Studies in Asian and African
Geolinguistics
I

ILCAA Joint Research Project 2020 - 2022 ‘Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics’
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics I“Stop series”
Report of ILCAA Joint Research Project 2020–2022“Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics”
First published 2021
Edited by Hiroyuki Suzuki & Mitsuaki Endo
Copyright © 2021 Individual Contributors

ISBN 978-4-86337-356-3
This is an electronic publication in PDF format.
This publication is offered under Creative Commons International License
Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Published by
Research Institute for
Languages and Cultures ofAsia and Africa (ILCAA)
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
3-11-1, Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi,
183-8534, Tokyo, JAPANhttps://publication.aa-ken.jp/

Table of Contents

ENDO Mitsuaki, Goals of the Project “Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics”
2020-2022 ............................................................................................................................. 1
Featured topic ............................................................................................................................. 5
Subgrouping of the target languages
Subgrouping of Paleoasian languages .......................................................................................... 6
Subgrouping of Japonic ................................................................................................................ 7
Subgrouping of Sinitic .................................................................................................................. 8
Subgrouping of Hmong-Mien ...................................................................................................... 9
Subgrouping of Kra-Dai ............................................................................................................. 10
Subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman .................................................................................................. 11
Subgrouping of Austroasiatic ..................................................................................................... 12
Subgrouping of Austronesian ..................................................................................................... 13
Subgrouping of Tungusic ........................................................................................................... 14
Subgrouping of Uralic ................................................................................................................ 15
Subgrouping of Mongolic and Turkic ........................................................................................ 16
Subgroupings of Indo-Aryan, Nuristani, Andamanese, and language isolates in South Asia .... 17
Subgrouping of Dravidian .......................................................................................................... 18
Subgrouping of Armenian and Iranian ....................................................................................... 19
Subgrouping of Semitic .............................................................................................................. 20
Subgrouping of Nilo-Saharan ..................................................................................................... 21
Subgrouping of Niger-Congo ..................................................................................................... 22
Subgrouping of languages in the Kalahari Basin Area ............................................................... 23
Stop series in Asian and African languages
SUZUKI Hiroyuki, Stop series in Asian and African languages ............................................... 24
ONO Chikako, Stop series in Paleoasian .................................................................................. 28
FUKAZAWA Mika, Stop series in Ainu ..................................................................................... 29
NAKAZAWA Kohei and YOKOYAMA Akiko, Stop series in Japonic .................................... 30
FUKUI Rei, Stop series in Korean ............................................................................................. 32
YAGI Kenji, Stop series in Sinitic .............................................................................................. 33
TAGUCHI Yoshihisa, Stop series in Hmong-Mien .................................................................... 38
ENDO Mitsuaki, Stop series in Kra-Dai .................................................................................... 40

SUZUKI Hiroyuki, EBIHARA Shiho, IWASA Kazue, KURABE Keita, and
SHIRAI Satoko, Stop series in Tibeto-Burman .................................................................. 42
SHIMIZU Masaaki and MINEGISHI Makoto, Stop series in Austroasiatic ............................. 46
UTSUMI Atsuko, Stop series in Austronesian ........................................................................... 48
MATSUMOTO Ryo, Stop series in Tungusic ............................................................................ 50
MATSUMOTO Ryo, Stop series in Uralic ................................................................................ 51SAITÔ Yoshio, Stop series in Mongolic and Turkic .................................................................. 52
YOSHIOKA Noboru, Stop series in South Asia ......................................................................... 54
KODAMA Nozomi, Stop series in Dravidian ........................................................................... 56
IWASAKI Takamasa, Stop series in Iranian and Armenian ...................................................... 58
NAGATO Youichi, Stop series in Semitic .................................................................................. 60
NAKAO Shuichiro, Stop series in Nilo-Saharan ....................................................................... 62
SHINAGAWA Daisuke and KOMORI Junko, Stop series in Niger-Congo .............................. 64
KIMURA Kimihiko and NAKAGAWA Hirosi,Coronal stop series in the Kalahari Basin Area ................................................................. 66
Cumulative references ................................................................................................................ 68
ArticlesNAKAZAWA Kohei and YOKOYAMA Akiko, Interesting sounds and sound changes
in Japonic ........................................................................................................................... 93
SUZUKI Hiroyuki, Prenasalisation in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere ........... 102
SUZUKI Hiroyuki, Stop series in Caucasian languages: Preliminary mapping .................... 110
SUZUKI Hiroyuki, Stop series in the Saami languages: A geolinguistic approach ................ 116

Cover photo:

At the Dodoma station, Tanzania © 2001 Junko Komori

Tasks of “Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics”
2020–2022
Mitsuaki ENDO
Aoyama Gakuin University

Abstract
This is a synopsis of the project “Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics” at the Institute of
Asian and African Languages and Cultures, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, during
academic years 2020–2022. The results of the previous 2015–2017 project are overviewed first.
Second, details of team members and their coverage areas, as well as the themes of future
meetings, are given. Finally, the results expected in 3 years are enumerated.

1

Introduction

The project “Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics” at the Research Institute of Languages andCultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, during academic years
2020–2022, was aimed at enhancing geolinguistic studies in each language family of Asia and Africa.
We extract these language families’ formation processes, interrelationships, and typological tendencies,
as well as trace migration patterns and language contacts among them. Because this is the second phaseof the previous project “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics” (2015–2017), an overview of that project isprovided first, and then, new points are introduced successively.

2

Results of “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics” (2015–2017)

Eight regular, progressive reports dealing with “sun, rice, milk, wind, iron, how to count nouns, tone
and accent, and it rains” were open to public in the form of an e-publication on the website of ILCAA:
http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/ja/publications/e-publications
These reports were compiled into a book, Linguistic Atlas of Asia, which is to be published by Hituzi
Syobo in Tokyo in August 2021.
In addition, seven monographs were published as e-publications:• Mitsuaki Endo (ed.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics• H. Suzuki & M. Endo (eds.), Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Asian
Geolinguistics• H. Suzuki & M. Endo (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Geolinguistic Method andSoutheast Asian Linguistics”• Hiroyuki Suzuki, 100 Linguistic Maps of the Swadesh Word List of Tibetic Languages fromYunnan• Kazue Iwasa, Remarks on Maps of the Yi Script Based on the Swadesh 100 Word List

1

•
•

Hiroyuki Suzuki, Keita Kurabe, & Mitsuaki Endo (eds.), Collected Papers on Eastern Asian
Geolinguistics (in Chinese)
Hiroyuki Suzuki, Keita Kurabe, & Mitsuaki Endo (eds.), Papers from the Workshop “Phylogeny,
Dispersion, and Contact of East and Southeast Asian Languages and Human Groups”

Moreover, the International Conference on Asian Geolingustics has been held biannually. The firstedition was held in Japan in 2012, the second in Thailand in 2014, the third in Cambodia in 2016, thefourth in Indonesia in 2018, and the fifth is to be held in Vietnam in the near future. (Proceedings of thefirst and second meetings are available at https://agsj.jimdo.com/.)

3

Concrete Plan of the Project

The project running the duration of 2020–2022 is covering the whole of Africa in addition to Asia.
Furthermore, collaboration with researchers in genetics, archaeology, and other related disciplines
became possible thanks to support from the MEXT Grant-in-Aid “Yaponesian Genome” 2018–2022
project.

2

Team members and their coverage areas are as follows (* denotes ILCAA Joint Researcher):
Japonic: Shinsuke KISHIE* (Nara University), Nobuko KIBE (NINJAL), Kohei NAKAZAWA (The
University of Tokyo), and Akiko YOKOYAMA (JSPS/ILCAA, TUFS)
Korean: Rei FUKUI (The University of Tokyo)
Tungusic and Uralic: Ryo MATSUMOTO* (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies)
Mongolic and Turkic: Yoshio SAITÔ (Takushoku University)
Tibeto-Burman: Satoko SHIRAI (The University of Tokyo), Shiho EBIHARA (ILCAA Fellow),
Kazue IWASA* (Nagoya University of Foreign Studies), Keita KURABE (ILCAA), andHiroyuki SUZUKI* (Fudan University)
Sinitic: Kenji YAGI (Kokushikan University) and Fumiki SUZUKI* (Nanzan University)
Hmong-Mien: Yoshihisa TAGUCHI (Chiba University)
Kra-Dai: Mitsuaki ENDO* (Aoyama Gakuin University)
Austronesian: Atsuko UTSUMI (Meisei University)
Austroasiatic: Makoto MINEGISHI (ILCAA) and Masaaki SHIMIZU* (Osaka University)
Chukotko-Kamchatkan: Chikako ONO* (Hokkai-Gakuen University)
Ainu: Mika FUKAZAWA* (National Ainu Museum)South Asia: Noboru YOSHIOKA* (National Museum of Ethnology)
Dravidian : Nozomi KODAMA* (Kumamoto University)
Iranian: Takamasa IWASAKI* (JSPS/ Kyoto University)
Semitic: Youichi NAGATO* (TUFS)
Nilo-Saharan: Shuichiro NAKAO* (Osaka University)
Niger-Congo: Daisuke SHINAGAWA (ILCAA) and Junko KOMORI* (Osaka University)
Kalahari Basin Area: Hirosi NAKAGAWA* (TUFS) and Kimihiko KIMURA* (TUFS)
Methodology: Chitsuko FUKUSHIMA* (University of Niigata Prefecture)
The studied themes are as follows:
2020-1 Stop series (subsystem of consonants), coordinated by Hiroyuki SUZUKI
2020-2 Grammatical relations (marking of actor, patient, etc.), coordinated by Satoko SHIRAI
2021-1 Animal vocabulary (mouse, horse, wolf/dog, bear, chicken, of which DNA information isavailable), coordinated by Akiko YOKOYAMA
2021-2 System of addressing sibling(s), coordinated by Chitsuko FUKUSHIMA
2022-1 Cultivated plant vocabulary (millet, chestnut, taro, etc., of which DNA information isavailable), coordinated by TBA
2022-2 System of numerals, coordinated by Shiho EBIHARA

