Atsuhiko Kato

18 Typological profile of Karenic languages
18.1 Introduction
Karenic languages constitute the Karenic branch of the Tibeto-Burman family. The ethnic
groups that speak Karenic languages (called “Karenic people” here) include several groups,
such as the Bwe, Geba, Gek(h)o, Kayah, Kayaw, Kayan, Manu, Monebwa, Mopwa (Mobwa),
Paku, Pa-O, Pwo Karen, Sgaw Karen, Thalebwa, Yeinbaw, Yintale, and others (listed inalphabetical order). Today, these ethnic groups live in the eastern, southeastern, andsouthwestern parts of Myanmar and the northern and western parts of Thailand.
As pointed out by Kato (2016), the range of people who consider themselves to be ethnic“Karen” can vary depending on various contexts, such as political, ethnic, and linguistic. The
Geba people, for example, have their own identity as a separate group from the Karen or
Kayah; however, sometimes they may associate themselves as belonging to the Karen and,less often, to the Kayah. Despite this complicated situation, Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen arealways recognized as Karen, and, in the narrowest sense, can be considered to constitutethe ethnic “Karen”. In Myanmar, the Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen jointly hold many events
frequently, including traditional festivals such as the Karen New Year Festival. These twogroups also often act together in political movements; the Karen National Union (KNU), oneof the largest and keenest anti-government armed groups in Myanmar, are mainly comprisedof Pwo and Sgaw. Intermarriage between Pwo and Sgaw is also fairly common. In addition to
Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, the ethnic groups that speak languages close to Sgaw, i.e.,
Monebwa, Paku, and Thalebwa, often consider themselves Karen. Moreover, the Bwe, Geba,
and Mopwa, whose languages cannot be genealogically said to be very close to Pwo or
Sgaw but who have strong contact with the Sgaw people, may also consider themselves
Karen. Other groups such as the Kayah, Kayan, and Pa-O usually see themselves as
belonging to ethnic groups that are separate from Karen. However, all ethnic groups
speaking Karenic languages may be considered as a unified ethnic unit that constitutes“Karen”; for example, a radical Karen nationalist would prefer this because the concept of“Karen” comprises more groups and has a larger population when all Karenic people aretreated under the same rubric. The English word “Karen” probably originated from an oldform of the Burmese exonym /kăyìɴ/ (cf. written form: <karaṅ>)1, which can be further traced
back to a Proto-Karen autonym. Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct it, e.g., *kɲaŋA (Solnit 2001), *bra-ka-louŋ (Shintani 2003a), and *k-rjaŋA (Luangthongkum 2012).
Autonyms in contemporary Karenic languages include /phlòʊɴ/ (Eastern Pwo), /phlóuɴ/(Western Pwo), /pɣākәɲɔ́/ (Sgaw), and /ɡèɓá/ (Geba), /kәjɛ̄/ (Kayah Li; Solnit 1997: xviii),
and /kayân/ (Kayan; Manson 2010: xxi)
The Ethnologue (22nd edition; Eberhard et al. 2019) lists 21 Karenic languages: Bwe,Geba, Geko, Mobwa, Paku, Phrae Pwo, Eastern Pwo, Northern Pwo, Western Pwo, Sgaw,
Kawyaw, Eastern Kayah, Western Kayah, Kayan, Kayaw, Lahta, Pa-O, Wewaw, Yinbaw,
Yintale, and Zayein. Based on their estimated population data, the Karenic languages thathave a relatively large population of speakers are: Sgaw (2,250,000), Pwo (1,326,000), Pa-O
(858,740), Kayah (178,000), Kayan (133,180), Geba (40,000), Kayaw (20,100), and Bwe(17,200) (population counts in parentheses). The Genealogical relationships among the
Karenic languages have been discussed by scholars, including Jones (1961), Manson (2002,2017a), and Shintani (2003b), but opinions vary regarding the subgrouping of the languages.
The Union of Myanmar has two states for Karenic people: Kayin State (Karen State) and
Kayah State. These are the only administrative units in the world that are legitimately
1

The Mon exonym for Karen is /kәriәŋ/ (written form: <kareṅ>) (Mathias Jenny, p.c.). This Mon form could
also be the origin of the word “Karen”.

1established for the Karenic people. People speaking Karenic languages are mostly farmers,
who make swiddens in mountainous areas and wet rice fields in the plains. The majority of
the Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen population in Myanmar live in the plains of Kayin State,
Bago Region, Yangon Region, Mon State, Tanintharyi Region, and Ayeyarwady Region, andsome of the population live in urban areas including Yangon and Mawlamyine. However,Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen in Thailand mainly live in the mountainous areas. Karenic
people other than Pwo and Sgaw usually live in the mountainous areas of the southern Shan
State, Kayah State, Kayin State, and Bago Region, with the exception of Pa-O, some ofwhom live in the plains of Kayin State and Mon State. In the plains, people that speak the
Karenic languages are usually Buddhists or Christians, whereas in the mountainous areas,
they are usually Christians or animists. The majority of Pa-O and Pwo Karen are Buddhists,
Sgaw Karen also has a large population of Buddhists, and the rest are mostly Christians oranimists.
Some of the Karenic languages have writing systems. Pwo Karen in Kayin State has
several writing systems, including the Buddhist Pwo Karen Script (called /láithɯ̂lì/ in Pwo; I
assume that it was created by Pwo Karen Buddhist monks in the late 18th or early 19th
century based on the Mon script, though legend has it that it dates back to the Pagan Period),
Christian Pwo Karen Script (created by American Baptist missionaries in the middle of 19th
century based on the undermentioned Christian Sgaw Karen Script), and Leke Script (withoriginal new shapes, which may be created in the middle of 19th century). For the Pwo Karen
scripts, see Stern (1968) and Kato (2001a, 2001b, 2006). Different religious followers of Pwo
Karen tend to use different writing systems (Leke is the religion specific to Pwo Karen in
Kayin State). Many Sgaw Karen use the Christian Sgaw Karen Script; this was created in the
1830s by Wade, an American missionary, based on the Burmese script with a considerable
modification. Some Buddhist Sgaw also use this, whereas some Buddhist Sgaw use theBuddhist Sgaw Karen Script (called /lìʔtәláʔɲá/ in Sgaw), which was probably created after
the 1960s based on the Burmese script; moreover, some Buddhist Sgaw use the Myaing Gyi
Ngu Script with original new shapes that were created probably in the 1990s. According toSolnit (1997: 304‒308), Kayah has a roman-letter orthography developed by Catholic
missionaries and an Indic-style orthography created by indigenous people. Geba and Gekho
also have roman-letter writing systems created by Catholic missionaries. The Pa-O living in
Shan State have a Burmese-based writing system that reportedly has a history of hundredsof years, and the Pa-O living in Mon and Kayin States use a modified version of this. There
are several other scripts that have been developed recently: for example, the roman-letter
Kayan orthography (Manson 2010: 67‒69) and the Burmese-based Manu orthography (Wai
Lin Aung 2013: 14)
All Karenic languages have an SVO word order, which is aberrant among the TibetoBurman languages, the majority of which are of the SOV-type. Most likely, the ancestor of
the Karenic languages originally had an SOV word order, which changed to SVO at theProto-Karen stage. This change was likely due to contact with some Mon-Khmer language(s).
Matisoff (2000) suggests heavy contact with Mon in the late first millennium AD. Manson(2009) suggests that Mon-Khmer loanwords in Karenic languages imply a greater connection
with the Palaungic branch of Mon-Khmer than the Monic branch. Kato (in print) argues that
Pwo and Sgaw have loanwords from Mon that can be considered to be borrowed before Pwo
and Sgaw split because they match the regular historical tonal changes observed in pure
Karen words; he concludes that Pwo and Sgaw have a long history of contact with Mon,
although it is not obvious whether the contact can be traced back to the Proto-Karen stage.
Below are some examples. Mon forms shown in angle brackets “< >” indicate Shorto’s(1962) literary forms.
(1) Eastern Pwo /pàiɴtәrâɴ/, Western Pwo /tәràɴ/, Sgaw /pɛ́trɔ́/ ‘window, door’, cf. Mon<pāṅtaraṅ>Eastern Pwo /phjâ/, Western Pwo /phjà/, Sgaw /phjá/ ‘market’, cf. Mon <phyā>Eastern Pwo /kәmâ/, Western Pwo /kәmà/, Sgaw /kәmá/ ‘pond’, cf. Mon <kamā>2Kato also notes in the same paper that Burmese and Tai loanwords in Pwo and Sgaw do notmatch the regular patterns of tonal changes, and concludes that the contact of Pwo and
Sgaw with Burmese or Tai languages, including Thai and Shan, is relatively recent. At
present, Karenic languages generally have great interaction with the Burmese or Thai, andhave many Burmese loanwords in Myanmar and Thai loanwords in Thailand.
Dialectal variety within some Karenic languages is rather large. For example, Kato (2019)lists four dialectal groups of Pwo Karen that are not mutually intelligible: Western Pwo Karen,
Htoklibang Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen, and Northern Pwo Karen. For more details
regarding Pwo Karen dialects, see Kato (1995, 2009b), Dawkins and Phillips (2009a, b), andPhillips (2017). According to Manson (2017a, 2019), Kayan seems to have an even wider
variety of dialects. He says that the “Kayan cluster” is highly diverse both phonologically andlexically, and that several speech varieties are mutually unintelligible (Manson 2019: 5).
In this chapter, to describe the general typological profile of Karenic languages, I will
mainly use samples of the Hpa-an dialect of Eastern Pwo Karen (hereafter, Eastern Pwo
Karen is abbreviated as EPK, and Pwo Karen as PK), as I am the most familiar with thisdialect among the Karenic languages.2 I will also use many samples of the Hpa-an dialect of
Sgaw Karen (hereafter, abbreviated as SK), with which I am familiar to a certain extent. As
stated by Manson (2017a), the modern comprehensive grammatical studies available in thepresent for Karenic languages are Solnit (1997) for Kayah Li, Manson (2010) for Kayan, andmy grammar for Pwo Karen (Kato 2004); thus, in this chapter, Solnit (1997) and Manson(2010) are often referenced for comparison.

18.2 Phonology
18.2.1 Syllable structure and segmental phonemes
The syllable structure of EPK can be represented as C1(C2)V1(V2)(C3)/(T). “C" stands for a
consonant, “V” for a vowel, and “T” for a tone. C1 is an initial consonant, C2 is a medialconsonant, and C3 is a final consonant. One or two vowels may occur, and are represented
with V1 and V2. Bracketed elements may or may not occur. The sequence of V1, V2, and C3
has limited combinations; thus, it is better to treat them as a unit, that is, a rhyme. Many EPK
basic words consist of one syllable; thus, we can consider EPK to be a monosyllabic
language. This monosyllabicity is also true of the other Karenic languages.
Table 1 shows all the EPK simple onsets and rhymes. The phonetic values that should
be noticed are: /θ/[t̪ ~t̪ θ~θ], /c/[tɕ], /ph/[pʰ], /th/[tʰ], /ch/[tɕʰ], /kh/[kʰ], /b/[ɓ], /d/[ɗ], /j/[j~ʝ], /r/[r~ɹ],/i/[әi], /i̠ /[ɪ], and /ʁ/[ʁ~ɦ]. The uvular nasal /ɴ/ can only occur as C3, and all the otherconsonants can occur as C1. The consonants that can occur as C2 are: /w, l, r, j/. The
consonants /ɲ/, /ŋ/, and /r/ occur mostly in loanwords from Mon or Burmese. Rhymes areformed with the following four combinations: V1, V1V2, V1ɴ, and V1V2ɴ. There are 21
rhymes. The final uvular nasal /ɴ/ often functions as an element that only nasalizes the lastpart of the preceding vowel, especially in rapid speech. /ɴ/ of the rhymes /eiɴ/, /әɯɴ/, and/oʊɴ/ is often entirely dropped; in such cases, no nasalization is observed in the vowels,
either. /i̠ ɴ/ is only found in Burmese loanwords. The vowel of the rhyme /aɴ/ is phoneticallyrealized as a diphthong [ɑ̆ɔɴ]. This diphthong differs from the diphthongs of /eiɴ/, /әɯɴ/, /oʊɴ/,and /aiɴ/ because it is a rising diphthong, while the first and second elements of thediphthongs in /eiɴ/ [ei(ɴ)], /әɯɴ/ [әɯ(ɴ)], /oʊɴ/ [oʊ(ɴ)], and /aiɴ/ [aiɴ] are of equal prominence.

