# The semantics of the verb give in Tibetan

Eric Mélac, Nicolas Tournadre

► To cite this version:

Eric Mélac, Nicolas Tournadre. The semantics of the verb give in Tibetan: The development of the transfer construction and the honorific domain. Myriam Bouveret. Give Constructions across Languages, 29, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.175-193, 2021, Constructional Approaches to Language, 10.1075/cal.29.07eri. hal-03942066

HAL Id: hal-03942066

https://hal.science/hal-03942066

Submitted on 27 Feb 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# The Semantics of the Verb ‘Give’ in Tibetan

*The development of the transfer construction and the honorific domain*

**Eric Mélac** (Associate Professor, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3,
EMMA EA 741)

**Nicolas Tournadre** (Professor, Université d'Aix-Marseille, Lacito UMR
7107, IUF)<fnref n="1" />

This paper aims to examine the behaviour of the equivalents of ‘give’ in Lhasa
Tibetan in order to confirm, qualify or invalidate the universal tendencies that
previous cross-linguistic research has unveiled (Newman 1996, Ed., 1997). We
will first explore the semantic relations between the various forms that can
express ‘give’ in Tibetan: *SPRAD*, *BTANG*, *GNANG* and *PHUL*, on the basis of
previous lexicographic and descriptive research on Lhasa Tibetan, as well as a
corpus of spoken Lhasa Tibetan (TSC). We will see that the most basic term
(*SPRAD*) has not developed much beyond its literal meaning, whereas the
hypernymic *BTANG* is used as a light verb whose constructions can be divided
into several categories of meaning. *GNANG* is the honorific form of *SPRAD*, and
*PHUL* is its humilific form. While *SPRAD* is not used as a light verb, its honorific
and humilific counterparts are very productive light verbs. To explain this phe-
nomenon, we will explore the honorific domain, and its systematisation in Lhasa
Tibetan (Hajime, 1975; Rdorje *et al*., 1993; DeLancey, 1998; Tournadre & Sangda
Dorje, 1998; Dorje & Lhazom, 2002). We will see that the humilific plane is not
the symmetrical opposite of the honorific plane. We will also explore the pro-
ductivity of *GNANG* and *PHUL*, which can be explained by the fact that giving is
one of the most basic interpersonal actions of the human behavioural repertoire.
It therefore establishes a link between two humans, which is essential in order
for the honorific and humilific notions to emerge.

**Keywords:** give, Tibetan, light verbs, honorific, humilific

## 1. The Polyfunctionality of ‘give’

The verb ‘give’ may be one of the most frequent and basic verbs in the world’s
languages, but it captures a complex situational frame (Newman, 1996). Its
polyfunctional quality seems to be universally attested, as the verb root is
frequently redeployed into other syntactic categories, and commonly appears

<footnote n="1">¹ We would like to thank Amanda Edmonds, Xénia De Heering, Françoise Robin, Camille Simon, and Debra Ziegeler for their valuable comments, which allowed us to deepen our understanding of this paper’s topic.</footnote>
# The Semantics of the Verb ‘Give’ in Tibetan

*The development of the transfer construction and the honorific domain*

**Eric Mélac** (Associate Professor, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3,
EMMA EA 741)

**Nicolas Tournadre** (Professor, Université d'Aix-Marseille, Lacito UMR
7107, IUF)<fnref n="1" />

This paper aims to examine the behaviour of the equivalents of ‘give’ in Lhasa
Tibetan in order to confirm, qualify or invalidate the universal tendencies that
previous cross-linguistic research has unveiled (Newman 1996, Ed., 1997). We
will first explore the semantic relations between the various forms that can
express ‘give’ in Tibetan: *SPRAD*, *BTANG*, *GNANG* and *PHUL*, on the basis of
previous lexicographic and descriptive research on Lhasa Tibetan, as well as a
corpus of spoken Lhasa Tibetan (TSC). We will see that the most basic term
(*SPRAD*) has not developed much beyond its literal meaning, whereas the
hypernymic *BTANG* is used as a light verb whose constructions can be divided
into several categories of meaning. *GNANG* is the honorific form of *SPRAD*, and
*PHUL* is its humilific form. While *SPRAD* is not used as a light verb, its honorific
and humilific counterparts are very productive light verbs. To explain this phe-
nomenon, we will explore the honorific domain, and its systematisation in Lhasa
Tibetan (Hajime, 1975; Rdorje *et al.*, 1993; DeLancey, 1998; Tournadre & Sangda
Dorje, 1998; Dorje & Lhazom, 2002). We will see that the humilific plane is not
the symmetrical opposite of the honorific plane. We will also explore the pro-
ductivity of *GNANG* and *PHUL*, which can be explained by the fact that giving is
one of the most basic interpersonal actions of the human behavioural repertoire.
It therefore establishes a link between two humans, which is essential in order
for the honorific and humilific notions to emerge.

**Keywords:** give, Tibetan, light verbs, honorific, humilific

## 1. The Polyfunctionality of ‘give’

The verb ‘give’ may be one of the most frequent and basic verbs in the world’s
languages, but it captures a complex situational frame (Newman, 1996). Its
polyfunctional quality seems to be universally attested, as the verb root is
frequently redeployed into other syntactic categories, and commonly appears

<footnote n="1">¹ We would like to thank Amanda Edmonds, Xénia De Heering, Françoise Robin, Camille Simon, and Debra Ziegeler for their valuable comments, which allowed us to deepen our understanding of this paper’s topic.</footnote>
as a light verb (Jespersen, 1965; Montaut, 1991; Newman, Ed., 1997; Mohanan, 2006; Tournadre & Pezechki, forthcoming, inter alia). However, the cross-linguistic descriptions collected on this verb and its equivalents still have to be confronted with more data from typologically and genetically diverse languages, which is the aim of this volume. Newman (Ed., 1997) has explored the use of ‘give’ in many languages belonging to several language families, but no comprehensive study has been conducted on ‘give’ in a Tibetic language so far. Our description of ‘give’ in standard spoken Tibetan will lead us to investigate the link between the transfer construction, the development of light verbs and the honorific domain. It will also allow us to formulate hypotheses on the cognitive and social motivations behind the evolutionary patterns of ‘giving verbs’.

## 2. The various lexical items corresponding to ‘give’ in Tibetan

In order to answer the question of how one says ‘give’ in Tibetan, it is first essential to identify the semantic features that are generally included in the verb ‘give’, as well as what we mean by the ‘Tibetan language’.

### 2.1. *The polysemy of ‘give’*

‘Give’ is a highly polysemous verb in English, and its most literal meaning is to ‘hand an object over to someone’ (Newman, 1996). However, it is distinguished from the verbs ‘hand’ or ‘pass’ by its abstractness. It is perfectly acceptable to use ‘give’ when the giver, the transferred object and the
as a light verb (Jespersen, 1965; Montaut, 1991; Newman, Ed., 1997; Mohanan, 2006; Tournadre & Pezechki, forthcoming, inter alia). However, the cross-linguistic descriptions collected on this verb and its equivalents still have to be confronted with more data from typologically and genetically diverse languages, which is the aim of this volume. Newman (Ed., 1997) has explored the use of ‘give’ in many languages belonging to several language families, but no comprehensive study has been conducted on ‘give’ in a Tibetic language so far. Our description of ‘give’ in standard spoken Tibetan will lead us to investigate the link between the transfer construction, the development of light verbs and the honorific domain. It will also allow us to formulate hypotheses on the cognitive and social motivations behind the evolutionary patterns of ‘giving verbs’.

## 2. The various lexical items corresponding to ‘give’ in Tibetan

In order to answer the question of how one says ‘give’ in Tibetan, it is first essential to identify the semantic features that are generally included in the verb ‘give’, as well as what we mean by the ‘Tibetan language’.

### 2.1. *The polysemy of ‘give’*

‘Give’ is a highly polysemous verb in English, and its most literal meaning is to ‘hand an object over to someone’ (Newman, 1996). However, it is distinguished from the verbs ‘hand’ or ‘pass’ by its abstractness. It is perfectly acceptable to use ‘give’ when the giver, the transferred object and the
recipient are not physically in the same place, or even when the three elements
of the giving process are abstract entities.

(1) The station has been **giving** time to stories on education, government, the arts and community issues. (COCA, SPOK; npr_TalkNation, 2000)

In this example, the giver ‘station’, the transferred entity ‘time’ and the recipient ‘stories’ are all immaterial. The meaning that an English speaker can naturally extract from this sentence is more or less that the program director of the radio station has decided that stories on education, government, the arts and community issues should be allowed a certain amount of time. This example shows that in English the verb ‘give’ has become a quick, spontaneous and convenient tool to express complex, abstract ideas.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the general sense of ‘give’ is ‘make another the recipient of (something that is in the possession, or at the disposal, of the subject)’.<fnref n="2" /> However, as the entry contains 112 senses and 17 subentries, it is quite obvious that the definition of ‘give’ is highly complex, and its diverse categories of meaning are not easy to map. In English as well as in probably many of the world’s languages, ‘give’ corresponds to a semantic area made up of multiple protrusions with indefinite, ever-evolving boundaries.

2.2. ‘Tibetan’ and the Tibetic language family

Until the end of the 20th century, most scholars spoke of ‘Tibetan dialects’ to refer to a number of languages derived from Old Tibetan and spoken mainly in the Tibetan cultural area, currently covering six countries (China, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan and Myanmar). This label is problematic because the so-called ‘Tibetan dialects’ do not allow mutual intelligibility. In the

<footnote n="2">² Online version (consulted 10/05/2017).</footnote>
recipient are not physically in the same place, or even when the three elements
of the giving process are abstract entities.

(1) The station has been **giving** time to stories on education, government, the arts and community issues. (COCA, SPOK; npr_TalkNation, 2000)

In this example, the giver ‘station’, the transferred entity ‘time’ and the recipient ‘stories’ are all immaterial. The meaning that an English speaker can naturally extract from this sentence is more or less that the program director of the radio station has decided that stories on education, government, the arts and community issues should be allowed a certain amount of time. This example shows that in English the verb ‘give’ has become a quick, spontaneous and convenient tool to express complex, abstract ideas.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the general sense of ‘give’ is ‘make another the recipient of (something that is in the possession, or at the disposal, of the subject)’.<fnref n="2" /> However, as the entry contains 112 senses and 17 subentries, it is quite obvious that the definition of ‘give’ is highly complex, and its diverse categories of meaning are not easy to map. In English as well as in probably many of the world’s languages, ‘give’ corresponds to a semantic area made up of multiple protrusions with indefinite, ever-evolving boundaries.

