PREPRINT VERSION
Homeland of Karenic languages: From the perspective of plant names

Atsuhiko Kato
Keio University

Running head: Homeland of Karenic languages

Comparisons of plant names in Karenic languages reveal that names that can be traced back to ProtoKaren belong to plants that grow in temperate zones, such as bamboo, banyan, and mango. The names forcoconut and palmyra palm, which are typical tropical plants, cannot be traced back to Proto-Karen andare borrowings. This suggests that Proto-Karen was spoken in a temperate zone. Meanwhile, the highest
diversity of Karenic languages is observed in the area from southern Shan State to Kayah State andnorthern Karen State in Myanmar. Thus, as per linguistic migration theory, this area may have been thehomeland of Karenic languages. Furthermore, the area largely has temperate zones. Hence, we canassume that the homeland of Karenic languages was in this area.

Keywords: Karenic languages, Tibeto-Burman languages, homeland, plant names, linguistic migration
theory1. Introduction

Karenic languages are a group of languages that form the Karenic branch of the Tibeto-Burman languages.
The languages belonging to this branch have a subject-verb-object (SVO) basic word order, unlike mostother Tibeto-Burman languages that generally have the SOV word order (see Kato, 2021b, for thetypological characteristics of Karenic languages). The Karenic branch contains many languages,
including Geba, Gek(h)o, Kayah, Kayaw, Kayan, Manu, Monebwa, Mopwa (Mobwa), Paku, Pa-O, Pwo
Karen, Sgaw Karen, Thalebwa, Yinbaw, Yintale, and Zayein (Eberhard et al., 2019). In this paper, people
who speak Karenic languages are referred to as “Karenic people”. Karenic people have a very wide range1

of cultures and lifestyles. There are Buddhists, Christians, and animists. Some of them live in the plains,while others live in mountainous areas. Some of the groups, especially Sgaw Karen, Pwo Karen, andKayah, are engaged in an armed struggle against the Myanmar government. Even a single ethnic group
can have a high degree of diversity, for example, many Sgaw Karens practice Buddhism or Christianity
and live in urban areas, while other worship spirits and live in mountainous areas.
Figure 1 presents a rough distribution of the Karenic languages. This map is based on the maps
presented by Mitani (1984) and Asher and Moseley (2007), and the information provided in Bradley(2007), with additional information gathered in my field research carried out in Myanmar and Thailand.

Figure 1. Distribution of Karenic languages

The purpose of this paper is to linguistically explore the homeland of Karenic languages through theplant names found in these languages. Historical studies of Karenic languages, such as the reconstructionof Proto-Karen or studies of their genealogical relationships, include Haudricourt (1946, 1953, 1972,1975), Luce (1959), Jones (1961), Burling (1969), Peiros (1989), Solnit (2001, 2013), Manson (2002,
2009, 2019), Shintani (2003), and Luangthongkum (2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2019). However, there2have been no studies to estimate the homeland of Karenic languages in terms of linguistics.
Section 2 will list the Karenic languages included in this paper and present their genealogicalpositions within the Karenic branch. Section 3 will examine the correspondences between the plant namesin the Karenic languages to determine whether the names can be traced back to Proto-Karen anddetermine the climate of the regions where it was spoken. Section 4 will examine the possibility of thearea from southern Shan State to Kayah State and northern Karen State being the homeland of Karenic
languages due to the highest diversity of Karenic languages in these regions, based on the linguistic
migration theory. Section 5 will indicate that the areas discussed in Section 4 have a large portion oftemperate climates. Section 6 will conclude the paper with relevant findings.

2. Karenic languages dealt with in this study

There are a total of 16 languages of the Karenic branch studied in this paper. Their names and data
sources are listed below (see Section 3 for the order of the languages).

1. Northern Pa-O (Shintani, 2020b)
2. Southern Pa-O (Shintani, 2020b)
3. Eastern Kayah Li (Solnit, 1997)
4. Zayein (Shintani, 2014)
5. Nangki (Shintani, 2016)
6. Yingtalay (Shintani, 2018a)
7. Thaidai (Shintani, 2018b)
8. Sonkan Kayan (Shintani, 2018c)
9. Dosanbu Kayan (Shintani, 2018d)
10. Thamidai (Shintani, 2020a)
11. Pekon Kayan (Manson, 2010a)
12. Bwe (Blimaw) (Henderson, 1997)
13. Blimaw (Shintani, 2017)3

14. Western Pwo Karen (Kyonpyaw dialect; the author’s data)
15. Eastern Pwo Karen (Hpa-an dialect; the author’s data)
16. Sgaw Karen (Hpa-an dialect; the author’s data)

The word notations in each language follow the consulted source. The notation of Western Pwo Karen,
Eastern Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen words, which are based on my data, follows Kato (2022), Kato
(2021a), and Kato (forthcoming), respectively. These 16 languages were selected because reliable data
were available for a certain number of plant names in each language. Note that Shintani’s (2017) Blimaw
is a different language from Henderson’s (1997) Bwe, which, too, is called Blimaw. Shintani’s Blimaw iscloser to Mopwa than to Bwe.
The tree diagrams in Figures 2 to 4 show the genealogical relationships between Karenic languages.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 were proposed by Manson (2002), Shintani (2003), and Manson (2017), respectively.
The capital letters A to G, indicating the subgroups in each tree, are added by me for convenience. The
same alphabet does not mean the same genealogical group. According to the respective diagrams, each of
the 16 languages belongs to the subgroups presented as follows (the three capital letters in parentheses
after each language name indicate the subgroups in Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively):

1. Northern Pa-O (D, G, A)
2. Southern Pa-O (D, G, A)
3. Eastern Kayah Li (F, F, C)
4. Zayein (E, E, B)
5. Nangki (E, E, B)
6. Yingtalay (E, E, B)
7. Thaidai (E, E, B)
8. Sonkan Kayan (E, E, B)
9. Dosanbu Kayan (E, E, B)
10. Thamidai (E, E, B)
11. Pekon Kayan (E, E, B)
12. Bwe (G, D, C)

4

13. Blimaw (?, C, D)
14. Western Pwo Karen (B, A, A)
15. Eastern Pwo Karen (B, A, A)
16. Sgaw Karen (A, B, D)

Blimaw’s subgroup is uncertain in Figure 2 and is indicated by a “?”. The genealogical diversity exhibitedby these languages suggests that they are sufficient to serve as samples of Karenic languages, regardlessof the classification.