2

The author has a certain degree of speaking, listening, reading, and writing competence of Eastern Pwo Karen,
and reading competence of Sgaw Karen. He has researched many Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen dialects and madesome field work on Geba and Palaychi.

3

Table 1: Onsets and rhymes in EPK.
Onsets
p
θ t
ph
th
b
d

m
w

n

c
ch

k
kh

ɕ

x
ɣ
ŋ

ɲ
j

ʔ

h

Rhymes
i ɨ ɯ
i̱
ʊ
e ә o
ɛ a ɔ

ai aʊ

i̱ ɴ әɴaɴ oɴeiɴ әɯɴ oʊɴ
aiɴ

ʁ

l
r
Next, let us look at SK simple onsets and rhymes for comparison. Table 2 shows all the
SK onsets and rhymes. The phonemic transcription of SK follows Kato (2002). SK /θ/ ispronounced [t̪ ~t̪ θ~θ], the same as for Eastern Pwo /θ/. Both come from Proto-Karen *s,which was reconstructed by Haudricourt (1946) and is still preserved in many SK dialects
spoken in Thailand. /s/ [s] and /sh/ [sʰ] come from *c and *ch (see Manson 2009), which arealso preserved in many SK dialects spoken in Thailand. The SK phonemes /b/ and /d/ areimplosives, similar to Eastern Pwo /b/ and /d/. These can be considered as reflects of ProtoKaren *ɓ (or *ʔb) and *ɗ (or *ʔd). In many Karenic languages, these Proto-Karen sounds arepreserved as implosives or preglottalized voiced stops. Note that Haudricourt’s (1946) ProtoKaren plain voiced stops *b, *d, and *ɡ have changed to /ph/, /th/, and /kh/ in PK, and /p/, /t/,and /k/ in SK, as will be mentioned again in 18.2.2.
Table 2: Onsets and rhymes in SK.
Onsets
p
θ t
ph
th
b
d
s
sh
z
m
n
w
l
r

c
ch

k
kh

ʔ

ɕ

x

h

ɣ
ŋ

ɦ

ɲ
j

Rhymes
i ɯ u
e ә o
ɛ a ɔ

iʔ
eʔ
ɛʔ

ɯʔ uʔ
әʔ oʔ
aʔ ɔʔ

It is certain that Proto-Karen had series of syllable-final nasals and stops, as assumed byscholars including Manson (2009), Solnit (2013), and Luangthongkum (2019). Proto-Karen
probably had final nasals such as *-m, *-n, and *-ŋ because these are still present in Pa-O
(see Jones 1961). However, regarding the final stops, it is difficult to reconstruct them withindisputable certainty because all Karenic languages have reduced them to a glottal stop orcompletely dropped them. Pa-O has many rhymes with final stops /-p, -t, -k, -ʔ/; however, as
Solnit (2013) and Manson (2017a: 154) state, most of these with /-p, -t, -k/ are borrowed from
Tai (Shan) or Pali. SK still preserves a final glottal stop, but final nasals have entirely
disappeared. In this regard, Pwo is more conservative than Sgaw. In the Hpa-an dialect ofPwo, Proto-Karen final nasals are preserved as a uvular nasal. Final stops have completely
disappeared in Hpa-an; however, a final glottal stop is still preserved in the Kyonbyaw dialectof Western PK and the Tavoy dialect of EPK (see Kato, 1995). For example, compare Hpaan /thò/ ‘pig’ with Kyonbyaw /thoʔ/ ‘pig’ and Tavoy /thòʔ/ ‘pig’. Generally, Proto-Karen rhymes

4have been highly simplified in every Karenic language. Such simplification has occurred dueto the dropping and merging of final consonants, as mentioned above, as well as themonophthongization of diphthongs. Examples of monophthongization would be EPK /ʔɛ́/ ‘tolove’ and SK /ʔɛ̂/ ‘to love’, whose vowels probably used to be *ai, which is preserved inWestern PK, e.g. /ʔài/ ‘to love’. The simplification of rhymes is an on-going phenomenon. For
example, as mentioned above, the final /ɴ/ of /eiɴ/, /әɯɴ/, and /oʊɴ/ in the Hpa-an dialect of
EPK is often dropped. Moreover, the EPK final /-aɴ/ can also be pronounced as /-ɔ/ in somewords, such as /náɴ ~ nɔ́/ ‘to wake’ and /màɴ ~ mɔ̀/ ‘to bark (as a dog)’.
The possible combinations of C1 and C2 in EPK are shown in Table 3. The medial /r/ in
EPK generally occurs only in Mon or Burmese loanwords. Table 4 shows the possiblecombinations of C1 and C2 in SK, which appears in Wade (1849).
Table 3: Possible combinations of C1 and C2 in EPK.
C1
p θ tc k ʔ ph th ch kh b
w + + + + + +
+
+ + +
C2 l
+
+
+
+ +
r +
+
+
j
+
+
+
Table 4: Possible combinations of C1 and C2 in SK.
C1
p θ t k ph th kh b d s sh x
w + + + + ++++ + + +
C2 l
+
+ +
+ +
r + + + + +
+
+
+ +
j
+
+
+
ɣ +
+
+
+ +

d
+

x
+

h
+

m
+
+

n
+

ɲ
+

j
+

+

m
+
+
+
+
+

n
+

ɲ
+

ŋ
+

l
+

+

j
+

l
+

r
+

The medials of Karenic languages are generally semivowels or liquids. Even the SK
fricative medial /-ɣ-/ [ɣ] can be pronounced [ɰ], which is also noted by Manson (2017a: 154),
e.g. /pɣā/[pɣā~pɰā] ‘person’. In dialects of the Ayeyarwady delta, it has generally mergedwith /-w-/ when it occurs after a bilabial, e.g. /pwā/ ‘person’. The SK medial /-ɣ-/ can betraced back in many cases to the Proto-Karen medial *-r-. The Proto-Karen medial *-l- is
relatively well preserved in many Karenic languages. An example would be words that mean‘arrow’: EPK /phlā/, SK /plà/, Bwe /blɛ/ (Henderson 1997: vol. 2, 7), Eastern Kayah Li /plè/(Solnit 1997: 354), and Kayan /plā/ (Manson 2010: 234).

18.2.2 Suprasegmental phonemes
EPK (the Hpa-an dialect) has four tones, as shown below with examples:
High-level
Mid-level
Low-level
Fallingáāàâ[a55] /má/ ‘son-in-law’[a̤33 ~ 334] /mā/ ‘very’[a11] /mà/ ‘to do’[a51] /mâ/ ‘wife’

The mid-level tone is pronounced with a breathy phonation and may be pronounced with arising pitch in utterance-final position and before a pause.
SK (the Hpa-an dialect) has four plain tones and two checked tones:
High-level5á[a55] /má/ ‘wife’

High-checked áʔ [aʔ44]/náʔ/ ‘sword’Mid-level
Low-level
Fallingāàâ[a33] /mā/ ‘to do’[a11] /nà/ ‘ear’[a51] /ɲâ/ ‘fish’

Low-checkedàʔ [aʔ11]/màʔ/ ‘son-in-law’

The high- and low-checked tones can be interpreted either as the high- (or possibly mid-)and low-level tones occurring in a syllable with the final glottal stop or as tones that are
independent tones from the plain ones. It is uncertain which interpretation is appropriate.
Table 5 shows how the Proto-Karen tones (represented as 1, 2, 2, and 3)3 reconstructedby Haudricourt (1946, 1953, 1975) have changed in EPK and SK. Tone 3 is the tone withfinal stops. Haudricourt (1946) only reconstructed Tones 1, 2, and 3, and added one more
proto-tone, i.e. Tone 2, in his 1975 paper.4. B, M, and H represent the initial consonantgroups of Proto-Karen. B is the group of voiced consonants, M is the group of voiceless nonaspirated stops including glottalized/implosive stops, and H is the group of voicelessaspirated stops as well as voiceless fricatives and sonorants. The Proto-Karen tones are split
in this way based on the types of initial consonants. The tonal split in Karen resembles that of
the Tai languages (see Li 1977) in that tones split based on the three types of initialconsonants. For details regarding Haudricourt’s reconstruction of Proto-Karen tones, seeKato (2018).
Table 5: Proto-Karen tones and the tones of EPK (left) and SK (right).
1 (plain)2 (plain)3 (checked)
2 (plain)B/à/[11] : /ā/[33]/ā/[33] : /à/[11]/á/[55] : /àʔ/[11]M/à/[11] : /á/[55]/á/[55] : /â/[51]/á/[55] : /á/[55]/à/[11] : /àʔ/[11]H/â/[51] : /á/[55]/á/[55] : /â/[51]/á/[55] : /á/[55]/à/[11] : /áʔ/[44]Haudricourt (1946) reconstructed the Proto-Karen tones using the PK dictionary by
Purser and Saya Tun Aung (1922), which also shows corresponding SK forms in brackets.
Haudricourt (1975) assumes that Tone 2 merged with Tone 2 in syllables beginning with Bseries consonants at the Proto-Karen stage; thus, there are no contemporary examples ofB2. All Karenic languages still have tones. The tonal correspondences of 16 Karenic
languages with Proto-Karen are shown in Shintani (2003b). If we consider his description
and if tones with a final glottal stop (i.e. checked tones) are treated as independent tones,
Karenic languages have either two, three, four, five, or six tones.
As has been already mentioned in 18.2.1, the Proto-Karen initials *b, *d, and *ɡ havechanged to /ph/, /th/, and /kh/ in PK, and /p/, /t/, and /k/ in SK. This devoicing happened in
the process of the tonal split. When Haudricourt (1946) reconstructed Proto-Karen *b, *d,and *ɡ, no Karenic language that has [b], [d], or [ɡ] had been found. However, hisassumption that the Proto-Karen had voiced stops was attested by the reports of Luce (1959)
and Henderson (1961, 1979) on Bwe Karen, which preserves plain voiced stops. According
to Shintani (2003b), Proto-Karen *b, *d, and *ɡ are still preserved intact as [b], [d], and [ɡ] in
Bwe, Geba, Paku, and Monebwa, and these languages have a four-way contrast ofhomorganic stops, e.g. /p/, /ph/, /b/, and /ɓ/, which is a contrast that Proto-Karen probably
used to have. In the other Karenic languages, *b, *d, and *ɡ have changed to [p], [t], and [k],or [ph], [th], and [kh]. For example, Proto-Karen *ɡo2 ‘hot’ became /khʊ̄/ in EPK and /kò/ in
SK. The Geba form corresponding to them is /ɡō/ (Kato 2008a: 191). Similarly, in all Karenic
languages except Geba, Proto-Karen voiceless sonorants belonging to the H-series havebeen voiced in the process of tonal split. For example, Proto-Karen *m̥a1 ‘wife’ became /mâ/3

Luangthongkum (2019) claims that Haudricourt’s (1975) reconstruction of Tone 2 is unnecessary. However,as I discussed in Kato (2018), reconstructing Tone 2 can explain the tonal developments that occurred in thetransition from Proto-Karen to modern Karenic languages. This hypothesis that assumes Tone 2 is accepted by
Solnit (2001, 2013), Shintani (2003b), and Manson (2009). Tones 1, 2, 2, 3 may be represented as Tones A, B,
B, C or A, B, B’, D by different scholars.
4
Haudricourt himself did not number the added tone as 2. I am using this numbering for convenience.

