Reports of the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 49 (2018), 21~44

How did Haudricourt reconstruct
Proto-Karen tones?
Atsuhiko Kato

Abstract

The reconstruction of Proto-Karen by Haudricourt is one of the most important
contributions to Southeast Asian historical linguistics. However, the details of theprocess whereby he reconstructed the Proto-Karen tones are not well known. This
paper considers how Haudricourt reconstructed Proto-Karen tones in a 1946 paper.
In addition to this, I argue that his idea of reconstructing one more proto-tone
presented in the 1975 paper is appropriate. Based on these discussions, I share myown view of the pitches of the plain tones in Proto-Karen.

0. Introduction
Among the historical studies of the Karenic languages, the contribution of theFrench scholar Haudricourt (1946, 1953, 1975) is of highest significance. An
especially important point is that he reconstructed Proto-Karen tones. However, wecannot say that Haudricourt’s idea of Proto-Karen tones is understood in a proper way
by all scholars even 70 years after his first paper was published. Other studies onreconstruction of Proto-Karen include Jones (1961), Burling (1969), Solnit (2001,2013), Shintani (2003), Manson (2009), and Luangthongkum (2013, 2014a, 2014b).
Among these, Solnit, Shintani, and Manson’s works show a good understanding ofHaudricourt’s reconstruction of Proto-Karen tones, but Jones and Burling did not pay― 21 ―

the slightest attention to Haudricourt’s reconstruction (for criticism against Jones
1961, see e.g., Nishida (西田) 1964; Matisoff 2003). Luangthongkum’s studies are
based on the idea of Haudricourt’s (1946) Proto-Karen tones, but she does not seemto pay sufficient attention to Haudricourt’s (1975) important suggestions. The reason
that Haudricourt’s reconstruction of Proto-Karen tones is not fully understood could
be ascribed to the following three points: (a) in Haudricourt (1946), the process
whereby he reconstructed Proto-Karen tones is not explained in detail, and only the
results of his consideration are shown; (b) an important modification of the system of
proto-tones was made in Haudricourt (1975), about 30 years after the first paper was
published; and (c) the papers are written in French. Therefore, in the present paper, I
will attempt to reproduce the process that Haudricourt must have conducted inreconstructing the Proto-Karen tones in the 1946 and 1975 papers, in the hope that thiswill help facilitate people’s understanding of Haudricourt’s work. Moreover, I will
also show my own views on the proto-tones. Section 1 will treat the 1946 paper, andsection 2 will treat the 1975 paper. The 1953 paper will not be considered because it
is concerned with modifications to the reconstruction of consonants. In section 3, I
will state my views on the process of tonal merger in Proto-Karen and on the pitchesof Proto-Karen tones.
One of the big problems in considering the history of Karenic languages used tobe the genealogical positioning of them within Sino-Tibetan languages. The Karenic
languages show high lexical similarity with Tibeto-Burman languages, but they have
SVO word order while most of the Tibeto-Burman languages have SOV word order.
Thus, Benedict (1972) treated the Karenic languages separately from Tibeto-Burman,
postulating that the split of “Sino-Tibetan > Tibeto-Karen + Chinese” occurred first,
and the split of “Tibeto-Karen > Karen + Tibeto-Burman” occurred later. Nowadays,
however, they are generally recognized as constituting one group of Tibeto-Burman.
Comparative studies with Tibeto-Burman languages have also been conducted fromthat perspective (e.g. Mazaudon 1985; Weidert 1987; Matisoff 2003). Concerning
their peculiarity in word order, the Karenic languages are considered to have changed― 22 ―

from SOV to SVO because of the influence of some Mon-Khmer language. Matisoff(1991) suggests Mon influence, and Manson (2009) suggests a greater connection
with the Palaungic branch of Mon-Khmer.

1. Haudricourt’s (1946) hypothesis and reproducing the process of hisreconstruction of proto-tones
One of the most important points of Haudricourt’s (1946) ideas is that hehypothesized that Proto-Karen tones were split according to three types of initialconsonants, as is the case for the Tai languages. Haudricourt compared Sgaw Karenand Pwo Karen words using Purser and Saya Tun Aung’s (1922) dictionary, entitled A
Comparative Dictionary of the Pwo-Karen Dialect1, and attempted to reconstruct
Proto-Karen phonology. In this dictionary, Pwo Karen words are written with awriting system that I call the Christian Pwo Karen Script (Kato (加藤) 2001b, 2006),
and the corresponding Sgaw Karen words are shown in parentheses with a writing
system that I call the Christian Sgaw Karen Script (Kato (加藤) 2006). Take one word
as an example from the first page:ကဆါ (ကစဿ္) n. lord, master.
The leftmost item ကဆါ is a Pwo Karen word, and the item in parentheses ကစဿ္ is thecorresponding Sgaw Karen form. There is no phonetic notation for each word. Only abrief explanation on Pwo Karen pronunciation is shown in the appendix. Based on

1
There are several dialect groups unintelligible to each other in Pwo Karen (Kato 1995,
2009; Phillips 2000; Dawkins and Phillips 2009a, 2009b). Christian Pwo Karen Script, which isused in Purser and Saya Tun Aung’s dictionary, is based on the pronunciation of Eastern Pwo
Karen (i.e., the dialect group spoken around Karen State), but when we observe the words
recorded in this dictionary, they are found mainly to be those of Western Pwo Karen (i.e., thedialect group spoken in the Ayarwaddy delta). Because tones 1h and 2h in Table 4 are merged inWestern Pwo, if one makes a comparative study based on its pronunciation, reconstructing prototones would not be successful. One of the reasons that Haudricourt succeeded in reconstructing
proto-tones is that Christian Pwo Karen Script is made based on the pronunciation of Eastern
Pwo Karen (see Kato 2001b). In Western Pwo, the Christian Pwo Karen Script is read in a
modified form according to Western Pwo pronunciation (see Kato (加藤) 2006).
― 23 ―

