Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 37:1 (2014) ► pp.3–33

Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman

| University of Oregon
Since the beginning of research on the PTB verb agreement, 2nd person marking has posed a persistent problem. Every scholar who has dealt with the problem reconstructs a set of person/number suffixes including 2sg #-n(a). But there is also strong evidence for a #t‑ prefix which also indexes 2nd person. My purpose in this paper is to summarize the results of a number of descriptions and analyses which have appeared over the last decade or so, which provide new evidence concerning the #t‑ prefix, and resolve some of the problems which had previously impeded our understanding of this form. I will show that there were two distinct verb forms used for 2nd person reference in PTB. In the final section of the paper I will speculate about the implications of this fact.
Keywords: Tibeto-Burman, rGyalrong, Kiranti, verb agreement, Kuki-Chin, second person, argument indexation
Published online: 23 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.1.01lan
References (81)
Angdembe, Tej Man. 1999. Anomalous conjugation of copulas, development of tense/aspect morphemes, and loss of agreement prefixes. In Yogendra Yadava and Warren Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, 498–524. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Arden, Michelle. 2010. A phonetic, phonological, and morphosyntactic analysis of the Mara language. MA thesis, San Diego State University. (accessed 22/01/2012 at [URL]). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnard J.T.O. 1934. A handbook of the Rawang dialect of the Nung language. Rangoon: Supt. of Government Printing and Stationery.Google Scholar
Bauman, James. 1974. Pronominal verb morphology in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA 1.1: 108–155.Google Scholar
1975. Pronouns and Pronominal Morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Borchers, Dörte. 2008. A Grammar of Sunwar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In David Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas,1–72.Canberra: Australian National University.(Pacific Linguistics Series A, no. 86; Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics, 14).Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Caughley, Ross. 1982. The Syntax and Morphology of the Verb in Chepang. (Pacific Linguistics Series B, no. 841). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Chhangte, Lalnunthangi. 1993. Mizo syntax. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana. 1997. A Grammar of Meithei. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coblin, W. South. 1976. Notes on Tibetan verb morphology. T’oung Pao 62.1-3: 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dai, Qingxia, and Xu Xijian. 1992. Jingpo yu yufa (Grammar of the Jingpo language). Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Dai, Qingxia, and Lon Diehl. 2003. Jinghpo. In Graham Thurgood and Randy LaPolla, (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan languages, 401–8. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman. LTBA 6.1: 82–102.Google Scholar
1989. Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 521: 315–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 9.1: 1–38. [URL] (accessed 24 September 2013).Google Scholar
2011a. Agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 10.1: 1–29. [URL] (accessed 21 February 2014)Google Scholar
2011b. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages. In: Foongha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta, and Janick Wrona (ed.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 343–62. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011c. Nocte and Jinghpaw: Morphological correspondences. In Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey, and Mark Post (eds.). North East Indian Linguistics 3, 61–75. New Delhi: Foundation/Cambridge University Press India. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a. Postverbal agreement in Mizo-Kuki-Chin. In Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey, and Mark Post (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics 5, 138–150.New Delhi: Foundation/Cambridge University Press India. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b. The history of postverbal agreement in Kuki-Chin. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 61: 1–17. [URL] (accessed 24 September 2013).Google Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius. 2009. A Grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, Paradigm Tables, Glossary and Texts of a Rai Language of Eastern Nepal. Leiden: Leiden UniversityPh.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991. Bahing and the Proto-Kiranti verb. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14.2: 336–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16.2: 292–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1990. On the evidence for the relationship Kiranti-Rung. LTBA 13.1: 57–78.Google Scholar
1997. Camling (Chamling). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1994. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Tokyo: Institutefor the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. (Monumenta Serindica 241).Google Scholar
Georg, Stefan. 1996. Marphatan Thakali. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Gerner, Matthias. 2012. The typology of nominalization. Language and Linguistics 13.4: 803–844.Google Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2013. The personal agreement system of Zbu rGyalrong (Ngyaltsu variety). Transactions of the Philological Society, Early View. Doi: DOI logo 120071.Google Scholar