Figure 2. Manson (2002)

5

Figure 3. Shintani (2003)

Figure 4. Manson (2017)

3. Comparison of plant names

This section compares the plant names in Karenic languages. Thirteen plants included in this paper are:(1) bamboo, (2) banana, (3) banyan, (4) betel palm, (5) coconut, (6) jackfruit, (7) mango, (8) palmyra
palm, (9) pine, (10) rattan, (11) sugarcane, (12) tamarind, and (13) teak. These plants were chosenbecause their names are observed in a wide range of Karenic languages and they have been mentioned inmany of the literature consulted. In Sections 3.1 to 3.13, for each plant name, we will observe the6correspondences in the Karenic branch and consider whether a proto-form can be reconstructed at theProto-Karen stage. In Section 3.14, a discussion would be presented based on the considerations made in
Sections 3.1 to 3.13.
Tables 1 to 13 list the nouns for each plant in Karenic languages. The left column of each table lists
the language name and the right column lists the equivalent plant name. In the tables, the languages are
divided into six groups for ease of understanding. These six groups are arranged with the more leftward
groups in Figure 3 higher. The order of languages within a group is random.

1. Northern Pa-O and Southern Pa-O
2. Eastern Kayah Li
3. Zayein, Nangki, Yingtalay, Thaidai, Sonkan Kayan, Dosanbu Kayan, Thamidai, and Pekon Kayan
4. Bwe5. Blimaw
6. Western Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen

This grouping was made because, as far as the plant names are concerned, the words seem to correspondwell with each other within each group in terms of comparative linguistics. Based on Shintani’s (2003)
classification in Figure 3, which best fits my image of the genealogical relations of Karenic languages
among the three classifications shown in Section 2, Group 1 here corresponds with Group G, Group 2
with Group F, Group 3 with Group E, Group 4 with Group D, Group 5 with Group C, and Group 6 withboth Groups A and B.
The symbol “––” in the tables indicates that the equivalent word was not provided in the data source.
For Western Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen, which are based on my data, the same
symbol indicates that an equivalent word was not found in the survey.
Data sources are presented in Section 2; however, Eastern Kayah Li forms may be taken from Solnit(2013) or personal communications with him (June 2022). Such cases are noted as “(Solnit, 2013)” and“(Solnit, p.c., 2022)”. Some of the Pekon Kayan forms may be taken from Manson (2010b), in whichcases they are noted as “(Manson, 2010b)”.

7

3.1 Bamboo

Table 1 lists the words for bamboo.

Table 1. Words denoting bamboo in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

wa34

Southern Pa-O

wa44

Eastern Kayah Live

Zayeinva42

Nangkiva31

Yingtalayva55

Thaidaihua45

Sonkan Kayan

hua55

Dosanbu Kayan

hua55

Thamidaihua42

Pekon Kayan

hwâ

Bwe

hʊ

Blimaw

wa̤33

Western Pwo Karenwà

Eastern Pwo Karenwá

Sgaw KarenwâAll of these forms can be traced back to a single form of Proto-Karen. Matisoff (2003, p. 305; 2015,8

p. 630) reconstructed *hwa as the Proto-Karen form and Luangthongkum (2019) reconstructed *hwaB.1
Similarly, I assume *hwa2 to be a Proto-Karen form (*hw is a voiceless labial-velar approximant). The
forms of all 16 languages can be explained as having evolved from the proto-form *hwa2. Thus, the form
denoting bamboo is believed to have existed at the Proto-Karen stage.

3.2 Banana

Table 2 lists the words for banana.

Table 2. Words denoting banana in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

thaʔ34 thi34

Southern Pa-O

θa42 thi44

Eastern Kayah Li

dīklwí

Zayeinle42 ɲa̤42 le42

Nangki––

Yingtalayθa55 kloi53

Thaidaicә33 kuai42

Sonkan Kayan

khlui31

Dosanbu Kayan

khlui42

Thamidai

cu42 kui55

Pekon Kayan

kʰlwí

Bwe

yà

1. The capital letters A, B, and C in the reconstructed Proto-Karen forms represent the tones reconstructedby Haudricourt (1946). A and B are plain tones and C is a stopped tone. Some researchers refer to theseas 1, 2, and 3. Haudricourt himself used 1, 2, and 3, hence, I follow this method. For the process ofreconstruction of proto-tones by Haudricourt (1946) and modification in Haudricourt (1975), see Kato(2018).