these pieces of information, Haudricourt made a lexical comparison between Pwo
Karen and Sgaw Karen2.
Some explanation would be required as to the writing systems used in this
dictionary. The Christian Sgaw Karen Script was created in the 1830s by the American
missionary Wade. The Christian Pwo Karen Script was also created by Wade in the
1840s, and soon after that, it was modified by the American missionary Brayton. Bothwriting systems were based on the pronunciation of some dialects spoken in eastern
Burma. Besides these, there are also other Karen writing systems, such as Buddhist
Pwo Karen Script, Buddhist Sgaw Karen Script, and Leke script, as is shown in Kato(加藤) (2006). In the present paper, the Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen forms arepresented with Christian Pwo Karen Script and Christian Sgaw Karen Script
respectively, which Haudricourt utilized in his comparative study. After the forms
presented with these Karen scripts, I will show their pronunciation in modern dialects
in phonemic transcription. The Pwo Karen pronunciation is that of the Hpa-an dialect,
and the Sgaw Karen pronunciation is also that of the Hpa-an dialect. Transcription for
Pwo Karen follows Kato (2009, 2017), and that for Sgaw Karen follows Kato (加藤)(2002).
In both Christian Pwo Karen Script and Christian Sgaw Karen Script, tones are
represented with tonal signs that are exclusively used for transcribing tones. Table 1
shows the correspondences between the tonal signs of Christian Pwo Karen Script andthe tones in the Hpa-an dialect of Pwo Karen3. Here, I take the case with the initial
2
Haudricourt (1946) misrecognized some phonetic values of the scripts because he had notheard actual sounds, and they were corrected later in Haucricourt (1953).
3
The Pwo Karen writing system which is now most popularly used in Hpa-an, the capital of
Karen State, is the one that I call Buddhist Pwo Karen Script. This writing system appeared, so
to speak, spontaneously at latest in the first half of the 19th century, along with the adoption of
Buddhism from Mon. For detail, see Kato (加藤) (2001a, 2006). The word denoting ‘lord’ iswritten as က္ုဆါၟ in this script. Meanwhile, Christian Pwo Karen Script is now mainly used in the
Ayarwaddy delta where Western Pwo Karen is spoken (see Kato (加藤) 2001b). Eastern Pwo
Karen can be written using either Christian Pwo Karen Script or Buddhist Pwo Karen Script. For
example, /nə ʔáɴ mɩ̀ ɣòɴ jàʊ ʁâ/ (you / eat / rice / finish / PERFECTIVE / QUESTION) ‘Have― 24 ―

consonant /m/ and the vowel /a/ as an example.

Table 1: Tonal signs of Christian Pwo Karen Script
1 မဵ
/má/

2 မါ

3 မဩ

4 မဿ

5 မှ

6 မ႞

/mā/

/mà/

/mâ/

/má/

/mà/

(zero marking)

The Hpa-an dialect has four tones: /má/[55] (high-level), /mā/[33(4)] (mid-level), /mà/[11] (low-level), /mâ/[51] (falling) (see Kato 1995, 2009, 2017). The five tonalsigns -ဵ, -ဩ, -ဿ, -ှ, -႞ are placed at the right side of the consonant letters. The vowel
sign designating /a/ is -ါ, but it is omitted when a tonal sign is used. Thus, this vowel
sign is written only when the tonal sign is “zero”, that is, in the case of ‘2’ in Table 1.
Originally, the tonal signs from ‘1’ to ‘4’ indicated plain tones, and ‘5’ and ‘6’ indicatedthe checked tones that had a glottal stop at the end. In the Hpa-an dialect, however, thefinal glottal stop has recently been dropped and the original checked tones ‘5’ and ‘6’
are merged with the plain tones ‘1’ and ‘3’ respectively. Therefore, the phonetic valuesof ‘5’ and ‘6’ are also the same, respectively, as those of ‘1’ and ‘3’. Although there isan unsystematic aspect like this, Christian Pwo Karen Script fits relatively well withthe phonemic system of the modern Hpa-an dialect, probably because this writing
system was based on the phonology of the Hpa-an dialect.
Next, Table 2 shows how the tonal signs of Christian Sgaw Karen Script
correspond to the tones in the Hpa-an dialect of Sgaw Karen. Here also, the initialconsonant is /m/ and the vowel is /a/.

Table 2: Tonal signs of Christian Sgaw Karen Script
1 မဢ္
/mâ/

2 မါ

3 မၯ

4 မဿ္

5 မာ္

6 မး

/má/

/mā/

/mà/

/màʔ/

/máʔ/

(zero marking)you finished eating?’ is written as နအၩမ့ဩဂီဨယူ႞ဧဈ. in Christian Pwo Karen Script, and asဏု္အင္းေမဝ္ဟွံင္ယုဂ္ဟွာ့။ in Buddhist Pwo Karen Script.
― 25 ―

If we consider the checked tones to be phonologically separate from the plain tones,
the Hpa-an dialect has six tones: /má/[55] (high-level), /mā/[33] (mid-level), /mà/[11](low-level), /mâ/[51] (falling), /máʔ/[44ʔ] (high-checked), /màʔ/[11ʔ] (low-checked)(see Kato (加藤) 1993, 2002). These tones are designated with five tonal signs: -ဢ္ -ၯ
-ဿ္ -ာ္ -း. In Christian Sgaw Karen Script as well, the sign denoting /a/ is -ါ, and it isomitted when a tonal sign co-occurs. This means that the vowel sign denoting /a/
appears only when the tone is high-level, that is, in the case of ‘2’ in Table 2, where
the tonal sign is unmarked. It is unknown on which dialect Christian Sgaw Karen
Script was based. I assume that it was a dialect somewhere in Mon State or aroundHpa-an of Karen State.
How did Haudricourt reconstruct the tones of Proto-Karen? I assume that he
carried out his work in the steps shown in (1) to (9):(1) Between Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, seven patterns of regular correspondencesin tone can be observed, as shown below. I chose example words at random. The
numbering in Roman numerals placed at the beginning of each pattern is the one usedby Luce (1959, 1991). Because Haudricourt used Luce’s numbering in his 1975 paper,
it is also employed in the present paper for easy identification. The reason that the
number ‘V’ is skipped is that Haudricourt regarded the pattern where Luce would lateruse number ‘V’ as an exception when he published the 1946 paper, as will be discussed
in Section 2.
I. Pwo -ဩ : Sgaw -ၯ
Pwo ခဲဩ /khɛ̀/ : Sgaw ကဲၯ /kɛ̄/ ‘to shine’
Pwo ဆဪဨ /chə̀ɴ/ : Sgaw စူၯ /sū/ ‘to rain’
Pwo ဆဨ /chàɴ/ : Sgaw ပစီၯ /pəsɔ̄/ ‘dew’
Pwo ထီဨ /thòɴ/ : Sgaw တိၯ /tō/ ‘bridge’
Pwo နဪဩ /nə̀/ : Sgaw နၯ /nā/ ‘you (sg.)’Pwo ဖဪဨ /phə̀ɴ/ : Sgaw ပူၯ /pū/ ‘inside’― 26 ―