4 Expected Results in Three Years
1) Systematic treatments on typological features have to be dealt with using macro- and microgeolinguistic perspectives.
2) Active members are expected to study the geolinguistics of each word further and to publish thosestudies in optional papers and/or monographs.
3) Migration and the changing processes of language families and human groups are to be traced incollaboration with geneticists and archaeologists.
4) Internal and external factors of linguistic changes and language contacts are to be studied.

35) Empirical geolinguistic studies on Asia and African languages are to be accumulated.
As for publication plans:
1) Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics, Vols. 1 to 6, and several monographs as e-publicationsof ILCAA
2) Linguistic Atlas of Asia and Africa, Vol. 1, and additional books are to be published after the project

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by MEXT KAKENHI Grant, JP18H05510.

4

Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics 1
Featured topic: Consonant system-stop series
withsubgrouping of languages

5Subgrouping of Paleoasian Languages“Paleoasian” is not a genealogical grouping
but an aerial one. The languages that belong tothePaleoasian
group
are
Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Nivkh, and Yukagir
and Ket have also been considered as groupmembers. In recent years, it has been suggested
that Ket could be a cognate with Na-Dene
languages and that Yukagir and Uraliclanguages have a genealogical relationship.
The language data mapped in this volume arethose of Chukchi, Alyutor, Koryak, Itelmen,
and Nivkh.

・Chukotko-Kamchatkan ・Nivkh
Sakhalin dialect
Northern
ChukchiAmur dialect
Alyutor
KoryakSouthern
ItelmenNorthern dialect
Southern dialect(ONO Chikako)

6

Subgrouping of Japonic
Although there are various hypotheses about
how to divide Japonic languages, we can broadlyclassify them into Japanese and Ryukyuan.
Japanese is divided into Eastern Japanese (EJ),
Western Japanese (WJ), and Kyūshū Japanese(KJ). Ryukyuan languages are divided into
Northern Ryukyuan (NR, including Amami) andSouthern Ryukyuan (SR). The criteria forclassification are as shown in the table: forms for‘be’ (LAJ 53), suffixes for ‘purpose of motion’(GAJ 21), forms for the interrogative ‘what’(Pellard 2015), and forms for ‘say’ (cf. SR *ǝ̃ïz< *ani+ip- ‘say so,’ *ip- ‘scold’ < ‘say’).
We include Hachijō dialect in EasternJapanese since it shares innovations with the
Eastern Japanese dialects (Igarashi 2018).

There are more narrow divisions than this, andthere are many differences depending on the
researcher.
It is difficult to draw a phylogenetic tree
because it is uncertain which forms areinnovative or retained.
Table: Criteria for classification of Japonic
criteriabebranch(go) for what

say

EJ

*wi-

*-ni

*nani

*ip-

WJ

*wor-

*-ni

*nani

*ip-

KJ

*wor-

*-ga

*nani

*ip-

NR

*wor-

*-ga

*nawo

*ip-

SR

*wor-

*-ga

*nawo

*ǝ̃ïz-(NAKAZAWA Kohei and YOKOYAMA Akiko)

Eastern JapaneseWestern Japanese
Kyushu JapaneseNorthern Ryukyuan
Southern Ryukyuan
A proposal for the phylogenetic tree of Japonic languages

7

Eastern JapaneseWestern Japanese
Kyushu JapaneseNorthern Ryukyuan
Southern Ryukyuan

Subgrouping of Sinitic
We basically adopt the subgrouping indialect classification in China, and is said to

Sinitic proposed in Wurm et al. 1987 (Data arehave some consistent with some phonologicalfrom Zhan et al. 2017, Hou 2002, Qian 2010). 1.

changes

Mandarin, 2. Jin, 3. Wu, 4. Xiang, 5. Gan, 6.

developments of voiced initials or entering tone.

Kejia, 7. Yue, 8. Min, 9. Hui, 10. Ping / Tu hua.

However, at this stage, it is difficult to create a

Mandarin is further divided into 8 subgroups. 1a.

phylogenetic tree because this classification also

Beijing, 1b. Dongbei, 1c. Jilu, 1d. Jianghuai, 1e.

takes into account non-linguistic backgrounds

Jiaoliao, 1f. Lanyin, 1g. Xinan, 1h. Zhongyuan.

such as social and cultural backgrounds orThis subgrouping is a kind of the traditional

frommiddlegeographical distribution.

8

Chinese,such

as(YAGI Kenji)

Subgrouping of Hmong-Mien
The subgrouping indicated by the following

whole, but we here use traditional terms totree diagram is based on the phylogenetic study

denote each group. Some phonological evidence

that the author conducted using lexical data. The

might suggest a tree with a higher resolution,

tree indicates that the languages family

which places North Hmongic and Pa-Hng incomprises two branches: Hmongic and Mienic.

higher nodes than other Hmongic languages.

It shows the internal structure of the Hmongic

Here, we rather conservatively place these two

branch because it has more diversity inside thanlanguages in a parallel fashion with other

Mienic. West Hmongic and Pu-Nu constitute a

Hmongic languages.

clade, which might be called West Hmongic as a

(TAGUCHI Yoshihisa)9Subgrouping of Kra-Dai
We adopt the subgrouping and its hierarchy in

Kra is the most conservative branch, while Li

Kra-Dai as proposed by Liang and Zhang

ranks(1996:13) to denote a whole. The establishedvocabulary with Austronesian, for example,

classification by Li (1977) is adopted for thenumerals, and so on. Northern Tai is divided on

sub-branches of the Tai branch.

the basis of a phonological criterion that no

Kra
Kra-Dai

LingaoSW Taisecond.

They

preserve

commondistinction of aspiration exists.

C Tai(ENDO Mitsuaki)

Li Dong-Shui N Tai

10Subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman
There have been varying suggestions for the
subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman (TB) (van Driem
2015; Matisoff 2015; Thurgood2017; Zhang etal. 2019; Sagart et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2020).
Here, the model following STEDT (Matisoff2015) with some updates is referred to, with the
TB language hierarchy shown in Figure 1. There
are also one unclassified TB language and two
Sinitic-Tibetic mixed languages.
Abbreviations: NE IAG: North-eastern Indian
areal group; TQ: Tangut-Qiang; LBN: LoloBurmese-Naxi; ‘NA’: ‘North Assam’; KC:
Figure 1: Subgrouping of TB

Kuki-Chin; ‘N’AG: ‘Naga’ areal group; TK:
Tibeto-Kannauri;

KMC:

Kham-Magar(SUZUKI Hiroyuki, EBIHARA Shiho, IWASA

Chepang; LB: Lolo-Burmese.

Kazue, KURABE Keita, SHIRAI Satoko)

11

Subgrouping of Austroasiatic
Austroasiatic is first divided into Munda andNicobarese.

Mon-Khmer. Regarding Mon-Khmer, we adopt(MINEGISHI Makoto & SHIMIZU Masaaki)

the subgrouping of Austroasiatic by Diffloth &Zide (1992) whose subgrouping is given below
as Figure 1. Sidwell (2014), after describing thehistory of Austroasiatic classification proposals
since the middle of the 19th century, offers‘provisional’ classification. His tree is based on‘lexical,lexicostatistical,

computational

phylogenetic, and phonological studies’, and ischaracterized as strongly branching: with elevenprimary subgrouping nodes, among which only
Figure 1: Mon-Khmer subgrouping

two nodes have secondary branching; one is
Khasian and Palaungic, and the other, Aslian and

12Subgrouping of Austronesianinto

We adopt the subgrouping and its hierarchy inSouth-Halmahera-West-New-Guinea

languages (SHWNG) and Oceanic languages.

