürich, Zürich.
Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Pascal. 2015. The phylogenetic position of Gongduk. A first inspection. Bern: University of Bern Master Thesis.Google Scholar
. (forthcoming). The sound change *s > t in Gongduk.
Gerber, Pascal, Tanja Gerber & Selin Grollmann. 2016. Links between Lhokpu and Kiranti. Some observations. Talk held at the Kiranti Workshop, 1 December 2016, Université Paris Diderot, Paris.
Grollmann, Selin. 2013. A sketch grammar of Bjokapakha. Bern: University of Bern Master Thesis.Google Scholar
. 2020. Diachronic aspects of Bjokapakha epistemic verbal morphology. The role of nominalisers and copulas. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43.1. 87-123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (in press). A Grammar of Bjokapakha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 241). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grollmann, Selin & Pascal Gerber. 2018. Lingustic evidence for a closer relationship between Lhokpu and Dhimal. Including some notes on the Dhimalish subgroup. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 471. 1–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming). Some innovations of the Tshangla subgroup of Trans-Himalayan.
Hill, Nathan W. 2011. An inventory of Tibetan sound laws. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 3rd ser. 21.4.441–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. The Six Vowel Hypothesis of Old Chinese in comparative context. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 6.2.1–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoshi, Michiyo. 1987. A Sharchok vocabulary. A language spoken in Eastern Bhutan. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages/Cultures of Asia/Africa (ILCAA).Google Scholar
Huang, Liangrong & Sun Hongkai. 2002. 汉嘉戎语词典 [A Chinese-rGyalrong dictionary]. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1975. Phonology. Theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2009. Kurtöp tone. A tonogenetic case study. Lingua 1121. 827–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Kurtöp case. The pragmatic ergative and beyond. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 33.1.1–40.Google Scholar
. 2010b. On the placement of East Bodish in Tibeto-Burman. Talk given at the 16th Himalayan Languages Symposium, 4 September 2010, School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
. 2011. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 41. 43–60.Google Scholar
. 2014. A preliminary reconstruction of East Bodish. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans Himalayan linguistics. Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 155–179. (Trends in Linguistics, vol. 2661). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2016a. Emergent insights into Proto East Bodish agricultural economy. In Mark W. Post, Stephen Morey & Scott DeLancey (eds.), Language and culture in Northeast India and beyond. In honor of Robbins Burling, 276–288. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Worlds of knowledge in Central Bhutan. Documentation of ’Olekha. Language Documentation and Conservation 101. 77–106.Google Scholar
. 2017. A grammar of Kurtöp. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 181). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering. 2010. Preliminary notes on Dakpa (Tawang Monpa). In Stephen Morey & Mark W. Post (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics 21, 3–21. New Delhi: Foundation Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2007. A shared suppletive pattern in the pronominal systems of Chang Naga and Southern Qiang. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 36.1. 61–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. A possible trace of verbal agreement in Tibetan. Himalayan Linguistics 911. 41–49.Google Scholar
. 2012. Agreement morphology. The case of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics 1311. 83–116.Google Scholar
. 2015–2016. Dictionnaire Japhug-Chinois-Français, version 1.1. Unpublished manuscript. Projet HimalCo, Paris.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Aimee Lahaussois, Boyd Michailovsky & Dhan Bahadur Rai. 2012. An overview of Khaling verbal morphology. Language and Linguistics 13.6.1095–1170.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Aimée Lahaussois, Dhan Bahadur Rai & Yadav Kumar. 2015. Khaling-Nepali-English verb dictionary. Verison 1.0.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar, M. Fant & Morris Halle. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jäschke, Heinrich August. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary. with special reference to the prevailing dialects to which is added an English-Tibetan vocabulary. London: Unger Brothers.Google Scholar
Karma Tshering of Gaselô & George van Driem. 2019. The grammar of Dzongkha, revised and expanded, with a guide to Roman Dzongkha and to phonological Dzongkha. Santa Barbara: Himalayan Linguistics.Google Scholar
King, John T. 2009. A grammar of Dhimal. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 81).Google Scholar
Konnerth, Linda Anna. 2014. A grammar of Karbi. Eugene: University of Oregon Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimee. 2002. Aspects of the grammar of Thulung Rai. An endangered Himalayan language. Berkeley: University of California Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1989. Verb agreement, head-marking vs. dependent-marking, and the “deconstruction” of Tibeto-Burman morpho-syntax. In Kira Hall (ed.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 356–367. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1992. On the dating and nature of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55.2.298–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman languages. Evidence of Sapir’s “Drift”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17.1. 61–80.Google Scholar