6

in EPK and /má/ in SK. However, only Geba preserves voiceless sonorants (see Kato 2008aand Naw Hsar Shee 2008), and the Geba word corresponding to ‘wife’ is /m̥ɛ́/ (Kato 2008a:
184).
EPK has atonal syllables, which are phonetically unstressed and short, and cannot occur
utterance-finally. They must be followed by a syllable with a tone when they occur in an
utterance. The only vowel that can occur in an atonal syllable is /ә/, and it is transcribed as/Cә/ without a tonal notation. In an atonal syllable, C2 never occurs. EPK has many disyllabic
words that have an atonal first syllable. These are “sesquisyllabic” in Matisoff’s (1973: 84ff)
terms, in that they are composed of the unstressed first syllable and the stressed secondsyllable. Examples are: /kәchā/ ‘lord, master’, /kәchâɴ/ ‘elephant’, /cәxwà/ ‘king’, /chәrâ/‘teacher’, /chәná/ ‘evil-spirit’, /tәkhwâ/ ‘cousin’, /tәɕā/ ‘surely’, /tәwâɴ/ ‘village’, /thәrài/‘expense’, /pәnā/ ‘buffalo’, /phәjā/ ‘to release’, and /θәdáɴ/ ‘shrimp’. SK also has manysesquisyllabic words, such as /kәsà/ ‘lord, master’, /kәshɔ́/ ‘elephant’, /θәrâ/ ‘teacher’,/tәkhwá/ ‘cousin’, /θәwɔ́/ ‘village’, /pәnà/ ‘buffalo’, and /lәpɔ́/ ‘wave’.
Karenic languages generally have sesquisyllabic words. Solnit (1997: 25) presents
Kayah Li examples, such as /kәdā/ ‘door’ and /tәmɔ̀/ ‘sun’. Manson (2010: 57) presents
Kayan examples, such as /na.là/ ‘ear’, /ka.nó̤/ ‘brain’, and /ʔa.cʰû/ ‘thorn’. In PK and SK, theminor syllable in a sesquisyllabic word never has a tone; however, in some other Karenic
languages, it may bear tones. For example, according to Solnit (1997: 25), the Kayah Li
prefix /ʔi-/, which appears as the minor syllable in a sesquisyllabic word, may have two tones(low or high), whereas full syllables may have five tones.
In some Karenic languages, some prefixes or proclitic morphemes with atonal or
unstressed syllables show vowel harmony. For example, according to Kato (2008a), in Geba,
the vowel of the personal pronouns /jV/ (1SG), /wV/ (1PL), /nV/ (2SG), and /sV/ (3SG) show
vowel harmony with the vowel of the following syllable. ‘V’ here represents an atonal vowelthat is the same as that of the following syllable. Examples are: /ja ʔā/ (1SG - to.eat) ‘I ate’,/je lē/ (1SG - to.go) ‘I went’, /jɛ mɛ̄/ (1SG - to.do) ‘I did’, and /jɔ ɗɔ̄/ (1SG - to.speak) ‘I spoke’.
Apart from these personal pronouns that occur before a verb or a noun, vowel harmony inGeba is also observed in the negative marker /tV/ that occurs before a verb, in the realis
marker /kV/ that occurs before a verb, and in the numeral /tV/ ‘one’ that occurs before anumeral classifier. Not all atonal morphemes show vowel harmony. An example would be thenominalizing prefix /ʔa-/, e.g. /ʔaθɛ̄/ ‘fruit’ (< /ʔa-/ + /θɛ̄/ ‘to bear fruit’). Solnit (1997: 26)
reports that vowel harmony is observed in Kayah Li, Kayaw, and Bwe (see also the“Introduction” of Henderson [1997] written by Solnit). Manson (2010: 152) also reports that a
Kayan adverbializer /θa-/ shows vowel harmony. In PK and SK, vowel harmony is notobservable.
In EPK, the first syllables of some disyllabic words can be pronounced either as a fullsyllable with a tone or as an atonal syllable. Examples are: /khʊ́lòɴ ~ khәlòɴ/ ‘mountain’,/ph b́ àiɴ ~ phәbàiɴ/ ‘blanket’, and /kháɴthài ~ khәthài/ ‘base, foundation’. These forms tend to
appear in rapid speech with an atonal syllable. Manson (2017a: 153) mentions that the
Kayan word /kʰaŋ42.du42/ [kʰan42.du42] ‘thigh’ is also pronounced with forms that have
weakened first syllables including [kʰә.du42] and [kә.du42]. These examples imply that one of
the sources of sesquisyllabic words in Karenic languages is the weakening of the full firstsyllables of disyllabic words.

18.3 Word classes
Kato (2004, 2008b) groups EPK words into five word classes: nouns, verbs, adverbs,
particles, and interjections. It is unnecessary to set up the category of adjectives, and words
that denote states are considered a subgroup of verbs, i.e., stative verbs. These wordclasses can be defined in terms of the bundle of syntactic features that each word class has.
Interjections are considered as a special word class that cannot have a syntactic relationshipwith other elements. For the other four word classes, Kato (2004, 2008b) proposes threetests to distinguish them: Test 1 is whether a word can constitute an utterance on its own;

7

Test 2 is whether a word allows a verb particle to occur; and Test 3 is whether a word can be
an argument of a verb. See Table 6.
Table 6: Tests to distinguish EPK word classes.
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Nouns
Yes
No
Yes
Verbs
Yes
Yes
Yes
Adverbs Yes
No
NoParticles No
No
No
Nouns, verbs, and adverbs can constitute an utterance on their own, but particles cannot.
Only verbs can allow a verb particle to occur. Verb particles are one of the seven kinds ofparticles. Kato (2004: 370‒372) lists over sixty verb particles, including the negative marker/lә/ and the irrealis marker /mә/. For example, in /ʔәwê mә ɣɛ̂/ (3SG - IRR - to.come) ‘S/he will
come’, the irrealis marker /mә/ cannot occur without the presence of a verb /ɣɛ̂/; thus, a verb
allows a verb particle to occur. Nouns and verbs can function as the subject argument orobject argument of a verb. For example, in /jә θànáɴ láiʔàʊ/ (1SG - to.forget - book) ‘I forgot abook’, the noun /láiʔàʊ/ ‘book’ is the object argument of the verb /θànáɴ/ ‘to forget’, and in /jәθànáɴ ɣɛ̂/ (1SG - to.forget - come) ‘I forgot to come’, the verb /ɣɛ̂/ ‘to come’ functions as theobject argument of the same verb, /θànáɴ/ ‘to forget’. The grammars of Karenic languages
by Solnit (1997) for Kayah Li, Manson (2010) for Kayan, and Kato (2004) for Pwo Karen,establish different word classes; however, all these grammars commonly recognize nouns,
verbs, and adverbs, and consider the class of adjectives as unnecessary.

18.4 Word formation
EPK is an isolating type of language; its words do not inflect at all. However, there are three
productive word-formation processes. They are compounding, affixation, and reduplication.
Compounding is a highly productive process of word formation in EPK. Nouns and verbs
are involved in compounding and the resultant words are also nouns or verbs. There are four
patterns in the formation of compound nouns: N+N > N, N+V > N, V+V > N, and V+N > N. In
the formation of compound verbs, there are three patterns: V+V > V, N+V > V, and V+N > V.
Here, we will look at four patterns from the patterns mentioned above: N+N > N, N+V > N,
V+V > V, and V+N > V.
● N+N > N. In this pattern, the second element is usually the semantic head:(2)/mé/ ‘eye’ + /thî/ ‘water’ > /méthî/ ‘tear’(3)/ɣéiɴ/ ‘house’ + /khʊ́/ ‘head’ > /ɣéiɴkhʊ́/ ‘roof of a house’(4)/phɔ̂/ ‘flower’ + /phә̀ɴ/ ‘pot’ > /phɔ̂phә̀ɴ/ ‘vase’(5)/déiɴ/ ‘sesame’ + /θʊ́/ ‘oil’ > /déiɴθʊ́/ ‘sesame oil’

However, in some words, the former element is the semantic head, as in (6) and (7), andthere are also cases in which both elements can be considered the semantic heads, as in (8)and (9):8(6)/láiɴ/ ‘cart’ + /mí̱ / ‘fire’ > /láiɴmí̱ / ‘train’(7)/phә̀ɴ/ ‘pot’ + /thà/ ‘iron’ > /phә̀ɴthà/ ‘Chinese pot made of iron’(8)/mʊ̄/ ‘mother’ + /phā/ ‘father’ > /mʊ̄phā/ ‘parents’(9)/chái/ ‘rice field’ + /xàʊ/ ‘swidden’ > /cháixàʊ/ ‘agricultural land’