Austronesian Languages proposed by Blust
1980 and Blust 1999. The Formosan languages,

The geological perspective as well as actualor the Austronesian languages of Taiwan belong

geolinguistic characteristics are considered forto nine primary branches of the Austronesian

the subgrouping of non-Formosan languages.

family. They are “generally believed to be the

They are grouped into WMP, Oceanic, and themost diverse in the entire Austronesian language

rest which will be referred as CEMP (i.e., CEMP

family” (Li 2008). They do not form a subgroup

languages except for Oceanic languages). WMP

linguistically, but for the purpose of thislanguages are frequently divided into Philippine

geolinguistic study, they are grouped together

languages and Indonesian languages when theyand referred to Formosan languages (FRM).

show remarkable difference within WMP.
FRM

All of the non-Formosan languages belong toAustronesiana tenth primary branch, which is Malayoand

WMPMPPolynesian (MP). MP split into West MalayoPolynesian(WMP)

Oceanic
EMP

Central-East-MalayCEMP

Polynesian (CEMP), the latter of which split into

SHWNG

Central-Malayo-Polynesian (CMP) and East

CMP

Malayo-Polynesian (EMP). EMP are grouped(UTSUMI Atsuko)

FRM
WMP
CEMP
Oceanic

13

Subgrouping of Tungusic
According to Ikegami (1989), Tungusic
languages are divided into four groups:
Group I Evenki, Ewen, Negidal, Solon (Evenki
in China)
Group II Udehe, Orochi
Group III Nanym Ulcha, Uilta
Group IV Sibe

(MATSUMOTO Ryo)14

Subgrouping of Uralic
Estonian, Livonian, Votic, Karelian, Veps,
Ingrian, SamiB Ugric languages
Hungarian, Khanty, Mansi
C Samoyedic languages
Nenets, Enets, Selkup, Nganasan

Here I show the subgroups of the Uraliclanguage family in the traditional way. The
Uralic language family is divided largely into
two branches, Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric, andthen Finno-Uric into two sub-branches, Ugricand Finno-Permic. Finno-Permic includes mostlanguages of the Uralic family and has more
subdivisions, but here:
A Finno-Permic
Komi, Udmurt, Mari (Hill Mari, MeadowMari), Mordvinic (Erzya, Moksha), Finnish,(MATSUMOTO Ryo)15

Subgrouping of Mongolic and Turkic
AfsharKipchak (Northwestern):[Volga-Ural (Northern)] Tatar, Bashkir[Ponto-Caspian(Western)]
Kumyk,
Karachay, Balkar, Crimean Tatar,
Karaim[Aralo-Caspian (Eastern)] Kyrgyz, Kazakh,
Karakalpak, Nogay
Uighur (Southeastern): Uzbek, Uighur, Sarïg
Yughur, Salar
Siberian (Northeastern):[North Siberian] Sakha, Dolgan[South Siberian] Tuva, Tofa, Khakas, Shor,
Chulym, Altay
Oghur/Bulgar: Chuvash
Arghu: Khalaj(SAITÔ Yoshio)

Mongolic and Turkic groups of languages are
now considered to be separate language families
by the majority of researchers. A classificationof languages may differ depending on thefeatures chosen for criteria. The classifications
shown below are mainly based on V. Rybatzki(2003) and L. Johanson (1998).
1 Mongolic languages
Northeastern: Dagur
Northern: Khamnigan, BuryadCentral: Mongol, Ordos, Oirad
South Central: Shira Yughur
Southeastern: Monguor, Baoan, Dongxiang,
KangjiaSouthwestern: Moghol
2 Turkic languages
Oghuz (Southwestern): Turkish, Azeri, Gagauz,
Turkmen, Khorasan Turkic, Kashkay,

Mongolic

Northeastern

Northern

CentralSouth Central

SoutheasternSouthwestern
TurkicOghuz

Volga-Ural

North Siberian

Ponto-CaspianSouth Siberian

Oghur

Aralo-CaspianArghu

Figure: Subgroups of Mongolic and Turkic

16

UighurSubgroupings of Indo-Aryan, Nuristani, Andamanese, and language isolates in South Asia
Nuristani is a subbranch of the Indo-Iranianbranch and so, of course, parallels the IndoAryan and Iranian subbranches. This branch canbe subdivided into two groups, northern andsouthern.
The Andamanese family has two branches,
Great Andamanese and Jarawa-Ongan. The
former can be further subgrouped into two or
three areal groups. The latter branch has twoliving languages, Jarawa and Öñge. Furthermore,
the Sentinelese language is found on the Sentinelisland south-west of the Great Andaman. That
language, however, remains undescribed as its
speakers absolutely refuse to make contact withoutsiders, so it cannot be classified anywhere
phylogenetically.

I show the subgroupings of the Indo-Iranianbranch, with the exception of Iranian, of the
Indo-European family, and of the Andamanesefamily and some language isolates, in the map.
The subgrouping in Indo-Aryan remains
controversial. Here, I have simply classified theIndo-Aryan and Nuristani languages as per thefollowing cladogram, with reference to Masica(1991), Eberhard, Simons, and Fennig (2021),
and Hammarström, Forkel, Haspelmath, andBank (2020).

(YOSHIOKA Noboru)

17Subgrouping of Dravidian

3. Central Dravidian (CD)
KolamiNaiki
ParjiGadaba4. North Dravidian (ND)
KurukhMalto
Brahui*
The four-way classification is accepted bymost researchers, although inclusion of TuluKoraga, Telugu and Brahui in their respective
subgroups may be viewed by some as moretentative than conclusive.
The phylogenetic relationship between the four
subgroups, which would have a direct implicationon the issue of the geographical diffusion of thelanguage family, remains unsettled. Kurukh-Maltoand Brahui are isolated from each other as well asfrom other subgroups. If they comprise a single
phylogenetic branch i.e. North Dravidian, their
spatial distribution could be attributed to highly
migratory nature of their speakers at some point in
the past, entailing that south-to-north diffusion of
the language family cannot be ruled out.
(KODAMA Nozomi)

The Dravidian languages were recognized as alanguage family as early as 1816 by Francis Whyte
Ellis, who was in the civilian service at Madras.
Krishnamurti (2003) replaced the earlier tripartiteclassification of Dravidian languages with thefollowing four subgroups by splitting the erstwhile
Central Dravidian based on his genealogicalassumptions.
1. South Dravidian (SDI)
Tamil
Malayalam
Irula
KodaguToda
Kota
Kannada-Badaga
Tulu-Koraga*
2. South Central Dravidian (SDⅡ)
Telugu*
Gondi
Konda
Kui
Kuvi
Pengo
Manda

SDI
Tulu-Koraga
SDⅡ
TeluguCD
ND
Brahui18

Subgrouping of Armenian and Iranianon the whole.

Armenian is an independent branch of the
Indo-European languages. It is divided further

It is arguable whether Ormuri and Parachi areinto two major subgroups, namely East and West.

classified into Western or Eastern Iranian.

The Iranian languages are a subgroup of Indo-

Efimov (1986: 8) includes them into North-

Iranian in Indo-European language family. They

eastern Iranian, while Morgenstierne (1929: 12)

spread a vast area from Western China

classify them into central position among the(Xinjiang) in the east, to Central Turkey in the

Iranian languages.

west, and from North Caucasus (Russia andNote that the subgroup names do not always

Georgia) in the north, to the southern Pakistan

correspond with the geographical distribution ofand the northern Oman in the south.

the modern Iranian languages. For example,

In terms of historical and typological

Ossetic, although it belongs to North-Eastern

linguistics, this branch is generally classified

Iranian, is spoken in the western region. Also,

into Eastern and Western Iranian. These are

Balochi spreads rather to the southeastern area

divided further into four subgroups, namely

while it is classified into North-Eastern Iranian.

North-Western, North-Eastern, South-Western

Figure 1 shows the distribution and subgrouping

and South-Eastern Iranian. Each of them has itsof the modern Iranian languages.

archaism and innovation, therefore we cannot(IWASAKI Takamasa)

surmise which language best preserves archaism

Figure 1: Distribution of the Iranian languages

19Subgrouping of Semitic

Kurdistan.
Canaanite is a collective term for Hebrew,
Phoenician and a few other languages. Hebrew
is the language of the Jewish Bible (1200-200
BCE.) and one of the two national languages ofIsrael now.
South Semitic is divided into three groups,
Epigraphic South Arabian, Modern SouthArabian and Ethiopian. Epigraphic SouthArabian is languages of probably between theeighth century BCE and the sixth century CE.
Modern South Arabian languages, such as
Mehri, Jibbālī, Soqotrī and Hobyōt in Yemen
and Oman, probably go back to spoken
varieties of Epigraphic South Arabian. To
Ethiopian, belong a large number of languages
such as Tigre, Tigriña and Amharic, the official
language of Ethiopia. Ge’ez is the Classical
Ethiopic, the language of the empire of Aksumin first centuries CE.
(NAGATO Youichi)

The Semitic is a branch of the Afroasiatic
phylum. The earliest attested Semitic is
Akkadian in Mesopotamia, which belongs to
East Semitic.
In the Syro-Palestinian area there wereseveral Semitic languages such as Eblaite andUgaritic. Then during the second millennium
BCE, Canaanite (Hebrew, Phoenician) andAramaic emerged. Hezron (1974, 1976)
proposed subgrouping of this group as Central
Semitic, in which Hetzron grouped Arabic,
insted of South Semitic. Aramaic was used as a
lingua franca in Babylonian and Persian
empires between the seventh and the forthcenturies BCE. It remained in use as a literarylanguage until the fifth century CE. Modern
varieties of Aramaic survive in a number of
linguistic enclaves such as Ma’lūla in Syria(Currently, most of the village residents havefled the country), Tūr ‘Abdīn in Western┌─ East Semitic ─── Akkadian (extinct)
Proto ──┤┌─ Aramaic ───────── Modern Aramaic
Semitic │┌─ Central Semitic ─┤┌─ Canaanite ─ Hebrew└─ Arabo-Canaanite ─┤└─ West Semitic ─┤│└───────── Arabic│┌─ Epigraphic South Arabian (extinct)└─ South Semitic ──┼───────────── Modern South Arabian└──────────────────── Ethiopian
Figure 1: Subgrouping of Semitic (after Hetzron 1974, 1976)

20

Subgrouping of Nilo-Saharan
For the time being, there is no full consensus

consists of Taman, Nubian, Nara and Nyimang

about the membership or the subgrouping of(including Afitti), while the southern branch

Nilo-Saharan. For convenience in this map, we

consists of Berta, Jebel (or ‘Eastern Jebel’), Daju,

adopt Dimmendaal, Ahland, Jakobi & Kutsch

Temein, Surmic and Nilotic branches.