2001. The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, 225–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003a. A grammar of Qiang. With annotated texts and glossary. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 311). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b. Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 22–42. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2012. Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan Comparative Linguistcs. Language and Linguistics 13.1.117–132.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1975. Rhinoglottophilia. The mysterious connection between nasality and glottality. In Charles A. Ferguson, Larry M. Hyman & John J. Ohala (eds.), Nasálfest. Papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalization, 265–287. Stanford: Language Universals Project, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol. 1351).Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1975. A case of Rhinoglottophilia in Hayu. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2.2.293.Google Scholar
Mortensen, David. Comparative Tangkhul. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
Nishi, Yoshio. 1995. A brief survey of the controversy in verb pronominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 1–16. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. (Senri Ethnological Studies, vol. 411).Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2011. Aspects of the historical development of nominalizers in the Tamangic languages. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Harsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nom-inalization in Asian languages, 195–214. Hongkong/Oxford: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 961). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2004. A Grammar of Wambule. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 21).Google Scholar
. 2005. A Grammar of Jero. With a historical comparative study of the Kiranti languages. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 31).Google Scholar
. 2014. Initial grammatical sketch of Tilung. Field report on a moribund Kiranti language of Eastern Nepal. With some historical observations and a vocabulary. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan Linguistics. Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan Area, 329–392. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol. 2661).Google Scholar
Pema Wangdi. 2004. Sharchokpa-lo phonology and morphosyntax. Syndey: ANU’ Master Sub-thesis.Google Scholar
Plaisier, Heleen. 2007. A Grammar of Lepcha. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 51).Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2007. A Grammar of Galo. Melbourne: La Trobe University Research Centre for Linguistic Typology.Google Scholar
Rāī, Noval Kiśora, Manoj Rāī, Netra Prasād Pauḍyāl, Roberṭ Śikovski, Bālthājār Bikal, Sabīne Sṭol, Mārṭin Gyānsle, Gomā Banjāḍe, Icchā Pūrṇa Rāī, Toyā Nātha Bhaṭṭa, Sebāsṭiyān Sāuppe, Rikhī Māyā Rāī, Janak Kumārī Rāī, Lās Kumārī Rāī, Durgā Bahādur Rāī, Gaṇeś Rāī, Dayārām Rāī, Durgā Kumārī Rāī, Atitā Rāī, Candra Kumārī Rāī, Śānti Māyā Rā, Ravendra Kumār Rāī, Juḍī Peṭigru, Ṭiko Ḍirksamāyar VS 2067 [2011]. Chintāṅ śabdakoś tathā vyākaraṇ [Chintang dictionary and grammar]. Lalitpur: Chintang Language Research Program, Tribhuvan University Kathmandu/University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rutgers, Roland. 1998. Yamphu grammar, texts and lexicon. Leiden: Research School CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 21).Google Scholar
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha. Berlin: Language Science Press. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics, vol. 71). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Sprigg, Richard Keith. 1987. “Rhinoglottophilia” revisited. Observations on “the mysterious connection between nasality and glottality”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 10.1. 44–62.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1995. A further discussion on verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 17–29. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. (Senri Ethnological Studies, vol. 411).Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1985. Pronouns, verb agreement systems, and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In Graham Thurgood, James A. Matisoff & David Bradley (eds.), Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area. The state of the art, 376–400. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University. (Pacific Linguistics Series, vol. 871).Google Scholar
. 2003. A Subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan Languages. The Interaction between language contact, change and inheritance. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 3–21. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tolsma, Gerard Jacobus. 2006. A grammar of Kulung. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 41).Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nicolai. 1930. Proposition 16. Actes du premier congrès international de linguistes à La Haye, du 10–15 avril 1928, 17–18.Google Scholar
Turin, Mark. 2012. A grammar of the Thangmi language. With an ethnolinguistic introduction to the speakers and their culture. 21 vols. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 61).Google Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. A grammar of Lohorung. Unpublished manuscript a.
