Translation
The linguistic reconstruction of the past
The case of the Boro-Garo languages
I will first describe (1) the linguistic situation in modern-day Assam (Northeast India) and the historical hypotheses that might
explain it. These hypotheses are subjected to criticism. Next, I will analyse (2) in detail, the phonological concordances in the
Tibeto-Burman languages and dialects of Central Assam that form the Boro-Garo group. I will present detailed criteria – the most
detailed of all will concern the diphthongs – with examples, which will enable us to classify the languages. Using these criteria
will also allow us to take advantage of certain ancient sources of information on dialects which are, in some cases, extinct. The
study (3) of other Tibeto-Burman languages will consolidate our criteria and specify their historical development. Finally (4), I
will propose a historical reconstruction of linguistic layers, after which (5) I will emphasise the importance of the distinction,
central to our discussion, between language change and ethnic change (where cultural and physical anthropology follow distinct
paths) before proposing a basis for a more general investigation of the Boro-Garo languages.
Northeastern India is home to a great number of languages, mainly from the Tibeto-Burman, Mon-Khmer, Tai and Indo-Aryan groups.
This paper first summarises the current historical interpretations of this plethora, and concentrates on the Tibeto-Burman
languages spoken in the lowlands, sc. the Boro-Garo subgroup. A phonological comparative assessment of the data provides a
classification with definite criteria, and suggests historical interpretation. Central to this comparative study are the vowel
systems, the analysis of which allows us to understand far better (and to use more appropriately) the older lexical lists from
1805. The result of this assessment is a new direction of research, when it appears that the Zeliangrong languages (traditionally
taken as Southern Naga) offer a remarkable and certainly unexpected linguistic link between the Boro-Garo and the Kuki Chin (and
Naga) languages. The paper exemplifies how language histories remain distinct from ethnic and political developments, and makes a
useful contribution to a finer historical understanding of complex human situations.
Article outline
- Introduction by F. Jacquesson
- 1.The stratigraphic metaphor and the linguistic population of Assam
- 2.The Boro-Garo languages
- 3.External relations of Boro-Garo
- 4.The history of the Boro-Garo languages
- 5.The linguist and the logic of the groups
-
Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
This article is currently available as a sample article.
References (25)
References
Avouac, Jean-Philippe & P. De Wever (eds.). 2002. Himalaya-Tibet,
le choc des continents. Paris: CNRS et Museum.
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan. A
Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bhat, D. N. Shankara. 1968. Boro Vocabulary (With a
Grammatical Sketch) [Building Centenary and Silver Jubilee Series
59]. Poona: Deccan College.
Breugel, Seino van. 2014. ‘A grammar of
Atong’. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Burling, R. 1959. Proto-Bodo. Language 351: 433–453.
Burling, R. 1961. A
Garo Grammar. Poona: Deccan College.
Burling, Robbins (with U.V. Joseph). 2006. ‘Comparative
phonology of the Boro-Garo languages’. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Linguistics.
Butler, John. 1873. A
rough comparative vocabulary of some of the dialects spoken in the “Nágá Hills”
district’. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal (Calcutta) 42(1): App., I–XXIX.
Debbarma, Binoy. 2001. Concise
Kokborok-English-Bengali Dictionary. Khumulwng: Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council.
Graham-Bower, Ursula. 1946. Cycle-migration
of the Zemi-Nagas, North Cachar Hills, Assam. Man in
India XXVI1: 50–52.
Graham-Bower, Ursula. 1951. Naga
Path. London: John Murray.
Grierson, Sir George (ed.). 1903–1928. Linguistic
survey of India, Vol. 3: Tibeto-Burman
Family. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
Gurdon, P. R. T. 1904. The
Morans. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal 731: 36–48.
Jacquesson, François. 1999. Abrégé
d’histoire de l’Assam jusqu’à l’installation anglaise. Journal
Asiatique 287(1): 191–284.
Jacquesson, François. 2000. Deux
territoires d’histoire linguistique, le Brahmapoutre &
l’Iéniseï. BSLP 95(1): 343–388.
Jacquesson, François. 2005a. Le Deuri: langue Tibéto-Birmane d’Assam [Collection de la Société de
Linguistique de
Paris]. Leuven: Peeters.
Jacquesson, François. 2005b. Les
langues boro-garo. Essai de linguistique historique et comparative. Mémoire d’habilitation, Paris-3.
Jacquesson, François. 2006. ‘La
reconstruction linguistique du passé: Le cas des language Boro-Garo’. Bulletin de la Société de
Linguistique de Paris.
Jose, U. V. 2000. Rabha-English
Dictionary Khúrangnala. Guwahati: Don Bosco Publications.
Lorrain, J. H. 1950. Dictionary
of the Lushai Language. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.
MacFarlane, Alan & Iris MacFarlane. 2003. Green
Gold: The Empire of Tea. London: Ebury Press.
Marak, H. W. 1975. Ku’bidik:
A Garo-English-Assamese Dictionary. Guwahati: Assam Academy for Cultural Relations.
Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of
Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Mochari, Moniram. 1985. Bodo-English
Dictionary. Kokrajhar: Bodo Catholic Youth Association.
Rongmei
Lexicon. 1999. Imphal: Rongmei Literature Society.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Sarma, Pratham B., Manash Pratim Baruah & Bhaskar Bhattacharya
2024.
COVID-19 and Ethnic Disparities: An Analysis of the Impact of COVID-19 on Different Ethnic Groups of Assam State in Indian Sub-Continent.
Assam Journal of Internal Medicine 14:1
► pp. 31 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 august 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.