Lojenga (2019)’s proposals.
Nilo-Saharan consists of two major branches,
Central Sudanic and Northeastern Nilo-Saharan,
to these one may add Songhay, Koman and
Gumuz (the latter two seem related). Shabo and
Kadu languages are sometimes argued within
the Nilo-Saharan framework, they are excluded.
The Northeastern (NE) branch consists ofEastern Sudanic and the other small branches,
Saharan, Mabang, Fur-Amdang, Kunama andKuliak. Fur and Kunama, Eastern Sudanic (ES)and Saharan may constitute a single branch.
Eastern Sudanic consists of northern (n) and(NAKAO Shuichiro)

southern (s) sub-branches. The northern branch21Subgrouping of Niger-Congo
genetic

Kwa into West BC by Bennette and Sterk (1977).

classification of the Niger-Congo languages is

Readers may refer to Williamson and Blenchestablished on the basis of Greenberg’s (1963)(2000) for a general overview of the genetic

well-known classification of African languages,

classification of NC, and to Watters (2018) for

which classifies NC into six subgroups, namely

external and internal classification of East BC.

The

current

understandingof

Mande, West Atlantic (renamed as Atlantic),

I. Kordofanian

Adamawa-Eastern (renamed as Adamawa-

II. Mande

Ubangian), Gur, Kwa, and Benue-Congo that

III. Atlantic-Congo

include Bantu which was previously regarded as

III-1. Atlantic

an independent genetic unit. Together with

III-2. Ijoid

Kordofanian, it forms the macro-phylum

III-3. Volta-Congo

originally called Congo-Kordofanian, which isIII-3-i. North Volta-Congo including

equivalent to today’s understanding of NC. The

Gur and Adamawa-Ubangianclassification adopted in this volume follows the

III-3-ii. Dogon

simplified model proposed by Dimmendaal andIII-3-iii. Kru

Storch (2016), which is based on Williamson

III-3-iv. Kwa(1989), reflecting major revisions on Greenberg

III-3-v. Benue-Congo including Bantu(1963), including reclassification of Eastern(SHINAGAWA Daisuke)

22Subgrouping of languages in the Kalahari Basin area
Table 1ː Subgrouping of the KBA language
families
Language
Language
Varietyfamily(complex)
Nǁng
Nǀuu
Tuu
West ǃXoon
Taa
East ǃXoon
ǂʼAmkoeNǃaqriaxe
Tsumkwe Juǀʼhoan
KxʼaJu
Heikkinen ǃXuun W
Heikkinen ǃXuun E
NamibianWindhoek Khoekhoe
Khoekhoe
NaroGhanziHanahaiǂHaba
KhoeKwadi
Xade Gǀui
Khute GǀuiEasternOkwa
Gǁana
TshilaUnder the currently accepted genealogicalclassification presented in Güldemann (2014),
the languages spoken in the Kalahari Basin area
(hereafter KBA), aka Southern African Khoisan
languages, are classified into three language
families, namely, Tuu, Kx’a and Khoe-Kwadi.
Each family consists of individual language
varieties or continua of varieties called language
complexes.
Table 1 summarizes the language families in
KBA and their constituent subdivisions that aresampled in the present volume. Language
varieties are plotted on the below map, where
Khoe-Kwadi languages are marked with filled
circles, Kx’a with trident marks and Tuu withdownward pentagon marks.
(KIMURA Kimihiko, NAKAGAWA Hirosi)

23

Stop series in Asian and African languages

description to elucidate the potential correlations andinteractions between non-pulmonic and pulmonicsounds synchronically and diachronically and to
determine their geographical distribution in moredetail than in previous works such as WALS (Dryerand Haspelmath eds. 2013). This approach also
differed from the theoretical, typological analysis in
Duanmu (2016).
Prenasalisation was also included as a potential
feature to trace some crucial sound changes inphonological systems; however, the preaspiration andpostnasalisation ‘series’ by Maddieson (1984) were
excluded. Preaspiration has a crucial function in the
consonant system in several languages, such as Tibetic(Tibeto-Burman) and Saami (Uralic). The preaspirated
consonants in these languages are respectively derived
from consonant clusters and long consonants (Suzuki
2011b; Korhonen 1981).
There were also challenges. For example, there
were discrepancies in the traditional and individualphonological analysis preferences and the phonetic
notation customs (despite the existence of theInternational Phonetic Alphabet and its extended
edition, extIPA; Ball et al. 2018). For example, it has
been disputed whether /d’/ [t̤ ] (Tibetic) is anindependent consonant phoneme or a consonant /t/with a breathy suprasegmental (tonal) feature. The
classification terminologies also differed, such as theuse of ‘fortis/lenis’ rather than ‘voiceless/voiced’. In
several Uralic languages, the plosives voicing contrast
is understood as fortis/lenis, with the ‘t’ and ‘d’described as /t/ [th, t] and /d/ [t, d̥ ] in Northern Saami.
In this case, it was debatable whether /t-d/ (as inNielsen 1979) or /th-t/ should be used (as in Nickel
1994) in the project. It was, therefore, necessary to
explain the invisible phonetic features in thephonological analysis.

This project, SAAG-1, overviewed the stop series
sound system in more than 2500 Asian and African
languages (including regiolects and vernaculars if
available), with the main focus being on
dental/denti-alveolar/alveolar(henceforthD/A)
plosives, and nasal sounds.
1. Data components
The D/A stop series was primarily selected for thisproject. This series sought to determine the mostcomplex patterns in the articulatory positions in mostlanguages, dialects, and varieties. While somelanguages may distinguish dental and alveolar sound,
this distinction was secondary. Dental sounds typicallyappear in Indo-Iranian and Dravidian languages,
denti-alveolar sounds appear in Sinitic andTibeto-Burman languages (see Zhu’s 2010 system),and alveolar sounds appear in Japanese. Note thatthese articulatory positions are more complex when
there are fricatives.
The project examined a system of D/A stop series,
based
on
the
following
components/th-t-t’-d-dh-ɗ-nd-nt-nth-n-nh/(e.g.,hɦn n n h[t -t-t’-d-d -ɗ- d- t- t -n-n̥ ] for a phonetic description).
Plosives and nasals were included as /n/ can be
regarded as a nasalised stop in phonetics. Note that
there are also nasalised fricatives; for example, see‘rhinoglottophilia’ by Matisoff (1975) and ‘nasalised
the aspiration’ in Suzuki (2015). However, althoughaffricates are members of the stop, they were excluded.
Other sounds, such as /d’/ [t̤ ] (Tibeto-Burman), /ʔn/[ʔn] (Hmong-Mien; Austroasiatic), /ʔd/ [ʔd](Austroasiatic), /’t/ (Korean), and /tˤ, dˤ/ (Semitic)
were also properly counted as data for the project.
Ejectives and clicks were also included even though
their geographical distribution is limited. Ejectives arepervasive in Caucasian languages, of which types suchas /th-t’-d-n/ (Kartuli) /th-t-t’-d-n/ (Lezgi) are attested(Klimov 1994). Clicks (sounds including a dental /ǀ/)are found in the Kalahari Basin Area and can be
combined with voicing, aspiration, and ejective
features.
In other words, using this model, the historicalchanges and the plosive typologies were examinedbased primarily on the phonation or laryngeal features,and the geographical distributions encoded.
Non-pulmonic sounds were also included in the

2. Types of the D/A stop series
A two-way distinction is the minimum D/A stop seriessystem, in which the /t-n/ components are most widelyattested in languages such as in Ainu, Japonic,
Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Uralic, Turkic, Arabic,
Nilo-Saharan, and Niger-Congo. The striking featuresare summarised below following the language families
and groups presented in the project, SAAG-1.
Voicing contrast
A contrast between voiceless and voiced plosives

24pharyngealised feature /tˤ/ in many Arabic languages.

is attested in Japonic, Sinitic, Hmong-Mien, Kra-Dai,
Tibeto-Burman, Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Tungusic,
Uralic, Mongolic, Turkic, Indo-Aryan, Burushaski,
Dravidian,
Iranian,Armenian,
Nilo-Saharan,
Niger-Congo, Tuu, Kx’a, and Khoe-Kwadi.