Pwo ဖ့်ဩ /phlɩ̀/ : Sgaw ပ့်ၯ /plē/ ‘tongue’
Pwo မဩ /mà/ : Sgaw မၯ /mā/ ‘to do’
Pwo ယဲဨ /jàiɴ/ : Sgaw ယံၯ /jī/ ‘to be far’Pwo ယဪဩ /jə̀/ : Sgaw ယၯ /jā/ ‘I’
Pwo လဨ /làɴ/ : Sgaw လီၯ /lɔ̄/ ‘to fall’
II. Pwo -ဩ : Sgaw -ø
Pwo ကူဩ /kɯ̀/ : Sgaw ကု /kɯ́/ ‘shell’
Pwo ကီဨ /kòɴ/ : Sgaw ကူ /kú/ ‘to wear (as sarong)’
Pwo စ့ဩ /cɩ̀/ : Sgaw စ့ /sé/ ‘silver’
Pwo တဲဨ /tàiɴ/ : Sgaw တ့ /té/ ‘to create’
Pwo ဒီဩ /dɔ̀/ : Sgaw ဒီ /dɔ́/ ‘knife’
Pwo ပ်ဨ /plàɴ/ : Sgaw ပ်ီ /plɔ́/ ‘to be clear’
Pwo ဘဩ /bà/ : Sgaw ဘါ /bá/ ‘to worship’
Pwo ဘီဨ /bòɴ/ : Sgaw ဘိ /bó/ ‘numeral classifier (long objects)’
Pwo အံဨ /ʔèiɴ/ : Sgaw သအ့ /θəʔé/ ‘ginger’
Pwo အီဩ /ʔɔ̀/ : Sgaw အီ /ʔɔ́/ ‘to drink’
III. Pwo -ဿ : Sgaw -ø
Pwo ခဈ /khâ/ : Sgaw ခါ /khá/ ‘to step’
Pwo ဎံဈ /xî/ : Sgaw ဃံ /xí/ ‘to be beautiful’Pwo ဆဪႚ /chə̂ɴ/ : Sgaw ဆဿ /shə́/ ‘to be sweet’
Pwo ထံဈ /thî/ : Sgaw ထံ /thí/ ‘water’
Pwo နဪႚ /nə̂ɴ/ : Sgaw နဿ /nə́/ ‘to have a smell’Pwo ဖီဈ /phɔ̂/ : Sgaw ဖီ /phɔ́/ ‘flower’
Pwo မံဈ /mî/ : Sgaw မံ /mí/ ‘to sleep’
Pwo ယီဈ /jɔ̂/ : Sgaw ညီ /ɲɔ́/ ‘to be easy’
Pwo လႚ /lâɴ/ : Sgaw လီ /lɔ́/ ‘thunder’
Pwo ၁ံဈ /θî/ : Sgaw သံ /θí/ ‘to die’― 27 ―

IV. Pwo -ø : Sgaw -ဿ္
Pwo ခိ /khʊ̄/ : Sgaw ကိဿ္ /kò/ ‘to be hot’
Pwo ဂဲး /ɣāiɴ/ : Sgaw ဂံဿ္ /ɣì/ ‘strength’
Pwo ဆံ /chī/ : Sgaw စံဿ္ /sì/ ‘to mix’
Pwo ထီး /thōɴ/ : Sgaw တိဿ္ /tò/ ‘to pound with pestle’
Pwo န႔ /nɩ̄ / : Sgaw န႔ဿ္ /nè/ ‘to get’Pwo ဖါ /phā/ : Sgaw ပဿ္ /pà/ ‘father’
Pwo မိ /mʊ̄/ : Sgaw မိဿ္ /mò/ ‘mother’
Pwo ယဲ /jɛ̄/ : Sgaw ယဲဿ္ /jɛ̀/ ‘five’
Pwo လး /lāɴ/ : Sgaw လီဿ္ /lɔ̀/ ‘place’
Pwo ဝဲ /wɛ̄/ : Sgaw ဝဲဿ္ /wɛ̀/ ‘elder brother or sister’
VI. Pwo -ဵ : Sgaw -ဢ္
Pwo ကိဵ /kʊ́/ : Sgaw ကိဢ္ /kô/ ‘confectionary’
Pwo ခိဵ /khʊ́/ : Sgaw ခိဢ္ /khô/ ‘head’
Pwo ဆဲၩ /cháiɴ/ : Sgaw ဆံဢ္ /shî/ ‘to be sour’
Pwo တၩ /táɴ/ : Sgaw တီဢ္ /tɔ̂/ ‘to be thick’
Pwo ထိဵ /thʊ́/ : Sgaw ထိဢ္ /thô/ ‘bird’
Pwo ဒံဵ /dí/ : Sgaw ဒံဢ္ /dî/ ‘to lay eggs’
Pwo ဖီၩ /phóɴ/ : Sgaw ဖီဢ္ /phɔ̂/ ‘to catch’
Pwo ဘဵ /bá/ : Sgaw ဘဢ္ /bâ/ ‘to be right’
Pwo မ့ဵ /mɩ́/ : Sgaw မ့ဢ္ /mê/ ‘fire’
Pwo ယဵ /já/ : Sgaw ညဢ္ /ɲâ/ ‘fish’
Pwo လဵ /lá/ : Sgaw လဢ္ /lâ/ ‘leaf’
Pwo ဝဵ /wá/ : Sgaw ဝဢ္ /wâ/ ‘bamboo’
Pwo ၁ဵ /θá/ : Sgaw သဢ္ /θâ/ ‘to bear a fruit’
Pwo အၩ /ʔáɴ/ : Sgaw အီဢ္ /ʔɔ̂/ ‘to eat’― 28 ―

VII. Pwo -ှ : Sgaw -ာ္
Pwo ခိှ /khó/ : Sgaw ကိာ္ /kòʔ/ ‘neck’Pwo ဆိှ /chó/ : Sgaw စိာ္ /sòʔ/ ‘to carry’Pwo ထ့ှ /thé/ : Sgaw တဲာ္ /tɛ̀ʔ/ ‘to break off’
Pwo ဖံှ /phái/ : Sgaw ပံာ္ /pìʔ/ ‘to be quenched, extinguished’
Pwo ဖူှ /pháʊ/ : Sgaw ပုာ္ / pɯ̀ʔ/ ‘to be soft’Pwo မ့ှ /mé/ : Sgaw မဲာ္ /mɛ̀ʔ/ ‘eye, face’Pwo ယှ /já/ : Sgaw ညာ္ /ɲàʔ/ ‘to be torn’Pwo ယံှ /jái/ : Sgaw ယံာ္ /jìʔ/ ‘to be long in time’
Pwo လံှ /lái/ : Sgaw လံာ္ /lìʔ/ ‘alphabet’
VIII. Pwo -႞ : Sgaw -း
Pwo ကိ႞ /kò/ : Sgaw ကိး /kóʔ/ ‘to call’
Pwo ခ႞ /khà/ : Sgaw ခး /kháʔ/ ‘to shoot’Pwo စိ႞ /cò/ : Sgaw စိး /sóʔ/ ‘to peck’
Pwo ဆ့႞ /chè/ : Sgaw ဆဲး /shɛ́ʔ/ ‘to stab’
Pwo တႄ႞ /tɨ/̀ : Sgaw တဿး /tə́ʔ/ ‘building’Pwo ထ႞ /thà/ : Sgaw ထး /tháʔ/ ‘iron, needle’
Pwo နိ႞ /nò/ : Sgaw နိး /nóʔ/ ‘mouth’
Pwo ဖံ႞ /phài/ : Sgaw ဖံး /phíʔ/ ‘skin’
Pwo ဘံ႞ /bài/ : Sgaw ဘံး /bíʔ/ ‘to get stuck’
Pwo မ့႞ /mè/ : Sgaw မဲး /mɛ́ʔ/ ‘sand’
Pwo လိ႞ /lò/ : Sgaw လိး /lóʔ/ ‘to repay’
Pwo ၁ိ႞ /θò/ : Sgaw သိး /θóʔ/ ‘to wear (as shirt)’(2) When we observe the corresponding consonants, some kinds of distributional
imbalance are found in the initial stops. If we represent voiceless unaspirated stops as/P/ and voiceless aspirated stops as /PH/,(a) The correspondence of ‘Pwo /PH/ : Sgaw /P/’ occurs only in I, IV, VII.
― 29 ―