9Blimawla11 kwe11

Western Pwo Karenθaʔklɯ́

Eastern Pwo Karenθàkwì

Sgaw Karentәkwí

Manson (2019) reconstructed *kʰlwiA for the Proto-Kayan stage, which is the proto-language oflanguages including Zayein, Nangki, Yingtalay, Thaidai, Sonkan Kayan, Dosanbu Kayan, Thamidai, andPekon Kayan in the table. Similar forms are found in Eastern Kayah Li, Blimaw, Western Pwo Karen,
Eastern Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen. These resemble the Proto-Mon-Khmer form, *t1luuy[ ] or *t1luәyʔ,which Shorto (2006, p. 408) reconstructed. Thus, it is possible that Proto-Karen borrowed a word for abanana from a certain Mon-Khmer language and that the forms in Table 2 evolved from that word.
However, this needs further consideration because the forms do not always show regular phonologicalcorrespondences. For example, the forms of Western Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen
are similar; however, they do not show regular correspondence. That is, Sgaw Karen tә usually does notcorrespond with Western Pwo Karen θaʔ or Eastern Pwo Karen θà and the Western Pwo Karen klusually does not correspond with Eastern Pwo Karen kw- or Sgaw Karen kw-. Therefore, each Karenic
language may have borrowed Mon-Khmer words for banana independently.
Many Karenic languages, however, have different words for banana. These words are related to theform of Bwe shown in Table 2. Solnit (2013) provided the following forms:

1. Pa-O ŋàʔ
2. Eastern Kayah Li ŋē
3. Pekon Kayan ŋa̤ ́
4. Kayaw jɔ̤̄ sà
5. Blimaw (Henderson’s 1997 Bwe) yà
6. Pwo Karen jāʔ
7. Sgaw Karen jàʔ

My Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen data have the following forms and represent a type of banana that10

grows in the jungle: Western Pwo Karen jaʔ, Eastern Pwo Karen jà, and Sgaw Karen jàʔ. These forms,
phonologically, correspond well among Karenic languages. Solnit (2013) reconstructed *ŋakD in ProtoKaren. Similarly, I reconstruct *ŋak3 in Proto-Karen. All the forms listed above can be explained ashaving evolved from this reconstructed form. Thus, a form for banana is believed to have existed at theProto-Karen stage. I assume that the forms that evolved from *ŋak3 were the original words for banana in
Karenic languages; however, later, for reasons unknown, words of Mon-Khmer origin became dominant.
A possible reason may have been that the original words represented “cooking bananas”, while the MonKhmer words represented “dessert bananas”.

3.3 Banyan

Table 3 lists the words for banyan.

Table 3. Words denoting banyan in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

ŋɔŋ34

Southern Pa-O

kloŋ44Eastern Kayah Li––

Zayeinʁo̤ṳn42

Nangkisa31 klɔ31

Yingtalay

klou55

Thaidaikhlao45

Sonkan Kayan

khlou55

Dosanbu Kayan

khlou55

Thamidaikhlao42

Pekon Kayan

kʰlôn (Manson, 2010b)

Bwe

klo

Blimawxlɔ55

11

Western Pwo Karenkhlòuɴ

Eastern Pwo Karenkhlóʊɴ

Sgaw Karenkhlә̂All these words, except the Northern Pa-O form, can be assumed to be related to each other and a
Proto-Karen form can be reconstructed. Manson (2019) reconstructed *kʰloɴB for Proto-Kayan. Although
no previous studies have proposed a reconstructed form at the level of Proto-Karen, I assume *khluŋ2 forProto-Karen. The language forms, except Northern Pa-O, can be explained as having evolved from thisreconstructed form. Loss of syllable-final consonants is common in Karenic languages; thus, the loss ofsyllable-final nasals in the nine languages, e.g. Sgaw Karen khlә̂, in the table is not strange. Thus, a form
for banyan is believed to have existed at the Proto-Karen stage. Note that the first syllable, sa31, of the
Nangki form is a morpheme representing fruit, the reasons for which are unknown.

3.4 Betel palm

Table 4 lists the words for betel palm (areca).

Table 4. Words denoting betel palm in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

mok34 mu53

Southern Pa-O

maʔ32 mu44

Eastern Kayah Li

mū (Solnit, p.c., 2022)

Zayeinma̤ŋ42 mṳ33

Nangkimouʔ53

Yingtalay

ma53

Thaidaikun42

Sonkan Kayan

ni31 mo̤ṳ31

Dosanbu Kayanmo̤ṳ31

12

Thamidai

kwen55

Pekon Kayan

bamò

Bwe

màmú

Blimawla11 ma11

Western Pwo Karenθeʔ

Eastern Pwo Karenθè

Sgaw Karenθɛ̄ʔ

Manson (2019) reconstructed *bәmo̤A for Proto-Kayan. For the Proto-Karen level, Peiros (1989)
reconstructed *mɔ̄B; however, I do not believe that a Proto-Karen form can be reconstructed since
Blimaw, Western Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen have different forms. Therefore, itcannot be demonstrated that a form denoting betel palm existed at the Proto-Karen stage. Note that theThaidai and Thamidai forms were probably borrowed from Burmese kúɴ <kvam‘ʺ>. Angle bracketed
forms of Burmese and Mon represent the written forms (Burmese and Mon transliterations follow thesystems of the Library of Congress and Shorto [1962], respectively).

3.5 Coconut

Table 5 lists the words for coconut.

Table 5. Words denoting coconut in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

mok34 ʔun31

Southern Pa-O

moʔ32 ʔon42

Eastern Kayah Li

míʔuse (Solnit, p.c., 2022)

Zayeinmak33 qa33 ʔoan42

Nangkiʔou31

Yingtalay

ma53 ʔouŋ55

13

Thaidaima33 ʔon42

Sonkan Kayanʔouŋ55

Dosanbu Kayanʔouŋ55

Thamidaiʔoun42

Pekon Kayan

ʔōŋ

Bwe

u

Blimaw

ʔou55

Western Pwo Karen

phláu

Eastern Pwo Karenphlɔ̀

Sgaw Karenplɔ̄ (xɔ̄)

The Northern Pa-O, Southern Pa-O, Zayein, Yingtalay, and Thaidai forms are borrowed from Shanmaak2 ʔun1 (Hudak, 2000). The Eastern Kayah Li (the second syllable), Nangki, Sonkan Kayan, Dosanbu
Kayan, Thamidai, Pekon Kayan, Bwe, and Blimaw forms are borrowed from the above-mentioned Shan
form or Burmese ʔóuɴ <’un‘ʺ>. The Western Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen forms aremost likely borrowed from Mon prɛ̀a <brau> (Shorto, 1962, p. 154). The Hpa-an dialect of Sgaw Karencalls coconut plɔ̄; however, certain dialects use the bracketed form xɔ̄. Both forms can be considered tohave emerged from the form *brɔ̄, which I assume for the Proto-Sgaw Karen level.
These words are borrowed from different origins and a Proto-Karen form cannot be considered to bereconstructed. Thus, it cannot be demonstrated that a form denoting coconut existed at the Proto-Karenstage.