2.2. ‘Tibetan’ and the Tibetic language family

Until the end of the 20th century, most scholars spoke of ‘Tibetan dialects’ to refer to a number of languages derived from Old Tibetan and spoken mainly in the Tibetan cultural area, currently covering six countries (China, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan and Myanmar). This label is problematic because the so-called ‘Tibetan dialects’ do not allow mutual intelligibility. In the

<footnote n="2">² Online version (consulted 10/05/2017).</footnote>
beginning of the 21st century, the term ‘Tibetan dialects’ used to designate the languages derived from Old Tibetan has been progressively replaced by ‘Tibetan languages’ (Zeisler, 2004; Gawne & Hill, 2017). Tournadre (2014) proposed to adopt the term ‘Tibetic’ to refer to this well-defined language family, and the term is now widely used (Sun, 2014; Gawne & Hill, 2017; Yliniemi, 2017; Hyslop & Tsering, 2017; Chirkova, 2017; Suzuki, 2017; DeLancey, 2017).<fnref n="3" />

The Tibetic family includes at least 50 languages. However, the total number of dialects and varieties certainly amounts to more than 200. The term ‘Tibetic languages’ is preferable to ‘Tibetan languages’ because these languages are spoken not only by Tibetans *per se*, but also by other ethnic groups such as Ladakhi, Balti, Lahuli, Sherpa, Bhutanese, Sikkimese, etc. who do not actually consider themselves to be Tibetan.<fnref n="4" /> They also do not call their languages ‘Tibetan’ (*BOD.SKAD* in Tibetan). Similarly, we do not talk of Latin or Italian languages, but of Romance languages, and do not think of French, Portuguese, Italian, Catalan or Romanian as various ‘dialects’ of Latin or Italian (Tournadre, 2014). Finally, let us note that Literary Tibetan is vastly different from the modern spoken languages.

In order to circumscribe a manageable dataset and conduct an in-depth analysis, we will focus here on one Ü-Tsang spoken dialect that belongs to the Central Tibetic language group, and which is usually referred to as Lhasa spoken Tibetan or standard spoken Tibetan. We will also consider Old and Classical Tibetan in order to understand the evolutionary paths that ‘giving verbs’ have followed leading to the current linguistic situation in standard spoken Tibetan.

<footnote n="3">³ The term ‘Tibetic’ has been used differently by other authors to refer to ‘Bodish’, ‘Bodic’, ‘Himalayish’ languages, or other intermediate groupings within the Tibeto-Burman family. For details, see Tournadre (2014).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Conversely, some ethnic groups in Tibet are officially classified as Tibetans (*zangzu* in Chinese) by the People’s Republic of China but their native languages are not Tibetic.</footnote>
beginning of the 21st century, the term ‘Tibetan dialects’ used to designate the languages derived from Old Tibetan has been progressively replaced by ‘Tibetan languages’ (Zeisler, 2004; Gawne & Hill, 2017). Tournadre (2014) proposed to adopt the term ‘Tibetic’ to refer to this well-defined language family, and the term is now widely used (Sun, 2014; Gawne & Hill, 2017; Yliniemi, 2017; Hyslop & Tsering, 2017; Chirkova, 2017; Suzuki, 2017; DeLancey, 2017).<fnref n="3" />

The Tibetic family includes at least 50 languages. However, the total number of dialects and varieties certainly amounts to more than 200. The term ‘Tibetic languages’ is preferable to ‘Tibetan languages’ because these languages are spoken not only by Tibetans *per se*, but also by other ethnic groups such as Ladakhi, Balti, Lahuli, Sherpa, Bhutanese, Sikkimese, etc. who do not actually consider themselves to be Tibetan.<fnref n="4" /> They also do not call their languages ‘Tibetan’ (*BOD.SKAD* in Tibetan). Similarly, we do not talk of Latin or Italian languages, but of Romance languages, and do not think of French, Portuguese, Italian, Catalan or Romanian as various ‘dialects’ of Latin or Italian (Tournadre, 2014). Finally, let us note that Literary Tibetan is vastly different from the modern spoken languages.

In order to circumscribe a manageable dataset and conduct an in-depth analysis, we will focus here on one Ü-Tsang spoken dialect that belongs to the Central Tibetic language group, and which is usually referred to as Lhasa spoken Tibetan or standard spoken Tibetan. We will also consider Old and Classical Tibetan in order to understand the evolutionary paths that ‘giving verbs’ have followed leading to the current linguistic situation in standard spoken Tibetan.

<footnote n="3">³ The term ‘Tibetic’ has been used differently by other authors to refer to ‘Bodish’, ‘Bodic’, ‘Himalayish’ languages, or other intermediate groupings within the Tibeto-Burman family. For details, see Tournadre (2014).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Conversely, some ethnic groups in Tibet are officially classified as Tibetans (*zangzu* in Chinese) by the People's Republic of China but their native languages are not Tibetic.</footnote>
## 2.3. 'Give' in Old and Classical Tibetan

The basic verb expressing 'give' in Tibetan has evolved from *SBYIN/BYIN* in Old Tibetan to *SPRAD*<fnref n="5" /> in contemporary standard spoken Tibetan. <fnref n="6" /> In Old Tibetan, the verb *SPROD/SPRAD* barely exists whereas *SBYIN/BYIN* is commonly used:

(2)

'di btsun.mo gnang.cen-la **byin** dang sras yong-pa-r
DEM queen Nangchen-OBL **give** IMP son come-NMZ-OBL

'gyur=ro zhes
FUT= FCLT QUOT

" 'Give it to the queen Nangchen, and you will have a son.', he said..." (Pt 0981, r099)

In Classical Tibetan, *SBYIN/BYIN* remained the most common verb meaning 'give' in a neutral register. However, *SPROD/SPRAD* had already emerged as a slightly less frequent competitor. In *the life of Milarepa* (16th c.), *SPROD/SPRAD* is used around one third of the times as a synonym of *SBYIN/BYIN*.

(3)

kho-’i ska.rags-kyi mdud.pa bkrol nas ’jim.pa-’i sho
3SG-GEN belt-GEN knot loosen CONN clay-GEN die
zhig sprad-byung
one give-CMPL.PAST.REC

'After loosening his belt, he handed a clay die to me.' (MLNT)

<footnote n="5">⁵ Standard spoken Tibetan has replaced most of its inflectional verbal system by a system of verbal suffixes. Therefore, we use the allomorphs *SPROD/SPRAD* when referring to Old and Classical Tibetan, and only *SPRAD* for standard spoken Tibetan.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ It is possible to distinguish three main periods of written Tibetan or Literary Tibetan: Old Tibetan (8th-12th c.), Classical Tibetan (13th-19th c.) and Modern Literary Tibetan (20th c.-now). However, some contemporary authors still write in a style close to Classical Tibetan (Tournadre & Suzuki, forthcoming). For Old Tibetan, our examples come from a text written in the 8th century. It is one of the Tibetan version of *Rāmāyaṇa* stories found in Dunhuang caves (Pt 0981). The examples in Classical Tibetan come from *the life of Milarepa*, written by Tsangnyön Heruka in the 15th century (*mi la’i rnam thar, gtsang smyon he ru ka*).</footnote>
## 2.3. 'Give' in Old and Classical Tibetan

The basic verb expressing 'give' in Tibetan has evolved from *SBYIN/BYIN* in Old Tibetan to *SPRAD*<fnref n="5" /> in contemporary standard spoken Tibetan. <fnref n="6" /> In Old Tibetan, the verb *SPROD/SPRAD* barely exists whereas *SBYIN/BYIN* is commonly used:

(2)

'di btsun.mo gnang.cen-la **byin** dang sras yong-pa-r
DEM queen Nangchen-OBL **give** IMP son come-NMZ-OBL

'gyur=ro zhes
FUT= FCLT QUOT

" 'Give it to the queen Nangchen, and you will have a son.', he said..." (Pt 0981, r099)

In Classical Tibetan, *SBYIN/BYIN* remained the most common verb meaning 'give' in a neutral register. However, *SPROD/SPRAD* had already emerged as a slightly less frequent competitor. In *the life of Milarepa* (16th c.), *SPROD/SPRAD* is used around one third of the times as a synonym of *SBYIN/BYIN*.

(3)

kho-’i ska.rags-kyi mdud.pa bkrol nas ’jim.pa-’i sho
3SG-GEN belt-GEN knot loosen CONN clay-GEN die
zhig sprad-byung
one give-CMPL.PAST.REC

'After loosening his belt, he handed a clay die to me.' (MLNT)

<footnote n="5">⁵ Standard spoken Tibetan has replaced most of its inflectional verbal system by a system of verbal suffixes. Therefore, we use the allomorphs *SPROD/SPRAD* when referring to Old and Classical Tibetan, and only *SPRAD* for standard spoken Tibetan.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ It is possible to distinguish three main periods of written Tibetan or Literary Tibetan: Old Tibetan (8th-12th c.), Classical Tibetan (13th-19th c.) and Modern Literary Tibetan (20th c.-now). However, some contemporary authors still write in a style close to Classical Tibetan (Tournadre & Suzuki, forthcoming). For Old Tibetan, our examples come from a text written in the 8th century. It is one of the Tibetan version of *Rāmāyaṇa* stories found in Dunhuang caves (Pt 0981). The examples in Classical Tibetan come from *the life of Milarepa*, written by Tsangnyön Heruka in the 15th century (*mi la’i rnam thar, gtsang smyon he ru ka*).</footnote>
The honorific and humilific forms to express ‘give’ are respectively GNANG and ’BUL/PHUL. They are very frequent verbs in Old and Classical Tibetan, as well as in standard spoken Tibetan.

There are other lexical verbs that are attested in Old and Classical Tibetan to convey the concept of ‘giving’. Among them are STER ‘give, bestow, offer’, GTONG/BTANG ‘give, give away, send, let go’, and GTAD/GTOD ‘direct towards, hand over, give’. There are also the less frequent MCHOD ‘offer, venerate, eat’, STSAL ‘bestow, give’, and marginally, GSOL meaning ‘ask, wear, dress, beg’, but also ‘give’ in some expressions such as MTSHAN GSOL ‘give/award a name title’, and in the noun GSOL.RAS ‘donation’, and ’GYED/GYED ‘offer, distribute’. In the modern Tibetic languages, the most frequently attested verb is SBYIN, but the other verbs are also found in some languages. For example, BTANG is the main verb for ‘give’ in Ladakh and GTOD is used in Spiti (Tournadre & Suzuki, forthcoming). In some languages such as Amdo and Sherpa, SBYIN and STER are used as suppletive verbs to express the completed past versus the imperfective/future of the basic verb ‘give’ (Robin, forthcoming; Tournadre et al., 2009).

## 2.4. ‘Give’ in standard spoken Tibetan

The basic way of saying ‘give’ in standard spoken Tibetan is SPRAD. Here is one example from the Tibet Student Corpus (TSC):<fnref n="7" />

<footnote n="7">⁷ The Tibet Student Corpus is a semi-guided corpus of spontaneous conversations in standard Tibetan collected in Lhasa in 2010-2011 by Eric Mélac (at the time a doctoral student at Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3). It is 4 hours long and includes 8 Tibetan native speakers, aged between 21 and 29, and all studying at Tibet University or the Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences (Lhasa, Tibetan Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China).</footnote>
The honorific and humilific forms to express ‘give’ are respectively GNANG and ’BUL/PHUL. They are very frequent verbs in Old and Classical Tibetan, as well as in standard spoken Tibetan.

There are other lexical verbs that are attested in Old and Classical Tibetan to convey the concept of ‘giving’. Among them are STER ‘give, bestow, offer’, GTONG/BTANG ‘give, give away, send, let go’, and GTAD/GTOD ‘direct towards, hand over, give’. There are also the less frequent MCHOD ‘offer, venerate, eat’, STSAL ‘bestow, give’, and marginally, GSOL meaning ‘ask, wear, dress, beg’, but also ‘give’ in some expressions such as MTSHAN GSOL ‘give/award a name title’, and in the noun GSOL.RAS ‘donation’, and ’GYED/GYED ‘offer, distribute’. In the modern Tibetic languages, the most frequently attested verb is SBYIN, but the other verbs are also found in some languages. For example, BTANG is the main verb for ‘give’ in Ladakh and GTOD is used in Spiti (Tournadre & Suzuki, forthcoming). In some languages such as Amdo and Sherpa, SBYIN and STER are used as suppletive verbs to express the completed past versus the imperfective/future of the basic verb ‘give’ (Robin, forthcoming; Tournadre et al., 2009).