. Black Mountain Mönpa. Unpublished manuscript b.
. The Toto language of the Bhutanese duars. being first impressions of the Toto language and reflections on the Western Tibeto-Burman hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript c.
. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 41). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993a. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 101). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993b. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 56.2.292–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994a. East Bodish and Proto-Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax. In Hajime Kitamura, Tatsuo Nishida & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 608–617. Osaka: The Organizing Committee of the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Language policy in Bhutan. In Michael Aris & Michael Hutt (eds.), Bhutan. Aspects of culture and development, 87–105. Gartmore: Kiscadale Publications.Google Scholar
. 1995a. Black Mountain Conjugational Morphology, Proto-Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, and the Linguistic Position of Chinese. In: Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyn-tax, 229–259. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. (Senri Ethnological Studies, vol. 411).Google Scholar
. 1995b. Een eerste grammaticale verkenning van het Bumthang, een taal van Midden-Bhutan. met een overzicht van de talen en volkeren van Bhutan. Leiden: Centrum voor Niet-Westerse Studiёn.Google Scholar
. 1998. Dzongkha. Leiden: Research School CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. (Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region, vol. 11).Google Scholar
. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas. An ethnolinguistic handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. 21 vols. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2004. Bhutan’s endangered languages programme under the Dzongkha Development Authority. Three rare gems. In Karma Ura & Sonam Kinga (eds.), The Spider and the Piglet. Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Bhutan Studies, 294–326. Thimphu: Centre for Bhutan Studies.Google Scholar
. 2007. Dzala and Dakpa form a coherent subgroup within East Bodish, and some related thoughts. In Roland Bielmeier & Felix Haller (eds.), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond, 71–95. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics, vol. 1961). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Tibeto-Burman subgroups and historical grammar. Himalayan Linguistics 10.1.31–39.Google Scholar
. 2013. Biactantial agreement in the Gongduk transitive verb in the broader Tibeto-Burman context. In Timothy J. Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation. In honor of Scott DeLancey, 69–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 1031). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015a. Synoptic grammar of the Bumthang language, a language of the central Bhutan highlands. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 61. 1–77.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Tibeto-Burman. In William S.-Y. Wang & Chaofen Sun (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, 135–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
VanBik, Kenneth. 2009. Proto-Kuki-Chin. A reconstructed ancestor of the Kuki-Chin languages. Berkeley: University of California. (STEDT Monograph Series, vol. 81).Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2017. A grammar of Bunan. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. (Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 711.)Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes. Classification and processes. Dia-chronica 22.2.373–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Turrell. 1959. A standard system of Tibetan transcription. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 221. 261–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Gerber, Pascal
2022. Verb stem alternation in Gongduk. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 23:2 ► pp. 240 ff. DOI logo
DeLancey, Scott
2021. Differential innovation in 2nd person pronouns and agreement indexation in Trans-Himalayan languages. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel & Linda Konnerth
2021. Multiple functions of the inclusive: examining synchronic variation in light of diachronic shift in South-Central Trans-Himalayan. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
Grollmann, Selin
2020. Diachronic aspects of Bjokapakha epistemic verbal morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.