Implosives
Implosives are usually voiced; however, avoiceless counterpart was also found. The voiced
implosive /ɗ/ is attested in Sinitic, Kra-Dai,
Tibeto-Burman,
Austroasiatic,
Austronesian,Indo-Aryan, Semitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Niger-Congo.
The voiceless implosive /ƭ/ is attested only in
Niger-Congo as a phonemic status.
As suggested by Li (1977), implosive sounds are
related to glottalised sounds such as /ʔd/ in Kra-Dai,
and is also possibly true in Sinitic and Austroasiatic.
Shuichiro Nakao (p.c.) suggested that it is possiblethat the /ɗ/ in Semitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Niger-Congo
languages spoken near Lake Chad is phoneticallyrealised as [ʔd].

Aspiration contrast
A contrast between voiceless aspirated andvoiceless nonaspirated plosives is attested in Korean,
Sinitic, Hmong-Mien, Kra-Dai, Tibeto-Burman,
Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Mongolic, Turkic,
Indo-Aryan, Burushaski, Dravidian, Iranian, Armenian,Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, Tuu, Kx’a, andKhoe-Kwadi.
In Iranian languages, an aspirated feature has been
derived from a voiceless sound in the voicing contrast.
In these cases, the contrasts between the voicing andaspiration are mutually related. As suggested in the
Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman language descriptions, apart of the words that have aspirated features isderived from the voicing contrast.
The aspirated voiced plosive /dh/ (/dɦ/) is attested
in Sinitic, Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian,
Iranian, Niger-Congo, Tuu, and Kx’a. Languages withthis phoneme tending to have a voiceless aspirated
counterpart; however, it is not a prerequisite, as seenin Sinitic and Dravidian.

Prenasalisation /nd-nt-nth/
Prenasalised plosives are attested in Japonic,
Sinitic, Kra-Dai, Tibeto-Burman, Austronesian,Nilo-Saharan, and Niger-Congo. While the voiced
prenasalised sound is pervasive in these languages,
Tibeto-Burman, Austronesian, and Niger-Congo also
have voiceless (and aspirated) counterparts.
Prenasalisation is both posited as a more archaic
form (Japonic, Kra-Dai, Tibeto-Burman, etc.) and a
newly emerged form (Japonic, Sinitic, etc.).
De-prenasalisation (nd > d) is attested in Japonic andTibeto-Burman, and progressive assimilation (nd > n)is also attested in Tibeto-Burman.

Contrasts consisting of plosive voicing and aspiration
combinations
A tripartite contrast /th-t-d/ is widely attested in
Sinitic, Hmong-Mien, Kra-Dai, Tibeto-Burman,
Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Indo-Aryan, Burushaski,
Armenian, and Niger-Congo.
Other tripartite contrasts comprising voicing andaspiration distinctions are marginally attested, such as
the /th-d-dh/ (Sinitic) and /t-d-dh/ (Dravidian).
Indo-Aryan is a typical language that has aquadripartite contrast of plosives, such as /th-t-d-dh/.
This type is also attested in Kx’a.

Pharyngealisation /tˤ-dˤ/
Pharyngealised plosives are attested in Iranian,
Semitic, and Nilo-Saharan. The voiced type /dˤ/ is notattested in the majority of Nilo-Saharan.
Voiceless nasal /n̥ /A voiceless nasal /n̥ / is attested in Hmong-Mien,
Tibeto-Burman, Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Uralic(Saami), and Iranian. In Tibeto-Burman languages,
voiceless nasals have a clear origin derived from a
consonant cluster of /s/ and a nasal (Matisoff 2015).

Ejectives
Ejective sounds are restricted to a voiceless feature/t’/ in the languages mentioned in the project, except
for Tuu, which has a click voiced ejective /ɡǀʼ/. /t’/ isattested in Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Iranian, Semitic,
Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, Tuu, Kx’a, andKhoe-Kwadi. In Semitic languages, the ejective /t’/can be related to the emphatic t, which appears as a

Glottalised stops
Glottalisation has two types: preglottalised andpostglottalised. A preglottalised plosive /ʔd/ is attested
in Sinitic, Kra-Dai, Hmong-Mien, and Indo-Aryan. A
preglottalised nasal /ʔn/ is attested in Japonic

25

(Ryukyuan),
Hmong-Mien,
Kra-Dai,andʔ
Tibeto-Burman, and a postglottalised stop /d / is foundin Indo-Aryan (Bishnupriya).

Implosive /ɗ/An implosive /ɗ/ is attested in various language
groups. Some cases have not been analysed as genetic
features but as contact-induced acquisition. For
example, the /ɗ/ attested in Tibeto-Burman languages
is a feature that was acquired through Austroasiatic
language contact.

Other than the mentioned features, several
marginal features were also found. The Korean /’t/ is
so striking that its phonetic status is still being debated(cf. Kim and Duanmu 2004, Duan and Zhu 2018). An
aspirated nasal /nɦ/ is attested in Indo-Aryan, andwhile a lack of nasal sounds was noted in some Sinitic,
Kra-Dai, and Tibeto-Burman languages that originatedfrom a merger from /n/ into /l/, it does not mean that
all nasals are lacking in each sound system. Various
click sounds are found in the language families of the
Kalahari Basin Area, namely Tuu, Kx’a, andKhoe-Kwadi.

Pharyngealisation
A systematical pharyngealised consonant feature/tˤ-dˤ/ is mostly attested in Semitic languages. Thisfeature also expands to Iranian to the west andNilo-Saharan to the south that connect toSemitic-speaking regions. Nilo-Saharan languages
with pharyngealised features mainly possess /tˤ/ as dosome Semitic and Iranian languages. As suggested in
the Semitic language descriptions, pharyngealisation isrelated to ejective sounds, which are generally called‘emphatic consonants’.
As a reference, pharyngealised sounds have also
been attested on vowels in Tibeto-Burman (see Evans
2006; and Suzuki 2011a). The sounds are often related
to velarisation, uvularisation (Gong 2019) andretroflex (Suzuki 2013). In Tibetic languages, thepharyngealised sounds are derived from a consonant/r/ preceding a vowel.
Historically, pharyngealisation is reconstructed in
Old Chinese (Baxter and Sagart 2014); however, nopharyngealised sounds remain in modern Sinitic
languages.

3. Geographical relationships over language
families
The description here focuses on the featurescharacterised by the cross-linguistic geographicaldistribution described earlier.
Aspiration+voicing quadripartite plosive series
The /th-t-d-dh/ series is attested in languages
spoken in South Asia and around the Himalayas, suchas Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Iranian.
As suggested in the Tibeto-Burman and Dravidian
language group descriptions, this series is attributed to
Indo-Aryan language contact. It is also noteworthy
that the quadripartite plosive series appeared in the
Brāhmī script system (third century BCE; see Machida2001).
The same series is also attested marginally in
Sinitic languages, but is not related to Indo-Aryan.

Prenasalisation
Languages with prenasalised features are mainly
found in East Asia, Austronesian areas, and middle
Africa. These features appeared due to internal
phonological development rather than language
contact acquisition.

Ejective /t’/
The ejective sound is found around the Caucasus,in Ethiopia, in easternmost Siberia, the Kalahari BasinArea, and southernmost Africa. In Ethiopia, both
Nilo–Saharan and Semitic languages have an ejective.
As suggested in the Semitic language description,ancient Semitic languages that were distributed in
Mesopotamia and Syria, such as Akkadian andUgaritic, had ejectives. In the Caucasus region, theejective plosive is pervasive in Caucasian languages(Kartvelian,
Abkhazo-Adyghean,
andNakho-Dagestanian; see Alekseev 1999) as well as in
the Ossetic (Iranian) languages in that region.

Voiceless nasal /n̥ /This sound is principally attested in East andSoutheast Asia. However, as this is a feature derived
from individual sound development processes in eachlanguage group, it is not considered a regional feature.
Glottalised stops
Preglottalised stops (both plosives and nasals) aremainly found from East Asia to South Asia, with thepreglottalised plosive often being related to an

26

Gong, X. (2019) Uvulars and uvularization in Tangut
phonology. Language and Linguistics 21.2,
175-212.

implosive. Preglottalised nasals are found in the
Ryukyu islands, and as suggested in Japonic
descriptions, are attributed to internal sound change
processes.

Kim, M.-R. and S. Duanmu (2004) ‘Tense’ and ‘lax’
stops in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
13.1, 59-104.

Lack of D/A nasals
A lack of D/A nasal sounds is attested in some
Sinitic, Kra-Dai, Tibeto-Burman, and Niger-Congo
languages, the first three of which are spoken in Eastand Southeast Asia. However, it appears that both
Sinitic and Kra-Dai independently developed a mergerof /n/ into /l/ as there is no evidence of mutual
language contact influences. This feature is also
attested in Tibeto-Burman (Tujia), which was becauseof Sinitic language contact with Sinitic (Southwestern
Mandarin).