3.6 Jackfruit

Table 6 lists the words for jackfruit.

Table 6. Words denoting jackfruit in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

14

Northern Pa-O

mok34 klaŋ22

Southern Pa-O

maʔ32 klaŋ53

Eastern Kayah Li––

Zayeinla̤ŋ42

Nangkiʔa232 laŋʔ53

Yingtalay––

Thaidaidi42 ne33

Sonkan Kayan

ba31 laŋ31

Dosanbu Kayan

ba42 la̤ŋ31

Thamidaipe55 nen55

Pekon Kayan

balāŋ

Bwe

tɔbәne, thɔbәnɪ

Blimawtɔ11 ɲi̤ 11Western Pwo Karennwê

Eastern Pwo Karennwɛ̄

Sgaw Karenpәnwɛ̀

Manson (2019) reconstructed *bәl̥ aɴB for the Proto-Kayan stage. However, for the Proto-Karen stage,
it seems difficult to reconstruct a proto-form. Thus, it cannot be demonstrated that a form denoting
jackfruit existed at the Proto-Karen stage. Note that Thamidai, Western Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen,and Sgaw Karen forms are probably borrowed from Sanskrit/Pali panasa via Mon pәnɔh <pnah> (Shorto,
1962, p. 145) or Burmese péiɴnɛ́ <pinnai>.

3.7 Mango

Table 7 lists the words for mango.

15

Table 7. Words denoting mango in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

ta31 khoʔ34

Southern Pa-O

θa42 khoʔ32

Eastern Kayah Litәkhɛ́

Zayeinθa33 khwa42

Nangkikhu31

Yingtalay

ta33 khɔ53

Thaidaikho45

Sonkan Kayankhɔ53

Dosanbu Kayankhaoʔ53

Thamidaikhaoʔ53

Pekon Kayan

kʰàu

Bwe

––

Blimawla11 hu11Western Pwo Karenkhoʔ

Eastern Pwo Karenkhò

Sgaw Karentәkhōʔ, θәkhōʔAll the words listed in Table 7 can be traced back to Proto-Karen. Solnit (2013) reconstructed *khok
and Luangthongkum (2019) reconstructed *khɔʔD for Proto-Karen. I assume the Proto-Karen form is*sәkhok3 and all the forms in Table 7 can be regarded as reflections of this form. The vowel ɛ in the
Eastern Kayah Li form may seem odd, but this shows a regular correspondence. For example, Eastern
Kayah Li thɛ́ ‘pig’ (Solnit, 1997, p. 371) corresponds to Eastern Pwo Karen thò ‘pig’ and Sgaw Karenthōʔ ‘pig’. The consonant h in the second syllable of the Blimaw form does not show a regularcorrespondence to voiceless aspirated velar stops in the other languages, but presumably there was asporadic change of kh to h in this word. Thus, a form representing mango is believed to have existed inProto-Karen.

16

3.8 Palmyra palm

Table 8 lists the words for palmyra palm.

Table 8. Words denoting palmyra palm in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

than34Southern Pa-O

thæn42Eastern Kayah Li––

Zayein––Nangki––

Yingtalay––

Thaidaithan45

Sonkan Kayan––

Dosanbu Kayan

thaŋ55

Thamidaina42 thɛn42

Pekon Kayan

––

Bwe

thá

Blimaw

tho55

Western Pwo Karenthàɴ

Eastern Pwo Karentà

Sgaw Karentá

Northern Pa-O, Southern Pa-O, Thaidai, Dosanbu Kayan, Thamidai, Bwe, Blimaw, and Western Pwo
Karen forms probably borrowed from Burmese tháɴ <than‘ʺ>. Eastern Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen forms
were probably borrowed from Mon ta <tā> (Shorto, 1962, p. 108). Thus, it cannot be demonstrated that aform denoting palmyra palm existed at the Proto-Karen stage. Note that both Burmese and Mon forms

17

might possibly reflect Sanskrit tāla.

3.9 Pine

Table 9 lists the words for pine.

Table 9. Words denoting pine in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

ŋo31

Southern Pa-O––

Eastern Kayah Li

ŋū (Solnit, p.c., 2022)

Zayeinɲu55

Nangkimei31 ŋou232

Yingtalay

ta33 ŋo53

Thaidaithin33 ju33

Sonkan Kayan

ŋou31

Dosanbu Kayan

ŋou42

Thamidai––

Pekon Kayanθә̂ŋnó

Bwe––

Blimawthi55 ju44

Western Pwo Karen––

Eastern Pwo Karenchàʊpәnâiɴ

Sgaw Karenchɣó (Drum Publication Group, 2000)

Some of these words begin with ŋ; however, their etymology is unknown. The Thaidai and Blimaw
forms are borrowed from Burmese thíɴyú <thaṅ‘ʺ rūʺ>. My Sgaw Karen consultants from Hpa-an
mentioned that they do not know the Sgaw Karen word for pine because pines do not grow in their18

villages where the climate is too hot for pines; however, Drum Publication Group (2000) contains theform chɣó, thus, it has been to the list. Nevertheless, I do not believe that a Proto-Karen form for pine canbe reconstructed. Thus, it cannot be demonstrated that a form denoting pine existed at the Proto-Karenstage.