In “N+N > N” pattern, the second element is sometimes a numeral classifier, as in (10) and(11). Numeral classifiers constitute a subgroup of nouns.
(10) /lái/ ‘writing’ + /béiɴ/ ‘NC[flat thing]’ > /láibéiɴ/ ‘booklet’(11) /lái/ ‘writing’ + /phlóʊɴ/ ‘NC[round thing]’ > /láiphlóʊɴ/ ‘alphabet’● N+V > N. This pattern can be considered in terms of syntactic relationship of N and V; ‘N’may be the subject of the ‘V’ as in (12), the object as in (13), and the adjunct as in (14) and(15). In many cases, ‘N’ denotes a generic concept of the resultant noun but sometimes, it is
not the case; In (15), a ‘handle’ is not a kind of ‘hand’.
(12) /lōʊɴ/ ‘stone’ + /jî̱ / ‘be green’ >/lōʊɴjî̱ / ‘jade’(13) /lái/ ‘writing’ + /pɔ̄/ ‘to read’ > /láipɔ̄/ ‘textbook’(14) /thà/ ‘iron, needle’ + /chà/ ‘to sow’ > /thàchà/ ‘sewing needle’(15) /cɯ́/ ‘hand’ + /phóɴ/ ‘to hold’ >/cɯ́phóɴ/ ‘handle, grip’● V+V > V. Examples are below:(16) /ʔáɴ/ ‘to eat’ + /ʔɔ̀/ ‘to drink’ > /ʔáɴʔɔ̀/ ‘to eat and drink’(17) /thé/ ‘to be cut’ + /phà/ ‘to be split’ > /théphà/ ‘to crack, explode’(18) /ɕɯ́/ ‘be calm’ + /máʊ/ ‘be comfortable’ > /ɕɯ́máʊ/ ‘be peaceful’● V+N > V. Examples are below. In (20), /pәrә̂ɴ/ is not the object noun of the verb /kè/because /kèpәrә̂ɴ/ as a whole can take an object, as in /kèpәrә̂ɴ lái/ (to.write – letter) ‘towrite a letter’.
(19) /bá/ ‘to hit’ + /θà/ ‘heart’ >/báθà/ ‘to want (something)’(20) /kè/ ‘to write’ + /pәrә̂ɴ/ ‘news’ > /kèpәrә̂ɴ/ ‘to write (as a letter)’Compounding is highly productive in Karenic languages in general. Some of thecompound words seem to be able to trace back to the Proto-Karen stage. An example would
be words that mean ‘tree leaf’: EPK /θéiɴlá/ (< /θéiɴ/ ‘tree’ + /lá/ ‘leaf’), SK /θêlâ/ (< /θê/ ‘tree’+ /lâ/ ‘leaf’), Kayah Li /sɔle/ (< /sɔ/ ‘tree’ + /le/ ‘leaf’) (Solnit 1997: 44), and Kayan /θә̂ŋlâ/ (</θә̂ŋ/ ‘tree’ + /lâ/ ‘leaf’) (Manson 2007: 58).
Reduplication in EPK only applies to verbs. Nouns are never reduplicated. Reduplication
derives an adverb from a stative verb. For example, /phlɛ́phlɛ́/ ‘fast’ is a reduplicated form of
the verb /phlɛ́/ ‘be fast’, and it functions as an adverb that occurs after the verb and modifies
it. Other examples are: /xɛ̀xɛ̀/ ‘slowly’ (< /xɛ̀/ ‘be slow’), /ʔáʔá/ ‘much’ (< /ʔá/ ‘be many’), and/ɣì̱ ɣì̱ / ‘well’ (< /ɣì̱ / ‘be good’). When the verb is disyllabic, it is usually reduplicated in thepattern of AABB, e.g. /thîthîchàchà/ ‘exactly’ (< /thîchà/ ‘be exact’) and /xɯ̂xɯ̂xàɴxàɴ/‘unitedly’ (< /xɯ̂xàɴ/ ‘be united’). However, some disyllabic words are reduplicated in theform of ABAB, e.g. /bádàbádà/ ‘moderately’ (< /bádà/ ‘be moderate’). In Kayan, reduplication
also has a function of deriving adverbs from the stative verbs (Manson 2010: 151). Kayah Li
reduplication does not seem to have such a function but has an interesting function of
expressing the meaning of ‘also, too, either’ (Solnit 1997: 52‒53). For example, in the9sentence /vɛ̄ cwá to to/ (I - to.go - NEG - RDP) ‘I won’t go either’, the meaning of ‘either’ isexpressed by reduplicating the last syllable of the clause. This process can be applied to any
syntactic element as far as it is in the clause-final position.
EPK has a limited number of affixes. Kato (2004: 57‒62) lists ten affixes; eight out ofthese are prefixes and two are suffixes. Here, we will see two important affixes.
● /ʔә-/ is a derivational prefix attached to a verb or noun. This morpheme is related to theProto-Tibeto-Burman prefix *a- (Benedict 1972: 121‒123; see also Matisoff 2003: 104‒117;
and Matisoff 2018), which has various functions in Tibeto-Burman languages, including
nominalization. It is homophonous with the 3rd person singular pronoun /ʔә/ ‘s/he; his or her’.
It is prefixed to verbs and derives nouns. Examples are: /ʔәkhʊ̄/ ‘hot thing’ (< /ʔә-/ + /khʊ̄/ ‘behot’), /ʔәchâ/ ‘injury, wound’ (< /ʔә-/ + /châ/ ‘to ache’), /ʔәdà/ ‘rug’ (< /ʔә-/ + /dà/ ‘to spread’),/ʔәθá/ ‘fruit’ (< /ʔә-/ + /θá/ ‘to bear fruit’), /ʔәθâɴ/ ‘new one’ (< /ʔә-/ + /θâɴ/ ‘be new’), and/ʔәʔwà/ ‘white’ (< /ʔә-/ + /ʔwà/ ‘be white’). This prefix is also prefixed to a noun and derives
another noun. Examples are: /ʔәkhâiɴ/ ‘backside, rear’ (< /ʔә-/ + /khâiɴ/ ‘buttock’) and/ʔәkhʊ́/ ‘roof’ (< /ʔә-/ + /khʊ́/ ‘head’). Moreover, this prefix is also utilized to change adependent nominal morpheme into an independent noun. For example, in /ʔәchóɴ/ ‘bodyhair’, the part /chóɴ/ cannot occur as an independent noun but evidently indicates themeaning of ‘body hair’ because it is used in a compound noun; an example of this would be/kháchóɴ/ ‘beard’ (< /khá/ ‘chin’ + /chóɴ/ ‘body hair’). The independent noun /ʔәchóɴ/ isformed by prefixing /ʔә-/ to the bound form /chóɴ/. Examples of nouns of this type are: /ʔәnā/‘blade’, /ʔәphә̀ɴ/ ‘inside’, /ʔәmèiɴ/ ‘name’, /ʔәkhwâ/ ‘female’, /ʔәmɯ́/ ‘male’, and /ʔәlɯ̄/‘voice’. Some words have both forms with and without this prefix. That is, both forms can beused as an independent noun. Examples of this are: /(ʔә)chɯ́/ ‘thorn’, /(ʔә)khlî/ ‘seed’, and/(ʔә)nòʊɴ/ ‘horn’. The prefix /ʔә-/ is evidently cognate with the Kayah Li prefix /ʔa-/ (Solnit
1997: 41‒44), the Kayan prefix /a-/ (Manson 2010: 104‒105), and the SK prefix /ʔә-/. ProtoKaren probably had a prefix that can be reconstructed as *(ʔ)a-, from which these prefixes
have developed.
● /chә-/ is a derivational prefix related to the noun /chә̄/, meaning ‘thing’, which originatedfrom Proto-Karen *da2 ‘thing’.5 It is mainly prefixed to verbs and derives nouns. Examples
are: /chәkhlàiɴ/ ‘language’ (< /chә-/ + /khlàiɴ/ ‘to speak’), /chәkhʊ̄/ ‘heat, hotness’ (< /chә-/ +/khʊ̄/ ‘be cold’), /chәchә̀ɴ/ ‘rain’ (< /chә-/ + /chә̀ɴ/ ‘to rain’), /chәdóɴ/ ‘wall’ (< /chә-/ + /dóɴ/ ‘tofence’), /chәmà/ ‘job’ (< /chә-/ + /mà/ ‘to do’), and /chәʔɛ́/ ‘love’ (< /chә-/ + /ʔɛ́/ ‘to love’). Thisprefix may also occasionally be attached to a noun. Examples are: /chәpәrә̂ɴ/ ‘information’(< /chә-/ + /pәrә̂ɴ/ ‘news about somebody’) and /chәɣàɴ/ ‘picture’ (< /chә-/ + /ɣàɴ/‘appearance, figure’). Compared to /ʔә-/, nouns that are derived with /chә-/ tend to havemore abstract meanings; compare /ʔәkhʊ̄/ ‘hot thing’ with /chәkhʊ̄/ ‘heat, hotness’. Thisprefix is cognate with the Kayan prefix /ta-/ (Manson 2010: 105‒107) and SK nominalizer /tà/.
It is not certain whether the proto-form *da2 ‘thing’ had already been grammaticalized as aprefix at the Proto-Karen stage.

18.5 Clause structure
The basic structure of the EPK verb-predicate clause can be schematized as presented in
Figure 1. In the position of the verb, represented as ‘V’, concatenated verbs, which will be
discussed later, may occur. I call the part consisting of the verb and the verb particle(s) as averb complex. In addition to the elements shown in the schema, after the adverbial elements,

5

The Proto-Karen *d generally became /th/ in Pwo Karen dialects. In this regard, the onset of the prefix /chә-/shows an irregular correspondence with the Proto-Karen *d. In Northern Pwo Karen, spoken in northern
Thailand, the form corresponding to the Eastern prefix /chә-/ is /thә-/ (see Phillips 2017: 70‒80), whose onset
shows a regular correspondence with Proto-Karen. Probably, the onset of the Eastern Pwo prefix /chә-/ used to
be an alveolar stop and became /ch/ later for some reason.

10

another verb complex may occur, which is the V2 of a separated type serial verb construction.
Furthermore, some adverbial elements may appear clause-initially.
(NP1) (verb particle(s)) V (verb particle(s)) (NP2) (NP3) (adverbial elements)
verb complex
Figure 1: Basic structure of the EPK clause.
NP1 is the subject, and NP2 and NP3 are the objects of the verb. When the verb ismonotransitive, NP2 can appear, and when the verb is ditransitive, both NP2 and NP3 canappear. When the verb is intransitive, only NP1 can appear. (21), (22), and (23) are
examples of intransitive, monotransitive, and ditransitive sentences of EPK, respectively. In
many Southeast Asian and East Asian SVO languages, existential and phenomenon
sentences utilize a VS order; however, EPK does not use that order in such sentences, asseen in (21). In a ditransitive clause, the noun denoting Recipient occurs immediately after
the verb, and the noun denoting Theme follows it, as seen in (23). All Karenic languages
have basic SVO word order, and the positions of the arguments of verbs are basically thesame as EPK.
(21)

[EPK]
phlòʊɴmwìɣɛ̂
guest
to.come‘A guest came; There comes a guest.’(22)ɕáphàɴ

(23)

dʊ́
PN
to.hit‘Shapan hit Thakhlein.’[EPK]θàkhléiɴ
PN[EPK]ɕáphàɴ

phí̱ lâɴθàkhléiɴ khòθáPN
to.give
PN
mango‘Shapan gave Thakhlein a mango.’