(b) The correspondence of ‘Pwo /P/ : Sgaw /P/’ occurs only in II, VI, VIII.
(c) The correspondence of ‘Pwo /PH/ : Sgaw /PH/’ occurs only in III, VI, VIII.
(3) The correspondence of Pwo /P/ : Sgaw /P/ can be traced back to Proto-Karen
voiceless unaspirated stops, and that of Pwo /PH/ : Sgaw /PH/ can be traced back toProto-Karen voiceless aspirated stops. The problem to be considered is what theinitial stops that show the correspondence of Pwo /PH/ : Sgaw /P/ were in ProtoKaren. From the analogy of Tai comparative linguistics, it can be assumed that they
were voiced stops in the proto-language4.
(4) From (2) and (3) above, the kinds of initial stops in Proto-Karen and the sevenpatterns of tonal correspondences are found to be in the following relation:*voiced stops---------- I, IV, VII*voiceless unaspirated stops ---------- II, VI, VIII
*voiceless aspirated stops---------- III, VI, VIII

(5) When arranged in this way, it can be seen that some of the seven tonalcorrespondence patterns are in complementary distribution as regards the initialconsonant types. For example, because each of patterns I, II, and III occurs only in one
type of initial stops, they are in complementary distribution with each other. Moreover,4
Haudricourt’s assumption that the proto-Karen had voiced stops was attested by the reportsof Luce (1959) and Henderson (1961, 1979) on Bwe Karen. Bwe Karen preserves the series ofvoiced stops. For example, as a proto-form for Pwo /khʊ̄/ and Sgaw /kò/ ‘hot’, we can assume aform like *ɡo2. The corresponding Bwe Karen (Blimaw dialect) form is /go2/ ‘hot’ (Henderson
1979: 321), which supports Haudricourt’s hypothesis. In Jones’ (1961) reconstruction, no
consideration is made about the Proto-Karen voiced stops, and this is the biggest weak point of
his work. According to Shintani (新谷) (2002) and Shintani (2003), Karenic languages that
preserve voiced stops are four: Geba, Bwe, Paku, and Monebwa. For details on Bwe, see
Henderson (1997), and for more information on Geba, see Kato (加藤) (2008). Moreover,according to my recent fieldwork, Palaychi also preserves voiced stops.
― 30 ―

it is possible that some of the correspondence patterns in such complementary
distribution can be traced back to a single tone in the proto-language. Patterns VII and
VIII, among the seven patterns, are in complementary distribution and both have orused to have a glottal stop as a final; therefore, we can reconstruct a single tone forthem at the proto-language stage with no problem.
(6) Given the distribution of the remaining patterns I, II, III, IV, and VI, we have two
possibilities for grouping them. One possibility is grouping them into {I, II, III} and{IV, VI}, and the other is {I, VI} and {IV, II, III}. To solve this issue, we need to lookat each tone in Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen. The Pwo Karen tone marked with the sign
-ဩ appears in patterns I and II, and the Sgaw Karen tone marked with “zero” appears
in II and III. Because both these tones commonly appear in pattern II, we should treat
all of the correspondence patterns where these two appear, that is, I, II, and III, as one
group. Thus, a single tone should be reconstructed for I, II, and III, and another single
tone should be reconstructed for IV and V.
VI.
(7) Consequently, three tones (represented as *1, *2, *3 in the present paper) can bereconstructed for Proto-Karen, and they are assumed to have been succeeded by Pwo
Karen and Sgaw Karen as regards the three initial consonant types of the protolanguage as is shown in Table 3. In the table, “B” represents série basse, “M” série
moyenne, and “H” série haute. As far as stops are concerned, it can be regarded that“B” represents voiced stops, “M” non-aspirated voiceless stops, and “H” aspirated
voiceless stops.

Table 3: Proto-Karen tones and the tones of Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen
*1

*2

*3

*B

I: Pwo -ဩ:Sgaw -ၯ

IV: Pwo -ø:Sgaw -ဿ္

VII: Pwo -ှ:Sgaw -ာ္*M

II: Pwo -ဩ:Sgaw -ø

VI: Pwo -ဵ:Sgaw -ဢ္

VIII: Pwo -႞:Sgaw -း*H

III: Pwo -ဿ:Sgaw -ø

VI: Pwo -ဵ:Sgaw -ဢ္

VIII: Pwo -႞:Sgaw -း

― 31 ―

(8) As far as syllables beginning with stops are concerned, there is no problem.
When we also take syllables beginning with other types of consonants into
consideration, we have two problems. The first is that syllables with sonorant initials
including nasals, liquids, and semivowels sometimes show correspondence patternsof *H, that is, III (Pwo -ဿ : Sgaw -ø), VI (Pwo -ဵ : Sgaw -ဢ္), and VIII (Pwo -႞ : Sgaw-း), not patterns of *B, that is, I (Pwo -ဩ : Sgaw -ၯ), IV (Pwo -ø : Sgaw -ဿ္), and VII(Pwo -ှ : Sgaw -ာ္). An example of such patterns is Pwo မ့ဵ /mɩ́/ : Sgaw မ့ဢ္ /mê/ ‘fire’.
The second is that the initial consonants /b/ and /d/ in modern Pwo Karen and Sgaw
Karen show the correspondence patterns of *M, that is, II (Pwo -ဩ : Sgaw -ø), VI (Pwo-ဵ : Sgaw -ဢ္), and VIII (Pwo -႞: Sgaw -း), not patterns of *B, that is, I (Pwo -ဩ: Sgaw-ၯ), IV (Pwo -ø : Sgaw -ဿ္), and VII (Pwo -ှ : Sgaw -ာ္). An example of such patterns
is Pwo ဘဩ /bà/ : Sgaw ဘါ /bá/ ‘to worship’.
The first problem can be solved by reconstructing voiceless sonorants for the
proto-language. For example, *hme2 ‘fire’ (*ʽme’ with Haudricourt’s transcription)5.
For the second problem, *p and *t are reconstructed for modern /b/ and /d/, and*pp and *tt are arbitrarily (arbitrairement) reconstructed for modern /p/ and /t/6.
(9) From the observations above, consonants shown below can be reconstructed forProto-Karen. The tones of the proto-language split into the modern tones, conditionedby these three groups of consonants. Note that with IPA symbols, ’ is ʔ, pʽ is ph, andʽm is m̥.
*low series (série basse)ɡ j d b ṅ ñ(or y) n m l r w gr br ɣ
*mid series (série moyenne)
k c tt t pp p ’
5Luce (1959) reported that Geba preserved voiceless sonorants, attesting Haudricourt’s
hypothesis. For example, the Geba word for ‘fire’ is /m̥ɩ̄ / (see Kato (加藤) 2008).
6 To the best of my knowledge, the sounds corresponding to Haudricourt’s *p and *t in themodern Karenic languages are basically implosives. Therefore, I think that we should reconstruct*ɓ and *ɗ instead of Haudricourt’s *p and *t. For his *pp and *tt, we can reconstruct *p and *t.
― 32 ―

*high series (série haute)kʽ cʽ tʽ pʽ ʽṅ ʽñ ʽn ʽm ʽl ʽw s kʽr pʽr x
What has been shown above is the process that Haudricourt must have followed
in reconstructing the Proto-Karen tones for his 1946 paper. This would have beenquite a laborious work, but in his paper, he only makes a brief explanation showing
the table cited in Table 4.