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2008. A Descriptive Grammar of Two Dialects of Magar in Nepal: Tanahu and Syangjar Magar. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Henderson, E.J.A. 1957. Colloquial Chin as a pronominalized language. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 201: 323–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1965. Tiddim Chin: A descriptive analysis of two texts. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Bufan. 2007. Lawurong yu yanjiu (Study of the Lavrung language). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2010. The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong. Language and Linguistics 11.11: 127–157.Google Scholar
2012a. Agreement morphology: the case of Rgyalrong and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics 13.1: 83–116.Google Scholar
2012b. An internal reconstruction of Tibetan stem alternations. Transactions of the Philological Society 110.2: 212–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Aimée Lahaussois, Boyd Michailovsky, and Dhan Bahadur Rai. 2012. An overview of Khaling verbal morphology. Language and Linguistics 13.6: 1095–1170.Google Scholar
Haller, Felix. 2004. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen. Bonn: VGH Wissenshaftsverlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Frans Plank (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 75–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1 ↔ 2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64.2: 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, John. 2002. Marked transitive scenarios and archaic biactinal agreement morphology in Dhimal. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 341: 39–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kongkham, Hemabati. 2010. A descriptive grammar of Moyon. Imphal, India: Manipur University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Konnerth, Linda. 2012. The nominalizing velar prefix *gV- in Tibeto-Burman languages of Northeast India. In Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey, and Mark Post (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics 4, 58–80. New Delhi: Foundation/Cambridge University Press India.Google Scholar
Konow, Sten. 1902. Zur Kenntnis der Kuki-Chinsprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 561: 486–517.Google Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimée. 2003. Thulung Rai. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 11: 1–25.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy. 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
2003a. Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In Graham Thurgood and Randy LaPolla, (eds.) The Sino-Tibetan languages, 22–42. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2003b. A Grammar of Qiang. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Language and Linguistics 31.1: 117–132.Google Scholar
Marrison, Geoffrey. 1967. The Classification of the Naga Languages of North-East India. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James. 1985. God and the Sino-Tibetan copula, with some good news concerning selected Tibeto-Burman rhymes. Journal of Asian and African Studies 291: 1–81.Google Scholar
1996. A pragmatic subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman languages. In Matisoff, James, Languages and dialects of Tibeto-Burman,177–8. (STEDT Monograph Series 21). Berkeley: Center for Southeast Asia Studies.Google Scholar
2003. Handbook of Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 1351).Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1975. Notes on the Kiranti verb (East Nepal). LTBA 2.2: 183–218.Google Scholar
1988. La langue hayu. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
1994. Manner vs. place of articulation in the Kiranti initial stops. In Kitamura, Hajime, Tatsuo Nishida, and Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 766–772. Osaka.Google Scholar
Morey, Stephen. 2011. Tangsa agreement markers. In Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey, and Mark Post (eds.). North East Indian Linguistics 3, 76–101.New Delhi: Foundation/Cambridge University Press India. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1996. The comparative method as heuristic. In Mark Durie and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, 39–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nishi, Yoshio 1995. A brief survey of the controversy in verb pronominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James Matisoff, and Yasuhiko Nagao (eds.). New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, 1–16. (Senri Ethnological Studies 411). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Peterson, David. 2003. Agreement and grammatical relations in Hyow. In David Bradley et al.. (eds), Language Variation: Papers on Variation and Change in the Sinosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 173–183.Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Poudel, Kedar Prasad. 2006. Dhankute Tamang Grammar. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Rai, Novel Kishore. 1985. A Descriptive Study of Bantawa. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju. 1997. Towards a reconstruction of the Proto West Himalayish agreement system. In David Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, 73–94.(Pacific Linguistics Series A, no.86; Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics, 14). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1951. Studies in the morphology of the Bodic verb II. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 13.4: 1017–1031. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharma, D. D. 1988. A Descriptive Grammar of Kinnauri. Delhi: Mittal.Google Scholar
