語言暨語言學 · 2000 · 135 citations · 4 references
Language ContactLinguistic AnthropologyLanguage VariationMorphology (Linguistics)Linguistic TheoryApplied LinguisticsSyntaxParallelism (Rhetoric)World LanguagesPhoneticsRgyalrong ProperHistorical LinguisticsGrammarLanguage StudiesAncient Chinese SyntaxLanguage ChangeMorphologySidaba RgyalrongAncient Chinese PhonologyBilingual PhonologyNorthwestern SichuanVerb MorphologyRomance LanguagesArtsLinguistics
The rGyalrongic linguistic group, comprising rGyalrong proper, Lavrung, and Horpa‑Shangzhai, is a distinct branch of Qiangic languages spoken by rGyalrong Tibetans in northwestern Sichuan. This study investigates potential close affinities between Sidaba rGyalrong (Caodeng dialect) and Lavrung (Mu’erzong dialect) using fresh first‑hand data. The authors examine three parallelisms in inflectional verb morphology—glottality‑inversion in past‑stem formation, ablaut, and transitivity marking via vocalic alternation in orientation prefixes—between the two dialects. These striking morphological agreements, whether archaisms or innovations, are significant for subgrouping rGyalrongic and reconstructing its proto‑morphosyntax. No additional information provided.
An impressive variety of divergent yet closely related forms of Qiangic (Tibeto-Burman) are spoken by the rGyalrong Tibetans in northwestern Sichuan, for which a distinct linguistic group rGyalrongic is proposed herein, consisting probably of three major languages: rGyalrong proper, Lavrung, and Horpa-Shangzhai. This paper explores, on the basis of fresh first-hand data, possible close affinities between a particular pair in rGyalrongic: Sidaba rGyalrong (represented by the Caodeng dialect) and Lavrung (represented by the Mu’erzong dialect). Three peculiar parallelisms in inflexional verb morphology between Sidaba rGyalrong and Lavrung are examined: (i) glottality-inversion in past-stem formation, (ii) ablaut, (iii) transitivity marking via vocalic alternation in the orientation prefixes. These striking morphological agreements, whether indicating archaisms or innovations, will be important facts to consider in subgrouping rGyalrongic as well as in reconstructing its proto-morphosyntax. ∗
4
The Classical Tibetan Language
Wolfgang Behr, Stephan V. Beyer · Oriens · 1994 · 71 citations
Notes On Tibetan Verbal Morphology 1)
W. South Coblin · T oung Pao · 1976 · 45 citations