Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 38:1 (2015) ► pp.66–123

First notes on the phonology and classification of the Bangru language of India

| University of Bern, Switzerland
| Tezpur University, India
This is the first description of the Bangru language spoken in a remote corner of Kurung Kumey district, Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India. On the basis of our data and analysis, we identify Bangru as a Tibeto-Burman language with as its closest genetic relatives Miji and Hruso, spoken further to the southwest in East and West Kameng districts. Based on these preliminary data and their analysis, Bangru is described as having 18 distinctive consonants, seven distinctive simple vowels and three distinctive diphthong vowels. The basic syllable structure is Ci(G)V(Cf). Bangru is furthermore characterised by the retention of Proto-Tibeto-Burman prefixes as reduced syllables. This paper also provides additional evidence for the validity of Shafer’s ‘Hruso’, with Hruso itself as its most aberrant member.
Keywords: Bangru, Tibeto-Burman, Hruso, Hrusish, genetic classification, Trans-Himalayan, Miji, Aka, phonology
Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.38.1.03bod
References (34)
Anderson, James Drummond. 1896. A Short Vocabulary of the Aka Language. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Printing Office.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2014. On the classification of the Hruso (Aka) language. Paper presented at the 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Singapore, July 16 2014.
Abraham, P.T. 2005. A Grammar of Nyishi Language. Delhi: Farsight Publishers.Google Scholar
Abraham, Binny, Sako, Kara, Kinny, Elina & Zeliang, Isapdaile. 2005. A sociolinguistic esearch among selected groups in Western Arunachal Pradesh highlighting Monpa. Unpublished report.
Baxter, William & Sagart, Laurent. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blench, Roger & Post, Mark W. 2014. Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of North East Indian languages. In Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds), 71–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blench, Roger. 2014. The origins of nominal affixes in MSEA languages: Convergence, contact and some African parallels. In Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The State of the Art, Nick J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds), 550–577. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bruhn, Daniel W. 2014. A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto-Central Naga. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. <[URL] (16 June 2014).
van Driem, George. 2011. The Trans-Himalayan phylum and its implications for population prehistory. Communication on Contemporary Anthropology 51: 135–142.Google Scholar
. 2014. Trans-Himalayan. In Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds), 11–40. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.Google Scholar
French, Walter T. 1983. Northern Naga: A Tibeto-Burman Mesolanguage. PhD dissertation, The City University of New York.
Galo Welfare Society. 2009. Galo-English Dictionary. Itanagar: Galo Welfare Society.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds). 2009. Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin ork: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph U.V., & Burling, Robbins. 2006. The Comparative Phonology of the Boro Garo Languages. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Kansakar, Tej Ratna. 2010. Baram wordlist. Ms. <[URL]> (9 June 2014).
von Klaproth, Julius Heinrich. 1823. Asia Polyglotta. Paris: A. Schubart.Google Scholar
LaPolla Randy J. 2003. Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In The Sino-Tibetan languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 22–42. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lǐ, Dàqín 李大勤. 2003. 崩如语概况 Bēngrú-yǔ gaìkuàng (Bangru language overview). 民族语文 Mínzú Yǔwén (Minority Languages) 51: 64–80.Google Scholar
Manson, Ken. 2010. Kayan-English/English-Kayan Dictionary. Ms. <[URL]> (9 June 2014).
Matisoff, James A. 1978. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman: The “Organic” Approach in Linguistic Comparison [Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics VI]. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues (ISHI).Google Scholar
. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction. Berkeley CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Mortensen, David R. 2012. Database of Tangkhulic Languages. Ms. <[URL]> (9 June 2014).Google Scholar
Schubert, Johannes. 1964. Hrusso-Vokabular. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 101: 295–350.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1947. Hruso. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12(1): 184–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1955. Classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages. Word 11(1): 94–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Ivan Martin. 1979. Miji Language Guide. Shillong: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.Google Scholar
. 1993 [1970]. Aka Language Guide. Shillong: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.Google Scholar
Sun, Tianshin Jackson. 1993. A Historical-comparative Study of the Tani (Mirish) Branch in Tibeto-Burman. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Sun, Hongkai, et al. 1991. Zàngmiǎnyǔ yǔyīn hé cíhuì [Tibeto-Burman Phonology and Lexicon]. Beijing: Chinese Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Tame, Ramya. 2011. An Ethnographic Study of the Bangrus of Kurung Kumey District of Arunachal Pradesh. MPhil. dissertation, University of Arunachal Pradesh, Doimukh
. 2012. Bangrus of Arunachal Pradesh: An ethnographic profile. International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow 1(3): 1–12.Google Scholar
. 2013. Tribal culture and folklore of Arunachal Pradesh: A study in Kurung Kumey district. International Journal of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology 1(2): 26–30.Google Scholar
VanBik, Kenneth. 2009. Proto-Kuki-Chin: A reconstructed ancestor of the Kuki-Chin languages [STEDT Monograph Series 8]. Berkeley CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Ramya, Tarh & Sarit Kumar Chaudhuri
2024. Understanding Underdevelopment: A Study on Select Tribes of Arunachal Pradesh. In Indigeneity, Development and Sustainability [Demographic Transformation and Socio-Economic Development, 18], ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Mei-Shin, Timotheus A. Bodt & Tiago Tresoldi
2022. Bayesian phylogenetics illuminate shallower relationships among Trans-Himalayan languages in the Tibet-Arunachal area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 45:2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus
2021. The Duhumbi perspective on Proto-Western Kho-Bwa onsets. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gerber, Pascal
2020. Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Mönpa phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Ramya, Tame
2020. Attitude Towards Bangru Language of Arunachal Pradesh: The Natives’ Perspective. Dera Natung Government College Research Journal 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Post, Mark W.
2019. Topographical Deixis in Trans‐Himalayan (Sino‐Tibetan) Languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 117:2 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Post, Mark W.
2020. The distribution, reconstruction and varied fates of topographical deixis in Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan). Diachronica 37:3 ► pp. 368 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.