Klimov, G. A. [Климов, Г. А.] (1994) Einführung in
die kaukasische Sprachwissenschaft (Aus dem
Russischen übersetzt und bearbeitet von Jost
Gippert; Введение в кавказское языкознание,1986, Наука). Helmut Buske Verlag.
Korhonen, M. (1981) Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan.
Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Li, F.-K. (1977) A handbook of comparative Tai. The
University Press of Hawai‘i.
Machida, K. (ed) (2001) Kareinaru Indokei mozi.
Hakusuisya.

The present analysis revealed detailed regional
connections between the striking phonologicalfeatures within and beyond language groups. By
drawing up linguistic maps, it is possible to assess
how language contact occurred and functioned ingiven areas.

Maddieson, I. (1984) Patterns of sounds. Cambridge
University Press.
Matisoff, J. A. (1975) Rhinoglottophilia: The
mysterious connection between nasality andglottality. In Ch. A. Ferguson, L. M. Hyman and J.
Ohala (eds.). Nasálfest: Papers from a Symposium
on Nasals and Nasalization, 265-87. Stanford
University.

(SUZUKI Hiroyuki)
References
Alekseev, M. E. [Алексеев, М. Е.] (отв. ред) (1999)Языки мира: Кавказские языки. Москва:Издательство Academia.

Matisoff, J. A. (2015) The Sino-Tibetan etymologicaldictionary and thesaurus. Berkeley: The Regentsof the University of California.

Ball, M. J., S. J. Howard & K. Miller (2018) Revisions
to the extIPA chart. Journal of the International
Phonetic Association 48.2, 155-164.

Nickel, K. P. (19942) Samisk grammatikk. Davvi GirjiOS.
Nielsen, K. (1979[1926-1929]) Lærebok i lappisk(samisk) I-III. Universitetsforlaget.

Baxter, W. H. and L. Sagart (2014) Old Chinese: A
new reconstruction. Oxford University Press.

Suzuki, H. (2011a) Gagatang Zangyu de yanhua
yuanyin ji qi laiyuan. Language and Linguistics
12.2, 477-500.

Dryer, M. S. & M. Haspelmath (eds) (2013) The world
atlas of language structures online. Max Planck
Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. URI:
https://wals.info/

Suzuki, H. (2011b) Tibettogo syohoogen ni
mitomerareru kootoo tokutyoo no tayoosei. Onsei
Kenkyu 15.2: 52-60.

Duan, H. & X. Zhu (2018) Chaoxianyu de ruan yin
fuyin: Cong yuyin shuju dao yinfa fanchou. Minzu
Yuwen 3, 13-25.

Suzuki, H. (2013) Yunnan Weixi Zangyu de r jieyin
yuyin yanbian: Jiantan “erhua” yu “jinhou” zhijiaocha guanxi. Dongfang Yuyanxue 13, 20-35.

Duanmu, S. (2016) A theory of phonological features.
Oxford University Press.

Suzuki, H. (2015) h̃ to ɦ̃: Bikuu kyoomei wo tomonau
seimon masatuon ni kansuru oboegaki. Journal of
RIHN Descriptive Linguistic Group 7: 141-149.
URI: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000875/

Evans, J. (2006) Origins of vowel pharyngealization in
Hongyan Qiang. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman
Area 29.2, 95-126.

Zhu, X. (2010) Yuyinxue. Shangwu Yinshuguan.

27

Stop series in Paleoasian
1. Classification
1.1. Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages
Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages have six vowels:/i, e, a, o, u, ə/ (Kurebito et al. 2001).
Chukchi has 14 consonants: /p/, /t/, /k/, /q/, /ʔ/, /s/,/ɣ/, /ɬ/[ɬʲ], /w/, /j/, /r/, /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/ (ibid.). The
alveolar plosive /t/ is voiceless, and there is no
distinction between aspirated and unaspirated stops. In
Chukchi, /t/ appears in word-initial, medial, and final
position: tawtaw ‘bark’, ɬiɬit ‘mittens’ (Skorik 1961,
Inenlikej 2006).
Koryak has 18 consonants: /p/, /t/, /tʲ/[tʲ], /k/, /q/, /ʔ/,/c/[ʧ], /v/, /j/[ʒ~j~ʝ], /ɣ/, /ʕ/, /m/, /n/, /nʲ/, /ŋ/, /l/, /lʲ/,and /w/ (Kurebito et al. 2001). The alveolar plosive,
nasal,
andlateralin
Koryakhaveanon-palatalized/palatalized opposition: /t/-/tʲ/, /n/-/nʲ/
and /l/-/lʲ/ (Kurebito 2009).
Alutor has 18 consonants: /p/, /t/, /k/, /q/, /ʔ/, /tsʲ/ (sʲ),/r/, /v/, /ɣ/, /ʕ/, /m/, /n/, /nʲ/, /ŋ/, /l/, /lʲ/, /w/, and /j/. The
Alutor alveolar nasal /n/ and lateral /l/ show anon-palatalized/palatalized opposition: /n/-/nʲ/ and/l/-/lʲ/ (Kurebito et al. 2001).
Itelmen has 26 consonants: /p/ [p], /pʼ/ [pʼ], /t/ [t],/tʼ/ [tʼ], /k/ [k], /kʼ/ [kʼ], /q/ [q], /qʼ/ [qʼ], /c/ [ʧ], /cʼ/[ʧʼ] , /ʍ/ [ɸ~ʍ~x], /w/ [β~w~ɣ], /s/ [s~ʃ], /z/ [z~ʒ], /x/[x], /χ/ [χ], /m/ [m], /n/ [n], /nʲ/ [nʲ], /ŋ/ [ŋ], /l/ [l], /lʲ/[lʲ], /ɬ/ [ɬʲ], /r/ [r], /j/ [j], and /ʔ/ [ʔ] (Ono 2020). In
Itelmen, /t/ appears in word-initial, medial, and final
position: tuzaʔn ‘you (pl.)’, itχ ‘they, them’, səmt
‘earth, ground’.

Itelmen plosives and affricates have thenon-ejective/ejective opposition /p/-/p’/, /t/-/t’/, /k/-/k’/,/q/-/q’/, and /c/-/c’/. /t’/ also occurs in word-initial,
medial, and final position: tʼotʼotʼ ‘sandpiper’.
Personal pronoun ‘you (pl.)’ in Chukotko-Kamchatkan
Ch.

Kor.

Alu.

Itl.

turi

tuju

turu(wwi)

tuzaʔn1.2. Nivkh
Nivkh has 6 vowels /i, ɨ, e, a, o, u/ and 32 (Amur
dialect) or 33 (Sakhalin dialect) consonants: /p/, /pʰ/,/b/, /t/, /tʰ/, /d/, /ʧ/, /ʧʰ/, /ʤ/, /k/, /kʰ/, /g/, /q/, /qʰ/, /ɢ/,/f/, /ř/ [r̝̊], /r/, /s/, /z/, /x/, /ɣ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /m/, /n/, /ɲ/, /ŋ/, /l/,/j/, /h/, and /v/[v~w] (Sakhalin dialect) (Siraishi &Tangiku 2015, Grudzeva 1997).
Nivkh plosives show an aspirated/unaspirated
opposition. Nivkh also shows certain consonant
alternations
atmorphemeboundaries:a)morpheme-initial plosives fricativize following avowel, a glide, or a plosive; and b) morpheme-initialfricatives are realized as plosives following a fricative
or a nasal (Shiraishi 2010).
2. Geographical distribution
See Figure 1.
(ONO Chikako)

Figure 1: Stop series in Paleoasian28

Stop series in Ainu
1. Classification of stop series
The Ainu language has five vowels, /i, e, a, o, u/,and eleven (or twelve including a glottal stop, /‘/ [ʔ])consonants, /p/ [p, b], /t/ [t, d], /k/ [k, ɡ], /c/ [ʧ, ʦ, ʤ,ʣ], /s/ [ʃ, s], /m/, /n/, /r/ [ɾ], /w/, /y/ [j], and /h/ [h, x].
The (denti-)alveolar plosive /t/ has no voiced/
voiceless opposition and no aspirated/unaspirated
distinction (Tamura 2000: 21). In Hokkaido Ainu
dialects, when /t/ occurs syllable-finally, it ends withthe closure of the articulatory organs as shown by [t̚].
In most Sakhalin dialects, the coda /-t/ havehistorically changed to /-h/ [-x].
In
the
1792
Japanese-Ainu
dictionary“Moshiogusa,” which was compiled by a native
Japanese translator, the word for ‘seashore’ wasrecorded as “オタシヤム” [otaʃam]; however, it wasalso recorded as “ オ ダ シ ヤ ム ” [odaʃam] in the
handwritten copy. Since Japanese has voiced/voicelessopposition, in this case represented by /t/ and /d/, there
are often different katakana characters for writing the
Ainu /t/ plosive in Japanese materials.
For the dialects of the Kuril Islands, the only
existing materials were written by some explorers
around the 19th century. We can see both the letters t-

and d- for /t/:WORD
Material A‘hand’
tek‘wing’
teikup‘two’
túup

Material B
dēk
/tek/
dīkkūp/tekup/dūpk/tup/(Murayama 1971: 44)(Murayama compiled the written materials of northern
Kuril Ainu. Material A is quoted from
Krascheninnikov, S. P., Vocabularium latino-curilicechuhachtscha-Kamtschtzice-ukinice, and material B is
Klaproth, J., Asia Polyglotta in 1823.)
Ainu also has a nasal stop /n/, which may
optionally velarize [ŋ] before [k]. An informant of
Ochiho dialect seemed to pronounce the nasal /n/ as[ɴ] in Hattori and Chiri (1960), although that may
have been influenced by his second native language ofJapanese: cinkew [ʨiɴkeɯ] for ‘root’, ahto ran [ɑxtoɾɑɴ] for ‘it rains,’ kunne [kuɴne] for ‘black,’ and so on.
2. Geographical distribution
See Figure 1.
(FUKAZAWA Mika)