To see elements other than NPs, let us take sentence (24) as an example:
(24)

nә

mә

ʔáɴ

bá

kʊ́

ʔáʔá

lә́

jә

ɣéiɴ

phә̀ɴ

ɕī̱

2SG

IRR

to.eat

OPP

cake

much

LOC

1SG

house

insidetoo[EPK]‘You will also get a chance to eat a lot of cake inside my house.’/mә/ and /bá/ are verb particles. /mә/ is the irrealis marker, and /bá/ denotes opportunity.
In this example, /mә ʔáɴ bá/ is the verb complex. Kato (2004) eleven verb particles thatappear before the verb and fifty verb particles that appear after the verb.
In the position of “adverbial elements”, adverbs, adpositional phrases, adverbial particles,
and numeral-classifier phrases may occur. In (24), /ʔáʔá/ is an adverb, /lә́ jә ɣéiɴ phә̀ɴ/ is an
adpositional phrase, and /ɕī̱ / is an adverbial particle. These adverbial elements occur after
the verb. Adpositional phrases are formed by adpositional particles including /lә́ ~ lé/ ‘at;from; to’, /dē/ ‘with’, /thōɴ/ ‘around’, /nî̱ / ‘as much as’, and /bê ... θò/ ‘like’. Adpositional
particles generally precede the noun phrase, with the exception of /bê ... θò/, which is acircumposition. Out of the constituents that occur in the position of adverbial elements,
adpositional phrases may be topicalized and placed in the sentence-initial position (seeSection 13 for topicalization).
The form /phә̀ɴ/ ‘inside’ in (24) is a locational noun. Its independent form is /ʔәphә̀ɴ/‘inside’ with the prefix /ʔә-/, which is dropped in most cases when it modifies a noun.
Locational nouns occur after the noun that they modify. They are a subgroup of nouns;

11however, they are special because they can function like an adposition. For example, in/ʔәwê ʔɔ́ (lә́) ɣéiɴ phә̀ɴ/ (3SG - be - LOC - house - inside) ‘He is in the house’, the adpositional
particle /lә́/ can be omitted because /phә̀ɴ/ can make the preceding noun function as an
adjunct. (However the omission seems to occur usually when the adpositional phrase
appears immediately after the verb.) Other locational nouns include /ʔәklà/ ‘between’,/ʔәméjâ/ ‘front’, /ʔәlāɴkhâiɴ/ ‘back’, /ʔәphâɴkhʊ́/ ‘on, above’, and /ʔәphâɴlá/ ‘under’.
It is difficult whether we should recognize noun-predicate clauses in EPK. In a sentencesuch as /ʔәwê mwɛ̄ phlòʊɴ/ (3SG - COP - Karen) ‘He is a Karen’, the copular verb /mwɛ̄/ isoccasionally dropped. However, some native speakers say that it makes the expression
sound rude or sloppy. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the expression /ʔәwêphlòʊɴ/ ‘He is a Karen’ is completely acceptable.
Karenic languages generally do not have a tense marking. However, in EPK, the irrealis
marker /mә/ (also pronounced as /mʊ̄/) helps to indicate the future, as is seen in (24) above.
A more simple EPK example is /jә mә ɣɛ̂/ (1SG - IRR - to.come) ‘I will come’. The SK irrealis
marker /kә/ also helps to indicate the future, as in: /jә kә hɛ́/ (1SG - IRR - to.come) ‘I will come’.
These markers should not be considered as a future marker because they can be used todenote a surmise about past time. For example, in EPK, /mɯ̄ɣá ʔәwê mә ʔɔ́ lә́ jò/ (yesterday- 3SG - IRR - to.be - LOC - here) ‘Yesterday, he was probably here’. However, it is certain that
EPK /mә/ and SK /kә/ are usually used in a clause depicting an event in the future. Kayan
has an irrealis prefix /kà-/ (Manson 2010: 140‒141), and Geba also has a preverbal irrealis
particle /kV/ (Kato 2008a: 215–-216). The forms of SK, Kayan, and Geba are probably
cognates. EPK /mә/ is related to the Western Pwo Karen verb particle /mô/, which means‘want to’. The Western Pwo irrealis marker is /kә/, and this is probably cognate with the SK,
Kayan, and Geba forms. Thus, it seems that EPK used to have an irrealis marker that is
cognate with Western /kә/, but it was replaced by /mә/ later.
Although Karenic languages do not mark tense, they have markers denoting various
aspect categories. EPK has a perfective marker, /jàʊ/, which is an adverbial particle. An
example is /ʔәwê ɣɛ̂ jàʊ/ (3SG - to.come - PFV) ‘He has come’. The SK equivalent is /lí/, as in/ʔәwɛ́ hɛ́ lí/ (3SG - come - PFV) ‘He has come’. Both EPK and SK do not have a marker that
denotes continuous aspect. Thus, EPK /jә ʔáɴ mì̱ / (1SG - to.eat - rice) and SK /jә ʔɔ̂ mē/ (1SG
- to.eat - rice) can both express meanings, such as ‘I ate rice’, ‘I was eating rice’, ‘I am eating
rice’, and ‘I eat rice (every day)’. Kayan (Manson 2010: 137) has a continuous aspect prefix/âu-/, for example, /âu-mé/ (CONT-to.sleep) ‘to be sleeping’, which originated from the verb
meaning ‘to exist, live’. However, in EPK and SK, the EPK verb /ʔɔ́/ and SK verb /ʔɔ̂/, both ofwhich mean ‘to exist, live’ have not been grammaticalized to a form denoting aspect.

18.6 Pronouns
The EPK pronouns have three forms: form I, form II, and the emphatic form, as is shown in
Table 7. Form I is used for the subject of a verb, e.g., /jә ʔáɴ khòθá/ (1SG - to.eat - mango) ‘Iate a mango’. It is also used in Slot 3 (see Section 7) of the noun phrase to denote a
possessor, e.g., /jә khòθá/ (1SG - mango) ‘my mango’. Form II is mainly used for the objectof a verb, e.g., /jә dá nә̀/ (1SG - to.see - 2SG) ‘I saw you’, or the object of an adpositional
particle, e.g., /jә ʔáɴ dē ʔә̀/ (1SG - to.eat - with - 3SG) ‘I ate with him/her’. It is also used forthe pronouns that are topicalized (see Section 13), e.g., /jә̀ nɔ́ ʔáɴ khòθá/ (1SG - TOP - to.eat- mango) ‘As for me, I ate a mango’. The emphatic form is typically used when the pronoun isemphasized, whatever syntactic role the emphasized pronoun has, e.g., /jәwê ʔáɴ khòθá/(1SG - to.eat - mango) ‘I ate a mango’. When the subject of a sentence is third person
singular, the emphatic form /ʔәwê/ is usually used instead of the form I /ʔә/, e.g., /ʔәwê ʔáɴ/
(3SG - to.eat) ‘He ate’.

12

Table 7: EPK pronouns.
Form I
1SGjә
1PLhә (pә)
2SG
2PL
3SG
3PL

nә
nәθí
ʔә
ʔәθí

Form IIjә̀hә̀ (pә̀)
nә̀
nәθí
ʔә̀
ʔәθí

Emphatic formjәwê, jәwêdáhәwê (pәwê),hәwêdá (pәwêdá)nәwê, nәwêdánәθíwê, nәθíwêdá
ʔәwê, ʔәwêdáʔәθíwê, ʔәθíwêdá

In many Karenic languages, pronouns placed before verbs and nouns are phonologicallyweak, as is the case with the EPK pronouns /jә/ (1SG), /nә/ (2SG), and /ʔә/ (3SG), which haveatonic syllables. In EPK, a topicalized pronoun in the form II sometimes appears together
with the same pronoun in form I in the subject slot in a sentence, such as in (25).
(25)

jə̀
1SG[TOP]jəmәlɔ̀
1SG[SBJ] IRR
to.tell‘As for me, I will tell you.’nә̀
2SG[OBJ][EPK]

The weak forms /jә/, /nә/, and /ʔә/ can be interpreted as proclitics, and these forms used
before verbs could be taken as an example of the pronominalization that is widely observedin Tibeto-Burman languages (for pronominalization, see, e.g., Nishi 1995). LaPolla (1994: 74)
discusses a similar phenomenon in SK in the context of pronominalization.

18.7 Noun phrases
The structure of the Pwo Karen noun phrase can be schematized as in Figure 2. This is arevised version of the schema shown by Kato (2019: 144). Brackets denote optional items.
Slot 1(RC)

Slot 2(NM)

Slot 3
Slot 4
Slot 5
Slot 6
Slot 7
Slot 8(PRON) HEAD
(RC)
(ADP)
(NUM + (PL)NOUN
NC)
Figure 2: The order of components within the EPK noun phrase

Slot 9(DEM)

Slot 1 is for a pre-head relative clause. Slot 2 is for a noun modifier, a noun that modifies thehead noun. Slot 3 is for a pronoun, which denotes a possessor. Slot 4 is for the head noun.
Slot 5 is for a post-head relative clause. Slot 6 is for an adpositional phrase. Slot 7 is for“numeral + numeral classifier”. Slot 8 is for a particle that denotes plurality. Slot 9 is for ademonstrative, more precisely, a particle that has a demonstrative function. Below are
examples:(26)

Slot 2
Slot 3phā(ʔә)
father3SG‘Father’s rice field’(27)

Slot 3
Slot 4
Slot 6jәθòdē khʊ́láʊ
1SG
friendwith hat‘those friends of mine with hats’13

Slot 4chái
rice.field[EPK]

Slot 8θɛ̀
PL

Slot 9
nɔ́
that

[EPK]

(28)

Slot 1
Slot 4 Slot 5
Slot 6ʔәwê xwè jáphàdʊ́ lә́ cәpwɛ̄ phâɴkhʊ́ ʔò
3SG to.buy fish
be.big LOC table above away
‘those three big fish on that table, which he bought’

Slot 7θә̄ɴ béiɴ
three NC

Slot 8θɛ̀
PL

Slot 9
nɔ́
that

[EPK]

When a possessor noun modifies the head noun as in (26), the third-person pronoun
may appear before the possessed noun. /ʔә chái/ (3SG - rice.field) alone can mean ‘his rice
field’.
Slot 7 in Figure 2 is the slot for “numeral (NUM) + numeral classifier (NC)”, which I call an“NC phrase” here. When a noun is modified by a numeral, the numeral must be followed by anumeral classifier corresponding to the noun. Examples of head nouns with an NC phrase
are: /thwí lә dɯ̀/ (dog - one - NC[animal]) ‘one dog’, /phlòʊɴ nī ɣà/ (person - two - NC[person])‘two people’, /châiɴ θә̄ɴ béiɴ/ (shirt - three - NC[flat thing]) ‘three pieces of shirt’, /khòθá līphlóʊɴ/ (mango - four - NC[round thing]) ‘four mangos’, and /lé jɛ̄ bòɴ/ (stick - five - NC[longthing]) ‘five sticks’. /dɯ̀/ is usually used for mammals. Birds, fish, and insects are countedwith /béiɴ/ (flat thing), and snakes and lizards are counted with /bòɴ/ (long thing). EPK
numeral classifiers are a type of dependent nouns. When they occur in Slot 7, they need to
be preceded by a numeral. Thus, /thwí lә dɯ̀ jò/ (dog - one - NC[animal] - this) ‘this one dog’
and the zero head /lә dɯ̀ jò/ (one - NC[animal] - this) ‘this one (animal)’ are fine but */thwí dɯ̀jò/ (dog - NC[animal] - this) and */dɯ̀ jò/ (NC[animal] - this) are ungrammatical. It would be
worth noting that an NC phrase can be floated into the position of the “adverbial elements” inFigure 1, if the entire noun phrase is the subject or object. Thus, /tәwâphjā nī ɣà ɣɛ̂ lә́ jò/(student - two - NC[person] - to.come - LOC - here) ‘Two students came here’ can be changed
to /tәwâphjā ɣɛ̂ lә́ jò nī ɣà/ (student - to.come - LOC - here - two - NC[person]).
According to Manson’s (2017: 160) generalization about the structure of the noun phrase
in Karenic languages, the NC phrase follows the demonstratives. He cites Naw Hsa Eh
Ywar’s (2013: 62) Kayan Lahta example:(29) ɲa˧ ʃa˥pi˥
do˩ shu˩ ba˩
1SG chicken be.small that six
CLF‘those six small chickens of mine’[Kayan Lahta]

In EPK, however, the NC phrase is placed before the demonstrative, as in (28). A simpler
EPK example than (28) would be: /já phàdʊ́ nī béiɴ jò/ (fish - be.big - two - NC[flat thing] this). The order in SK is the same as EPK: /ɲâ pháʔdô khí bê ʔī/ (fish - be.big - two - NC[flatthing] - this). In this way, the order of elements in the noun phrase varies from one Karenic
language to another.
Relative clauses are also formed in various ways in different Karenic languages. In EPK,
there are two ways of forming a relative clause: the first uses the relative marker /lә́/ and thesecond does not. We will first observe the latter case, which is the more colloquial. In thiscase, when the relativized noun is the subject of the relative clause, the relative clause isplaced in Slot 5. In the relative clause, the subject noun is gapped:(30) phlòʊɴ [ɣɛ̂lә́phlòʊɴ thîkhāɴ]person to.come LOC Karen country‘the person who came to Kayin State’[EPK]

