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
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 http://​scholarworks​.sjsu​.edu​/etd​_theses​/3744). 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. http://​www​.linguistics​.ucsb​.edu​/HimalayanLinguistics​/articles​/2010​/PDF​/HLJ0901A​.pdf (accessed 24 September 2013).Google Scholar
2011a Agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 10.1: 1–29. http://​www​.linguistics​.ucsb​.edu​/HimalayanLinguistics​/articles​/2011​/PDF​/HLJ1001A​.pdf (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. http://​pacling​.anu​.edu​.au​/series​/seals​-vol​-6​.html (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 15 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
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
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 21 january 2023. 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.