Journal of Research Institute vol. 60, 2019. Kobe City University of Foreign Studies
Topics in Middle Mekong Linguistics

CHAPTER 5
Karen and surrounding languages
Atsuhiko Kato
[ABSTRACT]This paper attempts to explore relationships that Karen, i.e., Pwo Karen and Sgaw
Karen, has had with surrounding languages in terms of word order and loanwords. It isdifficult to conclude anything about such relationships from the viewpoint of word order.
However, examining loanwords reveals that Pwo and Sgaw had contact with Mon before
the split of these two languages.

0. Introduction

The ethnic groups that speak Karenic languages include many groups such as
the Bwe, Geba, Gekho, Kayah, Kayo, Kayan, Manu, Monebwa, Mopwa, Paku,
Pa-O, Pwo Karen, Sgaw Karen, Thalebwa, Yeinbaw, Yintale, and so on (seeShintani 2003). Today, these ethnic groups live in Myanmar and Thailand. As theauthor pointed out in Kato [加藤] (2016), the range of people who consider
themselves to be ethnic “Karen” can vary according to various contexts,
including political, ethnic, and linguistic. According to the author’s knowledge
acquired through fieldwork, the ethnic Karen, in the narrowest sense, iscomprised of Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen only, and in addition to these, thepeoples that speak languages close to Sgaw Karen, i.e., Monebwa, Paku, andThalebwa, may consider themselves Karen. Moreover, Bwe and Mopwa may
also consider themselves Karen. Kayah and Pa-O usually see themselves as
belonging to ethnic groups separate from the Karen. In Myanmar, out of thepeoples speaking Karenic languages, the two groups, the Karen comprised
mainly of the Pwo and Sgaw, and that comprised of the Kayah, have independent
states, Karen State and Kayah State, respectively.
Karenic languages constitute the Karenic branch of the Tibeto-Burmanfamily of the Sino-Tibetan linguistic stock. All the Karenic languages have an
SVO word order, which is aberrant among the Tibeto-Burman languages, thelarge majority of which are of the SOV-type. Most likely, the ancestor of the
Karenic languages originally had an SOV word order, but it changed into SVO at
the Proto-Karen stage. This change was likely due to contact with some MonKhmer language(s). Matisoff (2000) suggests heavy contact with Mon in the latefirst millennium AD. Manson (2009) suggests that Mon-Khmer loanwords in
Karenic languages imply a greater connection with the Palaungic branch of MonKhmer rather than the Monic branch.
In considering the genealogical position of Karenic in the Sino-Tibetanfamily, Benedict (1972) placed Karen (=Karenic) separately from Tibeto-Burman,123

Atsuhiko Kato

as is seen in Figure 1. This view reflects the fact that Karenic has an SVO word
order. However, when we observe the vocabulary of the Karenic languages indetail, it is obvious that they are Tibeto-Burman. In accordance with this view, inMatisoff’s (2003) genealogical tree shown in Figure 2, Karenic is located under
Tibeto-Burman.1

Figure 1: Benedict (1972)

Figure 2: Matisoff (2003)

1

Among diachronic studies of Karenic languages, Haudricourt’s (1946, 53, 75) works
are also highly important. For his method of reconstructing proto-tones, see Kato (2018).
The genealogical relationship inside Karenic was first discussed by Jones (1961).
Although his study is excellent especially in the descriptive respect, his reconstruction of
proto-tones is problematic.
124

Karen and surrounding languages

Opinions are divergent on the genealogy within the Karenic branch. Figure 3
is Manson’s (2002) classification (cited from Manson 2009), and Figure 4 is
Shintani’s (2003).

Figure 3: Manson’s (2002) classification

Figure 4: Shintani’s (2003) classification

125

Atsuhiko Kato

Figure 5 is Manson’s (2017a) new classification. This is proposed as a morecomprehensive and scientific classification that is based on shared phonologicaldevelopments among Karenic languages.2

Figure 5: Manson’s (2017a) classification
In the present paper, by the word “Karen”, Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen,which are the languages spoken by Karen peoples in the narrowest sense, aremeant. These two languages are both distributed from around the Myanmar-Thaiborder through the Ayeyarwady Delta in Myanmar. The purpose of this paper is
to show the characteristics of word order and loanwords in Pwo and Sgaw and to
examine whether we can explore relationships that these languages have had withsurrounding languages from these viewpoints.
The Pwo Karen dialects treated in this paper are two: the one that is spoken
in Hpa-an, the capital of Karen State, Myanmar, and the one that is spoken in
Kyonbyaw (Kyonpyaw), Ayeyarwady Region, Myanmar. The Hpa-an dialect
belongs to Eastern Pwo Karen, and the Kyonbyaw dialect belongs to Western
Pwo Karen. For the grouping of Pwo Karen dialects, see Phillips (2000), Kato2

The author has speaking and reading competence of Pwo Karen, and reading
competence of Sgaw Karen. The author’s impression is that Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen
are languages that have a relatively close relationship. In the classifications of Manson(2002) and Shintani (2003), Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen are shown as having a relatively
close relationship, but they have a distant relationship in Manson’s (2017a) newclassification. His new grouping of Pwo and Sgaw is no small surprise to the author, andat the same time, it is highly intriguing.
126

Karen and surrounding languages(2009), Dawkins and Phillips (2009a, 2009b), and Phillips (2017: 4-5). Eastern
Pwo Karen and Western Pwo Karen are the main dialect groups of Pwo Karen in
Myanmar. They both are groups belonging to Pwo Karen, but they are notintelligible to each other. The Sgaw Karen treated in this paper is the dialect thatis spoken in Hpa-an, Karen State, Myanmar. In general, the differences among
the dialects of Sgaw Karen are not as large as those of the Pwo Karen, and they
are intelligible to each other. Transcription of each dialect is phonemic. The
transcription of the Hpa-an dialect of Pwo Karen follows Kato (2019a), and thetranscriptions of the Kyonbyaw dialect of Pwo Karen and the Hpa-an dialect of
Sgaw Karen follow Kato (2002).

1. Word order

We will first observe the characteristics of word order in Pwo Karen and
Sgaw Karen. Here, the term “word order” includes not only the order of words
but also that of phrases and clauses. Out of the two Pwo Karen dialects
mentioned above, only one dialect, i.e., the Hpa-an dialect that belongs to Eastern
Pwo Karen, is treated in this section because Western Pwo shows essentially thesame characteristics in word order as Eastern Pwo.
Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen both have the following linguistic
characteristics: many of their morphemes are monosyllabic; they are isolating
languages; they do not have tense as a grammatical category, and the oppositionof realis and irrealis is often utilized in order to express time; they are topicprominent. These characteristics can be also observed in other Karenic languages.
The author (Kato [加藤] 2004, 2008) sets up nouns, verbs, adverbs, particles, andinterjections as Pwo Karen word classes. The same word classes can be also
distinguished in Sgaw Karen.
The reason that word order is selected for discussion here is that since Karenis an isolating language, word order is important in morphosyntax.
1.1 Arguments and the verb
The intransitive verb and its subject noun are placed in the order of “Subject+ Verb”, as in (1) and (2). In many Southeast Asian and East Asian SVO
languages, existential and phenomenon sentences utilize a VS order, but Karen
does not use that order in such sentences.
(1)phlòʊɴmwì ɣɛ̂
guest
come
‘A guest came.’[Pwo Karen](2)pɣātəmɣī hɛ́
guest
come
‘A guest came.’[Sgaw Karen]

Both languages use an SVO order in a monotransitive sentence:127

Atsuhiko Kato

(3)ɕáphàɴdʊ́ θàkhléiɴShapan hit Thakhlein‘Shapan hit Thakhlein.’[Pwo Karen](4)ʔɛ̂thíkɔ̀tɔ̀ʔɛ̀kəɲɔ́
Ehthikaw hit Ehkanyaw‘Ehthikaw hit Ehkanyaw.’[Sgaw Karen]