The same phonological string as (30) can be used as a full sentence that means ‘People (aperson) came to Kayin State’. When the relativized noun is a non-subject noun, the relative
clause is placed in Slot 1. The relativized non-subject noun is gapped in the relative clause:14

(31) [jәphә̀ɴ] kháɴphài nɔ́
tháʊ
lә́
dàʊ
1SG to.ride LOC room inside shoes
that‘those shoes which I wear in the room’[EPK]

In the case in which the relative marker /lә́/ is used, relative clauses are placed in Slot 5
regardless of the syntactic role of the relativized noun. The resumptive pronoun
corresponding to the head noun occurs in relative clauses with /lә́/, as seen in (32) and (33).
(When the relativized noun is a non-subject noun, the resumptive pronoun occurs only if thenoun is an animate noun.)(32) phlòʊɴ [lә́
ʔә
ɣɛ̂
lә́
phlòʊɴ thîkhāɴ]person REL 3SG to.come LOC Karen country‘the person who came to Kayin State’(33) phlòʊɴ [lә́ʔә̀ ] nɔ́jәdʊ́
person REL 1SG to.hit 3SG that‘that person whom I hit’

[EPK]

[EPK]

SK only has the relative clauses with the relative marker /lә́/, and its usage is very similar
to that of EPK:
(34) pɣākәɲɔ́ [lә́
ʔә
hɛ́
lә́
pɣākәɲɔ́ kɔ̀]personREL 3SG to.come LOC Karencountry‘the person who came to Kayin State’(35) pɣākәɲɔ́ [lә́ʔɔ̄] nê
jәtɔ̀
personREL 1SG to.hit 3SG that‘that person whom I hit’

[SK]

[SK]

Kayan has internally headed relative clauses as well as externally-headed relative
clauses that are formed with relative markers. Manson (2010: 325) argues that the noun
meaning ‘woman’ in (36) is the head of the internally headed relative clause that is enclosed
in square brackets:(36) [pra̤ ̀ mû wân-bâwoman

to.wash-BEN

písāpʰò sʰ ́
child

water

nṳ ̀

that

prà̤ ] ŋá
CLF

there

mè mwē kʰí

pʰò

to.be

child

TOP

1SG

[Kayan]‘The woman over there washing the baby is my daughter.’

18.8 Negation
In EPK, when the main clause is negated, the adverbial particle /ʔé/ is placed in the clausefinal position:(37) ʔәwê ʔáɴbámì̱dài ʔé
3SG
to.eat OPP rice still NEG‘He has not managed to eat rice yet.’[EPK]

When a subordinate clause is negated, the verb particle /lә/, which originated from the ProtoKaren negative marker *ta (Manson 2017a: 157)6 and is probably related to the Proto-Tibeto-

6

Forms corresponding to EPK /lә/ in many other Karenic languages still preserve the onset of the Proto-Karen
negative marker *ta, e.g., SK /tә/ and Geba /tV/. The Proto-Karen onset *t became /l/ in EPK in twomorphemes: /lә/ ‘negative marker’ and the numeral /lә̂ɴ ~ lә/ ‘one’ (see Matisoff’s [2003: 262] Proto-Tibeto-

15

Burman negative imperative marker *ta (Benedict 1972: 97;, Matisoff 2003: 162), is placed
immediately before the verb; simultaneously, the verb particle /bá/, whose origin is unknown,is placed in the final position of the subordinate clause, as in (38). That is, “double negation”(Dryer 2005) is employed in a subordinate clause.
(38) ʔәwê lə
ɣɛ̂
lә́
jò
bá
ʔәkhʊ́còɴ, jәbá
3SG
NEG to.come LOC here NEG because
1SG must‘Because he did not come here, I have to do.’

mà
to.do

[EPK]

In (38), /bá/ may also be placed immediately after the verb, i.e. /ʔәwê lә ɣɛ̂ bá lә́ jòʔәkhʊ́còɴ .../. Sometimes, this negative form /lә V bá/ is used in the main clause, as seen in(39). In this case, the sentence typically presupposes that the listener wants to know thereason for something and the sentence shows the reason. Thus, (39) can be translated into
English as ‘it is that he doesn’t remember me anymore’, or ‘it is because he doesn’t
remember me anymore’. In the case that /lә V bá/ is used in the main clause, /bá/ can beomitted.
(39) ʔәwê lə[EPK]θí̱ jâ
lә̀ɴ
(bá)
3SG
NEG to.know anymore NEG‘(It is that) he doesn’t remember (me) anymore.’
Manson (2017b) concisely summarizes the patterns of negation in Karenic languages.
He groups them into five types: (I) the negative marker is placed immediately before the verb,(II) the negative marker is placed immediately before the verb and a second marker is placed
immediately after the verb, (III) the negative marker is placed immediately before the verb
and a second marker is placed in the clause-final position, (IV) the negative marker is placed
immediately after the verb, and (V) the negative marker is placed in the clause-final position.
Manson assumes that Type (I) is the original pattern. (37) is an example of (V), (38) is an
example of (III), the case in which /bá/ in (38) is placed immediately after the verb is an
example of (II), and (39) without /bá/ is an example of (I). Thus, in Pwo Karen, the only Type
(IV) is not observed. A Pa-O example of Type (IV) from Cooper (2018: 29), which is notobservable in EPK, is presented in (40). According to Manson, Type (I) is observed in Kayan,
Lahta, Gekho, and Paku, (II) in Sgaw, (III) in Bwe, Geba, and Sgaw, (IV) in Pa-O, and (V) in
Monu (Manu), Kayaw, Kayah, and Palaychi.
(40) khwè phré
lә̀n
phé
bá
tâw namɔ́k.cɔ́k
1SG
to.buy to.come to.give to.hit NEG 2SG orange‘I didn’t buy you oranges.’[Pa-O]

18.9 Interrogative sentences
In Karenic languages, polar questions (yes-no questions) are generally indicated byplacing a question marker in the clause-final position. In EPK, the polar question marker /ʁâ/,a kind of particle, is used. Below is an example:(41) nәmә ɣɛ̂
ʁâ
2SG IRR to.come Q‘Will you come?’[EPK]

In SK, /ɦá/ is used for making a polar question, such as in /nә kә hɛ́ ɦá/ (2SG - IRR - to.come Burman form *tan ‘one’). The corresponding Western Pwo Karen forms are /lә/ ‘negative marker’ and /kә/‘one’.

16Q) ‘Will you come?’. In Kayah Li, the polar question marker is /ɛ̄/ (Solnit 1997: 233), and in
Kayan, it is /yá/ (Manson 2010: 271). All of these forms are probably cognates.
In the case of a content question, EPK uses the content question marker /lɛ̂/ in theclause-final position, such as in the example below:(42) nәmә ʔáɴ
chәnɔ́
2SG IRR to.eat what
‘What will you eat?’

[EPK]

lɛ̂
Q

In this sentence, /lɛ̂/ is not omittable. In SK, the form /lɛ̂/, which is also not omittable, is used
in a content interrogative sentence, as in /nә kә ʔɔ̂ mәnɯ̄ lɛ̂/ (2SG - IRR - to.eat - what - Q)
‘What will you eat?’. In Kayah, /tē/ is generally used (Solnit 1997: 244). In Kayan, /lé/ is used,
but it is omittable. For example, /tará̤ (lé)/ (what - Q) ‘What?’ (Manson 2010: 276). All these
forms are probably cognates and probably also cognate with the Burmese content question
marker /lɛ́/.

18.10 Verb serialization
EPK has two types of serial verb constructions: the concatenated type and separated type.
Here, we will discuss serial verb constructions that contains minimum of two verbs,
represented as V1 (the first one) and V2 (the second one). The concatenated type does notallow other elements including a noun phrase to occur between the two verbs, while theseparated type allows. The concatenated type and separated type in Pwo Karen respectively
correspond to Aikhenvald and Dixon’s (2006) “contiguous serial verb construction” and “noncontiguous serial verb construction”. Using the terms defined by Role and Reference
Grammar (see Van Valin and LaPolla 1997), the concatenated type corresponds to the“nuclear juncture”, and the separated type to “core juncture”. (43) and (44) below are
examples of the concatenated type:(43) jәxwèʔáɴkʊ́
1SG to.buy to.eat cake‘I bought and ate cake.’[EPK](44) jә
[EPK]
dʊ́
θî
thò
1SG to.hit to.die pig‘I hit the pig intending to kill it.’
When the combinations of verbs are Vi+Vi, Vi+Vt, and Vt+Vt, the subject arguments of them
are coreferential, and both verbs are volitional, as in (43). However, in the case of Vt+Vi, theobject argument of V1 and the subject argument of V2 is coreferential, and V1 and V2 must
be volitional and non-volitional respectively, as in (44). The serialization of Vt+Vi type has acausative meaning.
In the separated type, V2 denotes a result of V1, as in (45) and (46), or denotes
potentiality including possibility/ability/permission, as in (47). In the separated type, there is
no restriction on the combination of shared arguments, but V2 must be non-volitional.
(45) jә
ʔáɴ
mì̱
blɛ̀
jàʊ
1SG to.eat rice be.full PFV‘I ate rice and got full.’(46) jәdʊ́thò θî
mèiɴ
1SG to.hit pig to.die naturally‘When I hit the pig, it died.’

17

[EPK]

[EPK]

(47) jәnâɴkā θí̱
1SG to.drive car be.capable‘I can drive a car.’[EPK]