## 2.4. ‘Give’ in standard spoken Tibetan

The basic way of saying ‘give’ in standard spoken Tibetan is SPRAD. Here is one example from the Tibet Student Corpus (TSC):<fnref n="7" />

<footnote n="7">⁷ The Tibet Student Corpus is a semi-guided corpus of spontaneous conversations in standard Tibetan collected in Lhasa in 2010-2011 by Eric Mélac (at the time a doctoral student at Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3). It is 4 hours long and includes 8 Tibetan native speakers, aged between 21 and 29, and all studying at Tibet University or the Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences (Lhasa, Tibetan Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China).</footnote>
dngul de **sprad**-song

money DEM **give**-DIR.CMPL.PAST

‘He gave the money.’ (TSC)

In this dialect, STER ‘give, offer, treat’ is a synonym of SPRAD, with a more
specific meaning. The verb GNANG is the honorific form of SPRAD, and is also
a frequent light verb. PHUL is the humilific form of SPRAD, and can also be
used as a light verb. SBYIN is not used as a verb in standard spoken Tibetan,
but the morpheme is found in the compound form BYIN.RLABS ‘blessing’ or
SBYIN.BDAG ‘a benefactor’.

In English, a verb like ‘give’ has many non-literal senses and frequently
appears as a light verb in (semi-)fossilized constructions. However, in
standard spoken Tibetan, SPRAD is very rarely used figuratively and does not
appear as a light verb. It might be surprising to note that SPRAD, as well as the
archaic form SBYIN/BYIN, have not really developed figurative meanings, and
do not serve as light verbs. Old Tibetan already had a set of light verbs and
many of them are still used today. Among them, BTANG can be seen as a verb
expressing ‘give, send, let go’ that was already widely used as a light verb in
Old Tibetan, and it seems that the other basic verbs expressing ‘give’, such as
SBYIN/BYIN and SPROD/SPRAD, have never competed for this status.

2.5. ‘Give’ as a light verb

Jespersen (1965) coined the term ‘light verb’ to refer to verbs appearing in an
English ‘verb + noun phrase construction’ as in ‘have dinner’ or ‘take a
shower’. Light verb constructions are a type of complex verbal lexeme which
usually result from the collocational association of a nominal element and a
dngul de **sprad**-song

money DEM **give**-DIR.CMPL.PAST

‘He gave the money.’ (TSC)

In this dialect, STER ‘give, offer, treat’ is a synonym of SPRAD, with a more
specific meaning. The verb GNANG is the honorific form of SPRAD, and is also
a frequent light verb. PHUL is the humilific form of SPRAD, and can also be
used as a light verb. SBYIN is not used as a verb in standard spoken Tibetan,
but the morpheme is found in the compound form BYIN.RLABS ‘blessing’ or
SBYIN.BDAG ‘a benefactor’.

In English, a verb like ‘give’ has many non-literal senses and frequently
appears as a light verb in (semi-)fossilized constructions. However, in
standard spoken Tibetan, SPRAD is very rarely used figuratively and does not
appear as a light verb. It might be surprising to note that SPRAD, as well as the
archaic form SBYIN/BYIN, have not really developed figurative meanings, and
do not serve as light verbs. Old Tibetan already had a set of light verbs and
many of them are still used today. Among them, BTANG can be seen as a verb
expressing ‘give, send, let go’ that was already widely used as a light verb in
Old Tibetan, and it seems that the other basic verbs expressing ‘give’, such as
SBYIN/BYIN and SPROD/SPRAD, have never competed for this status.

2.5. ‘Give’ as a light verb

Jespersen (1965) coined the term ‘light verb’ to refer to verbs appearing in an
English ‘verb + noun phrase construction’ as in ‘have dinner’ or ‘take a
shower’. Light verb constructions are a type of complex verbal lexeme which
usually result from the collocational association of a nominal element and a
verbal element, the latter being called a 'light verb'.<fnref n="8" /> One of the salient
properties of light verbs is their limited semantic weight and their
involvement in a linguistic sequence that functions as a complex predicate. It
is therefore the verb complement that mostly carries the semantic weight of
the construction (Tournadre & Lessan-Pezechki, forthcoming).

Lexical verbs that are good candidates to function as light verbs belong to various semantic classes. There are mainly ‘action verbs’ (‘do’, ‘make’, ‘hit’, ‘eat’), ‘transfer verbs’ (‘give’, ‘put’, ‘carry’, ‘set’, ‘send’, ‘take’), ‘motion verbs’ (‘go’, ‘come’, ‘run’) and ‘state verbs’ (‘be’, ‘have’, ‘become’, ‘stay’) (Tournadre & Lessan-Pezechki, *forthcoming*).

Light verbs are not as ‘light’ as they seem, as they may convey significant
lexical information, and they may also encode some grammatical meaning,
particularly in the fields of aspect, modality, voice and diathesis (Simon,
2011; Tournadre & Lessan-Pezechki, forthcoming).

‘Give’ appears in the list of the verbs that are commonly selected to be used
as light verbs cross-linguistically (Mohanan, 2006; Tournadre & Lessan-
Pezechki, forthcoming). In English, ‘give’ is a light verb in many
constructions. As expected with the light verb constructions, their
fossilization is quite idiosyncratic and will differ greatly from one language
to another, and even from one dialect to another. Light verb constructions
raise a problem for translation, since it is not possible to document all of them
in a monolingual or in a bilingual dictionary. Therefore, when translating
‘give’ from English into Tibetan, it is first necessary to analyse in what
specific construction ‘give’ appears in English before looking for a Tibetan

<footnote n="8">⁸ One can note however that the complement of a light verb is not always nominal, as it might look like a noun, but have no exact lexical equivalent in this syntactic category, such as in ‘have a go’. In addition, many idiomatic constructions with a generic verb and an adjectival, prepositional or even onomatopoeic complement can be classified as ‘light verb constructions’, such as ‘take into account’, ‘do wrong’ or ‘go boom’.</footnote>
verbal element, the latter being called a 'light verb'.<fnref n="8" /> One of the salient
properties of light verbs is their limited semantic weight and their
involvement in a linguistic sequence that functions as a complex predicate. It
is therefore the verb complement that mostly carries the semantic weight of
the construction (Tournadre & Lessan-Pezechki, forthcoming).

Lexical verbs that are good candidates to function as light verbs belong to
various semantic classes. There are mainly ‘action verbs’ (‘do’, ‘make’, ‘hit’,
‘eat’), ‘transfer verbs’ (‘give’, ‘put’, ‘carry’, ‘set’, ‘send’, ‘take’), ‘motion
verbs’ (‘go’, ‘come’, ‘run’) and ‘state verbs’ (‘be’, ‘have’, ‘become’, ‘stay’)
(Tournadre & Lessan-Pezechki, forthcoming).

Light verbs are not as ‘light’ as they seem, as they may convey significant
lexical information, and they may also encode some grammatical meaning,
particularly in the fields of aspect, modality, voice and diathesis (Simon,
2011; Tournadre & Lessan-Pezechki, forthcoming).

‘Give’ appears in the list of the verbs that are commonly selected to be used
as light verbs cross-linguistically (Mohanan, 2006; Tournadre & Lessan-
Pezechki, forthcoming). In English, ‘give’ is a light verb in many
constructions. As expected with the light verb constructions, their
fossilization is quite idiosyncratic and will differ greatly from one language
to another, and even from one dialect to another. Light verb constructions
raise a problem for translation, since it is not possible to document all of them
in a monolingual or in a bilingual dictionary. Therefore, when translating
‘give’ from English into Tibetan, it is first necessary to analyse in what
specific construction ‘give’ appears in English before looking for a Tibetan

<footnote n="8">⁸ One can note however that the complement of a light verb is not always nominal, as it might look like a noun, but have no exact lexical equivalent in this syntactic category, such as in ‘have a go’. In addition, many idiomatic constructions with a generic verb and an adjectival, prepositional or even onomatopoeic complement can be classified as ‘light verb constructions’, such as ‘take into account’, ‘do wrong’ or ‘go boom’.</footnote>
equivalent. We are now going to illustrate this difficulty with a few Tibetan
translations of the light verb ‘give’ in English. Starting from English does not
mean that English is considered a reference language, or even a language with
a typical distribution of the verb ‘give’. It simply aims to show that the precise
mapping of the semantic territory of ‘give’ in two unrelated languages can be
highly complex.

a. *The English light verb 'give' can quite often be translated using another light verb in standard spoken Tibetan, especially BTANG, which is the most frequent light verb in this dialect:*

‘Give a hint’ GO.BRDA BTANG (lit., notification send/give); ‘give a pat’ CAG.CAG BTANG (lit., smack send); ‘give an order’ BKOD.PA BTANG (lit., order send); ‘give a punishment’ NYES.CHAD BTANG (lit., punishment send); ‘give a hand’ ROGS.PA BTANG (lit., friend send), etc.<fnref n="9" />

b. *Standard spoken Tibetan possesses two other very frequent light verbs that will be favoured when translating some instances of the English light verb 'give':* BRGYAB and BYED (Tournadre & Dorje, 1998, 2003; DeLancey, 1990; Kopp, 1998; Tournadre & Jiatso, 2001; Bartee, 2011; Randall, 2016; Mélac, Robin & Simon, 2014, *inter alia*).

‘Give an explanation’ ‘GREL.BSHAD BRGYAB (lit., *explain hit*); ‘give an answer’ LAN BRGYAB (lit., *response hit*); ‘give a call’ KHA.PAR BRGYAB (lit., *telephone hit*), etc.

<footnote n="9">⁹ These word-to-word translations are just given as indications. Most words are polysemous, and many polymorphemic units can also be found outside of the light verb construction with an autonomous meaning.</footnote>
equivalent. We are now going to illustrate this difficulty with a few Tibetan
translations of the light verb ‘give’ in English. Starting from English does not
mean that English is considered a reference language, or even a language with
a typical distribution of the verb ‘give’. It simply aims to show that the precise
mapping of the semantic territory of ‘give’ in two unrelated languages can be
highly complex.

a. *The English light verb 'give' can quite often be translated using another light verb in standard spoken Tibetan, especially BTANG, which is the most frequent light verb in this dialect:*

‘Give a hint’ GO.BRDA BTANG (lit., notification send/give); ‘give a pat’ CAG.CAG BTANG (lit., smack send); ‘give an order’ BKOD.PA BTANG (lit., order send); ‘give a punishment’ NYES.CHAD BTANG (lit., punishment send); ‘give a hand’ ROGS.PA BTANG (lit., friend send), etc.<fnref n="9" />

b. *Standard spoken Tibetan possesses two other very frequent light verbs that will be favoured when translating some instances of the English light verb 'give':* BRGYAB and BYED (Tournadre & Dorje, 1998, 2003; DeLancey, 1990; Kopp, 1998; Tournadre & Jiatso, 2001; Bartee, 2011; Randall, 2016; Mélac, Robin & Simon, 2014, *inter alia*).

‘Give an explanation’ ‘GREL.BSHAD BRGYAB (lit., *explain hit*); ‘give an answer’ LAN BRGYAB (lit., *response hit*); ‘give a call’ KHA.PAR BRGYAB (lit., *telephone hit*), etc.