In a ditransitive sentence, the noun denoting “recipient” occurs immediately after
the verb, and the noun denoting “theme” follows it:(5)ɕáphàɴ
phí̱ lâɴ θàkhléiɴkhòθá
Shapan giveThakhlein mango‘Shapan gave Thakhlein a mango.’[Pwo Karen](6)ʔɛ̂thíkɔ̀hêdɯ́ʔ ʔɛ̂kəɲɔ́təkhóʔθâEhthikaw give
Ehkanyaw mango‘Ehthikaw gave Ehkanyaw a mango.’[Sgaw Karen]

1.2 Noun and adposition
In Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, words corresponding to so-called“adpositions” in general terms are adpositional particles. An adpositional particle
generally occurs before the noun in both languages. In (7), the adpositional
particle lə́ is placed before the noun phrase ɣéiɴ phə̀ɴ ‘inside of the house’, and in(8) also, the adpositional particle lə́ is placed before the noun phrase hî pū ‘insideof the house’.
(7)ɕáphàɴ
mà chəmà lə́
Shapan do work
LOC
‘Shapan worked in the house.’ɣéiɴ phə̀ɴ
house inside[Pwo Karen](8)

mā tàmā lə́ʔɛ̂ thíkɔ̀Ehthikaw
do work LOC‘Ehthikaw worked in the house.’pūhîhouse inside[Sgaw Karen]

1.3 Noun, stative verb, numeral classifier phrase, and demonstrative
It is unnecessary to set up the category “adjective” in Pwo Karen and Sgaw
Karen. In both languages, words corresponding to “adjectives” in general terms
are stative verbs, which constitute a subgroup of verbs. A stative verb follows thenoun. A numeral classifier phrase, which consists of a numeral and a numeralclassifier, both subgroups of nouns, and a demonstrative also follow the noun.
These elements are placed in the order of “stative verb - numeral classifier phrase- demonstrative” in both languages:

128

Karen and surrounding languages(9)

já phàdʊ́ θə̄ɴbéiɴfish big
three NC(flat.thing)‘these three big fish’

jò
this

[Pwo Karen](10)ɲâ pháʔdô θə́
fish big
three‘these three big fish’

ʔī
this

[Sgaw Karen]bêNC(flat.thing)

1.4 Modifying noun and modified noun
A noun modifying another noun precedes the modified one. See (11) and
(12):
(11)

pəθàbáɴ kòʊɴlwɛ̄
youth
organization‘youth organization’[Pwo Karen](12)

phóθâphó kərə́
youthorganization‘youth organization’[Sgaw Karen]

In examples (13) and (14), the modifying noun is the name of an ethnic group:
(13)

pəjàɴ
khāɴ
Burman country‘Burma/Myanmar’

(14)

pəjɔ̄
Burman‘Burma/Myanmar’kɔ̀
country[Pwo Karen][Sgaw Karen]

The noun denoting “possessor” also precedes the noun denoting the possessed
object. In that case, the third-person pronoun may appear before the possessednoun in both languages. See (15) and (16). Both ʔə ɣéiɴ (Pwo Karen) and ʔə hî(Sgaw Karen) alone can mean ‘his/her house’.
(15)

chərâ
(ʔə)
teacher 3SG

ɣéiɴ
house

[Pwo Karen]‘the teacher’s house’

(16)

θərâ
teacherhîhouse[Sgaw Karen]‘the teacher’s house’

(ʔə)
3SG

1.5 Noun and relative clause
Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen use different strategies in forming a relative
clause.
In Pwo Karen, there are two ways of forming a relative clause: one way uses
a relative marker and the other does not.3 Using the relative marker makes thesentence sound highly formal, and it is hardly used in daily conversation.
3

For more on relative clauses in Pwo Karen, see Kato [加藤] (2001).
129

Atsuhiko Kato

Therefore, we will observe the way that does not use a relative marker here.
When the relativized noun is the subject of the relative clause, the relative clauseis placed after the head noun. In the relative clause, the subject noun is gapped:(17)phlòʊɴ [ ɣɛ̂lə́phlòʊɴ
thîkhāɴ jò ]person come LOC
Karen
country this‘the person who came to Karen State’[Pwo Karen]

When the relativized noun is a non-subject noun, the relative clause is placed
before the head noun. The relativized non-subject noun is gapped in the relative
clause:
(18)

[ jə
dʊ́ ]
phlòʊɴ
person1SG hit‘the person whom I hit’

nɔ́
that

[Pwo Karen]

In Sgaw Karen, relative clauses are formed by using the relative marker lə́.
Whether the subject noun is relativized as in (19) or one of the non-subject nouns
is relativized as in (20), the relative clause is placed after the head noun. In bothcases, a resumptive pronoun corresponding to the head noun may occur in therelative clause.
(19)pɣākəɲɔ́ [ lə́
ʔə
hɛ́
lə́
REL
3
SG
come
LOC
person‘the person who came to Karen State’pɣākəɲɔ́
Karen

(20)

jə tɔ̀
pɣākəɲɔ́ [ lə́
personREL 1SG hit‘the person whom I hit’

nê
that

ʔɔ̄ ]
3SG

kɔ̀ ] [Sgaw Karen]
country[Sgaw Karen]

1.6 Verb and adverb
An adverb occurs after the verb in both languages. When the verb has an
object, the adverb occurs after it.
(21)ɕáphàɴ
ʔáɴ mì̱ ʔèphlɛ́Shapaneat rice fast
‘Shapan eats rice fast.’[Pwo Karen](22)ʔɛ̂thíkɔ̀ʔɔ̂
mē khlékhlé
Ehthikaw eat rice fast
‘Ehthikaw eats rice fast.’[Sgaw Karen]

1.7 Verb and auxiliary
In Pwo Karen, words that function as so-called auxiliaries are verb particles(Kato [加藤] 2004: 277-372). Some verb particles appear before the verb, and theother verb particles appear after the verb. Kato [加藤] (2004) lists eleven verb
particles that appear before the verb and fifty verb particles that appear after the130Karen and surrounding languages

verb. In (23), bá is a verb particle that appears before the verb, and jʊ̄ is one thatappears after the verb:
(23)

jə bá
ʔáɴ
jʊ̄
phlòʊɴ
1SG must eat
try.to Karen‘I have to try to eat Karen food.’chəʔáɴchəʔɔ̀food[Pwo Karen]

In Sgaw Karen also, there are both preverb and postverb particles. (24) is asentence that semantically corresponds to (23). In this example, bâ is a verb
particle that appears before the verb, and kwà is one that appears after the verb:
(24)

jə kə
bâ
ʔɔ̂
kwà pɣākəɲɔ́1SG IRR must eat
try.to Karen‘I have to try to eat Karen food.’tàʔɔ̂tàʔɔ́food[Sgaw Karen]

1.8 The position of question markers
The markers that indicate an interrogative sentence appears sentence-finallyin both Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen. Both languages use different question
markers in polar and content questions. In the case of a polar question, ʁâ (Pwo
Karen) and ɦá (Sgaw Karen) are used:
(25)

(26)

nə mə
lì̱
2SG IRR go‘Will you go?’

ʁâ

nə kə
lɛ̄
2SG IRR go‘Will you go?’ɦá[Pwo Karen]

Q[Sgaw Karen]Q

In the case of a content question, lɛ̂ (Pwo Karen) and lɛ̂ (Sgaw Karen) are used:
(27)

nə mə
ʔáɴ chənɔ́ lɛ̂
2SG IRR eat
what Q‘What will you eat?’[Pwo Karen]

(28)

nə kə
ʔɔ̂
mənɯ̄ lɛ̂2SG IRR eat
what Q‘What will you eat?’[Sgaw Karen]

1.9 Verb and negative marker
The order of the verb and negative marker differs between Pwo Karen and
Sgaw Karen. In Pwo Karen, when the main clause is negated, the particle ʔé isplaced in the clause-final position:

131

Atsuhiko Kato

(29)ʔəwê ɣɛ̂
ʔé
3SG come NEG‘He did not come.’[Pwo Karen]

When a subordinate clause is negated, the particle lə is placed immediately
before the verb, and the particle bá is placed in the final position of thesubordinate clause. That is, “double negation” (Dryer 2005) is employed in asubordinate clause.
(30)ʔəwê ləlì̱báʔəkhʊ́còɴ,
3SG
NEG
go
NEG
because‘Because he did not go, I went.’

jə
1SG

lì̱
go

[Pwo Karen]

In Sgaw Karen, both main and subordinate clauses employ double negation.
The particle tə is placed before the verb, and the particle bâ is placed in theclause-final position. Examples (31) and (32) semantically correspond to (29)and (30) respectively.
(31)

ʔəwɛ́ tə
hɛ́
bâ
3SG
NEG
come NEG‘He did not come.’