Table 4: The table of tonal correspondences shown in Haudricourt (1946)
série basse (sonore)série moyenne (non aspirée)série haute (aspirée)

pwo
sgaw
pwo
sgaw
pwo
sgaw

1b
1b
1b
1h
1h
1h

2b
2b
2h
2h
2h
2h

3b
3b
3h
3h
3h
3h

Haudricourt stated that the numbering of the tones is not arbitrary. In the first
tone, Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen behave in a different manner: “série moyenne”
behaves together with “série basse” in Pwo, and together with “série haute” in Sgaw.
This resembles the Tai languages, where the first tone (le 1er ton) split in a similar way(see Haudricourt 1961). Thus, Haudricourt numbered it “1”. Meanwhile, the third
tone is considered to have had final stops, and this is the same as the Chinese last tone
Rù Shēng (入声); therefore, Haudricourt placed it at the end, numbering it “3”. Today,
the labeling of tones 1, 2, and 3 that Haudricourt (1946) reconstructed and the tone
added later (represented as 2’ in the present paper) differs among scholars: Solnit(2001, 2013) and Luangthongkum (2013, 2014a, 2014b) represent them as A, B, D,
B’, Manson (2009) and Weidert (1987) as A, B, C, B’, and Shintani (2003) as 1, 2, 3,
2’.

2. Modification in Haudricourt (1975)
Haudricourt claimed in his 1975 paper that one more tone should be added to the― 33 ―

tonal system of Proto-Karen. He added it because apart from the seven tonalcorrespondence patterns that we have seen in the previous section, one more tonalcorrespondence pattern numbered ‘V’ by Luce (1959) was found. Examples areshown below:
V. Pwo -ဵ : Sgaw -ø
Pwo ကဲဵ /kɛ́/ : Sgaw ကဲ /kɛ́/ ‘to become’Pwo ဒိဵ /dʊ́/ : Sgaw ဒိ /dó/ ‘to strike’
Pwo ဖိဵ /phʊ́/ : Sgaw ဖိ /phó/ ‘child’
Pwo မဲဵ /mɛ́/ : Sgaw မဲ /mɛ́/ ‘tooth, fang ; to sprout’Pwo ၁့ဵ /θɩ́/ : Sgaw သ့ /θé/ ‘to be capable’
Pwo အဵ /ʔá/ : Sgaw အါ /ʔá/ ‘to be numerous’
Besides these, Haudricourt lists the following forms:
Pwo ကဆ့ဵ /kəchɩ́/ : Sgaw ဆဲ /shɛ́/ ‘to sneeze’, Pwo ကြံဵ /kwí/ : Sgaw ကြံ /kwí/ ‘to beticklish’, Pwo က်ီၩ /klóɴ/ : Sgaw က်ီ /klɔ́/ ‘to cut (with axe)’, Pwo ဂဵ /ɣá/ : Sgaw ဟါ/há/ ‘evening’, Pwo ဂဲဵ /ɣɛ́/ : Sgaw ဟဲ /hɛ́/ ‘to be spicy’, Pwo ဎံဵ /xí/ : Sgaw ဆွံ /shɣí/‘to be pure’, Pwo ဎိဵ /xʊ́/ : Sgaw ဃိ /xó/ ‘to roast’, Pwo ဎြံဵ /xwí/ : Sgaw ဃံ /xí/ ‘bone’,Pwo ဎြံဵ /xwí/ : Sgaw ဖွံ /phɣí/ ‘to sow’, Pwo ဎြဲဵ /xwɛ́/ : Sgaw ဃဲ /xɛ́/ ‘rainfall’, Pwoစူဵ /cɯ́/ : Sgaw စု /sɯ́/ ‘hand’, Pwo ဆဲဵ /chɛ́/ : Sgaw ဆဲ /shɛ́/ ‘to set a trap’, Pwo ဖံဵ/phí/ : Sgaw ဖံ /phí/ ‘pus’, Pwo ဖ့်ဵ /phlɩ́/ : Sgaw ဖ့် /phlé/ ‘to whip’, Pwo ဘုဵ /bɯ́/: Sgaw
ဘု /bɯ́/ ‘paddy’, Pwo ၁ိဵ /θʊ́/ : Sgaw သိ /θó/ ‘oil’, Pwo အူဵ /ʔɯ́/ : Sgaw အူ /ʔú/ ‘toblow’, Pwo အြံဵ /ʔwí/ : Sgaw ဝံ /wí/ ‘carry on one’s back’
In addition to Haudricourt’s list, others include:
Pwo က်ဲၩ /kláiɴ/ : Sgaw က့် /klé/ ‘to roll eyes sideways’, Pwo ဂုဵ /ɣɯ́/ : Sgaw ဖႉ /phɣú/‘to besmear’, Pwo ဂူဵ /ɣɯ́/ : Sgaw ဟု /hɯ́/ ‘to brood’― 34 ―

Haudricourt (1975) stated that he did not mention this correspondence in his
1946 paper because he considered it to be an exception. However, in the 1975 paper,
having changed his mind, he claims that this tonal correspondence pattern should be
explained by reconstructing another tone in the proto-language. In the present paper,
I represent this tone as 2’. Strangely enough, in pattern V, no example of thecorrespondence Pwo /PH/ : Sgaw /P/ can be found. This means that tone *2’ lacks an
example of *B (série basse). According to this new hypothesis, the Proto-Karen tones
were succeeded by Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, as is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Modified Proto-Karen tones and the tones of Pwo and Sgaw
*B
*M
*H

*1
*2
*2’
I: Pwo -ဩ:Sgaw -ၯ IV: Pwo -ø:Sgaw -ဿ္
II: Pwo -ဩ:Sgaw -ø VI: Pwo -ဵ:Sgaw -ဢ္ V: Pwo -ဵ:Sgaw -ø
III: Pwo -ဿ:Sgaw -ø VI: Pwo -ဵ:Sgaw -ဢ္ V: Pwo -ဵ:Sgaw -ø*3
VII: Pwo -ှ:Sgaw -ာ္
VIII: Pwo -႞:Sgaw -း
VIII: Pwo -႞:Sgaw -း

