Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 39:1 (2016) ► pp.3–32

The Proto-Tibeto-Burman *gV- nominalizing prefix

| University of Oregon

Matisoff (2003) reconstructs an “adjectival prefix” *gV-, based on work by Wolfenden (1929). As a result of surveying grammatical descriptions of more than 90 Tibeto-Burman languages, the present study provides evidence to reconstruct Matisoff’s adjectival prefix as a nominalizer whose functional range includes (but is not limited to) the adjectival marking. Evidence for the prefix is found in three major genetic subdivisions. Within Bradley’s (2002) Western branch, Baram (Newaric) has a particularly versatile nominalizer ki-~gi-, and Eastern Kiranti languages have *gV-…-pa nominalizing circumfixes. In Bradley’s Eastern branch, rGyalrongic languages have velar prefixes that function as the main nominalizers. Further, in DeLancey’s (2015) Central branch of Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan), we find reflexes of *gV- in many languages, most notably the versatile nominalizer kV- in Lamkang (Northwest Kuki-Chin). Other languages of the India-Myanmar border with unresolved phylogenetic status within Tibeto-Burman also have reflexes of *gV-, most prominently Karbi and Tangkhul (Konnerth 2012).

Keywords: diachronic nominalization, Proto-Tibeto-Burman, nominalization, Historical linguistics, morphological reconstruction
Published online: 8 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.39.1.01kon
References
Arokianathan, S
1987 Tangkhul Naga Grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Baxter, William H. & 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
Bickel, Balthasar
1999 Nominalization and focus constructions in some Kiranti languages. In Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds), 271–96. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
2003 Belhare. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 546–570. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bradley, David
2002 The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages, Vol.11, Christian I. Beckwith (ed.), 73–112. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins
1983 The Sal languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7(2): 1–32.Google Scholar
2004 The Language of the Modhupur Mandi (Garo), Vol. 11. New Delhi: Bibliophile South Asia.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L
1970 Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Imlong
1956 Chang Naga Dialect and English Equivalents. Mokokchung: Sri Imlong Chang.Google Scholar
Das Gupta, Kamalesh
1971 An Introduction to the Nocte Language. Shillong: North-East Frontier Agency.Google Scholar
1977 A Phrase Book in Miju. Shillong: The Director of Information and Public Relations, NEFA.Google Scholar
1980 The Tangsa Language: A Synopsis. Shillong: North-East Frontier Agency.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2015. Adjectival constructions in Bodo and Tibeto-Burman. In Language and Culture in Northeast India and beyond: In Honour of Robbins Burling, Mark Post, Stephen Morey & Scott DeLancey (eds), 41–56. Canberra, Australian National University: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1994 Grammaticalization and linguistic theory. In Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Conference on Siouan/Caddoan Languages , 1–22. Boulder CO: Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado.
2002 Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 281, 55–72. Berkeley CA: BLS.
2011 Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 343–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
van Driem, George
1987 A Grammar of Limbu [Mouton Grammar Library 4]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 A Grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen H
1997a A Grammar of Athpare. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
1997b Camling (Chamling). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
2003 Kiranti languages: An overview. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 505–17. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2007 Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol
2011 Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 163–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol, Bartee, Ellen, Coupe, Alec, Hildebrandt, Kristine & Lin, You-Jing
2008 Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2): 97–143.Google Scholar
Hanson, Ola
1917 A Hand-Book of the Kachin or Jinghpaw Language. Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Helga
2001a Function of Naak/na in Daai Chin with examples from other Chin languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(2): 143–56.Google Scholar
2001b Prenasalization and preglottalization in Daai Chin, with parallel examples from Mro and Mara. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(2): 123–142.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C
1991 Nominalization, relativization, and attribution in Lotha, Angami, and Burmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1): 55–72.Google Scholar
Hutton, John Henry
1987 Chang Language: Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of the Chang Naga Tribe, Satkari Mukhopadhyay (ed.). New Delhi: Gian Publishing House.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume
Under review. Generic person marking in Japhug and other Rgyalrong languages. [URL]