(32)

ʔəwɛ́
tə
lɛ̄
bâ
ʔəxó,
3SG
NEG go NEG
because‘Because he did not go, I went.’[Sgaw Karen]

jə
1SG

lɛ̄
go

[Sgaw Karen]

For a general discussion on negative markers in Karenic languages, see Manson(2017b).
1.10 Order of verbs in serial verb constructions
Many Southeast Asian languages have serial verb constructions. Although
there are many common features in the serial verb constructions of various
languages, there are also many different features. In 1.10.1 and 1.10.2 below, we
will observe the characteristics of word order in Pwo Karen serial verb
constructions, and after that we will examine Sgaw Karen serial verb
constructions in 1.10.3. In the present paper, serialization consisting of two verbs
will be treated. For the general characteristics of serial verb constructions in
mainland Southeast Asian Languages, see Enfield (2019: 200-225).
Pwo Karen has two types of serial verb constructions: the concatenated typeand separated type.4 The concatenated type of serialization does not allow a noun
4

For more detail on serial verb constructions in Pwo Karen, see Kato [加藤] (1998,
2004). Kato (2017) and Kato (2018) also discuss them a little bit. Descriptive studies onserial verb constructions in other Karenic languages include Kato [加藤] (1992) andWeinhold (2011) on Sgaw Karen, Solnit (1997: Chapter 4) and Solnit (2006) on Kayah,
Manson (2010: 287-302) on Kayan, Swanson (2011) on Bwe, and Cooper (2017) on PaO. The concatenated type and separated type in Pwo Karen respectively correspond to132

Karen and surrounding languages

to occur between the first verb (V1) and the second verb (V2), whereas theseparated type does. These two types can be distinguished by the location of thenegative particle lə when the serial verb construction appears in a subordinate
clause. The negative marker occurs before V1 in the concatenated type, as in (33),
while it occurs before V2 in the separated type, as in (34).
(33)

jə lə
lì̱
xwè
bá
ʔəkhʊ́còɴ ...
1SG NEG V1:go
V2:buyNEG
because‘Because I did not go to buy (something), ...’

[Pwo Karen](34)jə ʔɔ́
ləmáʊbá
1SG V1:be NEG V2:comfortable NEG‘Because I am not healthy, ...’

[Pwo Karen]ʔəkhʊ́còɴ ...
because1.10.1 Concatenated typeIn a serial verb construction of the concatenated type, verbs are arranged
according to the order of time when the events denoted by the verbs occur. No
noun can appear between V1 and V2. Serial verb constructions of this type canbe grouped into four patterns in terms of the combination of intransitive andtransitive verbs, as is shown in (a) to (d) below. In each of the instances from (a)to (d), there are restrictions on “combination of volitionality” and “argument
sharing”.
(a) Intransitive + Intransitive → Intransitive
When V1 and V2 are both intransitive verbs, the entire serial verb
construction also functions like an intransitive verb. In this case, both V1 and V2
are volitional verbs. The subject arguments of the two verbs are shared, which
can be represented as S1=S2. (In this paper, S represents the single subject
argument of an intransitive verb, A the subject argument of a transitive verb, andO the object argument of a transitive verb. The numbers indicate V1 and V2.)This shared argument occurs as the subject of the whole serial verb construction.
(35)ʔəwê thàiɴ mîjàʊ
3SG return sleep PFV‘He went home and slept.’[Pwo Karen](b) Intransitive + Transitive → Transitive
When V1 is an intransitive verb and V2 is a transitive verb, the entire serialverb construction functions like a transitive verb. V1 and V2 are both volitionalverbs. The object argument of V2 occurs as the object of the whole construction.
The subject arguments of V1 and V2 are shared, which can be represented as

Aikhenvald and Dixon’s (2006) “contiguous serial verb construction” and “noncontiguous serial verb construction”. In Role and Reference Grammar’s (see Van Valinand LaPolla 1997) terms, the concatenated type corresponds to “nuclear juncture”, andthe separated type to “core juncture”.
133Atsuhiko Kato

S1=A2. This shared argument occurs as the subject of the whole serial verb
construction.
(36)

jə chînàɴ ʔɔ́khò ʔəwê
1SG sitwait
3SG‘I sat down and waited for him.’[Pwo Karen](c) Transitive + Transitive → Transitive
When V1 and V2 are both transitive verbs, the serial verb construction
functions like a transitive verb. V1 and V2 are both volitional verbs. The subject
arguments of V1 and V2 are shared, which can be represented as A1=A2. This
shared argument occurs as the subject of the whole serial verb construction. The
object arguments of the two verbs are usually shared, and the shared argument
occurs as the object of the whole construction as in (37) but may not always beshared, as in (38). The object argument of chɯ̂làɴ (V1) in (38) is jáʔɯ́thî, andthat of ʔáɴ (V2) is mì̱ . When the object arguments are not shared, as in this case,the object argument of V2 occurs as the object of the whole construction.
(37)ʔəwê ʔáɴphôɴʔáɴ mì̱
3SG cookeat
rice‘He cooked and ate rice.’[Pwo Karen](38)jə chɯ̂làɴ ʔáɴ mì̱ dējáʔɯ́thî
1SG put.in
eat rice with fish.sauce‘I put fish sauce in the rice and ate the rice.’[Pwo Karen]

It is noteworthy that the object noun in (37) cannot be placed between the two
verbs. Thus, (39) is ungrammatical:(39)*ʔəwê ʔáɴphôɴmì̱ʔáɴ
3SG cook
rice eat
Intended meaning: ‘He cooked and ate rice.’[Pwo Karen]

In Pwo Karen, a noun can occur between the two verbs only in the case of theseparated type of verb serialization, in which V2 denotes a result or possibility.
Solnit (1997: 56-57) points out that “Karenic languages show a preference for
immediate concatenation of verbs.” This is also true of Pwo Karen.
(d) Transitive + Intransitive → Transitive
When V1 is a transitive verb and V2 is an intransitive verb, the entire serialverb construction functions like a transitive verb. In this case, V1 is a volitionalverb, and V2 is a non-volitional verb. The object argument of V1 and the subject
argument of V2 are shared, which can be represented as O1=S2. This sharedargument occurs as the object of the whole serial verb construction, while thesubject argument of V1 occurs as the subject of the whole construction.