<footnote n="9">⁹ These word-to-word translations are just given as indications. Most words are polysemous, and many polymorphemic units can also be found outside of the light verb construction with an autonomous meaning.</footnote>
‘Give a lecture’ *LEGS.SBYAR BYED* (lit., *lecture do*); ‘give medical care’ *SMAN.BCOS BYED* (lit., *treatment do*); ‘give credit’ *YID.CHES BYED* (lit., *trust do*), etc.

c. In quite a number of instances, ‘give’ is used in English as a light verb to express a verbal communication. In these cases, it is quite frequent to simply find *BSHAD* or *ZER* (‘say’) in standard spoken Tibetan:

‘Give an account’ *GNAS.TSHUL BSHAD* (lit., *event say*); ‘give one’s opinion’ *BSAM.’CHAR BSHAD* (lit., *opinion say*); ‘give a teaching’ *CHOS BSHAD* (lit., *doctrine say*); ‘give thanks’ *THUGS.RJE.CHE ZER* (lit., *thanks say*), etc.

d. Finally, constructions involving the light verb ‘give’ in English are sometimes translated into Tibetan with a collocational construction, with a compound form, or with a monomorphemic verb:

‘Give a haircut’ *SKRA BZO* (lit., *hair make*); ‘give a name’ *MING BTAGS* (lit., *name attach*); ‘give notice’ *DGONGS.PA ZHU* (lit., *intent [hon.] ask [hum.]*); ‘give a ride’ *MO.TA NANG-LA BSKYAL* (lit., *car in carry*), etc.

This analysis and listing of constructions that would be appropriate translations of the English verb ‘give’ reveal several points that are essential to further our analysis of ‘give’ in Tibetan. Firstly, ‘give’ is not only highly abstract and polysemous in English, it also appears as a light verb in a great variety of entrenched constructions, making the predictability of the use of ‘give’ instead of another light verb for a given idiomatic construction quite low.<fnref n="10" /> Secondly, although the translation of ‘give’ when it has a basic

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The use of light verbs is in essence idiosyncratic, as the construction has to be memorised in its entirety. It is for example difficult to explain systematically why in English ‘give a talk’</footnote>
‘Give a lecture’ *LEGS.SBYAR BYED* (lit., *lecture do*); ‘give medical care’ *SMAN.BCOS BYED* (lit., *treatment do*); ‘give credit’ *YID.CHES BYED* (lit., *trust do*), etc.

c. In quite a number of instances, ‘give’ is used in English as a light verb to express a verbal communication. In these cases, it is quite frequent to simply find *BSHAD* or *ZER* (‘say’) in standard spoken Tibetan:

‘Give an account’ *GNAS.TSHUL BSHAD* (lit., *event say*); ‘give one’s opinion’ *BSAM.’CHAR BSHAD* (lit., *opinion say*); ‘give a teaching’ *CHOS BSHAD* (lit., *doctrine say*); ‘give thanks’ *THUGS.RJE.CHE ZER* (lit., *thanks say*), etc.

d. Finally, constructions involving the light verb ‘give’ in English are sometimes translated into Tibetan with a collocational construction, with a compound form, or with a monomorphemic verb:

‘Give a haircut’ *SKRA BZO* (lit., *hair make*); ‘give a name’ *MING BTAGS* (lit., *name attach*); ‘give notice’ *DGONGS.PA ZHU* (lit., *intent [hon.] ask [hum.]*); ‘give a ride’ *MO.TA NANG-LA BSKYAL* (lit., *car in carry*), etc.

This analysis and listing of constructions that would be appropriate translations of the English verb ‘give’ reveal several points that are essential to further our analysis of ‘give’ in Tibetan. Firstly, ‘give’ is not only highly abstract and polysemous in English, it also appears as a light verb in a great variety of entrenched constructions, making the predictability of the use of ‘give’ instead of another light verb for a given idiomatic construction quite low.<fnref n="10" /> Secondly, although the translation of ‘give’ when it has a basic

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The use of light verbs is in essence idiosyncratic, as the construction has to be memorised in its entirety. It is for example difficult to explain systematically why in English ‘give a talk’</footnote>
meaning of ‘handing something over to someone’ is quite straightforward in
standard spoken Tibetan (SPRAD), the translation of figurative ‘give’ is in no
way easy to systematize. Finally, this contrastive analysis illustrates that the
Tibetan language has also developed very common light verbs, but SPRAD is
not one of them.

3. The distribution of SPRAD, GNANG and PHUL in standard spoken
Tibetan

Now that we know that the answer to the question ‘How do you say “give” in
Tibetan?’ is not as simple as it seems, we can adopt a form-to-function
approach starting from Tibetan. We will focus on the most common words
that can express the notion of ‘giving’ in standard spoken Tibetan and briefly
explore their evolution from Old Tibetan.

3.1. *The Tibetan verb SPRAD*

The verb SPRAD is the most common way of saying ‘give’ when it means
‘hand something over’. However, SPRAD is quite monosemous, literal and
unproductive. In Old Tibetan, and partly in Classical Tibetan, the meaning of
SPROD/SPRAD was different from its contemporary use in standard spoken
Tibetan, since it usually meant ‘meet’ or ‘bring together’.

(5)

'o.na nga-s mar.pa dang sprad=kyis

then 1SG-ERG Marpa ASSOC bring together= FCLT

‘Then I can arrange for you to meet Marpa...’ (MLNT)

<footnote>and ‘make an announcement’ are perfect collocations while ‘??make a talk’ and ‘??give an announcement’ are not.</footnote>
meaning of ‘handing something over to someone’ is quite straightforward in standard spoken Tibetan (SPRAD), the translation of figurative ‘give’ is in no way easy to systematize. Finally, this contrastive analysis illustrates that the Tibetan language has also developed very common light verbs, but SPRAD is not one of them.

### 3. The distribution of SPRAD, GNANG and PHUL in standard spoken Tibetan

Now that we know that the answer to the question ‘How do you say “give” in Tibetan?’ is not as simple as it seems, we can adopt a form-to-function approach starting from Tibetan. We will focus on the most common words that can express the notion of ‘giving’ in standard spoken Tibetan and briefly explore their evolution from Old Tibetan.

#### 3.1. *The Tibetan verb SPRAD*

The verb SPRAD is the most common way of saying ‘give’ when it means ‘hand something over’. However, SPRAD is quite monosemous, literal and unproductive. In Old Tibetan, and partly in Classical Tibetan, the meaning of SPRAD/SPRAD was different from its contemporary use in standard spoken Tibetan, since it usually meant ‘meet’ or ‘bring together’.

(5)

'o.na nga-s mar.pa dang sprad=kyis

then 1SG-ERG Marpa ASSOC bring together= FCLT

‘Then I can arrange for you to meet Marpa...’ (MLNT)

<footnote>and ‘make an announcement’ are perfect collocations while ‘??make a talk’ and ‘??give an announcement’ are not.</footnote>
In standard spoken Tibetan, the verb *SPRAD* has lost that meaning and only signifies ‘give’. It appears 11 times in the TSC, where it is always associated with a concrete object (money, food, things, socks, gloves...; *see* example 4). This further confirms that the use of *SPRAD* is quite different from ‘give’ in English, the latter having most often a figurative meaning as shown by large corpus statistics (Gilquin, 2008).

## 3.2. *The Tibetan verb GNANG*

The verb *GNANG* is used as a plain lexical verb in Old Tibetan to mean ‘give’ in the honorific. It can have both a concrete or an abstract meaning. Since the agent of the transfer has to be a high-profile person, it can quite often be translated as ‘grant’.

(6)

bdag-gyi pha ltar dgum-ba-r ci **gnang** zhes gsol=lo

1SG-GEN father like kill-NMZ-OBL CR **give** (H) QUOT beg= FCLT

“ ‘Grant me to be killed just like my father’, he begged.” (Pt 0981, r250)

In Classical Tibetan, *GNANG* is also a very frequent verb expressing ‘give’ when the agent is seen as particularly respectable. There are many instances of it in *the life of Milarepa* (15th c.).

(7)

gser srang bdun-po **gnang-byung**

gold ounce seven **give** (H)-CMPL.PAST.REC

‘She gave me seven ounces of gold.’ (MLNT)
In standard spoken Tibetan, the verb *SPRAD* has lost that meaning and only signifies ‘give’. It appears 11 times in the TSC, where it is always associated with a concrete object (money, food, things, socks, gloves...; *see* example 4). This further confirms that the use of *SPRAD* is quite different from ‘give’ in English, the latter having most often a figurative meaning as shown by large corpus statistics (Gilquin, 2008).

## 3.2. *The Tibetan verb GNANG*

The verb *GNANG* is used as a plain lexical verb in Old Tibetan to mean ‘give’ in the honorific. It can have both a concrete or an abstract meaning. Since the agent of the transfer has to be a high-profile person, it can quite often be translated as ‘grant’.

(6)

bdag-gyi pha ltar dgum-ba-r ci **gnang** zhes gsol=lo

1SG-GEN father like kill-NMZ-OBL CR **give** (H) QUOT beg= FCLT

“ ‘Grant me to be killed just like my father’, he begged.” (Pt 0981, r250)

In Classical Tibetan, *GNANG* is also a very frequent verb expressing ‘give’ when the agent is seen as particularly respectable. There are many instances of it in *the life of Milarepa* (15th c.).

(7)

gser srang bdun-po **gnang-byung**

gold ounce seven **give** (H)-CMPL.PAST.REC

‘She gave me seven ounces of gold.’ (MLNT)
The verb GNANG was also already used as a frequent light verb in Classical
Tibetan. In *the life of Milarepa*, one can find the following constructions,
which are all in the honorific:

CHOS GNANG (lit., doctrine give [hon.]) 'teach the Buddhist doctrine'; MTHU GNANG (lit., magic give [hon.]) 'grant magical power'; GDAMS.NGAG GNANG (lit., instruction give[hon.]) 'give instructions'; PHYAG. 'BEBS GNANG (lit., beating give[hon.]) 'beat'; DBANG GNANG (lit., power give [hon.]) 'give empowerment'; PHYAG.RTAGS GNANG (lit., sign give [hon.]) 'give a sign, wave'; LUNG.BSTAN GNANG (lit. prophesy give [hon.]) 'predict, prophesy', etc.

In standard spoken Tibetan, it is used as a lexical verb to convey the honorific
meaning of both SPRAD ‘give, hand over’ and BYED ‘do’ (Tournadre & Dorje,
1998, 2003). It also occurs as an honorific morpheme after an honorific
lexical verb such as GSUNG (‘say’) or after the light verb BTANG (see below).

In the TSC, it appears 24 times. In no occurrence, is it the honorific form of
SPRAD ('give, hand over'), but it is the honorific of BYED ('do') 7 times in the
corpus. It appears twice as part of the honorific imperative suffix
-GNANG.ROGS. In the remaining 13 occurrences, it is an honorific light verb or
is part of an honorific compound verb. It is compatible with different kinds
of actions. Here are a few examples from the TSC:

'TSHAL.GNANG (lit., seek.give [hon.]) 'look for' is the honorific of 'TSHAL;
DRAN.GNANG (lit., remember.give [hon.]) 'remember' is the honorific of DRAN;
MOS.MTHUN GNANG 'agree' is the honorific of MOS.MTHUN BYED;
BZHUGS.GNANG (lit., stay [hon.].give [hon.]) 'stay' is an alternative to the
simple form BZHUGS, the honorific of BSDAD; GSUNG.GNANG (lit., say
[hon.].give [hon.]) 'say' is an alternative to the simple form GSUNG, the
honorific of BSHAD, etc.
The verb GNANG was also already used as a frequent light verb in Classical
Tibetan. In *the life of Milarepa*, one can find the following constructions,
which are all in the honorific:

CHOS GNANG (lit., *doctrine give [hon.]*) 'teach the Buddhist doctrine'; MTHU GNANG (lit., *magic give [hon.]*) 'grant magical power'; GDAMS.NGAG GNANG (lit., *instruction give[hon.]*) 'give instructions'; PHYAG. 'BEBS GNANG (lit., *beating give[hon.]*) 'beat'; DBANG GNANG (lit., *power give [hon.]*) 'give empowerment'; PHYAG.RTAGS GNANG (lit., *sign give [hon.]*) 'give a sign, wave'; LUNG.BSTAN GNANG (lit. *prophesy give [hon.]*) 'predict, prophesy', etc.