The semantic difference between (44) and (46) is noteworthy. In (44), the death of the pig
was intended by the agent of V1, whereas it was not intended but happened accidentally in(46). Such a difference between the two types is also observed in Kayan (Manson 2010:
301‒302).
Solnit (1997: 56‒57) points out that Karenic languages show a preference for immediateconcatenation of verbs. This is also true of Pwo Karen. In the serialization /xwè ʔáɴ kʊ́/ of(43), if the noun /kʊ́/ is put between the verbs, it will be ungrammatical */xwè kʊ́ ʔáɴ/ (to.buy- cake - to.eat). In Mainland Southeast Asian languages that are of SVO-type, this type ofserialization is often fine, such as in Thai /sɯ́ɯ khәnǒm kiɴ/ (to.buy - cake - to.eat) ‘buy
cake and eat it’. Solnit states that Kayah Li’s preference for immediate concatenation is higheven in comparison to what is known of the syntax of other Karenic languages, such as
Sgaw and Pa-O. Kayah Li lacks the separate type serialization. According to my research,
Geba also lacks the separated type serialization. In Geba, ability, which is expressed byusing the separate type in EPK as in (47) is expressed with concatenation (Kato 2008a: 213):(48) jɔ
ɗɔ̄
zā
ɡadā
ʔalē
1SG to.speak be.capable Burma language‘I can speak Burmese.’[Geba]In the concatenated type serialization in EPK, the order of verbs follows the chronologicalorder of the events. In (43), for example, the verb /xwè/ (V1) ‘to buy’ precedes /ʔáɴ/ (V2) ‘toeat’ because the actions of buying and eating happen in this chronological order. However,this principle may be broken when one of the serialized verbs is a motion verb. Typicalmotion verbs are /lì̱ / ‘to go’ and /ɣɛ̂/ ‘to come’. EPK has a verb order rule that requires a
motion verb to occur before a non-motion verb (Kato 2004: 222‒228). For example, if theverbs /ɣɛ̂/ ‘to come’ and /xwè/ ‘to buy’ are concatenated, they must be arranged in the orderof /ɣɛ̂ xwè/ whatever the chronological order may be and */xwè ɣɛ̂/ is ungrammatical. Thus,/jә ɣɛ̂ xwè já/ (1SG - to.come - to.buy - fish) has two readings: (a) ‘I came to buy a fish’, and(b) ‘I bought a fish and came with it’. In the case of (b), the serialization does not follow thechronological order. SK has the same rule, and the sentence /jә hɛ́ pɣē ɲâ/ (1SG - to.come to.buy - fish) has the same two readings. However, Geba does not seem to have such a rule
about motion verbs because the following example with a motion verb occurring after a nonmotion verb is found in my Geba data: /zɛ swɛ̄ lē/ (1SG - to.run - to.go) ‘I went running’. To
express the same meaning, EPK and SK have to use the sentences /jә lì̱ klí/ (1SG - to.go to.run) and /jә lɛ̄ xè/ (1SG - to.go - to.run) respectively, in both of which a motion verb occurs
before a non-motion verb.
In EPK, some verbs in concatenated serial verb constructions have changed their
meanings into more abstract ones and are thus more flexible in terms of co-occurrence withother verbs. These can be called “versatile verbs”, following Matisoff’s (1969) terminology.
Kato (2004) treats them as verb particles because each has been grammaticalized in certain
points. Aikhenvald and Dixon’s (2006) “asymmetrical serial verb constructions” are serialverb constructions that contain this type of verbs. In the following example, the verb particle/jʊ̄/, originating from the verb /jʊ̄/ meaning ‘to look at’, expresses the meaning ‘to try to V’.
(49) jәʔáɴjʊ̄phlòʊɴ chәʔáɴchәʔɔ̀
1sg to.eat to.look Karen food‘I tried to eat Karen food.’[EPK]

For more details on serial verb constructions in EPK, see Kato (1998, 2004: 207‒275).
Kato (2017) and Kato (2019a) also discuss them to some extent. Descriptive studies onserial verb constructions in other Karenic languages include Kato (1992) and Weinhold18

(2011; in Brunelle’s [2011] Sgaw Karen papers) on Sgaw Karen, Solnit (1997: Chapter 4)
and Sonit (2006) on Kayah, Manson (2010: 287‒302) on Kayan, Swanson (2011) on Bwe,
and Cooper (2017) on Pa-O. Kato (in print) compares EPK and SK in terms of word order inserial verb constructions.

18.11 Clause linkage
In EPK, clauses can be embedded as arguments without any special marking. The following
example (50) is interpreted as a construction in which the part /ʔәwê ʔáɴ mì̱ / is acomplement clause embedded as the subject of /phlɛ́/, because the part /ʔәwê ʔáɴ mì̱ / hassome features of nounhood, including the fact that it can be clefted, such as /chә phlɛ́ nɔ́mwɛ̄ ʔәwê ʔáɴ mì̱ / (thing - be.fast - TOP - COP - 3SG - to.eat - rice) ‘Literal translation: It is his
eating that is fast’. (50) can more properly be translated as ‘his eating rice is fast’, if we makemuch of the syntactic construction of this sentence. An example of a clause embedded as
the object is (51).
(50) [ʔәwê ʔáɴmì̱ ] phlɛ́3SG
to.eat rice be.fast‘He eats (rice) fast.’[EPK](51) jә[ʔәwê ʔáɴmì̱ ]dá
1SG to.see 3SG
to.eat rice
‘I saw that he was eating (rice).’[EPK]

Interestingly, in Kayah Li, the same meaning as in (50) is expressed by using verb
concatenation. (52) is an example from Solnit (1997: 91). Kayah Li’s strong preference for
immediate concatenation is observed in this point as well:(52) ʔa ʔephrɛ̄
dī
3 to.eat be.fast rice
‘He eats (rice) fast.’[Kayah Li]

Solnit says that syntactically there is no embedding in the verb concatenation of (52). Geba
also uses verb concatenation to express situations similar to (52), such as /ja ʔā plá ɗɩ/́ (1SG
- to.eat - be.fast - rice) ‘I eat rice fast’ (Kato 2008a: 174). Kayan also seems to have thesame characteristic; see example (53) from Manson (2010: 151).
(53) phón
phrái
dyán káto.cook be.fast rice
IMP
‘Quickly cook the rice.’[Kayan]Adverbial clauses in EPK are usually placed before the main clause. They are introducedin the sentence by using subordinate clause particles whose occurring positions differ fromeach other. Examples are: /ʔәwê ʔè lì̱ , jә lì̱ ʔé/ (3SG - if - to.go | 1SG - to.go - NEG) ‘If he goes,
I won’t go’; /ʔәwê lì̱ ʔәkhʊ́còɴ, jә lì̱ / (3SG - to.go - because | 1SG - to.go) ‘Because he went,
I went’; /ʔәwê lì̱ lānâɴ, jә lì̱ ʔé/ (3SG - to.go - although | 1SG - to.go - NEG) ‘Although hewent, I didn’t go’; and /kәlā ʔәwê lә lì̱ dài bá, jә mә lì̱ / (while - 3SG - NEG - to.go - still - NEG |1SG - IRR - to.go) ‘Before he goes, I will go’.

18.12 VoiceAs Manson (2017: 159) states, some Karenic languages have a passive construction but its
use is infrequent. SK is one of the Karenic languages that have passive usages. It uses theverb /bâ/ ‘to hit’ to make a passive clause. (54) is an example cited from Kan Gyi (1915: 19).

19

This example corresponds to the active clause /jә pà thú jā lɔ̄/ (1SG - father - to.kick - 1SG EMP) ‘My father kicked me’. This construction is a very formal expression and rarely used in adaily conversation.
(54) jә
bâ
tà
thú
jā
lә́
jә
pà
lɔ̄
1SG to.hit NMLZ to.kick 1SG LOC 1SG father EMP‘I was kicked by my father.’[SK]

EPK does not have a passive construction. However, agent-defocusing effect (see Myhill1997), which is a significant functional role of the passive voice in many languages, is fulfilledby the noun meaning ‘thing’ that occurs in the subject slot. (55) is an example. SK also has
the same construction, e.g. /tà tɔ̀ jā/ (thing - to.hit - 1SG) ‘I was hit (by someone).’(55) chә
[EPK]
dʊ́
jә̀
thing to.hit 1SG‘I was hit (by someone).’ (Literally: ‘A thing hit me.’)As Kato (1999, 2009a) describes, EPK has several causative markers, which belong to
the category of verb particles. Out of them, /dàʊ/ (also pronounced /dà/ and /dài/) is a“genuine” causative marker because it has no corresponding homophonous verb in EPK. In
a clause with /dàʊ/, the causee occurs as NP2 (see Figure 1) and the object argument of theverb occurs as NP3, as seen in (56):(56) jәdàʊʔáɴʔәwê kʊ́1SG CAUS to.eat 3SG
cake‘I let him eat cake.’[EPK]/dàʊ/ is cognate with the Kayah Li verb /dʌ́/ ‘to let; to give’ (Solnit 1997: 65), which can beused as a causative element in serialized verbs. /dàʊ/ is also cognate with the Kayan
causative prefix /dә̀-/, which is derived from the verb /dә̀/ ‘order’ (Manson 2010: 262‒263). It
is also cognate with the SK causative marker /dɯ́ʔ/. Thus, its original form at the Proto-Karenstage might have already had a causative use. Jenny (2015: 170) assumes that Kayah Li/dʌ́/ and SK causative marker /dɯ́ʔ/ originated from Proto-Tibeto-Burman *ter/*s-ter ‘give,
CAUSATIVE’ (Matisoff 2003: 399, 615).
It would be worth noting that Karenic languages have applicative constructions. Kato
(2009a), in discussing valence-changing verb particles in EPK, pointed out that EPK has
several applicative markers including the benefactive applicative, comitative applicative,prioritive applicative, assistive applicative, and substitutive applicative. See (57) below, an
example of comitative applicative:(57) jә[ʔáɴɣә̀ɴ] ʔәwê mì̱
1SG to.eat APPL 3SG
rice‘I ate rice with him.’[EPK]

The bracketed part is a verb complex. The verb particle /ɣә̀ɴ/ is placed after the verb and theapplied noun appears as NP2. A similar meaning can be expressed by using the adposition/dē/ ‘with’ as in /jә ʔáɴ mì̱ dē ʔәwê/ (1SG - to.eat - rice - with - 3SG). However, in (57), in termsof semantics, the referent of the applied noun is more actively engaged in the event denotedby the sentence. Such a meaning is also observed in applicative constructions of otherlanguages (Shibatani 2006: 244). (58) is an example of comitative applicative in Kayah Li(Solnit 1997: 104), and (59) and (60) are examples of instrumental applicative in Geba (Kato2008b: 174) and Palaychi (the author’s field data). Palaychi is one of the languages of the
Mopwa group (for more details on Mopwa, see Naw Veronica 2011).

20

(58) cwá kʌ̄vɛ̄
to.go APPL 1SG‘Go with me.’[Kayah Li](59) jaʔāʔīzwɩ̄
1SG to.eat APPL spoon‘I ate with a spoon.’[Geba](60) zàʔɔ̀zɾ̀ʔjō
1SG to.eat APPL spoon‘I ate with a spoon.’[Palaychi]

Furthermore, EPK has a middle marker, /θà/, which originated from the noun meaning‘heart’, as is discussed in detail by Kato (2019b). (61) and (62) are examples of the marker
that is used for an anticausative construction and reflexive construction, respectively. SK also
has a cognate middle marker /θáʔ/, whose uses are quite similar to EPK /θà/.
(61) ʔәwê ʔáɴlɛ̀
3SG
to.change(tr.)‘He has changed.’

[EPK]

θà

jàʊ

MID

PFV

(62) ʔәwê chè
làɴ
θà
3SG
to.stab down MID‘He stabbed himself.’[EPK]

18.13 Pragmatics
Karenic languages use topicalization frequently. Topicalization in EPK is a left-dislocation ofan element and the element is often followed by a topic marker. EPK has several topic
markers. Mostly /nɔ́/ is used. In the sentence /ɕáphàɴ dʊ́ θàkhléiɴ/ (Shapan - to.hit Thakhlein) ‘Shapan hit Thakhlein’ (=22), the subject can be topicalized, such as /ɕáphàɴ nɔ́dʊ́ θàkhléiɴ/ (Shapan - TOP - to.hit - Thakhlein) ‘As for Shapan, he hit Thakhlein’, and theobject can also be topicalized, such as /θàkhléiɴ nɔ́ ɕáphàɴ dʊ́/ (Thakhlein - TOP - Shapan to.hit) ‘As for Thakhlein, Shapan hit him’. Topicalization can be applied to various syntactic
elements including the subject noun, object noun, adpositional phrase, and complement
clause.
In EPK, ellipses of arguments that are recoverable from the discourse context are quite
frequent. For example, when one is asked with the sentence /nә mә lì̱ ʁâ/ (2SG - IRR - to.go Q) ‘Will you go?’, the answer can be either with or without the subject, /(jә) mә lì̱ / (1SG - IRR to.go) ‘Yes, (I) will go’. However, the frequency of ellipsis can vary from language tolanguage within the Karenic branch. I have the feeling that in SK, subject pronouns are
retained more often than EPK in daily conversation, but it needs further detailed investigation.