134

Karen and surrounding languages(40)jə dʊ́
θîthwí
1SG hitdie dog‘I hit the dog intending to kill it.’[Pwo Karen]

1.10.2 Separated type
In separate type serialization, the object noun of V1 can occur between V1
and V2. The separated type differs largely from the concatenated type in thisrespect. An adpositional phrase modifying V1 may also occur between the verbs.
There are restrictions on types of verbs and argument sharing in the separated
type, as shown in (i) and (ii) below:(i) V2 is always non-volitional, and it is usually intransitive. There is norestriction on volitionality and valency in V1.
(ii) Some arguments of V1 and V2 need to be shared, but there is norestriction on the combination of shared arguments; thus, S1=S2, A1=S2,
and O1=S2 are all possible.
Semantically, there are two cases in the separated type. One is the case inwhich V2 denotes an accidental result caused by the event denoted by V1. Thiscase is the same as the concatenated type in that the verbs are arranged according
to chronological order. However, unlike the concatenated type, the object of V1
can appear between V1 and V2, as can be seen in (41) through (43).
(41)

jə ʔáɴ mì̱blɛ̀
jàʊ
1SG eatrice full PFV‘I ate rice and got full.’ (S1=S2)[Pwo Karen]

(42)

mìjɔ̀
bá
kā
θî
[Pwo Karen]
cat
bump
car
die
‘A cat bumped into a car and died.’ (A1=S2)(43)jə dʊ́
thwí θîmèiɴ
[Pwo Karen]
1SG hitdog die naturally‘When I hit the dog, it died.’ (O1=S2)

The difference between (43) and (40) is noteworthy. These examples are thesame in that the argument sharing is O1=S2, but their meanings are quite different.
In (40), the death of the dog was intended by the agent of V1, whereas the deathof the dog was not intended but happened accidentally in (43).
The other is the case in which V2 denotes possibility, ability, or permission.
In this case, no chronological relationship is observed between the events
denoted by V1 and V2. See (44):(44)ʔəwê nâɴkāθí̱
3SG drive car can‘He can drive a car.’[Pwo Karen]

135

Atsuhiko Kato

1.10.3 Serial verb constructions in Sgaw Karen
Next, we will observe the Sgaw Karen serial verb constructions semanticallycorresponding to the Pwo Karen constructions that we have discussed above. For
more details on Sgaw Karen serial verb constructions, see Kato [加藤] (1992)
and Weinhold (2011). Jones (1961) also offers a description of Sgaw Karen verb
serialization.
First, we will examine the concatenated type. As is shown below, it ispossible to make semantically corresponding serial verb constructions to (35)through (38) and (40):(35’) ʔəwɛ́ kēmílí
3SG return sleep PFV‘He went home and slept.’[Sgaw Karen](36’) jə shênɔ̄ ʔɔ̂khɔ́ʔ ʔɔ̄
1SG sitwait
3SG‘I sat down and waited for him.’[Sgaw Karen](37’) ʔəwɛ́ phɔ́ʔɔ̂mē
3SG cook eat
rice‘He cooked and ate rice.’[Sgaw Karen](38’) jə shwílɔ̄ ʔɔ̂ mī̱ dɔ́ʔ ɲâʔɯ̂thí
1SG put.in
eat rice with fish.sauce‘I put fish sauce in the rice and ate the rice.’[Sgaw Karen](40’) jə tɔ̀θíthwî
1SG hitdie dog‘I hit the dog intending to kill it.’[Sgaw Karen]

As is the case of Pwo Karen, the object noun in (37’) cannot be placed between
V1 and V2. Thus, *ʔəwɛ́ phɔ́ mē ʔɔ̂ (3SG / cook / rice / eat) is ungrammatical.
In the case of the separated type, some of the semantically corresponding
serial verb constructions are acceptable, but some are unacceptable. As for (41),the corresponding construction (41’) is acceptable:(41’) jə ʔɔ̂mēblɛ́
1SG eatrice full‘I ate rice and got full.’lí[Sgaw Karen]

PFV

The construction (44’) corresponding to (44), which denotes ability, is also
acceptable:(44’) ʔəwɛ́ nɔ́káθé
3SG drive car can‘He can drive a car.’[Sgaw Karen]136

Karen and surrounding languages

Nevertheless, (42’) below, which corresponds to (42) above, is unacceptable. The
intended meaning must be expressed by using two separate clauses, as shown in(42’’):(42’)*θâmíɲɔ̄
bâtɛ̀ʔ
lə́ká
θí[Sgaw Karen]catbumpwith cardie
Intended meaning: ‘A cat bumped into a car and died.’(42’’) θâmíɲɔ̄bâtɛ̀ʔ
lə́
ká
dɔ́ʔ
cat
bump
with car and‘A cat bumped into a car and died.’θí
die[Sgaw Karen]

Similarly, (43’) below, which corresponds to (43) above, is unacceptable. The
intended meaning must be expressed by using two separate clauses, as shown in(43’’):(43’) *jətɔ̀thwî θíwɛ́
1 SG hitdog
die EMP
Intended meaning: ‘When I hit the dog, it died.’[Sgaw Karen](43’’) jətɔ̀thwî dɔ́ʔʔə
1SG hitdog
and
3SG‘When I hit the dog, it died.’[Sgaw Karen]

θí
die

wɛ́

EMP

It may follow from these that in Sgaw Karen, unlike in Pwo Karen, accidental
results, as expressed in (42) and (43), cannot be expressed with a serial verb
construction.
1.11 Comparison with Burmese, Mon, and Thai
At least three languages can be listed among those with which Pwo Karenand Sgaw Karen have most frequent contact in Myanmar and Thailand today:
Burmese, Mon, and Thai. I have attempted to compare the characteristics of theword order of Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, which we have seen above, withthose of Burmese, Mon, and Thai. Table 1 summarizes the results. In this table,
Pwo Karen is taken as the criterion of comparison, and when each language
shows the same order as Pwo Karen, it is represented by a gray background.
Judgments of Burmese and Thai are based on the author’s knowledge of theselanguages. As for Mon, judgments are made referring to the description of Jenny(2014) and the author’s own data.

137

Atsuhiko Kato

Table 1: Comparison of word order between Burmese, Pwo Karen, Sgaw
Karen, Mon, and Thai
BurmesePwo Karen
Sgaw Karen Mon
Thai
1 SOV
SVO
SVO
SVO
SVO
2 house + at
at + houseat + houseat + houseat + house
3 fish + big + fish + big
fish + big
fish + big
fish + big
big
big + fish
4 fish + three fish + threefish + three fish + three fish + three
+ NC
+ NC
+ NC
+ NC
5 this + fish
fish + thisfish + thisfish + thisfish + this
6 teacher +teacher +teacher +house +
house +
house
house
house
teacherteacher
7 RC +NOUN + RC NOUN +NOUN +NOUN + RC
NOUN
RC
RC
8 RC +RC + NOUN NOUN +NOUN +NOUN + RC
NOUN
RC
RC
9 fast + eat
eat + fast
eat + fast
eat + fast
eat + fast
10 go + Q
go + Qgo + Qgo + Qgo + Q
11 what + eat + eat + what + eat + what + eat + what + eat + what
Q
Q
Q
Q
12 not1 + come come + not
not1 + come not + comenot + come+ not2+not2
13 not + comenot1 + come not1 + come not + comenot + come+ not2+ not214 yes (without yesyesyes (without noType (d))
Type (d))
15 no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Number 1 concerns basic word order. S, V, and O represent Subject, Verb,
and Object.
Number 2 concerns the order of noun and adposition. The noun isrepresented by “house” and the adposition is represented by “at” for ease ofunderstanding.
Number 3 concerns the order of noun and stative verb (adjective). The noun
is represented by “fish”, and the stative verb is represented by “big”. In Burmese,the meaning ‘big fish’ is expressed by using ŋá cíjí or cí=dɛ̂ ŋá. The word cíjí isa reduplicated form of cí ‘big’, and cí=dɛ̂ is the verb cí cliticized with theadnominal marker =tɛ̂/=dɛ̂. In Table 1, the pattern of ŋá cíjí is represented by“fish + big + big”, and the pattern of cí=dɛ̂ ŋá is represented by “big + fish”.
Although the former is like Pwo Karen in that the stative verb occurs after thenoun, reduplication is employed in Burmese, and a reduplicated form of a verb
can be considered a kind of noun (for this discussion, see Kato 2013). Thus, I
judged that the pattern of Burmese differs from Pwo Karen. Note that Burmese