In standard spoken Tibetan, it is used as a lexical verb to convey the honorific
meaning of both SPRAD ‘give, hand over’ and BYED ‘do’ (Tournadre & Dorje,
1998, 2003). It also occurs as an honorific morpheme after an honorific
lexical verb such as GSUNG (‘say’) or after the light verb BTANG (see below).

In the TSC, it appears 24 times. In no occurrence, is it the honorific form of
SPRAD ('give, hand over'), but it is the honorific of BYED ('do') 7 times in the
corpus. It appears twice as part of the honorific imperative suffix
-GNANG.ROGS. In the remaining 13 occurrences, it is an honorific light verb or
is part of an honorific compound verb. It is compatible with different kinds
of actions. Here are a few examples from the TSC:

'TSHAL.GNANG (lit., *seek.give [hon.]* ) ‘look for’ is the honorific of ’TSHAL;
DRAN.GNANG (lit., *remember.give [hon.]* ) ‘remember’ is the honorific of DRAN;
MOS.MTHUN GNANG ‘agree’ is the honorific of MOS.MTHUN BYED;
BZHUGS.GNANG (lit., *stay [hon.].give [hon.]* ) ‘stay’ is an alternative to the
simple form BZHUGS, the honorific of BSDAD; GSUNG.GNANG (lit., *say
[hon.].give [hon.]* ) ‘say’ is an alternative to the simple form GSUNG, the
honorific of BSHAD, etc.
### 3.3. The Tibetan verb PHUL

In Old Tibetan, 'BUL/PHUL is a lexical verb that is the humilific form of SPRAD 'give, hand over' when the agent of the transfer is presented as inferior to the recipient.

(8)

de.nas phyag byas 'phrin.yig dang rtags so.rdub

then arm (H.) LV letter CONN token ring

phul te

give (h) CONN

'After paying respect, he gave her the letter and the ring as a token...' (Pt 0981, r219)

The same function can be observed in Classical Tibetan:

(9)

nga-s gser g.yu kun **phul** te

1SG-ERG gold turquoise all **give** (h) CONN

'I gave you all the gold and Turquoise...' (MLNT)

Just like the honorific verb GNANG, the humilific verb 'BUL/PHUL was already a well-established light verb in Classical Tibetan. The following constructions appear in the life of Milarepa:

PHYAG PHUL (lit., arm [hon.] give [hum.]) 'prostrate'; GZIGS PHUL (lit., eye [hon.] give [hum.]) 'show'; RGYU.MTSHAN PHUL (lit. reason give [hum.]) 'give some reasons'; GLU PHUL (lit. song give [hum.]) 'offer a song', etc.

In the TSC, the verb PHUL only appears once in the idiomatic expression ZHAL.PAR PHUL ('give a phone call', hum.), in which it is undeniably a light verb.

What is interesting about the verb PHUL is that when it is used as a humilific light verb, it does not correspond to the verb SPRAD in the ordinary domain,
### 3.3. The Tibetan verb PHUL

In Old Tibetan, 'BUL/PHUL is a lexical verb that is the humilific form of SPRAD 'give, hand over' when the agent of the transfer is presented as inferior to the recipient.

(8)

de.nas phyag byas 'phrin.yig dang rtags so.rdub

then arm (H.) LV letter CONN token ring

phul te

give (h) CONN

'After paying respect, he gave her the letter and the ring as a token...' (Pt 0981, r219)

The same function can be observed in Classical Tibetan:

(9)

nga-s gser g.yu kun **phul** te

1SG-ERG gold turquoise all **give** (h) CONN

'I gave you all the gold and Turquoise...' (MLNT)

Just like the honorific verb GNANG, the humilific verb 'BUL/PHUL was already a well-established light verb in Classical Tibetan. The following constructions appear in the life of Milarepa:

PHYAG PHUL (lit., arm [hon.] give [hum.]) 'prostrate'; GZIGS PHUL (lit., eye [hon.] give [hum.]) 'show'; RGYU.MTSHAN PHUL (lit. reason give [hum.]) 'give some reasons'; GLU PHUL (lit. song give [hum.]) 'offer a song', etc.

In the TSC, the verb PHUL only appears once in the idiomatic expression ZHAL.PAR PHUL ('give a phone call', hum.), in which it is undeniably a light verb.

What is interesting about the verb PHUL is that when it is used as a humilific light verb, it does not correspond to the verb SPRAD in the ordinary domain,
but to other verbs instead. For example, the ordinary form of the humilific
*MTSHAN PHUL* ‘give a name’ is *MING BTAG*, literally meaning ‘attach a name’.
The ordinary form of *ZHAL.PAR PHUL* ‘give a phone call’ is *KHA.PAR BRGYAB*
(or *KHA.PAR BTANG*). In these two examples, the original meaning of the verb
*PHUL* is not much altered, as the act of ‘giving a name’ or ‘giving a phone
call’ can both be seen as a ‘transfer of data’ between two people.

However, the meaning of the verb *PHUL* seems to have bleached further in
constructions such as *PHYAG PHUL*, meaning ‘prostrate’ (lit., *hand [hon.] give*
*[hum.]* ) or *ZHABS.SKOR PHUL*, meaning ‘circumambulate’, i.e. ‘walk around a
religious emblem’ (lit., *foot [hon.].turn give [hum.]*). The ordinary form of
*PHYAG PHUL* is *PHYAG 'TSHAL* (lit., *hand [hon.] beg*), and the ordinary form of
*ZHABS.SKOR PHUL* is *SKOR.BA BRGYAB* (lit., *turn hit*). In order to examine why
the humilific and honorific forms *PHUL* and *GNANG* are actually more
productive than the ordinary verb *SPRAD*, it is first necessary to understand the
mechanics of the honorific domain in Tibetan.

4. ‘Give’ and the honorific domain

4.1 *The honorific domain in Tibetan*

We are using the term ‘domain’ here, as it is slightly misleading to call the
honorific system of Tibetan a register, since ‘a register’ refers to a certain
linguistic variety that has a diffuse impact on a speaker’s speech and is
particularly dependent on social settings. The use of Tibetan honorifics is
more specific and systematized than what is usually meant by the notion of
register, as it reflects the speaker’s attitude toward the referents of the words
he uses by positioning them on the social scale.

In all the world's languages, there are words, constructions, terms of address
and/or grammatical paradigms that encode respect towards the addressee, as
but to other verbs instead. For example, the ordinary form of the humilific
*MTSHAN PHUL* ‘give a name’ is *MING BTAG*, literally meaning ‘attach a name’.
The ordinary form of *ZHAL.PAR PHUL* ‘give a phone call’ is *KHA.PAR BRGYAB*
(or *KHA.PAR BTANG*). In these two examples, the original meaning of the verb
*PHUL* is not much altered, as the act of ‘giving a name’ or ‘giving a phone
call’ can both be seen as a ‘transfer of data’ between two people.

However, the meaning of the verb *PHUL* seems to have bleached further in
constructions such as *PHYAG PHUL*, meaning ‘prostrate’ (lit., *hand [hon.] give*
*[hum.]* ) or *ZHABS.SKOR PHUL*, meaning ‘circumambulate’, i.e. ‘walk around a
religious emblem’ (lit., *foot [hon.].turn give [hum.]*). The ordinary form of
*PHYAG PHUL* is *PHYAG 'TSHAL* (lit., *hand [hon.] beg*), and the ordinary form of
*ZHABS.SKOR PHUL* is *SKOR.BA BRGYAB* (lit., *turn hit*). In order to examine why
the humilific and honorific forms *PHUL* and *GNANG* are actually more
productive than the ordinary verb *SPRAD*, it is first necessary to understand the
mechanics of the honorific domain in Tibetan.

4. ‘Give’ and the honorific domain

4.1 *The honorific domain in Tibetan*

We are using the term ‘domain’ here, as it is slightly misleading to call the
honorific system of Tibetan a register, since ‘a register’ refers to a certain
linguistic variety that has a diffuse impact on a speaker’s speech and is
particularly dependent on social settings. The use of Tibetan honorifics is
more specific and systematized than what is usually meant by the notion of
register, as it reflects the speaker’s attitude toward the referents of the words
he uses by positioning them on the social scale.

In all the world's languages, there are words, constructions, terms of address
and/or grammatical paradigms that encode respect towards the addressee, as
well as the things and people that the speaker refers to (Ide, 1989; Agha, 1994, *inter alia*). However, several Asian languages possess an honorific domain that is more pervasive and systematized. For example, there have been numerous studies on the honorific systems of Japanese and Korean (Okamoto, 1999; Strauss & Eun, 2005, *inter alia*). Several scholars have also investigated the honorific domain of Tibetan (Hajime, 1975; Rdorje et al., 1993; DeLancey, 1998; Tournadre & Dorje, 1998, 2003; Denwood, 1999; Dorje & Lhazom, 2002).

Regarding the general conditions of the use of the honorific domain in
Tibetan, it can first be noticed that it is quite limited both in regional and
social dialects. The Lhasa aristocracy is reputed to be the only Tibetan
speakers that use it ‘perfectly’. The vast majority of speakers of standard
Tibetan employ an honorific system that is less pervasive and simpler than in
the Lhasa upper-class sociolect (Tournadre & Dorje, 1998, 2003). Secondly,
it is true that the general register of the sentence will influence the use of the
honorific domain, and Tibetan speakers tend to use more honorifics in formal
situations. However, in order to really understand how the honorific system
of Tibetan functions, it is necessary to take into account several other
linguistic parameters.

First of all, the honorific domain affects many linguistic forms, but is
systematized differently according to the syntactic category of a given word.
In Tibetan, the honorific domain may concern nouns, verbs, pronouns,
suffixes and terms of address. Tournadre & Dorje (1998, 2003) distinguish
four planes for the honorific domain in addition to the ordinary plane: the
honorific, the humilific, the high honorific and the double honorific. The
plane for a given linguistic item is chosen according to the social status of the
participants mentioned in the sentence (explicit or implicit) with respect to
the speaker. The honorific domain not only refers to people, but also to their
spheres, that is, the objects and other entities that are related to them. What is
special about verbs is that they generally connect several participants in a
well as the things and people that the speaker refers to (Ide, 1989; Agha, 1994, *inter alia*). However, several Asian languages possess an honorific domain that is more pervasive and systematized. For example, there have been numerous studies on the honorific systems of Japanese and Korean (Okamoto, 1999; Strauss & Eun, 2005, *inter alia*). Several scholars have also investigated the honorific domain of Tibetan (Hajime, 1975; Rdorje et al., 1993; DeLancey, 1998; Tournadre & Dorje, 1998, 2003; Denwood, 1999; Dorje & Lhazom, 2002).

