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
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

Cited by 17 other publications

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
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
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
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
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
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
Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp
2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 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.