2014a Clause linking in Japhug. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2): 264–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b Denominal affixes as sources of antipassive markers in Japhug Rgyalrong. Lingua 1381: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014c On Coblin’s law. In Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, Richard VanNess Simmons & Newell Ann Van Auken (eds), 155–65. Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume, Lai, Yunfan, Antonov, Anton & Nima, Lobsang
2015 Stau (Ergong, Horpa). Ms (Version of October 21, 2015). [URL]
Jacquesson, François
2005 Le Deuri, Langue Tibéto-Birmane d’Assam. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
2008  A Dimasa Grammar . Ms. [URL]
Joseph, U.V. & Robbins, Burling
2006 The Comparative Phonology of the Boro-Garo Languages. Manasagangotri, Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Kansakar, Tej R., Yadava, Yogendra P., Prasad Chalise, Krishna, Prasain, Balaram, Dhakal, Dubi Nanda & Paudel, . Krishna
2011 A Grammar of Baram. Linguistic and Ethnographic Documentatation of the Baram Language, Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University.Google Scholar
Konnerth, Linda
2009 The nominalizing prefix *gV- in Tibeto-Burman. MA thesis, Eugene, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
2012 The nominalizing velar prefix *gV- in Tibeto-Burman languages of Northeast India. In North East Indian Linguistics, Vol. 41, Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey & Mark W. Post (eds). New Delhi: Foundation / Cambridge University Press India.Google Scholar
2014 A Grammar of Karbi. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon at Eugene.
Konow, Sten
1902 Zur Kenntnis der Kuki-Chinsprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 561: 486–517.Google Scholar
Kuolie, D
2006 Structural Description of Tenyidie: A Tibeto-Burman Language of Nagaland. Kohima, Nagaland: Ura Academy Publication Division.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J
2003 Dulong. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 674–82. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008 Nominalization in Rawang. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2): 45–65.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A
1972 Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol.11, John Kimball (ed.), 237–257. New York NY: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
2003 Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, David
2003 Comparative Tangkhul. Ms, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Nagano, Yasuhiko
1984 A Historical Study of the rGyarong Verb System. Tokyo: Seishido.Google Scholar
2003 Cogtse Gyarong. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 469–89. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ngemu, T
1977 Moklum Language Guide. Jorhat: Janambhumi Press.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael
1997 Versatile nominalizations. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. In Honor of T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 373–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pai, Pushpa
1976 Kokborok Grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Post, Mark W
2011 Nominalization and nominalization-based constructions in Galo. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 255–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent
1999 The Roots of Old Chinese [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 184]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shafer, Robert
1966 Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Singh, Chunghkham Yashawanta
2002 Tarao Grammar. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.Google Scholar
So-Hartmann, Helga
2008 Nominalization and relativization in Mro. Paper presented at the ICSTLL 41 , London.
2009 A Descriptive Grammar of Daai Chin [STEDT Monograph Series 7]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stack, Edward & Lyall, Sir Charles
1908 The Mikirs. London: David Nutt.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S
2003 Caodeng rGyalrong. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds), 490–502. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2012 Complementation in Caodeng rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 13(3): 471–498.Google Scholar
2014 Typology of generic-person marking in Tshobdun Rgyalrong. In Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Dialect, Phonology, Transcription and Text [Language and Linguistics Monograph Series 53]. Richard VanNess Simmons & Newell Ann Van Auken (eds), 225–48. Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Thounaojam, Harimohon & Chelliah, Shobhana L
2007 The Lamkang language: Grammatical sketch, texts and lexicon. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30(1): 1–212.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, Stuart Norris
1929 Outlines of Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Morphology. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen & Wrona, Janick
2011 Introduction: Nominalization strategies in Asian languages. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96], 1–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Ding, Hongdi & Sicong Dong
2023. Elevation and fog-cloud similarity in Tibeto-Burman languages. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Honkasalo, Sami
2020. Verb classes in Horpa. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43:2 ► pp. 255 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.