Regarding the general conditions of the use of the honorific domain in
Tibetan, it can first be noticed that it is quite limited both in regional and
social dialects. The Lhasa aristocracy is reputed to be the only Tibetan
speakers that use it 'perfectly'. The vast majority of speakers of standard
Tibetan employ an honorific system that is less pervasive and simpler than in
the Lhasa upper-class sociolect (Tournadre & Dorje, 1998, 2003). Secondly,
it is true that the general register of the sentence will influence the use of the
honorific domain, and Tibetan speakers tend to use more honorifics in formal
situations. However, in order to really understand how the honorific system
of Tibetan functions, it is necessary to take into account several other
linguistic parameters.

First of all, the honorific domain affects many linguistic forms, but is
systematized differently according to the syntactic category of a given word.
In Tibetan, the honorific domain may concern nouns, verbs, pronouns,
suffixes and terms of address. Tournadre & Dorje (1998, 2003) distinguish
four planes for the honorific domain in addition to the ordinary plane: the
honorific, the humilific, the high honorific and the double honorific. The
plane for a given linguistic item is chosen according to the social status of the
participants mentioned in the sentence (explicit or implicit) with respect to
the speaker. The honorific domain not only refers to people, but also to their
spheres, that is, the objects and other entities that are related to them. What is
special about verbs is that they generally connect several participants in a
sentence, which makes all of these planes relevant for some verbs, whereas nouns generally distinguish between only the ordinary and honorific forms at most. The high honorific plane concerns very few verbs and is used to convey a highly reverential attitude. In order to illustrate the other planes of the honorific domain (honorific, humilific and double honorific), we will take *SPRAD* ('give, hand over') as an example.

## 4.2. *The functioning of ‘give’ in the Tibetan honorific system*

The special relation that the verb ‘give’ bears with the honorific domain has already been investigated by Loveday (1986) in his study of Japanese from a sociolinguistic perspective. In Japanese, ‘give’ possesses several translations depending on the social relationship between the two participants (Loveday, 1986, cited in Newman, 1996).

In Tibetan, in order to understand the honorific system of transitive and ditransitive verbs, the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee is relevant, as well as the social relationship between the participants in the sentence. The basic rules for the use of *SPRAD* (honorific form *GNANG*, humilific form *PHUL* and double honorific form *PHUL.GNANG*) are the following:

a. *The honorific form GNANG encodes that the agent has a higher status than the speaker*

b. *The humilific form PHUL encodes that the agent has a lower status than the recipient*

c. *The double honorific form PHUL.GNANG encodes that the agent has a higher status than the speaker and that the agent has a lower status than the recipient*

In order to illustrate these diverse possibilities, let us consider a few protagonists: some ordinary people (the speaker, Tenzin and Tsering), two
sentence, which makes all of these planes relevant for some verbs, whereas nouns generally distinguish between only the ordinary and honorific forms at most. The high honorific plane concerns very few verbs and is used to convey a highly reverential attitude. In order to illustrate the other planes of the honorific domain (honorific, humilific and double honorific), we will take *SPRAD* ('give, hand over') as an example.

## 4.2. *The functioning of ‘give’ in the Tibetan honorific system*

The special relation that the verb ‘give’ bears with the honorific domain has already been investigated by Loveday (1986) in his study of Japanese from a sociolinguistic perspective. In Japanese, ‘give’ possesses several translations depending on the social relationship between the two participants (Loveday, 1986, cited in Newman, 1996).

In Tibetan, in order to understand the honorific system of transitive and ditransitive verbs, the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee is relevant, as well as the social relationship between the participants in the sentence. The basic rules for the use of *SPRAD* (honorific form *GNANG*, humilific form *PHUL* and double honorific form *PHUL.GNANG*) are the following:

a. *The honorific form GNANG encodes that the agent has a higher status than the speaker*

b. *The humilific form PHUL encodes that the agent has a lower status than the recipient*

c. *The double honorific form PHUL.GNANG encodes that the agent has a higher status than the speaker and that the agent has a lower status than the recipient*

In order to illustrate these diverse possibilities, let us consider a few protagonists: some ordinary people (the speaker, Tenzin and Tsering), two
monks (high on the social scale) and a *Rinpoche* (a reincarnated lama, considered very high on the social scale).

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the Tibetan social scale</figcaption></figure>

With a transfer verb such as SPRAD, some of the most common combinations
are the following:

<caption>Table 1: ‘Give’ and the honorific domain in Tibetan</caption>
monks (high on the social scale) and a *Rinpoche* (a reincarnated lama, considered very high on the social scale).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the Tibetan social scale</figcaption></figure>

With a transfer verb such as SPRAD, some of the most common combinations
are the following:

<caption>Table 1: ‘Give’ and the honorific domain in Tibetan</caption>
<table><tr><td>Speaker</td><td>→</td><td>Tenzin</td><td>SPRAD (ordinary, because speaker on same level as Tenzin)</td></tr><tr><td>Tenzin</td><td>→</td><td>Tsering</td><td>SPRAD (ordinary, Tenzin = Tsering, and spkr = Tenzin)</td></tr><tr><td>Tenzin</td><td>↗</td><td>monk</td><td>PHUL (humilific, Tenzin &lt; monk, and spkr = Tenzin)</td></tr><tr><td>Monk</td><td>↘</td><td>Tenzin</td><td>GNANG (honorific, monk &gt; Tenzin, and spkr &lt; monk)</td></tr><tr><td>Monk</td><td>→</td><td>monk</td><td>GNANG (hon., monk = monk, and spkr &lt; monk)</td></tr><tr><td>Monk</td><td>↗</td><td>Rinpoche</td><td>PHUL.GNANG (double hon., monk &lt; Rinpoche, and spkr &lt; monk)</td></tr><tr><td>Rinpoche</td><td>↘</td><td>monk</td><td>GNANG (hon., Rinpoche &gt; monk, and spkr &lt; Rinpoche)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: The form of ‘give’ in Tibetan according to the social positions of the agent and the recipient</figcaption></figure>

What can be noticed from this schematic presentation is first that the humilific plane is not the symmetrical opposite of the honorific plane. The honorific
<table><tr><td>Speaker</td><td>→</td><td>Tenzin</td><td>SPRAD (ordinary, because speaker on same level as Tenzin)</td></tr><tr><td>Tenzin</td><td>→</td><td>Tsering</td><td>SPRAD (ordinary, Tenzin = Tsering, and spkr = Tenzin)</td></tr><tr><td>Tenzin</td><td>↗</td><td>monk</td><td>PHUL (humilific, Tenzin &lt; monk, and spkr = Tenzin)</td></tr><tr><td>Monk</td><td>↘</td><td>Tenzin</td><td>GNANG (honorific, monk &gt; Tenzin, and spkr &lt; monk)</td></tr><tr><td>Monk</td><td>→</td><td>monk</td><td>GNANG (hon., monk = monk, and spkr &lt; monk)</td></tr><tr><td>Monk</td><td>↗</td><td>Rinpoche</td><td>PHUL.GNANG (double hon., monk &lt; Rinpoche, and spkr &lt; monk)</td></tr><tr><td>Rinpoche</td><td>↘</td><td>monk</td><td>GNANG (hon., Rinpoche &gt; monk, and spkr &lt; Rinpoche)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: The form of ‘give’ in Tibetan according to the social positions of the agent and the recipient</figcaption></figure>

What can be noticed from this schematic presentation is first that the humilific plane is not the symmetrical opposite of the honorific plane. The honorific
form GNANG can encode a downward transfer, and also a horizontal transfer if the agent is higher than the speaker. The humilific form can only be used for an upward transfer with an agent that is not higher than the speaker, and the double honorific form will be appropriate for an upward transfer when the agent is superior to the speaker.

Nevertheless, in addition to the high variation that exists in the use of the honorific system, what makes it even more complex is the strict convention in Tibetan culture for a speaker to pretend that he is not higher on the social scale than anyone else. Therefore, even when a monk or a *Rinpoche* is the speaker, they will never use honorific words in reference to themselves or express that it is an upward transfer when they are recipients.

### 4.3. *The emergence of GNANG and PHUL as light verbs of the honorific domain*

Is it now possible to offer some explanations as to why *SPRAD* has not redeployed as a light verb, whereas the honorific form *GNANG* and the humilific form *PHUL* have been quite productive?<fnref n="11" />

It is undeniable that in Tibetan there is a special relation between the honorific domain and the verb ‘give’. We would argue that this phenomenon is not just a random idiosyncrasy of Tibetan, but may rely on the special cognitive status of the notion of transfer, as capturing social hierarchy quite accurately.

What the cross-linguistic research on light verbs has demonstrated is that light verbs generally come from frequent verbs with a basic meaning (Butt & Lahiri, 2003; Mohanan, 2006). It is the case in Tibetan since the three most frequent light verbs *BYED*, *BTANG*, and *BRGYAB* respectively mean ‘do’, ‘give, send’, and ‘hit, throw’. What is special about the verb ‘give’ however may be that it refers to one of the most basic interpersonal actions of the human

<footnote n="11">¹¹ It has to be noticed however that there are a few figurative expressions involving *SPRAD*, and that *GNANG* has been far more productive than *PHUL*.</footnote>
form GNANG can encode a downward transfer, and also a horizontal transfer if the agent is higher than the speaker. The humilific form can only be used for an upward transfer with an agent that is not higher than the speaker, and the double honorific form will be appropriate for an upward transfer when the agent is superior to the speaker.

Nevertheless, in addition to the high variation that exists in the use of the honorific system, what makes it even more complex is the strict convention in Tibetan culture for a speaker to pretend that he is not higher on the social scale than anyone else. Therefore, even when a monk or a *Rinpoche* is the speaker, they will never use honorific words in reference to themselves or express that it is an upward transfer when they are recipients.

### 4.3. *The emergence of GNANG and PHUL as light verbs of the honorific domain*

Is it now possible to offer some explanations as to why *SPRAD* has not redeployed as a light verb, whereas the honorific form *GNANG* and the humilific form *PHUL* have been quite productive?<fnref n="11" />

It is undeniable that in Tibetan there is a special relation between the honorific domain and the verb ‘give’. We would argue that this phenomenon is not just a random idiosyncrasy of Tibetan, but may rely on the special cognitive status of the notion of transfer, as capturing social hierarchy quite accurately.

What the cross-linguistic research on light verbs has demonstrated is that light verbs generally come from frequent verbs with a basic meaning (Butt & Lahiri, 2003; Mohanan, 2006). It is the case in Tibetan since the three most frequent light verbs *BYED*, *BTANG*, and *BRGYAB* respectively mean ‘do’, ‘give, send’, and ‘hit, throw’. What is special about the verb ‘give’ however may be that it refers to one of the most basic interpersonal actions of the human

<footnote n="11">¹¹ It has to be noticed however that there are a few figurative expressions involving *SPRAD*, and that *GNANG* has been far more productive than *PHUL*.</footnote>
behavioural repertoire. Therefore, ‘give’ is particularly relevant for the honorific domain, and it is indeed one of the rare verbs in standard spoken Tibetan that possesses a humilific form.<fnref n="12" /> The verb *SPRAD* is also one of the only two verbs that possess a double honorific form *PHUL.GNANG* (together with *BSHAD* ‘say’, whose double honorific form is *ZHU.GNANG*). The verb ‘say’ is similar to ‘give’ in the sense that they are both basic verbs prototypically connecting two human beings.