138

Karen and surrounding languages

also has the expression ŋá-jí ‘big fish’,5 but we can consider this a compoundnoun consisting of ŋá and cí.
Number 4 concerns the order of noun and numeral. The noun is represented
by “fish”, and the numeral is represented by “three”. NC represents a numeralclassifier. To the exclusion of Mon, when a numeral modifies the noun, anumeral classifier is required.
Number 5 concerns the order of noun and demonstrative. The noun isrepresented by “fish”, and the demonstrative is represented by “this”.
Number 6 concerns the order of possessor noun and possessed noun. The
former is represented by “teacher” and the latter is represented by “house”.
Numbers 7 and 8 concern the order of noun and relative clause. The headnoun is represented by “NOUN”, and the relative clause is represented by “RC”.
Number 7 is a case in which the subject is relativized, and Number 8 is a case inwhich a non-subject noun is relativized. As discussed in 1.5, since Pwo Karen
uses different orders in the cases of subject and non-subject, we must divide thecases in this way.
Number 9 concerns the order of verb and adverb. The verb is represented by“eat” and the adverb is represented by “fast”.
Number 10 concerns the position of the polar question marker as related to
the verb. The question marker is represented by Q, and the verb is represented by“go”. In all the languages concerned, the question marker occurs in the sentencefinal position.
Number 11 concerns the position of content question marker as related to theverb. The question marker is represented by Q, the verb is represented by “eat”,
and the interrogative word is represented by “what”. All the languages except
Thai place the question marker in the sentence-final position. Thus, it can beconcluded that Thai alone differs from the other languages.
Number 12 concerns the order of verb and negative marker in the mainclause. The verb is represented by “come” and the negative marker is represented
by “not”. In Burmese and Sgaw Karen, two negative markers appear before theverb and clause-finally. Thus, the former is represented by “not1” and the latter isrepresented by “not2”.
Number 13 concerns the order of verb and negative marker in thesubordinate clause. The verb is represented by “come” and the negative marker isrepresented by “not”. In Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, two negative markers
appear before the verb and clause-finally. Thus, the former is represented by“not1” and the latter is represented by “not2”.
Number 14 concerns whether the languages have the concatenated type ofverb serialization. In Thai, in a serial verb construction like hǔŋ kin (cook / eat),the object of V1 can always appear between the verbs as in hǔŋ khâaw kin (cook/ rice / eat), thus it can be concluded that Thai does not have the concatenatedtype of serialization. As mentioned in 1.10.1 and 1.10.3, the serial verb
construction like Thai hǔŋ khâaw kin is ungrammatical in Pwo and Sgaw.
5

Burmese also has the expressions ŋá ʔă-cí and ŋá ʔă-cí-jí. ʔă- in both expressions is anominalizing prefix, and -jí in the latter is an augmentative that comes from the stative
verb cí.
139

Atsuhiko Kato

Burmese and Mon have concatenated type verb serialization.6 However, they do
not have the verb serialization of Type (d) shown in 1.10.1 (the pattern of O1=S2).
Therefore, they are noted as “without Type (d)”.
Number 15 concerns whether the languages have the separated type of verb
serialization. The separated type of verb serialization is a construction in which anoun can occur between V1 and V2. Burmese does not have this kind ofserialization. In Pwo Karen, serialization of this type is possible when V2 denotesa result or possibility/ability/permission, and in Sgaw Karen, this type is possible
when V2 denotes possibility/ability/permission. In Mon, this type is also possible,
at least when V2 denotes possibility/ability/permission. Thus, “no” is placed in
the Burmese column only.
Although we have seen the order of verb and auxiliary in 1.7, since the orderof verb and auxiliary varies in both Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, I excluded itfrom the table.
Looking at Table 1 allows us to conclude that when we compare Karen with
Burmese, Mon, and Thai in terms of word order, Mon is the most like Karen.
Nevertheless, none of these languages decisively resembles Pwo Karen or Sgaw
Karen. Therefore, from the viewpoint of word order, it is difficult to conjecture
which language has had most impact on Karen, if any.

2. Loanwords

Here, we will delve further into the relationships between Karen and its
surrounding languages in terms of the loanwords existing in Pwo Karen and
Sgaw Karen. It is possible to judge whether the borrowing of a certain word
occurred prior to the split of Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, or prior to the split ofEastern Pwo Karen and Western Pwo Karen.
Table 2 shows how the Proto-Karen tones (represented as 1,2,2’,3) 7
reconstructed by Haudricourt (1946, 1975) have changed in Pwo Karen (the Hpaan dialect) and Sgaw Karen (the Hpa-an dialect). B, M, and H represent initialconsonant groups of Proto-Karen. Roughly speaking, B is the group of voiced
consonants, M is the group of voiceless non-aspirated stops, and H is the groupof voiceless aspirated stops and voiceless fricatives and sonorants. The ProtoKaren tones split in this way according to the types of initial consonants. The
tonal split in Karen resembles that of the Tai languages in that tones split
according to three types of initial consonants. For the details of Haudricourt’s

6

According to Michihiro Wada (p.c.), an anthropologist who has been working on Mon
both in Myanmar and Thailand, Mon speakers on the Myanmar side arrange the words as“cook + eat + rice” when they want to say ‘cook and eat rice’, while Mon speakers on theThai side arrange the words as “cook + rice + eat”. Therefore, Mon on the Thai side is not
likely to have concatenated type serialization. Table 1 treats Mon on the Myanmar side
because Myanmar is the main place where Karen and Mon have had extensive contact.
7
Luangthongkum (2013, 2019) claims that Haudricourt’s (1975) reconstruction of Tone
2’ is unnecessary. However, as I discussed in Kato (2018), reconstructing Tone 2’ canwell explain the tonal changes that occurred in the transition from Proto-Karen to modern
Karen languages.
140

Karen and surrounding languages

reconstruction of Proto-Karen tones, see Kato (2018) (for the tonal split of theTai languages, see Li 1977).
Table 2: Proto-Karen tones and the tones of Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen
1 (plain)2 (plain)2’ (plain)
3 (checked)
Pwo /à/[11] : Pwo /ā/[33] :Pwo /á/[55] :B
Sgaw /ā/[33]Sgaw /à/[11]Sgaw /àʔ/[11]Pwo /à/[11] : Pwo /á/[55] : Pwo /á/[55] : Pwo /à/[11] :MSgaw /á/[55]Sgaw /â/[51]Sgaw /á/[55]Sgaw /áʔ/[44]Pwo /â/[51] : Pwo /á/[55] : Pwo /á/[55] : Pwo /à/[11] :H
Sgaw /á/[55]Sgaw /â/[51]Sgaw /á/[55]Sgaw /áʔ/[44]When Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen have loanwords from another languagethat are possibly cognate, if their tones match the correspondence pattern inTable 2, those loanwords can be considered to have been borrowed before thesplit of Pwo and Sgaw. On the contrary, if they do not match this pattern, they
were probably borrowed after the split of Pwo and Sgaw.
Furthermore, let us examine Table 3, which shows how Eastern Pwo Karen(abbreviated as “EP”) and Western Pwo Karen (abbreviated as “WP”) tones
correspond to each other. Eastern Pwo Karen is spoken in Karen State, Mon State,
Tanintharyi Region, and western Thailand, and Western Pwo Karen is spoken
around the Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) Delta. In this paper, we use the forms of the
Hpa-an dialect for Eastern Pwo Karen and those of the Kyonbyaw (Kyonpyaw)
dialect for Western Pwo Karen. When Eastern Pwo Karen and Western Pwo
Karen have loanwords from another language that are possibly cognate, if theirtones match the correspondence pattern in Table 3, those loanwords can beconsidered to have been borrowed before the split of Eastern Pwo Karen andWestern Pwo Karen. On the contrary, if they do not match this pattern, they were
probably borrowed after the split of Eastern Pwo and Western Pwo.
Table 3: Tonal correspondence pattern of Eastern Pwo Karen andWestern Pwo Karen
1 (plain)2 (plain)2’ (plain)
3 (checked)
EP /à/[11] : EP /ā/[33] :EP /á/[55] :B
WP /á/[55]WP /â/[51]WP /aʔ/[51ʔ]
EP /à/[11] : EP /á/[55] : EP /á/[55] : EP /à/[11] :M
WP /á/[55]WP /à/[11]WP /à/[11]WP /aʔ/[51ʔ]
EP /â/[51] : EP /á/[55] : EP /á/[55] : EP /à/[11] :H
WP /à/[11]WP /à/[11]WP /à/[11]WP /aʔ/[51ʔ]
If loanwords that are possibly cognate among Eastern Pwo, Western Pwo,
and Sgaw do not match either the patterns of Tables 2 or 3, those loanwords canbe considered to have been borrowed separately into each of the three languages.
Based on the method explained by Gudschinsky (1956) using Swadesh’s 200
word list, I estimated that the split of Eastern and Western Pwo Karen occurred141