1989. Tribal Languages of Himachal Pradesh. Delhi: Mittal.Google Scholar
Singh, Chungkham Yashawanta. 2010. Koireng grammar. New Delhi: Akansha.Google Scholar
Stern, Theodore. 1963. A provisional sketch of Sizang (Siyin) Chin. Asia Major (n.s.) 101:222–78.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai.1982. Dulong yu jianzhi (Outline of Dulong). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1983. Woguo Zang-Mianyu dongci de rencheng fanchou (The personal category of verbs in Tibeto-Burman languages of China). Minzu Yuwen 1983.2:17–29.Google Scholar
1995. A further discussion on verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman languages. In: Nishi, Yoshio; Matisoff, James; and Nagano, Yasuhiko (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 17–29. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. (Senri Ethnological Studies 411).Google Scholar
1997. Lun Zang-Mian yu zhong dongci de mingling shi (On imperative mood in Tibeto-Burman languages). Minzu Yuwen 1997.6: 10–20.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1982. The Sino-Tibetan copula *wəy. Cahiers de linguistique Asie Orientale 11.1: 65–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. A subgrouping of Sino-Tibetan languages: the interaction between language contact, change, and inheritance. In Graham Thurgood and Randy LaPolla, (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 3–21. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tolsma, Gerard. 2006. A Grammar of Kulung. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Turin, Mark. 2012. A Grammar of the Thangmi Language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
VanBik, Kenneth 2009. Proto-Kuki-Chin: A Reconstructed Ancestor of the Kuki-Chin Languages. (STEDT Monograph 891). Berkeley: Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project, University of California.Google Scholar
Watters, David. 2002. A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2002. The development of temporal coding in Tibetan: Suggestions for a functional internal reconstruction (1). In Henk Bleizer (ed.), Tibet, Past and Present: Tibetan Studies I. (PIATS 2000: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies), 441–453. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zoller, Claus. 1983. Die Sprache der Rang pas von Garhwal. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Seržant, Ilja A. & George Moroz
2022. Universal attractors in language evolution provide evidence for the kinds of efficiency pressures involved. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9:1 DOI logo
Jacques, Guillaume & Thomas Pellard
2021. Phylogenies based on lexical innovations refute the Rung hypothesis. Diachronica 38:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Konnerth, Linda
2021. On the nature of inverse systems. Diachronica 38:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Konnerth, Linda & Andrea Sansò
2021. Towards a diachronic typology of individual person markers. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pons, Marie-Caroline
2021. On the origin of 2nd person prefix #tV- in Trans-Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 44:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A.
2021. Cyclic changes in verbal person-number indexes are unlikely. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Lai, Yunfan
2020. The historical development of inverse marking in Khroskyabs: evidence from two modern varieties – Siyuewu and Wobzi. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 83:2 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Lai, Yunfan
2023. Lenition alternation in West Gyalrongic and its implications for Southeast Asian panchronic phonology. Diachronica 40:3 ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
DeLancey, Scott
2018. Chapter 10. Deictic and sociopragmatic effects in Tibeto-Burman SAP indexation. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
DeLancey, Scott
2018. Hierarchical and accusative alignment of Verbal Person Marking in Trans-Himalayan . Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 85 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
DeLancey, Scott
2023. The antiquity of verb agreement in Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 86:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Gildea, Spike & Joana Jansen
2018. Chapter 4. The development of referential hierarchy effects in Sahaptian. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
Haokip, Pauthang
2018. Agreement in Kuki-Chin languages of Barak valley . Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 5:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp
2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Jacques, Guillaume
2016. Tangut, Gyalrongic, Kiranti and the nature of person indexation in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan. Linguistics Vanguard 2:1 DOI logo
Jacques, Guillaume
2017. A reconstruction of Proto-Kiranti verb roots. Folia Linguistica 51:s38-s1 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 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.