In Tibetan, the honorific form *GNANG* has become a very frequent light verb (as confirmed by its frequent occurrences in the TSC), and its meaning has bleached so that it does not seem to encode much more than an honorific semantic feature in some of these constructions.

Although the verb *PHUL* is far less frequent and productive than *GNANG*, its meaning has also bleached when it is used as a light verb. Let us consider an example from the TSC:

(10)

tshe.ring lha.mo-s khong-la zhal.par phul...

Tsering Lhamo-ERG 3SG-OBL phone (H) VBZ (h)

‘Tsering Lhamo gave her a call…’ (TSC)

In this example, the speaker uses the verb *PHUL*, but it does not mean ‘hand something over’. It expresses a communicative contact between two people, as well as a mark of respect that the agent shows to the recipient. As mentioned before, the ordinary form of *ZHAL.PAR PHUL* is *KHA.PAR BRGYAB* (or *KHA.PAR BTANG*), and not *KHA.PAR SPRAD* for this meaning, which again shows that the humilific feature of *PHUL* was more important in its selection as a light verb than its basic meaning of ‘giving’.

<footnote n="12">¹² The other humilific verbs of Tibetan are *ZHU* ‘eat, drink, say’, the humilific form of *ZA* ‘eat’, *BTHUNG* ‘drink’ and *BSHAD* ‘say’, *BCAR* ‘come close to sb., call on sb., meet sb.’, the humilific form of *’GRO’ ‘go’* or *THUG* ‘meet’, and *MJAL* ‘visit, see’, the humilific form of *THUG* ‘meet’ and *MTHONG* ‘see’.</footnote>
behavioural repertoire. Therefore, ‘give’ is particularly relevant for the honorific domain, and it is indeed one of the rare verbs in standard spoken Tibetan that possesses a humilific form.<fnref n="12" /> The verb *SPRAD* is also one of the only two verbs that possess a double honorific form *PHUL.GNANG* (together with *BSHAD* ‘say’, whose double honorific form is *ZHU.GNANG*). The verb ‘say’ is similar to ‘give’ in the sense that they are both basic verbs prototypically connecting two human beings.

In Tibetan, the honorific form *GNANG* has become a very frequent light verb (as confirmed by its frequent occurrences in the TSC), and its meaning has bleached so that it does not seem to encode much more than an honorific semantic feature in some of these constructions.

Although the verb *PHUL* is far less frequent and productive than *GNANG*, its meaning has also bleached when it is used as a light verb. Let us consider an example from the TSC:

(10)

tshe.ring lha.mo-s khong-la zhal.par phul...

Tsering Lhamo-ERG 3SG-OBL phone (H) VBZ (h)

‘Tsering Lhamo gave her a call…’ (TSC)

In this example, the speaker uses the verb *PHUL*, but it does not mean ‘hand something over’. It expresses a communicative contact between two people, as well as a mark of respect that the agent shows to the recipient. As mentioned before, the ordinary form of *ZHAL.PAR PHUL* is *KHA.PAR BRGYAB* (or *KHA.PAR BTANG*), and not *KHA.PAR SPRAD* for this meaning, which again shows that the humilific feature of *PHUL* was more important in its selection as a light verb than its basic meaning of ‘giving’.

<footnote n="12">¹² The other humilific verbs of Tibetan are *ZHU* ‘eat, drink, say’, the humilific form of *ZA* ‘eat’, *BTHUNG* ‘drink’ and *BSHAD* ‘say’, *BCAR* ‘come close to sb., call on sb., meet sb.’, the humilific form of *’GRO’ ‘go’* or *THUG* ‘meet’, and *MJAL* ‘visit, see’, the humilific form of *THUG* ‘meet’ and *MTHONG* ‘see’.</footnote>
In some constructions, the ditransitive feature of *PHUL* is not even retained. As we saw in 3.4, *PHUL* is often used as a light verb for religious performances: *MCHOD.PA PHUL* ‘make offerings’, *PHYAG PHUL* ‘prostrate’, *ZHABS.SKOR PHUL* ‘circumambulate’, and *DMAR.MCHOD PHUL* (lit., *sacrifice give*) ‘make a sacrifice’. In these cases, the meaning of *PHUL* has bleached further, as the constructions seem to refer to specific acts without any explicit transfer. However, we would argue that these acts imply an underlying beneficiary to which it is essential for Tibetans to show great respect. Tibetan people perform those rituals in a spirit of devotion to the Buddha or a deity. When we know how essential religious devotion is in Tibetan culture, we can understand why the humilific *PHUL* has emerged as a light verb to refer to those spiritual performances.

## 5. Conclusion

We have collected data on the translation of ‘give’ into Tibetan in order to investigate both the functioning of light verbs and the system of honorific verbs in this language. We have shown that in standard spoken Tibetan, the most basic way of translating the verb ‘give’ when it has the literal meaning of ‘handing over’ is *SPRAD*. However, we noticed that this verb is not used as a light verb in Tibetan. The lack of productivity of *SPRAD* might result from the fact that it has only become the basic and frequent equivalent of ‘give’ in modern standard Tibetan while other ‘giving verbs’ had already been selected to participate in light verb constructions. The emergence of light verbs in a language can be a relatively slow process involving the semantic evolution of a lexical verb and the crystallization of specific word combinations. For example, the Tibetan verb *BTANG* went through that process, and it already
In some constructions, the ditransitive feature of *PHUL* is not even retained. As we saw in 3.4, *PHUL* is often used as a light verb for religious performances: *MCHOD.PA PHUL* ‘make offerings’, *PHYAG PHUL* ‘prostrate’, *ZHABS.SKOR PHUL* ‘circumambulate’, and *DMAR.MCHOD PHUL* (lit., *sacrifice give*) ‘make a sacrifice’. In these cases, the meaning of *PHUL* has bleached further, as the constructions seem to refer to specific acts without any explicit transfer. However, we would argue that these acts imply an underlying beneficiary to which it is essential for Tibetans to show great respect. Tibetan people perform those rituals in a spirit of devotion to the Buddha or a deity. When we know how essential religious devotion is in Tibetan culture, we can understand why the humilific *PHUL* has emerged as a light verb to refer to those spiritual performances.

## 5. Conclusion

We have collected data on the translation of ‘give’ into Tibetan in order to investigate both the functioning of light verbs and the system of honorific verbs in this language. We have shown that in standard spoken Tibetan, the most basic way of translating the verb ‘give’ when it has the literal meaning of ‘handing over’ is *SPRAD*. However, we noticed that this verb is not used as a light verb in Tibetan. The lack of productivity of *SPRAD* might result from the fact that it has only become the basic and frequent equivalent of ‘give’ in modern standard Tibetan while other ‘giving verbs’ had already been selected to participate in light verb constructions. The emergence of light verbs in a language can be a relatively slow process involving the semantic evolution of a lexical verb and the crystallization of specific word combinations. For example, the Tibetan verb *BTANG* went through that process, and it already
held the position of a light verb involved in transfer constructions in Classical
Tibetan, thus being a long-established competitor to *SPRAD* for that function.
What also drew our attention is that, although *SPRAD* has not become a light
verb in standard spoken Tibetan, its honorific form *GNANG*, and to a lesser
extent its humilific form *PHUL*, have undeniably gone through that process.
We argued that this is probably not a mere coincidence, since the honorific
domain is particularly relevant when referring to a transfer between two
people. The verb 'give' triggers a notional and linguistic representation that
prototypically involves two human participants, and therefore captures a
scene where social relationship is crucial. In order to encode the honorific
domain for an abstract transfer, and later even for other types of actions, Lhasa
Tibetan has promoted *GNANG* and *PHUL* to the status of light verbs, because
they are emblematic of this social domain, which is particularly pervasive in
the strictly hierarchical society of the Tibetan capital. As we suggested, it
seems that both universal semantic associations and cultural sensitivities can
shed light on the motivations behind the selection of those specific verbs as
central pivots of the honorific system of Tibetan.
held the position of a light verb involved in transfer constructions in Classical
Tibetan, thus being a long-established competitor to *SPRAD* for that function.
What also drew our attention is that, although *SPRAD* has not become a light
verb in standard spoken Tibetan, its honorific form *GNANG*, and to a lesser
extent its humilific form *PHUL*, have undeniably gone through that process.
We argued that this is probably not a mere coincidence, since the honorific
domain is particularly relevant when referring to a transfer between two
people. The verb 'give' triggers a notional and linguistic representation that
prototypically involves two human participants, and therefore captures a
scene where social relationship is crucial. In order to encode the honorific
domain for an abstract transfer, and later even for other types of actions, Lhasa
Tibetan has promoted *GNANG* and *PHUL* to the status of light verbs, because
they are emblematic of this social domain, which is particularly pervasive in
the strictly hierarchical society of the Tibetan capital. As we suggested, it
seems that both universal semantic associations and cultural sensitivities can
shed light on the motivations behind the selection of those specific verbs as
central pivots of the honorific system of Tibetan.
## Abbreviation list

1/2/3, first/second/third person; ASSOC, associative case; CMPL, completive aspect; CONN, connective; CR, correlative; DEM, demonstrative; DIR, direct perceptive evidential; ERG, ergative; FCLT, sentence final clitic; FUT, future; GEN, genitive; (H), honorific; (h), humilific; IMP, imperative; LV, light verb; OBL, oblique; NMZ, nominalizer; PAST, past tense; QUOT, quotative; REC, receptive directionality; SG, singular

lit., literally; hon., honorific; hum., humilific; sb., somebody; spkr, speaker; TSC, Tibet Student Corpus; COCA, Corpus Of Contemporary American English; MLNT, mi la'i rnam thar (The life of Milarepa by T. Heruka, 15th c.); SPOK, spoken English

## Dictionaries

Das, S. C. (1902). *A Tibetan-English dictionary with Sanskrit synonyms*. Bengal Calcutta. Secretariat Book Depôt.

Dorje, D. S. & Lhazom, T. (2002). *Tibetan Honorific Speeches*. Lhasa: Tibet University Press.

Goldstein, M. C. (1984). *English-Tibetan dictionary of modern Tibetan*. Univ of California Press.

Goldstein, M. C., & Kashi, T. D. (1978). *Tibetan English Dictionary of Modern Tibetan*. Ratna Pustak Bhandar.

Mélac, E., Robin, F. and Simon, C. (2014). *Vocabulaire thématique de langue parlée français-tibétain*. Paris: L'Asiathèque.

Rdo rje, b., blo bstan, dpal ldan, yang 'dzoms & 'phrin las. (1993). *zhe sa'i tshig mdzod rab gsal melong*. Mig rigs dpe skrun khang.

Zhang, Y. (1993). *Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo* (Vol. 1). Min zu chu ban she.

The Tibetan and Himalayan Library
http://www.thlib.org/reference/dictionaries/tibetan-dictionary/
translate.php

Oxford English dictionary online (2007)
http://www.oed.com/
## Abbreviation list

1/2/3, first/second/third person; ASSOC, associative case; CMPL, completive aspect; CONN, connective; CR, correlative; DEM, demonstrative; DIR, direct perceptive evidential; ERG, ergative; FCLT, sentence final clitic; FUT, future; GEN, genitive; (H), honorific; (h), humilific; IMP, imperative; LV, light verb; OBL, oblique; NMZ, nominalizer; PAST, past tense; QUOT, quotative; REC, receptive directionality; SG, singular

lit., literally; hon., honorific; hum., humilific; sb., somebody; spkr, speaker; TSC, Tibet Student Corpus; COCA, Corpus Of Contemporary American English; MLNT, mi la'i rnam thar (The life of Milarepa by T. Heruka, 15th c.); SPOK, spoken English

## Dictionaries

Das, S. C. (1902). *A Tibetan-English dictionary with Sanskrit synonyms*. Bengal Calcutta. Secretariat Book Depôt.