Atsuhiko Katoin the 17th century (Kato [加藤] 1999). Using the same method, the split of Pwo
Karen and Sgaw Karen is estimated to have taken place in the 11th century.
The data from the three languages that were used here were collected in thecourse of my fieldwork.
2.1 Cases in which Eastern Pwo, Western Pwo, and Sgaw show regularcorrespondences
Listed below are loanwords that show regular correspondences among
Eastern Pwo Karen, Western Pwo Karen, and Sgaw Karen. EP, WP, and S standfor Eastern Pwo, Western Pwo, and Sgaw, respectively. Shown after the mark“¶” are modern forms of possible source languages. The Modern Mon forms arefrom Sakamoto [坂本] (1994), and after them Shorto’s (1962) literary forms areshown in angle brackets “< >”. After the Modern Burmese forms, whosetranscription follows Kato [加藤] (2019b), the so-called Written Burmese forms
are also shown in angle brackets.
EP pàiɴtərâɴ WP təràɴ S pɛ́trɔ́ ‘window, door’ ¶ Mon taʔraŋ, paɲtaʔraŋ<pāṅtaraṅ>
EP təlâ WP təlà S təlá ‘box’ ¶ Mon kaʔla <kalā>EP thóʊɴ WP thòuɴ S thə̂ ‘bag’ ¶ Mon thaəŋ <thuiṅ>, Thai thǔŋ, Shanthǒŋ
EP pəlâɴ WP pəlàɴ S pəlɔ́ ‘bottle’ ¶ Mon paʔlaŋ <palaṅ>, Burmese palíɴ<pu lang:>
EP càkhɔ̂ WP saʔkhàu S sáʔkhó ‘paper’ ¶ Mon cakkhau <cakkho>
EP phjâ WP phjà S phjá ‘market’ ¶ Mon phya <phyā>EP kəbàɴ WP kəɓáɴ S kəbɔ́ ‘ship’ ¶ Mon kaʔbaŋ <kḅaṅ>EP θənî̱ WP θənè S θəné ‘harbor, landing place’ ¶ Mon hneh <sneh>
EP lái WP leiʔ S lìʔ ‘script’ ¶ Mon lə̀c <lik>EP pərə̂ɴ WP pərə̀ S pərə́ ‘news’ ¶ Mon paʔraəŋ <paruiṅ>EP tàʊ WP tɯʔ S tə́ʔ ‘building’ ¶ Mon taək <tuik>, Burmese taiʔ <tuik>
EP təwâɴ WP təwàɴ S θəwɔ́ ‘village’ ¶ Mon kwan <twān>
EP kəmâ WP kəmà S kəmá ‘pond’ ¶ Mon kaʔma <kamā>EP pədɛ̀ WP pəɗɛ́ S pədɛ́ ‘rabbit’ ¶ Mon haʔtai <batāy>
EP phlɔ̀ WP phláu S xɔ̄ ‘coconut tree’ ¶ Mon prɛ̀ə <brau>
EP báɴ WP ɓàɴ S bɔ̂ ‘bamboo shoot’ ¶ Mon baŋ <ḅaṅ>EP kəlɨ̀ WP krɨʔ S krə́ʔ ‘be suitable’ ¶ Mon kraək <krak>
EP pətháʊ WP pəthəɯʔ S pətɯ̀ʔ ‘to stop’ ¶ Mon tə̀ʔ, pətə̀ʔ <padui’>EP thōʊɴ WP thôuɴ S tù ‘to bear, endure’ ¶ Mon tə̀ŋ <duṅ>EP klɨ̀cɨ̀ WP kleʔsɨʔ S klɛ́ʔsə́ʔ ‘to endeavor’ ¶ Mon klɛʔ cɒt <kle’ cuit>
Only borrowings from Mon show regular correspondences among the threelanguages. The words meaning ‘bottle’ and ‘building’ also resemble the Burmese
form; however, considering that most of the other borrowings are from Mon, they
are likely not to be borrowings from Burmese. Similarly, although the words
meaning ‘bag’ also resemble the Thai and Shan forms, they are likely not fromThai or Shan. The forms listed above can be presumed to be old loanwords thatwere borrowed before the split of Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen.
142

Karen and surrounding languages

2.2 Cases in which Western Pwo and Sgaw show regularcorrespondences
In the correspondence shown below, only Western Pwo Karen and Sgaw
Karen have a regular correspondence. The Eastern Pwo Karen form is bracketedbecause it is not cognate with the other forms.
(EP mâchəmài) WP pàɴlɛ̀ S pɔ̂lɛ̂ ‘sea’ ¶ Burmese pìɴlɛ̀ <pang lay>
Usually, loanwords showing regular correspondences between Western Pwo and
Sgaw also show regular correspondences with Eastern Pwo Karen, as is the casefor the forms listed in 2.1. However, the Eastern Pwo Karen form meaning ‘sea’is mâchəmài, and this is related to the Mon hmahmac, saʔmasaʔmac <mhāsamit>. The author believes that this situation can be explained as follows: theforms WP pàɴlɛ̀ and S pɔ̂lɛ̂ can be traced back to a loanword that was borrowed
from Burmese before the split of Pwo and Sgaw, but Eastern Pwo Karen replaced
this word of Burmese origin with a borrowed word from Mon.
2.3 Cases in which Eastern Pwo and Sgaw show regularcorrespondences
Below are loanwords that show regular correspondences between Eastern
Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen. The Western Pwo Karen forms are bracketedbecause they are not cognate with the forms of the other languages. The Western
Pwo Karen forms meaning ‘island’ and ‘toddy palm’ are probably related to the
Burmese forms cúɴ (WB <kywan:>, Inscription Burmese <klywan:>) and tháɴ(Written Burmese <than:>), respectively.
EP kò (WP klóuɴ) S kɔ́ʔ ‘island’ ¶ Mon kɔʔ <tka’>EP tà (WP thàɴ) S tá ‘toddy palm’ ¶ Mon ta <tā>Usually, loanwords showing regular correspondences between Eastern Pwo and
Sgaw also show regular correspondences with Western Pwo, as is the case for theforms listed in 2.1. In each case of the two correspondences above, the Eastern
Pwo and Sgaw forms can probably be traced back to a loanword that wasborrowed before the split of Pwo and Sgaw, but in Western Pwo Karen, thecognate loanword of Mon origin was replaced with a Burmese loanword later.
The Eastern Pwo and Sgaw forms meaning ‘island’ also resemble the Thai wordkɔ̀ʔ ‘island’, but it seems reasonable to suppose that they come from Mon
because older loanwords are of Mon origin in many cases.
2.4 Cases in which Eastern Pwo and Western Pwo show regularcorrespondences
Below are loanwords that show regular correspondences between Eastern
Pwo Karen and Western Pwo Karen. These forms can be considered loanwords
that were borrowed sometime during the period between the split of Pwo and
Sgaw and that of Eastern and Western Pwo.