3.10 Rattan

Table 10 lists the words for rattan.

Table 10. Words denoting rattan in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

rei53

Southern Pa-O––

Eastern Kayah Li

rì (Solnit, 2013)

Zayeinʁe̤ i̤ 42

Nangkiʔað232

Yingtalayrɯi31

Thaidairei33

Sonkan Kayanre̤ i̤ 33

Dosanbu Kayanre̤ i̤ 31

Thamidairi55

Pekon Kayan

rē

Bwe

wɪ

Blimaw

ɣi̤ 33

Western Pwo Karenɣê

Eastern Pwo Karenɣī̱

Sgaw Karenɣè

19All the words, except for the Nangki form, are related to each other and a proto-form can bereconstructed. Solnit (2013) reconstructed *reB for Proto-Karen and Luangthongkum (2019)reconstructed *reB. Similarly, I assume *re2 is the Proto-Karen form and all the forms, except the Nangki
form, can be explained as having developed from this form. Thus, a form for rattan is believed to haveexisted in Proto-Karen.

3.11 Sugarcane

Table 11 lists the words for sugarcane.

Table 11. Words denoting sugarcane in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

toŋ34 lai31

Southern Pa-O

toŋ44 lai42

Eastern Kayah Li

dīklɛ bōZayeinqiŋ42 kwai55 bɔŋ55

Nangkihe31 kli232

Yingtalay

khi53

Thaidaidin42 khle42

Sonkan Kayan

khle31 boŋ31

Dosanbu Kayan

khlai42 boŋ42

Thamidaicɛn55 khlæ55

Pekon Kayan

dèŋkʰláibú

Bweɗákhlɛ́

Blimawchi11 ɗou55

Western Pwo KarenshìphoʔEastern Pwo Karencìphó

Sgaw Karenthípòʔ

20

The words denoting sugarcane vary from one language to another, making it impossible toreconstruct a proto-form of these words in Proto-Karen, though the forms with the cluster /kl-/ or /khl-/ inEastern Kayah Li, Nangki, Thaidai, Sonkan Kayan, Dosanbu Kayan, Thamidai, Pekon Kayan, and Bwe
could reflect some relationship. Thus, it cannot be demonstrated that a form for sugarcane existed at theProto-Karen stage.

3.12 Tamarind

Table 12 lists the words for tamarind.

Table 12. Words denoting tamarind in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

mok34 kreŋ34

Southern Pa-O

moŋ42 kreŋ44

Eastern Kayah Li––

Zayeinmә33 ʁe̤ a̤ŋ42

Nangkiʔa232 klai53

Yingtalay

mi55 piaŋ53

Thaidaibun42 klein33

Sonkan Kayan

ma31 klaiŋ53

Dosanbu Kayanŋkla̤i̤ ŋ31

Thamidaima42 klen55

Pekon Kayan

––

Bwe

màklé

Blimaw

mṳ11 kle55

Western Pwo Karenmáɴkhláuɴ

Eastern Pwo Karenmàɴkhlōɴ21

Sgaw Karenmɔ̀klɔ̀

Manson (2019) reconstructed *makʰlɛŋB for Proto-Karen. However, the forms shown in Table 12seem to have different etymologies. According to the SEAlang Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary,
made available on the Internet by Paul Sidwell, the forms for tamarind in Riang-Lang and Riang-Sak aremaŋ2 kleәŋ2 and maŋ2 klɛŋ2, respectively. The forms of Northern Pa-O, Southern Pa-O, Zayein, Nangki,
Thaidai, Sonkan Kayan, Dosanbu Kayan, Thamidai, Bwe, and Blimaw seem to have a certain relation
with the Riang form (Burmese măjí <man‘ kyaññ‘ʺ>, too, may be related to this form). In contrast, theWestern Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen forms for tamarind seem to be related to the
Mon form mɛ̀aŋ klòn <maṅ glon> (Shorto, 1962, p. 168). One of my Sgaw Karen consultants mentionedthat in Sgaw Karen villages in the northern Karen state, tamarind is called mɔ̄klē instead of mɔ̀klɔ̀. The
form mɔ̄klē seems to have some relation to the Riang form mentioned above. It is possible that after theProto-Karen stage, the northern Karenic languages, such as Pa-O, Kayan, Bwe, and the northern Sgaw
Karen dialects, adopted the words for tamarind from Palaungic to which Riang belongs, while thesouthern Karenic languages, such as Western Pwo Karen, Eastern Pwo Karen, and the southern Sgaw
Karen dialects, adopted the words from Mon. Thus, it is difficult to demonstrate that a word for tamarind
existed at the Proto-Karen stage.

3.13 Teak

Table 13 lists the words for teak.

Table 13. Words denoting teak in Karenic languages
Languages

Words

Northern Pa-O

mai22 sak34

Southern Pa-O––

Eastern Kayah Lilehʌ

Zayeinmai42 sak42

22

Nangki––Yingtalayla55 hai55

Thaidai

cu42

Sonkan Kayan

kiao31

Dosanbu Kayan

kla55

Thamidaicun55

Pekon Kayan

cú

Bwe

bahi

Blimawla11 hei55

Western Pwo Karenpәjì

Eastern Pwo Karenpәjí

Sgaw Karenpәhî

The Northern Pa-O and Zayein forms are borrowed from Shan may5 shak4 (Hudak, 2000). The formsof Thaidai, Thamidai, and Pekon Kayan are probably borrowed from Burmese cúɴ <kyvanʻʺ>. The
origins of the other forms are unknown. Looking at these correspondences, it is not possible to reconstructa proto-form for teak in Proto-Karen. Thus, it is difficult to demonstrate that a form denoting teak existed
at the Proto-Karen stage.