Dorje, D. S. & Lhazom, T. (2002). *Tibetan Honorific Speeches*. Lhasa: Tibet University Press.

Goldstein, M. C. (1984). *English-Tibetan dictionary of modern Tibetan*. Univ of California Press.

Goldstein, M. C., & Kashi, T. D. (1978). *Tibetan English Dictionary of Modern Tibetan*. Ratna Pustak Bhandar.

Mélac, E., Robin, F. and Simon, C. (2014). *Vocabulaire thématique de langue parlée français-tibétain*. Paris: L'Asiathèque.

Rdo rje, b., blo bstan, dpal ldan, yang 'dzoms & 'phrin las. (1993). *zhe sa'i tshig mdzod rab gsal melong*. Mig rigs dpe skrun khang.

Zhang, Y. (1993). *Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo* (Vol. 1). Min zu chu ban she.

The Tibetan and Himalayan Library
http://www.thlib.org/reference/dictionaries/tibetan-dictionary/
translate.php

Oxford English dictionary online (2007)
http://www.oed.com/
## Corpora

### COCA

Davies, Mark. (2008-) *The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present*. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.

### TSC

Mélac, Eric (2010-2011) *The Tibet Student Corpus* (TSC): 4 hours 9 min.

## Books and Articles

Agha, A. (1994). Honorification. *Annual Review of Anthropology*, 23(1), 277-302.

Bartee, E. (2011). The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In *Himalayan Languages and Linguistics* (pp. 131-182). Brill.

Butt, M., & Lahiri, A. (2002). Historical stability vs. historical change. *Unpublished Ms. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/butt*.

Chirkova, K. (2017). Evidentials in Pingwu Baima. In Gawne, L. & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). *Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter, GmbH & Co KG.

DeLancey, S. (1990). Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. *Cognitive Linguistics* (includes *Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography*), 1(3), 289-322.

DeLancey, S. (1998). Semantic categorization in Tibetan honorific nouns. *Anthropological Linguistics*, 109-123.

DeLancey, S. (2017). Evidentiality in Tibetic. file:///C:/Users/Kladpa/Downloads/Ch20_Evidentiality%20in%20Tibetic%20(3).pdf

Denwood, P. (1999). *Tibetan* (Vol. 3). John Benjamins Publishing.

Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds.). (2017). *Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Gilquin, G. (2008). What you think ain't what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. *Du fait grammatical au fait cognitif. From Gram to Mind: Grammar as Cognition*, 2, 235-255.

Gyurme, K. (1992). *Le clair miroir : enseignement de la grammaire tibétaine*. Traduction, adaptation et commentaires de Heather Stoddard & Nicolas Tournadre. Editions Prajña.

Hajime, K. (1975). The honorifics in Tibetan. *Acta Asiatica*29, 56-74.

Hyslop, G. & Tsering, K. (2017). An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). *Evidential*
## Corpora

### COCA

Davies, Mark. (2008-) *The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present*. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.

### TSC

Mélac, Eric (2010-2011) *The Tibet Student Corpus* (TSC): 4 hours 9 min.

## Books and Articles

Agha, A. (1994). Honorification. *Annual Review of Anthropology*, 23(1), 277-302.

Bartee, E. (2011). The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan. In *Himalayan Languages and Linguistics* (pp. 131-182). Brill.

Butt, M., & Lahiri, A. (2002). Historical stability vs. historical change. *Unpublished Ms. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/butt.*

Chirkova, K. (2017). Evidentials in Pingwu Baima. In Gawne, L. & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). *Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter, GmbH & Co KG.

DeLancey, S. (1990). Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. *Cognitive Linguistics* (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 1(3), 289-322.

DeLancey, S. (1998). Semantic categorization in Tibetan honorific nouns. *Anthropological Linguistics*, 109-123.

DeLancey, S. (2017). Evidentiality in Tibetic. file:///C:/Users/Kladpa/Downloads/Ch20_Evidentiality%20in%20Tibetic%20(3).pdf

Denwood, P. (1999). *Tibetan* (Vol. 3). John Benjamins Publishing.

Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds.). (2017). *Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Gilquin, G. (2008). What you think ain't what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. *Du fait grammatical au fait cognitif. From Gram to Mind: Grammar as Cognition*, 2, 235-255.

Gyurme, K. (1992). *Le clair miroir : enseignement de la grammaire tibétaine*. Traduction, adaptation et commentaires de Heather Stoddard & Nicolas Tournadre. Editions Prajña.

Hajime, K. (1975). The honorifics in Tibetan. *Acta Asiatica*29, 56-74.

Hyslop, G. & Tsering, K. (2017). An overview of some epistemic categories in Dzongkha. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). *Evidential*
*Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. *Multilingual journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication*, 8(2-3), 223-248.

Jespersen, O. (1965). *A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles Part IV: Morphology*.

Kopp, T. K. (1998). *Verbalizers in Lhasa Tibetan*. MA thesis. The University of Texas at Arlington.

Loveday, L. (1986). *Explorations in Japanese sociolinguistics*. John Benjamins Publishing.

Mohanan, T. (2006). Grammatical verbs (with special reference to light verbs). *The Blackwell Companion to Syntax*, 459-492.

Montaut, A. (1991). *Aspects, voix et diathèses en hindi moderne : syntaxe, sémantique, énonciation*. Préf. de Claude Hagège. Louvain ; Paris : Ed. Peeters.

Newman, J. (1996). *Give: A cognitive linguistic study* (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter.

Newman, J. (Ed., 1997). *The linguistics of giving*. *Typological Studies in Language*, 36.

Okamoto, S. (1999). Situated politeness: manipulating honorific and non-honorific expressions in Japanese conversations. *Pragmatics*, 9(1), 51-74.

Randall, M. G. G. (2016). *The Properties of Lhasa Tibetan Verbalizers*. MA Thesis. Payap University.

Robin, F. (forthcoming). *Parlons amdo*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Simon, C. (2011). *Dérivation causative en tibétain (Lhasa)*. MA Thesis. Université de Provence.

Strauss, S., & Eun, J. O. (2005). *Indexicality and honorific speech level choice in Korean*.

Sun, J. T. S. (Ed.). (2014). *Phonological Profiles of Little-studied Tibetan Varieties*. Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.

Suzuki, H. (2017). The evidential system of Zhollam Tibetan. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). *Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Tournadre, N. & Dorje, S. (1998). *Manuel de tibétain standard*. Paris : L'Asiathèque.

Tournadre, N. & Dorje, S. (2003, re-ed. 2009). *Manual of Standard Tibetan: language and civilization*. Snow Lion Publications, Incorporated.

Tournadre, N. & Lessan-Pezechki, H. (forthcoming). *Les verbes supports et leur typologie : A la croisée du lexique et de la grammaire*.

Tournadre, N. & Shao, M. (forthcoming). *Intentionality, Evidentiality and Epistemicity in Amdo Tibetan*.
*Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. *Multilingual journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication*, 8(2-3), 223-248.

Jespersen, O. (1965). *A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles Part IV: Morphology*.

Kopp, T. K. (1998). *Verbalizers in Lhasa Tibetan*. MA thesis. The University of Texas at Arlington.

Loveday, L. (1986). *Explorations in Japanese sociolinguistics*. John Benjamins Publishing.

Mohanan, T. (2006). Grammatical verbs (with special reference to light verbs). *The Blackwell Companion to Syntax*, 459-492.

Montaut, A. (1991). *Aspects, voix et diathèses en hindi moderne : syntaxe, sémantique, énonciation*. Préf. de Claude Hagège. Louvain ; Paris : Ed. Peeters.

Newman, J. (1996). *Give: A cognitive linguistic study* (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter.

Newman, J. (Ed., 1997). *The linguistics of giving*. *Typological Studies in Language*, 36.

Okamoto, S. (1999). Situated politeness: manipulating honorific and non-honorific expressions in Japanese conversations. *Pragmatics*, 9(1), 51-74.

Randall, M. G. G. (2016). *The Properties of Lhasa Tibetan Verbalizers*. MA Thesis. Payap University.

Robin, F. (forthcoming). *Parlons amdo*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Simon, C. (2011). *Dérivation causative en tibétain (Lhasa)*. MA Thesis. Université de Provence.

Strauss, S., & Eun, J. O. (2005). *Indexicality and honorific speech level choice in Korean*.

Sun, J. T. S. (Ed.). (2014). *Phonological Profiles of Little-studied Tibetan Varieties*. Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.

Suzuki, H. (2017). The evidential system of Zhollam Tibetan. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). *Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Tournadre, N. & Dorje, S. (1998). *Manuel de tibétain standard*. Paris : L'Asiathèque.

Tournadre, N. & Dorje, S. (2003, re-ed. 2009). *Manual of Standard Tibetan: language and civilization*. Snow Lion Publications, Incorporated.

Tournadre, N. & Lessan-Pezechki, H. (forthcoming). *Les verbes supports et leur typologie : A la croisée du lexique et de la grammaire*.

Tournadre, N. & Shao, M. (forthcoming). *Intentionality, Evidentiality and Epistemicity in Amdo Tibetan*.
Tournadre, N. & Suzuki, H. (forthcoming). *The Tibetic languages. An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan*.

Tournadre, N. (2014). The Tibetic languages and their classification. *Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area*, 105-129.

Tournadre, N., & Jiatso, K. (2001). Final auxiliary verbs in literary Tibetan and in the dialects. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area*, 24(1), 49-111.

Tournadre, N., Sherpa, N. S., Chodrak, G. & Oisel, G. (2009). *Sherpa-english and English-sherpa Dictionary with Literary Tibetan and Nepali Equivalents*. Vajra Publications. http://www.tibeto-burman.net/files/Tournadre_et_al-2009-Sherpa_dictionary Firstly Edition.pdf

van Driem, G. L., & Tshering, K. (1998). *Dzongkha* (Vol. 1). Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.

Yliniemi, J. (2017). Copulas in Denjonke or Sikkimese Bhutia. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). *Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Zeisler, B. (2004). *Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: a comparative study* (Vol. 150). Walter de Gruyter.
Tournadre, N. & Suzuki, H. (forthcoming). *The Tibetic languages. An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan*.

Tournadre, N. (2014). The Tibetic languages and their classification. *Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area*, 105-129.

Tournadre, N., & Jiatso, K. (2001). Final auxiliary verbs in literary Tibetan and in the dialects. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 24*(1), 49-111.

Tournadre, N., Sherpa, N. S., Chodrak, G. & Oisel, G. (2009). *Sherpa-english and English-sherpa Dictionary with Literary Tibetan and Nepali Equivalents*. Vajra Publications. http://www.tibeto-burman.net/files/Tournadre_et_al-2009-Sherpa_dictionary Firstly Edition.pdf

van Driem, G. L., & Tshering, K. (1998). *Dzongkha* (Vol. 1). Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.

Yliniemi, J. (2017). Copulas in Denjonke or Sikkimese Bhutia. In Gawne, L., & Hill, N. W. (Eds., 2017). *Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages* (Vol. 302). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Zeisler, B. (2004). *Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: a comparative study* (Vol. 150). Walter de Gruyter.