A. t-n typeFigure 1: Stop series in Ainu

29

Stop series in Japonic

thought to be Type A: in the Kohama dialect of theSouthern Ryukyus, the cluster [nd] corresponds tostandard Japanese [d], such as junda ‘branch’ (Jpn. eda)
and sundi ‘sleeve’ (Jpn. sode). In the Northern Ryukyus,
the change from Type A to C was followed by a change
to D, with glottalized consonants, and then E (loss ofglottalized nasals) or F (loss of glottalized obstruents).
Glottalized consonants developed from compensation
for the loss of preceding syllables, such as taː (< *ta)‘rice field’ vs. tˀai (< *putari) ‘two people,’ ɲaː (<*mipa) ‘garden’ vs. ʔɲa (< *ʔima) ‘already’ in Ie dialect.
In the southern Okinawa and in Southern Ryukyus,
Type C has spread, with the exceptions of Ōgami and
Yonaguni. However, C of the southern Okinawa andthat of Southern Ryukyus have different processes. In
the southern Okinawa, after passing from C to D, E, andF, the glottalized sounds were lost again in the shift to
C. Evidence for this theory is found in Shuri dialect,
which is one of the southern Okinawa dialects: /m/ and/N/ (moraic nasal) are distinguished from glottalized/ʔm/ and /ʔN/, and geminate obstruents, such as tʨu‘person’ (< *pito), also demonstrate the one-timeglottalization. Conversely, there are no traces of theglottalization in the Southern Ryukyus, except for
Yonaguni; hence, there was a direct move from A to C
in the same way as mainland dialects. Regarding
Yonaguni’s glottalization, those originating from soundreduction such as tˀa ‘tongue’ (< *sita) (cf. ta ‘rice
field’) can be observed as in the Northern Ryukyus;
however, the *C > Cˀ / __V[+high], which also happenedin the Northern Ryukyus, does not occur in Yonaguni;
the glottalization occurred through parallel change. The
Ōgami dialect is of a rare type (G) that changed fromType C to voiced obstruents becoming voiceless andmerging with the voiceless obstruents.

1. Classification
In the maps, the synchronic types of stop series in
Japonic (Japanese and Ryukyuan) are classified into
seven categories:
A: t-ⁿd-n, type with prenasalized voiced obstruents
B: t-d-ⁿd-n, type with distinctive prenasalization in the(voiced) obstruents
C: t-d-n, type without prenasalization in the voiced
obstruents
D: t-tˀ-d-n-ʔn, type with distinctive glottalization inboth the (voiceless) obstruents and nasals
E: t-tˀ-d-n, type with distinctive glottalized (orunaspirated) phonation in the (voiceless) obstruents
F: t-d-n-ʔn, type with distinctive preglottalization in thenasals
G: t-n, type with no voiced obstruents
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
On the mainland side, Type A is spread across the Kii
Peninsula, Shikoku and the area around Kyushu; TypeB in the Tohoku region; and Type C in most of theremaining regions. In the Ryukyu Islands, types with
distinctive glottalization—D, E, and F are distributed in
the Northern Ryukyus from Kikai island to northern
Okinawa. Type C is distributed in the Southern
Ryukyus (except for Type E in Yonaguni and Type G inŌgami island) and the southern Okinawa.
Regarding the types with prenasalized obstruents (Aand B) and those without (C, D, E, F, and G), we
naturally assume that the former underwent phonetic
changes to the latter through denasalization. Regarding
Type A and B, B—which has more phonemes—appears
to be older than A at first glance. However, when
focusing on the phonological environment, /d/ of
Tohoku dialects (Type B) evolved from intervocalic*/-t-/, such as that within mado ‘target’ < *mato; it isdistinguished from /ⁿd/, such as that within maⁿdo‘window.’ In other words, because it is in Type B thatthe allophones [t] ~ [d] have phonemized, Type A,
where this split has not occurred, is older than B. Mostof the mainland dialects have shifted directly from A to
C through denasalization, but in C of Tochigi, Ibaraki,
and part of Iwate, */-t-/ > [-d-] occurred as in B; thus, it
is presumed that those areas changed in the order of A
> B > C.
In the Ryukyu Islands as well, the proto-system is

The summary of historical changes is as follows:
A = A (mainland surrounding area)
A > B (Tohoku)
A > B > C (part of East Japan)
A > C (most of the mainland and Southern Ryukyus)
A > C > D (part of the Northern Ryukyus)
A > C > D > E or F ( " )A > C > D > E or F > C ( " )A > C > E (Yonaguni)
A > C > G (Ōgami)(NAKAZAWA Kohei and YOKOYAMA Akiko)30

Figure 1: Stop series in mainland Japan

A: t-ⁿd-n
B: t-d-ⁿd-n
C: t-d-n
D: t-tˀ-d-n-ʔn
E: t-tˀ-d-n
F: t-d-n-ʔn
G: t-nFigure 2: Stop series in Ryukyu Islands

31Stop series in Korean

positions so that the merger is not complete yet.

1. Classification
It is well known that the Korean language has threeoral stops and a nasal stop.

1.3 Nasal stop
It has been observed that an initial nasal is sometimes
pronounced something like [nd], with the loss ofnasality at the release of the oral closure. Suchpronunciations can be heard as a voiced stop for
speakers of a language having the initial voicing
contrast.
There are no dialectal differences except forminor phonetic details. For examples, some dialects,
such as the Kyŏngsang dialects, are said to show asmaller amount of aspiration for plain stops.
Historically, reinforced stops are developed fromconsonant clusters. In Middle Korean we have initialconsonant clusters like sp-, st-, sk-, pt-, ps-, pc-, pst-,
psk-, all developed into a reinforced stop.
However, we have in fact pronunciations which
seem quite similar to modern reinforced stops in
Middle Korean. Such cases appear not within alexically simple morpheme, appearing only mediallyin a specific combination of morphemes, and in suchcases they used a symbol for the glottal stop or ageminate.
(FUKUI Rei)

(1) th – t – t’ –n(2) Examples:
thal ‘mask’, tal ‘moon’, t’al ‘daughter’, nal ‘day’
The three oral stops have been called variously
according to authors. The following table summarizes
terms used to denote these three stops found in a few
recent publications.
thtt’
aspirated lax
forcedaspirated unaspirated stiff voice

Kagaya (1974)
Ladefoged andMaddieson (1996)
IPA Handbook
aspirated lenis(1999)
Lee and Ramsey aspirate plain(2011)

fortisreinforced

Traditionally, the three oral stops have been
described phonetically as follows:
Aspirate: Characterised by a strong aspiration. Kagaya(1974) observes positive abduction of the vocal
folds and heightened subglottal pressure.
Plain: Slightly aspirated initially and (sometimes)
voiced intervocalically. With no positive laryngeal
gestures.
Reinforced: Voiceless unaspirated. Kagaya (1974)
observes a complete adduction of vocal folds before
the explosion, stiffening of vocal folds andincreasing subglottal pressure and/or lowering of
the glottis, and so on.
1.2 Descriptions on recent Seoul speakers
It has been reported that young Seoul speakers
pronounce initial aspirates and plain stops with almost
the same amount of aspiration and the distinction
between these two types are maintained by a highpitch associated with aspirates (for example, Silva(2006)). This can be called another case of tonogenesis.
However, we have to keep in mind that aspirate andplain stops are maintained as such in intervocalicth – t – t’ –n32

Stop series in Sinitic

F1. /th-t-d-dh-n-nh/ type
DinghaiG1. /th-t-d-dh-nd-n-nh / typeYiwu

1. Classification
We collected the published data of 2343 Chinesedialects. Classification is shown below.
A1. /t/ type
Sanya; Jiangmen
B1. /th-t/ typeHefei; Nanjing; Guiyang
B2. /t-nd/ type
XinhuiB3. /t-n/ typeDuchang; Qionghai; Dongkou
C1. /th-t-d/ type
Quanzhou; Xingan; Guanyang
C2. /th-t-nd/ typeDoumen; Taishan; Kaiping
C3. /th-t-n/
Beijing; Nantong; Taiyuan
C4. /th-d-n/NanhuiC5. / th-ɗ-n / type
Wuchuan
C6. /t-d-n/ type
Wenchang; Xingzi; Yueyang;
C.7 /t-dh-n/ type
Tongcheng; Pingjiang; Chibi
C8. /t- ɗ-n/ type
Changhua; Dongfang; Qiongzhong
D1. /th-t-d-n/ type
Shanghai; Wenzhou; Yongzhou
D2. /th-t-dh-n/ type
Xuancheng; Shaoxing; Shanghai
D3. /th-t-ɗ-n/ type
Tengxian; Hezhou; Ledong
D4. /th-t-d-n/ typeTaigu; Yanzhou; Ziyang
D5. /th-d-dh-n/ type
Songjiang; Yongkang
D6. /t-d-dh-n/ type
Yueyang
D7. /t-d-ɗ-n / type
Wenchang; Wanning
E1. /th-t-d-dh-n/ type
Zhengfang; Zhongjiang
E2. /th-t-d-ɗ-n/ type
ChongpoE3. /th-t-d-n-nh/ type
Chongming; Jiading; Yangshuo