143

Atsuhiko Kato

EP tə̀ɴ WP tə́ (S tə̀) ‘pillar’ ¶ Mon taəŋ <tuiṅ>, Burmese tàiɴ <tuing>
EP chərâ WP shərà (S θərâ) ‘teacher’ ¶ Burmese shăyà <cha raa>
EP pɔ̄ WP phɔ̂ (S pháʔ) ‘to read’ ¶ Mon pòh <bah>, Burmese phaʔ
<phat>
The forms meaning ‘pillar’ can be of either Mon or Burmese origin.
Although the Sgaw Karen form tə̀ is like the Eastern and Western Pwo forms, we
can conclude that it was borrowed separately into Sgaw Karen because it does
not have a regular correspondence with the other forms.
The forms meaning ‘teacher’ in the three languages are probably borrowed
from Burmese. However, since the Sgaw Karen form θərâ does not show aregular correspondence with Eastern and Western Pwo, we can conclude that it
was also borrowed separately into Sgaw Karen. The initial consonant of the firstsyllable θ does not usually correspond to EP ch or WP sh. This fact can also be
considered evidence to support the conclusion that it is a separate borrowing.
The Eastern Pwo Karen and Western Pwo Karen forms meaning ‘to read’ areboth borrowings from Mon. Aspiration of the initial consonant of the Western
Pwo form can be ascribed to the influence of the Burmese form. The Sgaw Karenform is a borrowing from Burmese.
2.5 Cases in which no regular correspondence is found
Here, we will examine the cases in which no regular correspondence is foundamong loanwords in the three languages. It can be concluded that they wereborrowed separately into each language.
Below are cases in which the form of a single language is a borrowing fromMon or Burmese. The forms without brackets are loanwords, and the bracketed
forms are native Karen words.
EP lé (WP nòkhɯ̀) (S nɔ̂ké) ‘stick’ ¶ Mon lèʔ <le’>(EP châiɴ) WP pəlouʔ (S shé) ‘shirt’ ¶ Mon paʔlɒʔ <palo’>EP páichâɴ (WP sé) (S sé) ‘money’ ¶ Burmese paiʔshàɴ <puik chaM>
EP pətì (WP meʔ) (S mɛ́ʔ) ‘sand’ ¶ Mon haʔtɒi <batī, btī>EP kəlôʊɴ (WP shəmá) (S tàmā) ‘work, job’ ¶ Mon kəlon <klon>
EP θənà (WP ɗɯ̀ɗá) (S dɯ̂dá) ‘enemy’ ¶ Mon hnaʔ <sna>
EP plài (WP má pháuɴphleʔ) (S mā pūphlɛ́ʔ) ‘to save’ ¶ Mon prac<prāk>EP pɔ̀ (WP θì) (S θí) ‘(A monk) dies’ ¶ Mon pɔ <paw>
EP kəɲà (WP ɣài) (S hɛ́) ‘(A monk) comes’ ¶ Mon ɲaʔ <kña>
As can be seen from these, only Eastern Pwo Karen often has a borrowing fromMon. This reflects the fact that their areas of settlement are near those of the Mon
today.
In the next sample, the Eastern Pwo Karen form is a borrowing from Thai,and the Western Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen forms are borrowings from
Burmese. It can be concluded that the Western Pwo and Sgaw forms wereborrowed from Burmese separately into each language because their tones do notshow a regular correspondence.
144

Karen and surrounding languages

EP ləkōɴ WP pjaʔzaʔ S pjāzā ‘drama, play’ ¶ Thai laʔkhɔɔn, Burmese
pyâzaʔ <pra jaat>
The samples shown below are all borrowings from Burmese. Despite the factthat the forms of all three languages are borrowings from the same Burmese
words, no two of them show a regular correspondence. Thus, each of these forms
was borrowed into each language separately.
EP cəpwɛ̄ WP səpwɛ́ S səpwɛ́ ‘desk, table’ ¶ Burmese zəbwɛ́ <caa: pwai>
EP cɛ́ WP sɛʔ S sɛ́ʔ ‘machine’ ¶ Burmese sɛʔ <cak>
EP pēiɴ WP ɓéiɴ S bé ‘wheel’ ¶ Burmese béiɴ <bhii:>EP θó WP θó S θó ‘sheep’ ¶ Burmese t̪ ó <sui:>
The words shown below are English loanwords, but it is highly possible thatthey were borrowed via Burmese. In this case as well, no two of the languages
show a regular correspondence.
EP kā WP ká S ká ‘car’ ¶ English car, Burmese ká <kaa:>
There are many loanwords that do not show a regular correspondence
between any two of Eastern Pwo, Western Pwo, and Sgaw. Besides theloanwords listed above, there are many more. They include many loanwords thathave been borrowed very recently. Today, on the Myanmar side, both Pwo Karenand Sgaw Karen have many Burmese loanwords; likewise, on the Thai side, bothlanguages have many Thai loanwords. Such words never show a regular tonalcorrespondence.
2.6 What can be inferred from loanwords
Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen have many loanwords that were borrowed fromMon before the time when Pwo Karen and Sgaw split. Therefore, we canpresume that the language contact between Karen and Mon happened at a very
early stage, before the split of Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen.
The time when Karen began to have contact with the Burmese language ismuch more recent by comparison with Mon because the borrowing words from
Burmese do not show a regular tonal correspondence between any two of the
Karen languages, with the exception of the words meaning ‘sea’. Today, Pwo
Karen and Sgaw Karen both have extensive contact with Burmese. However, theextensive contact of Pwo Karen with Burmese happened only after the split ofEastern and Western Pwo Karen. Considering that the Pwo Karen and Sgaw
Karen generally live in proximity to each other, it can be assumed that theextensive contact of Sgaw Karen with Burmese also happened after the split ofEastern and Western Pwo Karen.
Traces of contact with Tai languages, including Thai and Shan are not foundoften, at least in Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen on the Myanmar side. Eastern Pwo
Karen has a few Thai loanwords, but they are very recent additions. Therefore,

145

Atsuhiko Kato

based on what we have observed in Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen, we can say that
their contact with Tai languages is very new, as is also the case with Burmese.
In this study the dates of borrowing are estimated on the basis of tonalcorrespondences only; however, if we also took correspondences of consonants
and vowels into consideration, we could arrive at more accurate judgments,
although the regularly corresponding forms discussed above also seem to show
regular correspondences of consonants and vowels.
3. Conclusion
It is difficult to determine what sorts of contact Karen has had withsurrounding languages by examining word order. However, from the viewpointof loanwords, it is possible to presume that Karen had contact with Mon at a very
early stage. Its contact with Burmese or Tai languages is relatively recent.
Nevertheless, we cannot conclude from this that Proto-Karen changed its SOVtype word order into SVO due to contact with Mon. Out of the Karen languages
that I have researched, Geba, for example, seems to have fewer Mon loanwords
than Pwo Karen or Sgaw Karen. Thus, although it is certain that Mon had an
influence on the immediate ancestor of Pwo and Sgaw, we cannot say that it had
an influence on Proto-Karen, the language of an earlier generation. Manson(2009) suggests contact with Palaungic, stating the following8:
The source of these Mon-Khmer loans has usually been assigned to Mon,
which is spoken in the southern region of modern-day Burma. However, acomparison of the list in Luce (1985 “Chart E”) with Shorto’s Mon-Khmer
reconstruction shows a greater connection with the Palaungic branch of
Mon-Khmer rather than the Mon branch.
Therefore, we must also survey elements originating from Palaungic in the
Karenic languages in the future study.9
Abbreviations
1 = first person; 2 = second person; 3 = third person; A = subject argument of atransitive verb; EMP = emphasis; EP = Eastern Pwo Karen; IRR = irrealis; LOC= particle denoting Location, Source, and Goal; NC = numeral classifier; NEG =negation; O = object argument of a transitive verb; PFV = perfective; PL =plural; Q = question marker; RC = relative clause; S = subject argument of an
intransitive verb or Sgaw Karen; SG = singular; Vpt = verb particle; WB =Written Burmese; WP = Western Pwo Karen.