Haudricourt believed that Tone *2’ lacked an example of *B (série basse) because
syllables with Tone *2’ and a voiced initial merged with Tone *2 and are presently
mixed with pattern IV (Pwo -ø : Sgaw -ဿ္). Then, he suggested that this is the same as
Chinese, where “le ton shang” (上声 Shǎng Shēng) merged with “le ton qiu” (去声Qù Shēng) under a certain condition. In this regard, Tone *2 of Proto-Karencorresponds to Qù Shēng of Middle Chinese and Tone *2’ to Shǎng Shēng.
The Chinese phenomenon that Haudricourt pointed out is called 浊上归去(ZhuóShǎng Guī Qù) in Chinese phonology. It is a phenomenon where Shǎng Shēng of thesyllables with voiced stops (浊 Zhuó) merged with Qù Shēng (see e.g., Wang (王)2010: 293-294, Norman 1988: 194-195, Zhang 2014: 20-27). It is considered to havebegun, at the latest, in the beginning of the eighth century, and can be observed inmany dialects including Mandarin Chinese (see e.g., Ho (何) 1988). Although in
Chinese, this phenomenon did not occur in the syllables with Cìzhuó (次浊: nasals,
liquids, and semivowels) consonants, in Karen, if Haudricourt’s hypothesis holds true,
it occurred in all of the Tone *2’ syllables with voiced initials.
― 35 ―

This hypothesis that assumes Tone *2’ is accepted by Solnit (2001, 2013),
Shintani (新谷) (2002), Shintani (2003), and Manson (2009), but Luangthongkum(2013) claims that it is unnecessary to reconstruct Tone *2’. She says that “Thereconstruction of the *-s seems to help solve some problems of the irregular tone
correspondences”, claiming that the correspondence of pattern V can be ascribed to*-s in the Proto-Karen stage. The main point of her hypothesis is to ascribe the reasonof the presence of pattern V to a segment7.
Actually, Haudricourt himself suggested in the 1975 paper the possibility that
Tone *2’ originates from a segment. According to Haudricourt, out of the thirty-threewords that show this correspondence, only two can be considered to have had a nasal
final consonant in the proto-language. This is contrastively different from the otherpatterns, for example, pattern I, where over half of all 110 words, that is, 60, are nasalfinal. Table 6 is the one that Haudricourt himself showed, and revising this tableaccording to the proto-tones gives us Table 7.

Table 6: Correspondence patterns and nasalized rhymes
catégories de Luce
I
II
III
finales orales
50
51
80
finales nasales
60
70
79

Table 7: Proto-Karen tones and nasalized rhymes*1oral rhymes
181(46%)
nasalized rhymes
209(54%)
total
390

IV
79
59

*2
201(59%)139(41%)
340

V
31
2

VI
122
80

*2’
31(94%)
2( 6%)
33

7
Weidert’s (1987) book, which researched tones of Tibeto-Burman languages, says in thechapter on the Karenic languages that it is unnecessary to reconstruct another proto-tone, andthat this corresondence “can be traced to morphological complexities of Proto-Karen inconnection with *B-tone or the nontonal predecessor of *B (p. 331)”. No alternative hypothesis
is stated. His opinion is in line with Luangthongkum’s hypothesis that ascribes the “irregularity”
to a segment. Weidert (1987: 237) says “For simplicity’s sake, Haudricourt assumed complete
tonal merger of the *B’-voiced with the *B-voiced tone-pattern”, but Haudricourt’s hypothesis
is not so simple that the words “for simplicity’s sake” can describe it.
― 36 ―

Based on this fact, Haudricourt suggests that Tone *2’ originates from a final glottal
stop. At the same time, he also gives the suggestion that Tone *2 originates from a
final *-s. However, because he reconstructed three plain tones for Proto-Karen,
Haudricourt should have considered that these final consonants had alreadydisappeared at the Proto-Karen stage and the tones had been established incompensation for that.
I would prefer to support Haudricourt’s hypothesis that reconstructs Tone *2’
rather than Luangthongkum’s hypothesis. There are two reasons. First, no segment orsegmental remnant has been found that explains pattern V in any modern Karenic
languages. Second, if pattern V originates from a segment like *-s, forms that used tohave voiced initials ought to have been found. However, there is no such example(except the word meaning ‘tooth, fang; sprout’ which will be referred to later). The
fact that there has been found no form that used to have voiced initials can bereasonably explained by assuming that there was another proto-tone and that its pitch
was lowered by voiced initial consonants, as will be discussed in the next section.
Haudricourt’s hypothesis seeking the origin of pattern V in a proto-tone has anadvantage in that it can reasonably explain the absence of samples with voiced initials.

3. The process of the tonal merger and the pitches of the proto-tones
In this section, I will present my own views on the process where Tone *2’partially merged with Tone *2 and on the pitches of the Proto-Karen tones. Before
discussing these issues, let us consider what the relative difference in pitch between
Tones *1 and *2 was. Shintani (2003) assumes that Tone *1 was higher than Tone *2.
The reasons for this are the following. First, in Geba, Bwe, and Paku, where initialvoiced consonants have not been devoiced—in other words, in the Karenic languages
where tonal splits did not need to occur—the tones originating from Tone *1 are
generally higher than those of Tone *2 (for Geba, see Table 11). Second, in Geba,
Bwe, and Paku, while Tone *1 has been split, Tone *2 has not been split. Shintani says
― 37 ―

that this is because Tone *1 was more susceptible than Tone *2 to lowering pressurein the case of voiced initials because it was higher. Because Shintani’s theory seems
reasonable enough, I will advance my discussion on the premise of his theory.
I assume the process where Tone *2’ merged with Tone *2 in the syllables withvoiced initials as follows. Tone *2’ had a higher pitch than Tone *2. Syllables withvoiced initials and Tone *2’ gradually lowered their pitch, and so the pitch difference
between the two tones became smaller, and finally, Tone *2’ merged with Tone *2 insyllables with voiced initials. This change was brought about at the stage of ProtoKaren. It is necessary to consider that Tone *2’ had a higher pitch than Tone *2. If thisis not the case, we cannot explain the process of merger where Tone *2’ was loweredby voiced initials and mixed with Tone *2.8
Next, let us observe what happened later to syllables with Tone *2’ and voicelessinitials, which did not merge with Tone *2. See Tables 8 to 11. In Pwo Karen, as isseen from the tonal pitches of the Hpa-an dialect shown in Table 8 and those of the
Kyonbyaw dialect (one of the western dialects; see Kato 1995, 2009) shown in Table
9, the pitches of M2’ and H2’ are the same as those of M2 and H2. In Sgaw Karen, as
is seen from Table 10, which shows the tones of the Hpa-an dialect, the pitches of M2’
and H2’ are the same as those of M1 and H1. In the Leiktho dialect of Geba (see Kato(加藤) 2008), as is shown in Table 11,9 the pitches of M2’ and H2’ are the same as
those of M2 and H2, as is the case for Pwo Karen. Thus, Tone *2’ merged with Tone
8
Shintani (新谷) (2002) says that Haudricourt considered Tones *1, *2, and *2’ to be level,
falling, and rising tones respectively in the 1975 paper. However, Haudricourt himself did not go
so far as to say so. Haudricourt only likened Tones *2 and *2’ to Qù Shēng and Shǎng Shēng inZhuó Shǎng Guī Qù in Chinese. Shintani (新谷) (2002) also says that when syllables with voiced
initials parted from Tone *2’ and merged with Tone *2, voiced initials were devoiced. However,
we do not need to consider that devoicing occurred. Were there no devoicing, lowering pressure
would continue and merger would easily happen. According to Ballard (1988: 14-15), tonal
splits can take place without loss of voicing, which is attested in some languages such as Chinesedialects of the Wu and Xiang areas. Considering this, it is not surprising if devoicing did not takeplace when Tone *2’ merged with Tone *2.
9In Geba, L2 is generally [33], but may be [11] in some words. The conditioning factor is notclear.
― 38 ―