3.14 Discussion on Karenic plant names

Words for bamboo, banana, banyan, mango, and rattan may have been present in Proto-Karen. In contrast,words for betel palm, coconut, jackfruit, palmyra palm, pine, sugarcane, tamarind, and teak cannot bedemonstrated to have been present at the Proto-Karen stage. In particular, the words for coconut andpalmyra palm in the languages included in this paper are likely to have originated from the borrowings ofa later period than Proto-Karen. The words for coconut are borrowed from Shan, Mon, and Burmese andthe words for palmyra palm are borrowed from Mon and Burmese. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that words representing these two plants did not exist in Proto-Karen.
Coconut (Cocos nucifera) and palmyra palm (Borassus flabellifer) are typical tropical plants, which23require high temperatures to grow. According to Blombery and Rodd (1982, p. 185), the “extreme
minimum temperature” required for both these plants to grow is 10°C or higher. In contrast, bamboo,
banana, banyan, mango, and rattan, plants for which Proto-Karen is believed to have had names, have
many species that can grow in temperate zones, that is, they do not require temperatures as high as
coconut palm and palmyra palm do. For example, rattan (Calamus) has about 370 species (Blombery andRodd, 1982, p. 68), some of which require an extreme minimum temperature of 10°C or higher, whileothers require a lower extreme minimum temperature of 3°C to 10°C (pp. 185–186). For information
about the environments in which bamboo, banana, banyan (especially, Ficus microcarpa,), and mango
grow, see Kigomo (2007, pp. 51–52), Turner (2003), Sakai (1979, p. 5), and Rajan (2012, pp. 72–74),
respectively. The temperatures given in these references suggest that while these plants prefer warmer
temperatures, they can also grow in temperate zones. Hence, it can be assumed that the speakers of ProtoKaren lived in a temperate zone.

4. Homeland of Karenic languages as per the linguistic migration theory

It is important to explore the regions where the largest number of Karenic languages are spoken.
According to Asher and Moseley (2007) and my fieldwork, the largest number of Karenic languages are
spoken throughout southern Shan State, Kayah State, and northern Karen State in Myanmar. This isapproximately the area encircled in Figure 5. Within this relatively small area, numerous Karenic
languages, including Bwe, Geba, Gekho, Kayah, Kayaw, Kayan, Manu, Monebwa, Mopwa, Paku, Pa-O,
Sgaw Karen, Thalebwa, Yinbaw, Yintale, and Zayein, are spoken. There are only three Karenic languages
spoken outside the circle, i.e., Pwo Karen, Sgaw Karen, and Pa-O. Furthermore, the distribution of Pa-O
outside the circle is limited to the northern part of Mon State and the central part of Karen State. Thus,
primarily Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen are the Karenic languages spoken outside the circle.

24

Figure 5. Distribution of Karenic languages (cf. Figure 1) and the area where the largest number of them
are spoken

According to the linguistic migration theory, first suggested by Sapir (1916) and refined by Dyen
(1956), the area where the largest number of related languages are spoken is the “homeland” of thelanguages (see also Blust, 1984; Campbell and Mixco, 2007, pp. 106–108). Therefore, the homeland of
the Karenic languages can be presumed to have been located within the encircled area in Figure 5.

5. Homeland of Karenic languages and its climate

In Section 4, we discussed that, in light of the linguistic migration theory, the homeland of Karenic
languages can be assumed to have been located within the area from southern Shan State to Kayah Stateand northern Karen State. In Section 3, we discussed that the speakers of Proto-Karen lived in a temperatezone. If the area presumed in Section 4 had a temperate climate, it would be even more likely that thehomeland was located in this area.

25

Figure 6 represents a climate map of Myanmar that was created by the author based on the world
map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification by Kottek et al. (2006). The encircled area of Figure 5
overlaps with this map. It is clear that there is a large area of Cwa or Cwb, i.e., a temperate zone, in thecircle. The encircled area is located at the southwestern edge of the Shan Plateau and, despite being southof the Tropic of Cancer, a significant portion of the area has a temperate climate due to its high altitude,
ranging from 500 to 2000 meters above sea level. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the lasthomeland of Karenic languages was located within the encircled area.

Figure 6. The climates of Myanmar and the area where the largest number of Karenic languages are
spoken (cf. Figure 5)

6. Conclusion

Proto-forms for bamboo, banana, banyan, mango, and rattan can be reconstructed in Proto-Karen. All
these plants can grow in temperate zones. However, the words for coconut and palmyra palm, both of26

which are typical tropical plants, cannot be reconstructed at the Proto-Karen stage. The words
representing coconut and palmyra palm in the modern Karenic languages are most likely borrowed fromother languages post-Proto-Karen. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Proto-Karen-speaking area had atemperate climate. Meanwhile, looking at the distribution of Karenic languages, the area from southern
Shan State to Kayah State and northern Karen State shows the highest diversity. Therefore, as per the
linguistic migration theory, this area could be the homeland of Karenic languages. Moreover, this area has
a large distribution of temperate climate. This supports the belief that the last homeland of Karenic
languages was most likely located in this area (encircled in Figure 6).
Figure 7 is a photograph of the village of Pa-O near Taunggyi, Shan State. This village is locatedwithin the circle in Figure 6 and its climate is probably the Cwa of Köppen-Geiger. Coconut and palmyra
palm trees cannot be found in this village. The landscape of the homeland of Karenic languages would
have been similar to Figure 7. In contrast, Figure 8 is a photograph of a Pwo Karen village near Hpa-an,
Karen State and Figure 9 is of a Pwo Karen village near Kyonpyaw, Ayeyarwady Region. Both villages
are located outside the circle in Figure 6 and their climate is probably the Am of Köppen-Geiger. Bothvillages are filled with coconut trees, evident in the photographs.