8

In Manson’s words quoted here, “Shorto’s Mon-Khmer reconstruction” probably refers
to the reconstruction of Shorto (2006).
9
Luce’s (1985) Charts E, F, G, H, I, J show a comparative vocabulary of Karenic
languages and are highly worthy of being examined. Looking into Yamada’s (2008)
descriptive grammar of Wa, a palaungic language, gives the impression that Wa is quite
different from Karen in morphosyntax, including its VSO word order.
146

Karen and surrounding languages

Acknowledgments
I wish to express my deep gratitude to following language consultants: Saw Hla
Chit (Eastern Pwo Karen), Nant Dahlia Win (Western Pwo Karen), Thara Phu
Tah Moo (Sgaw Karen), and Saw Ben Htoo (Sgaw Karen). I would also like tothank Michihiro Wada, who is an anthropologist specializing in Mon, for giving
me information about the grammar of Mon. Thanks are also due to NorihikoHayashi, Yoshihisa Taguchi, and James Chamberlain for their helpful
suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra.Y. & Dixon R.M.W. (eds.) 2006. Serial Verb
Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. New York: 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,
pp. 21-31. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Dawkins, Erin & Audra Phillips 2009a. A Sociolinguistic Survey of Pwo Karenin Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai: Linguistic Department, Payap
University.
---------- 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, pp. 454-457. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Enfield, N. J. 2019. Mainland Southeast Asian Languages: A Concise
Typological Introduction. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1956. The ABC’s of lexicostatistics (glottochronology).
WORD 12.2: 175-210.
Haudricourt, André-G. 1946. Restitution du karen commun. Bulletin de laSociété de Linguistique de Paris 42.1:103-11.
---------- 1953. A propos de la restitution du karen commun. Bulletin de laSociété de Linguistique de Paris 49.1:129-32.
---------- 1975. Le système des tons du karen commun. Bulletin de la Société deLinguistique de Paris 70.1:339-43.
Jenny, Mathias 2014. Modern Mon. (In) Mathias Jenny & Paul Sidwell (eds.)
The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages Vol. 1, pp. 553-600.
Leiden/Boston: Brill.
147

Atsuhiko Kato

Jones, Robert B. 1961. Karen Linguistic Studies. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Kato, Atsuhiko [加藤昌彦] 1992. Sugoo-Karengo no Dousirenzoku.「スゴー・
カレン語の動詞連続」『アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究』
45:177-204.
---------- [加藤昌彦] 1998. Poo-Karengo no Dousirenzoku niokeru Shudousi
nituite.「ポー・カレン語の動詞連続における主動詞について」『言語研究』 113:31-61.
---------- [加藤昌彦] 1999. Karenzoku ha Hontouni Syokumintizidai ni Yama
wo Oritanoka?「カレン族は本当に植民地時代に山を下りたのか？」Paper read at the research meeting titled “東南アジアにおける人の移動と文化の創造”, Research Institute for Languages andCultures of Asia and Africa.
---------- [加藤昌彦] 2001. Poo-Karengo (Toubu Hougen) no Kankeisetu.「ポー・カレン語 ( 東部方言 ) の関係節」『東京大学言語学論集』
20:275-300.
---------- [加藤昌彦] 2002. Biruma niokeru Toubu oyobi Seibu Poo-Karengo no
Taisyoukisogoi.「ビルマにおける東部および西部ポー・カレン語の対照基礎語彙」『東京外大 東南アジア学』7: 212-249---------- [加藤昌彦] 2004. Poo-Karengo Bunpou.「ポー・カレン語文法」東京大学博士論文.
---------- [ 加 藤 昌 彦 ] 2008. Poo-Karengo ni Keiyousi toiu Hantyuu ha
Hituyouka?「ポー・カレン語に形容詞という範疇は必要か？」『アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学』3: 77-95.
---------- 2009. A basic vocabulary of Htoklibang Pwo Karen with Hpa-an,
Kyonbyaw, and Proto-Pwo Karen forms. Asian and African Languages
and Linguistics 4:169-218.
---------- 2013. Mermaid construction in Burmese. (In) Tasaku Tsunoda (ed.)
Adnominal
Clausesandthe‘Mermaid
Construction’:Grammaticalization of Nouns (NINJAL Collaborative Research Project
Reports 13-01), pp. 419-463. Tokyo: National Institute for Japanese
Language and Linguistics.
---------- 加藤昌彦] 2016. Myanmaa no Syominzoku to Syogengo.「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.
---------- 2017. Pwo Karen. (In) Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.) The
Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2nd Edition, pp. 942-958. London and New
York: Routledge.
---------- 2018. How did Haudricourt reconstruct Proto-Karen tones? Reports of
the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 49: 21-44.

148

Karen and surrounding languages---------- 2019a. Pwo Karen. (In) Alice Vittrant & Justin Watkins (eds.) The
Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area, pp. 131-175. De Gruyter
Mouton.
---------- [加藤昌彦] 2019b. Nyuu Ekusupuresu Purasu Birumago.『ニューエクスプレスプラス ビルマ語』Tokyo: Hakusuisha.
Li, Fang-Kuei 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Thai. Honolulu: The
University Press of Hawaii.
Luangthongkum, Theraphan 2013. Problems of the B’ tone in Proto-Karen (PK).
Paper presented at SEALS 23, Bangkok.
---------- 2019. A view on Proto-Karen phonology and lexicon. Journal of theSoutheast Asian Linguistics Society 12.1: i-lii.
Luce, Gordon H. 1985. Phases of pre-Pagan Burma: Languages and History.
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Manson, Ken 2002. Karenic Language Relationships: A Lexical andPhonological Analysis. Chiang Mai: Department of Linguistics, Payap
University.
---------- 2009. Prolegomena to reconstructing Proto-Karen. LaTrobe Working
Papers in Linguistics 12.
---------- 2010. A Grammar of Kayan, a Tibeto-Burman Language. Ph.D.
dissertation at La Trobe University.
---------- 2017a. The characteristics of the Karen branch of Tibeto-Burman. (In)
Picus Sizhi Ding & Jamin Pelkey (eds.) Sociohistorical Linguistics inSoutheast Asia: New Horizons for Tibeto-Burman Studies in Honor ofDavid Bradley, pp. 149–168. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
---------- 2017b. From right to wrong: negation in the Karen languages. Paper
read at the meeting of Australian Linguistic Society.
Matisoff, James A. 2000. On the uselessness of glottochronology for the
subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. (In) Colin Renfrew, April McMahon,& Larry Trask (eds.) Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, pp. 333-71.
Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
---------- 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley, Los Angeles andLondon: University of California Press.
Phillips, Audra 2000. West-Central Thailand Pwo Karen phonology. 33rd
ICSTLL Papers, pp. 99-110. Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University.
---------- 2017. Entities and the Expression of Grounding and Referential
Coherence in Northern Pwo Karen Narrative Discourse. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Alberta.
Sakamoto, Yasuyuki [坂本恭章] 1994. Mongo Ziten.『モン語辞典』東京: 東京外国語大学アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究所.
Shintani, Tadahiko 2003. Classification of Brakaloungic (Karenic) languages inrelation 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.

149

Atsuhiko Kato

37-54. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia
and Africa.
Shorto, H. L. 1962. A Dictionary of Modern Spoken Mon. London: Oxford
University Press.
---------- 2006. A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary. (Main editor: Paul
Sidwell; Assisting editors: Doug Cooper and Christian Bauer)
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Solnit, David 1997. Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, Texts, Glossary. Honolulu:
University of Hawai`i Press.
---------- 2006. Verb serialization in Eastern Kayah Li. (In) Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.) Serial Verb Constructions: A
Cross-Linguistic Typology, pp. 144-159. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swanson, Kirstie 2011. Serial verb constructions in Bwe Karen. M.A. thesis,
Payap University.
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning& Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinhold, Meredith Lucey 2011. Serial verb constructions in Sgaw Karen: acomparison of Karenic VP structures. (In) Marc Brunelle (ed.) Sgaw
Karen Papers, Presented to Nimrod Andrew, pp. 76-84. Ottawa:
University of Ottawa.
Yamada, Atsushi [山田敦士] 2008. Parauku-Wago Kizyutu Bunpou.『パラウク・ワ語記述文法』北海道大学博士論文.

150