*2 in Pwo Karen and Geba, and merged with Tone *1 in Sgaw Karen. In the sameway, Tone *2’ is merged with other tones in all of the modern Karenic languages. No
language has been found in which the remnant of Tone *2’ takes a distinctive pitchfrom any other tones (see Shintani’s 2003 diagrams). It must be noted that Tone *2’
merged with Tone *2 in the syllables with voiced initials (i.e., L2’) at the Proto-Karenstage, while it is in each language after the Proto-Karen that M2’ and H2’ merged withother tones.

Table 8 : Tones of Pwo (Hpa-an)1
B [11]
M [11]
H [51]

2
2’[33(4)]
[55]
[55]
[55]
[55]

Table 9 : Tones of Pwo (Kyonbyaw)
3
[55]
[11]
[11]

1
B [55]
M [55]
H [11]

2
[51]
[11]
[11]

2’
[11]
[11]

3
[51ʔ]
[51ʔ]
[51ʔ]

Table 10 : Tones of Sgaw (Hpa-an)

Table 11: Tones of Geba (Leiktho)

1
B [33]
M [55]
H [55]

1
B [33]
M [55]
H [55]

2
[11]
[51]
[51]

2’
[55]
[55]

3
[11ʔ]
[44ʔ]
[44ʔ]

2
2’
[33]([11])
[33]
[33]
[33]
[33]

3
[11]
[33(ʔ)][33(ʔ)]

According to the diagrams of the tonal correspondences to the proto-tones of
sixteen Karenic languages in Shintani (2003), there are nine languages where M2’ andH2’ merged with M1 and H1 (i.e., Pao, Padaung, Gekho [1], Gekho [2], Blimaw,
Paku, Monebwa, Thalebwa, Sgaw), five languages where they merged with M2 andH2 (i.e., Geba, Bwe, Kayo, Mopwa, Pwo), one language where they merged with M3
and H3 (i.e., Kayah), and one language where they merged with B2 (i.e., Thaidai). As
is seen from this, in most cases Tone *2’ (i.e., M2’ and H2’) is merged with either ofTone *1 or Tone *2. Judging from this, I assume that the pitch of Tone *2’ wassomewhere between Tone *1 and Tone *2. In other words, the pitch of Tone *2’ washigher than Tone *2 and lower than Tone *1.
Based on what we have seen above, in this paper, I estimate that the pitches of― 39 ―

Proto-Karen10 were Tone *1=high-level, Tone *2’=mid-level, and Tone *2=low-level.
The reason I consider that all the tones were level is that level tones rather than contour
tones are predominantly observed across all of the Karenic languages. Shintani (新谷)(2002) also points out the same tendency. Even if a tone is accompanied by a fallingor rising contour, it is quite moderate. Sharp falling tones with a pitch like [51], as isfound in the Hpa-an and Kyonbyaw dialects of Pwo and the Hpa-an dialect of Sgaw,
are rather exceptional. If we suppose that the Proto-Karen tones are all level tones,
that Tone *1 was higher than Tone *2, and that Tone *2’ was higher than Tone *2 andlower than Tone *1, we need to assume the tones as estimated above. Moreover,considering that Tone *2’ with voiced syllables merged with Tone *2, the pitch ofTone *2’ would have been very close to that of Tone *2. It follows from what has been
said above that the pitches of the three Proto-Karen plain tones would have been for
example, Tone *1 [55], Tone *2’ [22], and Tone *2 [11] or Tone *1 [44], Tone *2’ [22],and Tone *2 [11]. Of course, in the same way as level tones in the modern Karenic
languages are often accompanied by a slight falling or rising contour according to theenvironment, these proto-tones might also have had such slight contours.
It would be worth noting that there is only one exception to the merger of Tone
*2’ with voiced initials to Tone *2. That is the form meaning ‘tooth, fang’ or ‘tosprout’, that is, Pwo /mɛ́/ : Sgaw /mɛ́/. Haudricourt (1975) considered this form tohave had a voiceless initial *hm-. Nevertheless, according to my data of Geba, which
preserves voiceless nasals (cf. Note 5), morphemes meaning ‘fang’ and ‘to sprout’ areboth /mɛ̀/ beginning with a voiced nasal. Therefore, it is necessary to consider that thecorresponding proto-form also had a voiced nasal initial. This means that Tone *2’ ofthis form exceptionally did not merge with Tone *2. Because the corresponding
Western Pwo Karen form is /mài/ ‘fang; sprout’ (see Kato 2009), in Proto-Karen this10 The Proto-Karen tonal system that I assume here is similar on the surface to that of the
Irrawaddy Delta dialects of Sgaw Karen in that there are three plain tones and they are highlevel, mid-level, and low-level. For example, the Hinthada dialect of Sgaw Karen has three plain
tones: high-level [55], mid-level [33], and low-level [11]. In estimating the pitches of ProtoKaren, I referenced Rai’s (頼) (1968, 1989) discussions on the tones of Ancient Chinese.
― 40 ―

form probably used to have a diphthong in a shape like *mai2’. It might be theinfluence of this diphthong that prevented the merger.

4. Summary
In this paper I showed the process whereby Haudricourt reconstructed ProtoKaren tones in the 1946 paper, and the reason that he added another proto-tone in the1975 paper. The modification in the 1975 paper is highly important. Correspondence
pattern V can be well explained by assuming this additional tone. Furthermore, basedon Haudricourt’s hypothesis, I estimated that the Proto-Karen tones were Tone
*1=high-level, Tone *2’=mid-level (with a pitch close to Tone *2), and Tone *2=lowlevel.
What was fortunate for the discussion of Haudricourt is that both Pwo Karen and
Sgaw Karen have six tones (four plain tones and two checked tones), which is morethan usual among the Karenic languages. Other languages ordinarily have two or
three plain tones, with the exception of a few languages, including Pao. In addition tothis, another important factor is that Pwo and Sgaw show the /PH/ vs. /P/correspondence in série basse. Furthermore, we should not forget that the writing
systems created by American missionaries that reflect precisely the phonology of bothlanguages contributed a lot to Haudricourt’s study.
I hope that this paper will contribute to a deeper understanding of Haudricourt’sreconstruction.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Takumi Ikeda (池田巧教授) of Kyoto
University, who taught me about the phenomenon of Chinese 浊上归去(Zhuó Shǎng
Guī Qù) and introduced me to important works on this issue.
References
Ballard, W. L. 1988. The History and Development of Tonal Systems and Tone Alternations in― 41 ―