Figure 7. A Pa-O village near Taunggyi, Shan State (photograph taken by the author in 1994)

27

Figure 8. A Pwo Karen village near Hpa-an, Karen State (photograph taken by the author in 2019)

Figure 9. A Pwo Karen village near Kyonpyaw, Ayeyarwady Region (photograph taken by the author in
1993)

This paper demonstrates the possible homeland of Karenic languages. However, there are certain
limitations. This study does not include the etymology of certain words, those of which proto-forms could
not be reconstructed. The words for coconut and palmyra palm are borrowed from Shan, Mon, orBurmese. Future research must examine the etymology of the words for betel palm, jackfruit, pine,sugarcane, tamarind, and teak to determine whether each form is a native Karenic word or has beenborrowed.
In addition, a precise estimation of the time of arrival of the speakers of Proto-Karen in the homeland
is required. Kato (2019) estimates the split of Western Pwo Karen and Eastern Pwo Karen to haveoccurred in the seventeenth century based on their lexical similarity. Similarly, the split of Pwo Karen and
Sgaw Karen is estimated to have occurred in the eleventh century. However, the time for Proto-Karen
further goes back. I presume that the speakers of Proto-Karen would have already arrived in the homeland
shown in Figure 6 between the first century to the fifth century A.D. Presumably, this migration would
have taken place from north to south along the Salween River. According to Ge et al. (2013), whoestimated temperature changes in China over the past 2000 years, although there were several warm
intervals, they exhibited similar or lower levels than contemporary temperatures. It is quite possible that
the Shan Plateau adjacent to China has experienced similar temperature changes. Thus, when Proto-Karen28

was spoken, a large portion of the area shown in Figure 6 probably belonged the temperate zone, just as it
does today.

Acknowledgements
This study is based on the paper read at the 2nd Workshop on Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in the
Northeast India – Myanmar – Southwest China region, JSPS-NTU/NUS Joint Research Project. I express
my gratitude to all those who gave their valuable comments, especially Prof. Hideo Sawada. I am deeply
indebted to my Karen friends including, Saw Hla Chit, Nant Dahlia Win, Saw Khin Maung Aye, and Naw
Snow Paw, who provided the information about the plant names in Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen.

References
Asher R. E. & Moseley, Christopher (Eds.). (2007). Atlas of the world’s languages (second edition).
Routledge.
Blombery, Alec & Rodd, Tony (1982). Palms. Angus & Robertson Publishers.
Blust, Robert (1984). The Austronesian homeland: A linguistic perspective. Asian Perspectives, 26, 45–
67.
Bradley, David (2007). East and Southeast Asia. In Asher R. E. & Moseley, Christopher (Eds.), Atlas of
the world’s languages (second edition) (pp. 159–197). Routledge.
Burling, Robbins (1969). Proto-Karen: A reanalysis. Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on
Tibeto-Burman Linguistics, 1–116.
Campbell, Lyle, & Mixco, Mauricio J. (2007). A glossary of historical linguistics. Edinburgh University
Press.
Drum Publication Group (2000). Karen English dictionary. Drum Publication Group.
Dyen, Isidore (1956). Language distribution and migration theory. Language, 32, 611–626.
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, & Charles D. Fennig (Eds.). (2019). Ethnologue: Languages of theworld. Twenty-second edition. SIL International.
Ge, Q., Z. Hao, J. Zheng, and X. Shao (2013). Temperature changes over the past 2000 yr in China and29

comparison with the Northern Hemisphere. Climate of the Past, 9, 1153–1160.
https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-1153-2013
Haudricourt, André-Georges (1946). Restitution du karen commun. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistiquede Paris, 42(1), 103–111. (Reprinted: Haudricourt 1972, pp. 131–40.)
Haudricourt, André-Georges (1953). A propos de la restitution du karen commun. Bulletin de la Sociétéde Linguistique de Paris, 49(1), 129–132. (Reprinted: Haudricourt 1972, pp. 141–145.)
Haudricourt, André-Georges (1972). Problèmes de phonologie diachronique. SELAF.
Haudricourt, André-Georges (1975). Le système des tons du karen commun. Bulletin de la Société deLinguistique de Paris, 70(1), 339–43.
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. (1997). Bwe Karen dictionary: With texts and English-Karen word list (2vols), School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Hudak, Thomas John (2000). Cushing’s Shan-English dictionary: A phonetic version. Arizona State
University.
Jones, Robert. B. (1961). Karen linguistic studies: Description, comparison, and texts. University ofCalifornia Publications in Linguistics, No. 25. University of California Press.
Kato, Atsuhiko (2018). How did Haudricourt reconstruct Proto-Karen tones? Reports of the Keio Instituteof Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 49, 21–44.
Kato, Atsuhiko (2019). Karen and surrounding languages. In Norihiko Hayashi (Ed.), Topics in middle
Mekong linguistics (Journal of Research Institute 60) (pp. 123–150). Kobe City University ofForeign Studies.
Kato, Atsuhiko (2021a). Pwo Karen writing systems. Reports of the Keio Institute of Cultural and
Linguistic Studies, 52, 23–55.
Kato, Atsuhiko (2021b). Typological profile of Karenic languages. In Paul Sidwell and Mathias Jenny(Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Mainland Southeast Asia (pp. 337–367). Mouton de
Gruyter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110558142-018
Kato, Atsuhiko (2022). Pwo Karen writing systems 2: Western Pwo Karen. Reports of the Keio Instituteof Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 53, 23–57.
Kato, Atsuhiko (2023). Letalanyah: A Buddhist writing system of Sgaw Karen. Reports of the Keio30

Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 54, 27–52.
Kigomo, Bernard N. (2007). Guidelines for growing bamboo. KEFRI guideline series, No. 4. Kenya
Forestry Research Institute.
Kottek, Markus., Grieser, Jürgen, Beck, Christoph, Rudolf, Brund, & Rubel, Franz (2006). World map of
the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15(3), 259–263.
https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130 (Maps are available at: http://koeppen-geiger.vuwien.ac.at/present.htm)
Luangthongkum, Theraphan (2013a). A view on Proto-Karen phonology and lexicon. (unpublished ms.
contributed to STEDT).
Luangthongkum, Theraphan (2013b). 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 from ProtoKaren. Paper presented at SEALS 24, Yangon.
Luangthongkum, Theraphan (2014b). Proto-Karen (*k-rjaŋA) Fauna. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities,
Special Issue, 20, 86–123.
Luangthongkum, Theraphan (2019). A view on Proto-Karen phonology and lexicon. Journal of theSoutheast Asian Linguistics Society, 12(1), i‒lii.
https://doi.org/10524/52441
Luce, Gordon. H. (1959). Introduction to the comparative study of Karen languages. Journal of Burma
Research Society 42(1), 1–18.
Manson, Ken (2002). Karenic language relationships: A lexical and phonological analysis. Departmentof Linguistics, Payap University.
Manson, Ken (2009). Prolegomena to reconstructing Proto-Karen. La Trobe Working Papers in
Linguistics 12.
Manson, Ken (2010a). A grammar of Kayan, a Tibeto-Burman language. Ph.D. dissertation at La Trobe
University.
Manson, Ken (2010b). Kayan-English/English-Kayan dictionary. (unpublished ms. contributed to
STEDT).
Manson, Ken (2017). The characteristics of the Karen branch of Tibeto-Burman. In Ding, Picus Sizhi, &31

Pelkey, Jamin (Eds.), Sociohistorical linguistics in Southeast Asia: New horizons for TibetoBurman studies in honor of David Bradley (pp. 149–168). Leiden/Boston: Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004350519_010
Manson, Ken (2019). A reconstruction of Proto–Kayan. (unpublished ms.)
Matisoff, James A. (2003). Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan
reconstruction. University of California Press.
Matisoff, James A. (2015). The Sino-Tibetan etymological dictionary and thesaurus. Berkeley: The SinoTibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project.
Mitani, Yasuyuki (1984). Tōnan Ajia no gengo bunpu [Linguistic distribution in Southeast Asia]. In
Taryo Obayashi (Ed.), Minzoku no sekaishi 6: Tōnan Ajia no minzoku to rekisi [History of ethnic
groups: Ethnicity and history of Southeast Asia]. Yamakawa Shuppansha. (in Japanese)
Peiros, Ilia (1989). Некоторые уточнения протокаренской реконструкции [Some enhancements forthe reconstruction of Proto-Karen]. In Историческая акцентология и сравнительноисторический метод [Historical accentology and the comparative method] (pp. 225–254). Nauka.
(in Russian)Rajan, Shailendra (2012). Phenological responses to temperature and rainfall: A case study of mango. In
Sthapit, Bhuwon, Rao, V. Ramanatha, & Sthapit, Sajal (Eds.), Tropical fruit tree species andclimate change (pp. 71–96). Bioversity International.
Sakai, Akira (1979). Freezing tolerance of evergreen and deciduous broad-leaved trees in Japan withreference to tree regions. Low Temperature Science. Ser. B, Biological Sciences, 36, 1–19.
Sapir, Edward (1916). Time Perspective in Aboriginal American Culture, A Study in Method. Ottawa
Government Printing Bureau.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2003). Classification of Brakaloungic (Karenic) languages in relation to their
tonal evolution. In Shigeki Kaji (Ed.), Proceedings of the symposium cross-linguistic studies of
tonal phenomena: Historical development, phonetics of tone, and descriptive studies (pp. 37–54).
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2014). The Zayein language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area (LSTCA)
No. 102. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2016). The Nangki language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area (LSTCA)

32

No. 109. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2017). The Blimaw language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area (LSTCA)
No. 112. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2018a). The Yingtalay language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area
(LSTCA) No. 115. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2018b). The Thaidai language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area (LSTCA)
No. 116. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2018c). The Sonkan language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area (LSTCA)
No. 118. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2018d). The Dosanbu Kayan language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area
(LSTCA) No. 120. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2020a). The Thamidai language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area
(LSTCA) No. 126. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, Tadahiko L. A. (2020b). The Pao language. Linguistic survey of Tay cultural area (LSTCA) No.
131. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shorto, H. L. (1962). A dictionary of Modern Spoken Mon. Oxford University Press.
Shorto, H. L. (2006). A Mon-Khmer comparative dictionary. (Main editor: Paul Sidwell; Assisting
editors: Doug Cooper & Christian Bauer) Pacific Linguistics.
Sidwell, Paul (director) & Cooper, Doug (co-director). SEAlang Mon-Khmer etymological dictionary.
http://sealang.net/monkhmer/dictionary/; conferred on November 10th, 2022.
Solnit, David B. (1997). Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, texts, glossary. University of Hawai`i Press.
Solnit, David B. (2001). Another look at Proto-Karen. Paper presented at the 34th International
Conference of Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Kunming.
Solnit, David B. (2013). Proto-Karen Rhymes. Paper read at the 46th International Conference on SinoTibetan Languages and Linguistics, Dartmouth University.
Turner, D. W. (2003). Bananas: Response to temperature. Agfact (NSW Agriculture, Australia), H6.2.6.

33

Author: Atsuhiko Kato
Postal address:
Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies
Keio University
2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8345 Japan

34