Abbreviations
1,2,3
ADP
APPL
BEN
CAUS
CLF
CONT

21

first, second, and third person
adpositional phrase
applicative
benefactive
causativeclassifiercontinuous

COP
DEM
EMP
EPK
IMP
IRR
LOC

copular verb
demonstrativeemphatic
Eastern Pwo Karenimperative
irrealis
location particle

MID
NC
NEG
NM
NMLZ
NP
NUM
OBJ
OPP
PFV
PK
PL
PN

middle marker
numeral classifier
negationnoun modifier
nominalizer
noun phrase
numeralobjectopportunity
perfective
Pwo Karenpluralpersonal noun

PRON
Q
RC
RDP
REL
SBJ
SG
SK
TOP
V
Vi
Vt

pronounquestion
relative clause
reduplicated syllable
relative marker
subject
singular
Sgaw Karen
topic marker
verb
intransitive verb
transitive verb

References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.). 2006. Serial verb constructions: A crosslinguistic typology. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Brunelle, Marc (ed.). 2011. Sgaw Karen papers, presented to Nimrod Andrew. Ottawa:
University of Ottawa.
Cooper, Alys Boote. 2018. Secondary verbs in Pa-O: A preliminary study. In Pittayawat
Pittayaporn et al. (eds.), Papers from the Chulalongkorn International Student
Symposium on Southeast Asian linguistics 2017, 21‒31. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i
Press.
Dawkins, Erin & Audra Phillips. 2009a. A sociolinguistic survey of Pwo Karen in Northern
Thailand. Chiang Mai: Linguistic Department, Payap University.
Dawkins, Erin & Audra Phillips. 2009b. An investigation of intelligibility between West-Central
Thailand Pwo Karen and Northern Pwo Karen. Chiang Mai: Linguistic Department,
Payap University.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Negative morphemes. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer,
David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 454‒457.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2019. Ethnologue:
Languages of the world. Twenty-second edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International.
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1946. Restitution du karen commun. Bulletin de la Société deLinguistique de Paris 42(1). 103‒111 [Reprinted: Haudricourt 1972, 131‒140].
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1953. A propos de la restitution du karen commun. Bulletin dela Société de Linguistique de Paris 49(1). 129‒132. (Reprinted: Haudricourt 1972, 141–
145.)
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1972. Problèmes de phonologie diachronique. Paris: SELAF.
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1975. Le système des tons du karen commun. Bulletin de laSociété de Linguistique de Paris 70(1). 339‒343.
Henderson, Eugénie. J. A. 1961. Tone and intonation in Western Bwe Karen. Burma
Research Society Fiftieth Anniversary Publication 1. 59‒69.
Henderson, Eugénie. J. A. 1979. Bwe Karen as a two-tone language? Pacific Linguistics,
Series C, 45. 301‒326.
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.
Jenny, Mathias. 2015. The far west of Southeast Asia: “Give” and “get” in the languages ofMyanmar. In N. J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Languages of Mainland Southeast
Asia, 156‒208. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

22

Jones, Robert B. 1961. Karen linguistic studies. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press.
Kan Gyi. 1915. Introduction to the study of Sgaw Karen. Rangoon: American Baptist Mission
Press.
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 1992. Verb serialization in Sgaw Karen [スゴー・カレン語の動詞
連続]. Journal of Asian and African Studies [アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究] 45. 177‒
204.. (In Japanese)
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]. 1998. On head verbs of serial verb constructions in Pwo Karen [ポー・カレン語の動詞連続における主動詞について]. Journal of the Linguistic Society ofJapan [言語研究] 113. 31‒61. (In Japanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko. 1999. Two types of causative construction in Pwo Karen. In Tadahiko L. A.
Shintani (ed.), Linguistic & anthropological study on the Shan culture area, 55–93.
Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 2001a. Buddhist Pwo Karen script [仏教ポー・カレン文字]. In The
Sanseido encyclopaedia of linguistics [言語学大辞典], vol. 7, 847‒851. Tokyo: Sanseido[三省堂]. (In Japanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 2001b. Christian Pwo Karen script [キリスト教ポー・カレン文字].
In The Sanseido encyclopaedia of linguistics [言語学大辞典], vol. 7, 333‒337. Tokyo:
Sanseido [三省堂]. (In Japanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 2002. A contrastive basic vocabulary of Eastern and Western Pwo
Karen in Myanmar [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].,Southeast Asian Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies [東京外大 東南アジア学]
7. 212‒249. (In Japanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 2004. A grammar of Pwo Karen [ポー・カレン語文法]. Tokyo:
University of Tokyo PhD dissertation. (In Japanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 2006. Difference in prevalence of writing systems in the samelanguage: A case of Pwo Karen [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]. In Asako Shiohara [塩原朝子] & Shigeaki Kodama [児玉茂昭](eds.), Writing unwritten languages [表記の習慣のない言語の表記], 89‒110. Tokyo:
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. (In Japanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 2008a. Basic materials in Geba [ゲーバー語基礎資料]., Asian and
African Languages and Linguistics [アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学] 3. 169‒219. (InJapanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 2008b. Is the category “adjective” necessary in Pwo Karen? Asianand African Languages and Linguistics [アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学] 3. 77‒95. (InJapanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2009a. Valence-changing particles in Pwo Karen. Linguistics of the TibetoBurman Area 32(2). 71‒102.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2009b. 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.
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦]. 2016. Ethnic groups and languages in Myanmar [ミャンマーの諸
民族と諸言語]. ICD NEWS [法務省法務総合研究所国際協力部報] 69. 8‒26. (InJapanese)
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2017. Pwo Karen. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The SinoTibetan languages, 2nd edition, 942‒958. London & New York: Routledge.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2018. How did Haudricourt reconstruct Proto-Karen tones? Reports of the
Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 49. 21‒44.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2019a. Pwo Karen. In Alice Vittrant & Justin Watkins (eds.), The Mainland
Southeast Asia linguistic area, 131‒175. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

23

Kato, Atsuhiko. 2019b. The middle marker in Pwo Karen. Reports of the Keio Institute ofCultural and Linguistic Studies 50. 21‒62.
Kato, Atsuhiko. In print. Karen and surrounding languages. In Hayashi Norihiko (ed.). Topics
in Middle Mekong linguistics.
LaPolla, Randy J. 1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman languages: Evidenceof Sapir’s “drift”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17 (1). 61‒80.
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1977. A handbook of comparative Tai. Honolulu: The University Press of
Hawaii.
Luangthongkum, Theraphan. 2012. Proto-Karen (*k-rjaŋA) fauna. Paper presented at SEALS
22, Agay.
Luangthongkum, Theraphan. 2019. A view on Proto-Karen phonology and lexicon. Journal of
the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 12(1). i‒lii.
Luce, Gordon. H. 1959. Introduction to the comparative study of Karen languages. Journalof Burma Research Society 42(1). 1‒18.
Manson, Ken. 2002. Karen language relationships: A lexical and phonological analysis.
Chiang Mai: Department of Linguistics, Payap University.
Manson, Ken. 2007. Pekon Kayan phonology. Chiang Mai: Department of Linguistics, Payap
University.
Manson, Ken. 2009. Prolegomena to reconstructing Proto-Karen. La Trobe University
Working Papers in Linguistics 12.
Manson, Ken. 2010. A grammar of Kayan, a Tibeto-Burman language. Bundoora: La Trobe
University PhD dissertation.
Manson, Ken. 2017a. The characteristics of the Karen branch of Tibeto-Burman. In Picus
Sizhi Ding & Jamin Pelkey (eds.), Sociohistorical linguistics in Southeast Asia: New
horizons for Tibeto-Burman studies in honor of David Bradley, 149‒168. Leiden &Boston: Brill.
Manson, Ken. 2017b. From right to wrong: Negation in the Karen languages. Paper read at
the meeting of Australian Linguistic Society.
Manson, Ken. 2019. Proto-Kayan. ms.
Matisoff, James A. 1969. Verb concatenation in Lahu: The syntax and semantics of “simple”
juxtaposition. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia XII(1). 69‒120.
Matisoff, James A. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.),Consonant types and tone (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1), 71‒
96. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of
Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California
Press.
Matisoff, James A. 2018. Rethinking the Proto-Tibeto-Burman *a- prefix: Glottal and nasal
complications. Journal of Asian and African Studies 96. 29‒69.
Myhill, John. 1997. Toward a functional typology of agent defocusing. Linguistics 35. 799‒
844.
Naw Hsa Eh Ywa. 2013. A grammar of Kayan Lahta. Chiang Mai: Payap University M.A.
thesis.
Naw Hsar Shee. 2008. A descriptive grammar of Geba Karen. Chiang Maie: Payap
University MA thesis.
Naw Veronica. 2011. The phonology of Dermuha and a phonological and lexical comparison
between Dermuha, Sgaw Karen and Pwo Karen. Chiang Mai: Payap University MA
thesis.
Nishi, Yoshio. 1995. A brief survey of the controversy in verb pronominalization in TibetoBurman. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons inTibeto-Burman morphosyntax (Senri Ethnological Studies 41), 1‒16. Osaka: National
Museum of Ethnology.
Phillips, Audra. 2000. West-Central Thailand Pwo Karen phonology. 33rd ICSTLL Papers,
99‒110. Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University.

24Phillips, Audra. 2017. Entities and the expression of grounding and referential coherence inNorthern Pwo Karen narrative discourse. Edmonton: University of Alberta PhD
dissertation.
Purser, W. C. B. & Saya Tun Aung. 1922. A comparative dictionary of the Pwo-Karen dialect.
Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics
44 (2). 217‒269.
Shintani, Tadahiko. 2003a. Notes à propos de l’étymologie du mot karen. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 26 (1). 15‒21.
Shintani, Tadahiko. 2003b. Classification of Brakaloungic (Karenic) languages in relation totheir tonal evolution. In Shigeki Kaji (ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium Cross-linguistic
Studies of Tonal Phenomena: Historical Development, Phonetics of Tone, and
Descriptive Studies, 37‒54. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures ofAsia and Africa.
Solnit, David B. 1997. Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, texts, glossary. Honolulu: University of
Hawai`i Press.
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. 2006. Verb serialization in Eastern Kayah Li. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.
M. W. Dixon (eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology, 144‒159.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solnit, David B. 2013. Proto-Karen rhymes. Paper read at the 46th International Conferenceon Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Dartmouth University.
Solnit, David B. 2017. Eastern Kayah Li. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The
Sino-Tibetan languages, 2nd edition, 932‒941. London & New York: Routledge.
Stern, Theodore. 1968. Three Pwo Karen scripts: A study of alphabet formations.
Anthropological Linguistics 10(1). 1‒39.
Swanson, Kirstie. 2011. Serial verb constructions in Bwe Karen. Chiang Mai: Payap
University MA thesis.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wade, J. 1849. Vocabulary of the Sgau Karen language. Tavoy: Karen Mission Press.
Wai Lin Aung. 2013. A descriptive grammar of Kayah Monu. Chiang Mai: Payap University
MA thesis.
Weinhold, Meredith Lucey. 2011. Serial verb constructions in Sgaw Karen: A comparison of
Karenic VP structures. In Marc Brunelle (ed.), Sgaw Karen papers, presented to Nimrod
Andrew, 76‒84. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.

25