South China. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burling, Robbins. 1969. Proto-Karen: a reanalysis. Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society
on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics, 1-116.
Dawkins, Erin and Audra Phillips. 2009a. A Sociolinguistic Survey of Pwo Karen in Northern
Thailand. Chaing Mai: Linguistic Department, Payap University.
Dawkins, Erin and Audra Phillips. 2009b. An Investigation of Intelligibility Between WestCentral Thailand Pwo Karen and Northern Pwo Karen. Chaing Mai: Linguistic Department,
Payap University.
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1946. Restitution du karen commun. BSLP 42.1, 103-11.
(Reprinted: Haudricourt 1972, 131-40.)
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1953. A propos de la restitution du karen commun. BSLP 49.1,
129-32. (Reprinted: Haudricourt 1972, 141-45.)
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1961. Bipartition et tripartition des systèmes de tons dans quelquelangues d’Extrême-Orient. BSLP 56.1, 163-80.
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1972. Problèmes de Phonologie Diachronique. Paris: SELAF.
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1975. Le système des tons du karen commun. BSLP 70.1, 339-43.
Henderson, Eugénie. J. A. 1961. Tone and Intonation in Western Bwe Karen. Burma ResearchSociety Fiftieth Anniversary Publication, No.1, 59-69.
Henderson, Eugénie. J. A. 1979. Bwe Karen as a Two-tone Language? Pacific Linguistics, Series
C, No. 45, 301-26.
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1997. Bwe Karen Dictionary: with Texts and English-Karen Word List.
(2 Vols) London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Ho, Dah-an （何大安）. 1988.「「濁上歸去」與現代方言」『中央研究院歷史語言研究所
集刊』59.1, 115-140.
Jones, Robert. B. 1961. Karen Linguistic Studies: Description, Comparison, and Texts.
University of California Publications in Linguistics, No. 25. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Kato, Atsuhiko （加藤昌彦）. 1993.「スゴー・カレン語の動詞連続」『アジア・アフリカ
言語文化研究』45:177-204.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 1995. The phonological systems of three Pwo Karen dialects. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area, 18.1, 63-103.
Kato, Atsuhiko （加藤昌彦）. 2001a.「仏教ポー・カレン文字」『世界文字辞典』(言語学大辞典別巻）, 847-851. 東京 : 三省堂.
Kato, Atsuhiko （加藤昌彦）. 2001b.「キリスト教ポー・カレン文字」『世界文字辞典』（言語学大辞典別巻）, 333-337. 東京 : 三省堂.
Kato, Atsuhiko （加藤昌彦）. 2002.「ビルマにおける東部および西部ポー・カレン語の対照基礎語彙」『東京外大 東南アジア学』7, 212-249
Kato, Atsuhiko （加藤昌彦）. 2006.「同一言語内における文字普及状況の差異について
ポー・カレン語の事例」塩原朝子・児玉茂昭（編）『表記の習慣のない言語の表― 42 ―

記』, 89-110. 東京 : アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究所.
Kato, Atsuhiko （加藤昌彦）. 2008.「ゲーバー語基礎資料」『アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学』3, 169-219.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2009. A basic vocabulary of Htoklibang Pwo Karen with Hpa-an, Kyonbyaw,
and Proto-Pwo Karen forms. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 4, 169-218.
Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2017. Pwo Karen. (In) Graham Thurgood and Randy LaPolla (eds.) The SinoTibetan Languages (2nd Edition), 942-958. London and New York: Routledge.
Luangthongkum, Theraphan. 2013. Problems of the B’ tone in Proto-Karen (PK). Paper
presented at SEALS 23, Bangkok.
Luangthongkum, Theraphan. 2014a. Karenic as a branch of Tibeto-Burman: more evidence fromProto-Karen. Paper presented at SEALS 24, Yangon.
Luangthongkum, Theraphan. 2014b. Proto-Karen (*k-rjaŋA) Fauna. MANUSYA : Journal of
Humanities, Special Issue 20, 86-123.
Luce, Gordon. H. 1959. Introduction to the comparative study of Karen languages. Journal of
Burma Research Society 42.1, 1-18.
Luce, Gordon. H. 1991. Phases of Pre-Pagán Burma: Languages and History. (2 Vols.) Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Manson, Ken. 2009. Prolegomena to reconstructing Proto-Karen. LaTrobe Working Papers in
Linguistics 12.
Matisoff, James A. 1991. Sino-Tibetan linguistics: present state and future prospects. Annual
Review of Anthropology 20, 469-504.
Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of SinoTibetan Reconstruction. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California
Press.
Mazaudon, Martine. 1985. Proto-Tibeto-Burman as a two-tone language? Some evidence fromProto-Tamang and Proto-Karen. (In) Graham Thurgood, James A. Matisoff and David
Bradley (eds.) Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan Area: the State of the Art. Papers Presented
to Paul K. Benedict for his 71st Birthday. Pacific Linguistics, series C-87, 201-229.
Nishida, Tatsuo （西田龍雄）. 1964.「R.B.ジョーンズJr.著『カレン語研究：記述・比較・テキスト』」『東洋学報』46.4, 1-13.
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, Audra. 2000. West-Central Thailand Pwo Karen phonology. 33rd ICSTLL Papers, 99110. Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University.
Purser, W. C. B. and Saya Tun Aung. 1922. A Comparative Dictionary of the Pwo-Karen Dialect.
(217p.) Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press.
Rai, Tsutomu （頼惟勤）. 1968.「日本における漢字・漢文」水田紀久、頼惟勤（編）『中国文化叢書9 日本漢学』, 44-66. 東京 : 大修館書店.
Rai, Tsutomu （頼惟勤）. 1989.「官話系聲調體系の成立について」頼惟勤（著）『頼惟勤著作集I 中國音韻論集』, 376-382. 東京 : 汲古書院.

― 43 ―

Shintani, Tadahiko （新谷忠彦). 2002.「シャン文化圏におけるカレン諸語調査とその画期的成果」『通信』106, 1-15. 東京外国語大学アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究所.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. 2003. Classification of Brakaloungic (Karenic) languages in relation totheir tonal evolution. Shigeki Kaji (ed.) Proceedings of the Symposium Cross-linguistic
Studies of Tonal Phenomena: Historical Development, Phonetics of Tone, and Descriptive
Studies, pp.37-54. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Solnit, David B. 2001. Another look at Proto-Karen. Paper presented at the 34th Internatinal
Conference of Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Kunming.
Solnit, David B. 2013. Proto-Karen rhymes. Paper presented at the 46th Internatinal Conferenceof Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Dartmouth.
Wang, Li （王力）. 2010.『汉语语音史』北京: 商务印书馆.
Weidert, Alfons. 1987. Tibeto-Burman Tonology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zhang, Jingwei. 2014. A Sociophonetic Study on Tonal Variation of the Wúxī and Shànghǎi
Dialects. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT).

― 44 ―