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The most common type of Sinitic language is C3,
which also corresponds to standard Chinese. This typeis widely distributed throughout China (Figure 1).
(Chao (1968), however, states that in standard Chinese,t actually corresponds to d̥, and is realized as d in the
pronunciation of a word.)
The second most common type is D1, whichcontains d in addition to t, th and n. This type ischaracteristic of Wu and Old Xiang dialect. Centeringon the Yangtze River basin, D1 is widely distributed in
the southern area (Figure 2). (Chao (1928) also notesthat in Wu dialect, d is generally unvoiced, withvoiced airflow like [tɦ] at the beginning of a word,while it becomes voiced when placed between
vowels.)Types E1, E2, and F1 have four variations of t.
They are sporadically distributed in Yangtze Riverbasin and in the Hainan island. In Chongming,/t-th-n(ʔn)/ and /d-nh(ɦn)/ both form complementary
distribution by tone. In Zhongjiang, however, theappearance of dh is only limited to tone Ⅲ (52), while
minimal pairs of t, th, d, and dh exist (Table 1).
Table 1: Four variations of t
E3: Chongming: Zhang (2009)
刀 tɔ55, 滔 thɔ55, 逃 dɔ24, 拿ʔnɔ55, 挠 ɦnɔ24
E1: Zhongjiang: Cui (1996)
逮 tai21, 踏 tha21, 貸 dai21, 台 dh ai21
Types A1 and B3 have only one kind of t, and thepresence of these types indicates that large-scalechanges of the initial consonant system are underway
in these areas. They are distributed in Jiangxi, Hunan,
Guangdong and Hainan. In Sanya and Jiangmen, *th ismerged with x, and *n is merged with l; therefore onlyt remains. In Duchang and Dongkou, th has mergedwith l and x respectively (Table 2).
Table 2: Types possessing only one kind of t
B3: Duchang: 刀 tau 套 lau 桃 lau (Lu 2007)
B3: Dongkou: 刀 tau 套 xau 桃 xau (Long 2008)
Implosive ɗ is distributed in the Hainan island,
Guangdong, and Guangxi province.
(YAGI Kenji)

33

Figure 1: Stop series in Sinitic

34

Figure 2: Stop series in Sinitic (east central area)

35

Figure 3: Stop series in Sinitic (southern area)

36

Figure 4: Stop series in Sinitic (south central area)37Consonant series in Hmong-Mien

M: th-t-d-0-0-0-n-nh-0
N: th-t-d-0-0-0-n-0-0

1. Classification
Based on the comparative evidence, types of
consonant series are classified into 18 categories. It isbelieved that Proto-Hmong-Mien has the following
consonant series at the initial position of a syllable: tht-d-nd-nt-nth-n-nh-ʔn. The first three consonants (th-td) are plain plosives, the next three (nd-nt-nth) areprenasalized plosives, and the last three (n-nh-ʔn) arenasals. Further, lects are classified according to theirposition in the diagram illustrating the historical orderof the phonological changes that the proto-consonant
series has undergone (Figure 1). The first change—
which is represented by Type B in Figure 1—is amerger of voiced and voiceless consonants, i.e., *t and*d, *nt and *nd, and *n and ʔn. Five of the 18 types
have not undergone the merger. These are classified as
subcategories of Type A (A1 to A5). All the othertypes—the descendants of Type B—have undergone
this change. Types C–G signify consonant series thathave experienced aspiration and/or prenasalization loss.
Type H represents a stage wherein the Type B
consonant series undergoes loss of prenasalization andvoicing of the plosive (e.g., nt > d).
If it is known that the consonant series of two lects
originate from different sources, then these areclassified as two different types even if the patterns of
their consonant series are the same. The 18 types areindicated below (‘0’ indicates a gap compared with theconsonant series of Proto-Hmong-Mien).

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Type A—which exhibits an archaic state—is spread
across the northwestern part of the distribution area.
The lects that belong to this type constitute relic areas.
Type H and its descendants (Types I–N, Figure 1) aredistributed across the eastern and southern parts of thearea. Most lects that belong to these types are Mienic
languages and Northern Hmongic languages (aka,
Xiangxi dialects). They represent more innovative
states.
Map A depicts the distribution of prenasalization in
the consonant series. It indicates that prenasalization isobserved in the northern and western parts of the area,
including the relic area mentioned above. In the easternand southern parts, prenasalization tends to drop withor without making the following obstruent element
voiced.

A
A1: th-t-0-nd-nt-nth-n-nh-ʔn
A2: th-t-d-nd-nt-nth-n-nh-0
A3: th-t-tɦ-ntɦ-nt-0-n-nh-nɦ
A4: th-t-d-0-0-0-n-nh-ʔn
A5: th-t-d-0-0-0-n-0-0
B: th-t-0-0-nt-nth-n-nh-0
C: th-t-0-0-0-0-n-nh-0
D: th-t-0-0-0-0-n-0-0
E: th-t-0-0-nt-0-n-nh-0
F: th-t-0-0-nt-nth-n-0-0
G: 0-t-0-0-nt-0-n-0-0
H: th-t-d-dh-0-0-0-n-nh-0
I: 0-t-d-0-0-0-n-0-0
J: 0-t-d-ʔt-0-0-0-n-0-0
K: th-t-d-ʔd-0-0-0-n-0-0
L: th-d-ʔt-0-0-0-n-0-0

Figure 1

38

$



$



(



,



0

$



%



)



-



1

$



&



*



.







$



'



+



/







0DS$
SUHQDVDOL]DWLRQQRSUHQDVDOL]DWLRQ





39




Stop series in Kra-Dai

the modern Siamese orthography are indicated byclusters preceded by h- that occur in the upper tones andare merged with the ordinary nasals.
Type M, which is indicated by the round symbol, isthe second most frequent type. Type M, in which theaspirates merge to non-aspirates, is found in Northern
Zhuang, Southern Buyi, and Be. While the soundchange from Type H: th-t-ɗ-n to Type M: t-ɗ-n iswidespread in these areas, some scholars havepostulated a reversed direction of change, claiming thatthe aspirates emerged later.
There are four other types occurring in the Taibranch. Type E: th-t-ɗ-n-ʔn and Type L: t-ɗ-n-ʔn, which
are more conservative and have glottalized nasals, aredistributed in the east of the Kra-Dai area next to the
non-Tai branches, as shown in the map below. Theseglottalized nasals are possibly retention of an archaic
distinction. Type L also has a de-aspiration and in Type
I: th-t-n, the *ʔd- has changed to n- and in Type K: th-t,
the n- has changed to l-.
In the southern group, Hlai and Be from Hainan
island have experienced the same changes as in the Taibranch, that is, Type H > Type M. There is also a Type
J: th-ɗ-n in the Cun language, which is adjacent to Hlai.
In this type, the t- is lacking and is replaced by tθ-,which may have been because of a change from t- > tθ-.
The northern Kra-Dai, Kra, Lakkia, and Kam-Sui
groups have more and less complicated systems. For
example, the Sui language has the most complicatedType A: th-t-ɗ-nd-n-nh-ʔn system, and there is also a
pre-nasal voiced stop in Type C: th-t-d-nd-n-ʔn.
Voiceless nasals are preserved in Type A and Type B:
th-t-d-ɗ-n-nh, D: th-t-d-n-nh, and F: th-t-n-nh, and in
Type G: th-t-n-nt, there is a voiceless stop after the nasal.
The geographical distribution of these conservative
types is scattered, and it is hard to tell why theyoccurred from a comparative linguistic point of view.
Cognate words are relatively difficult to find between
the Tai and non-Tai branches; therefore, the soundcorrespondences are also less stable than in the Taibranch.
(ENDO Mitsuaki)

1. Classification
There are 13 types of initial dental stop series in KraDai.
A: th-t-ɗ-nd-n-nh-ʔn
B: th-t-d-ɗ-n-nh
C: th-t-d-nd-n-ʔn
D: th-t-d-n-nh
E: th-t-ɗ-n-ʔn
F: th-t-n-nh
G: th-t-n-nt
H: th-t-ɗ-n
I: th-t-n
J: th-ɗ-n
K: th-t
L: t-ɗ-n-ʔn
M: t-ɗ-n
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Type H, which is indicated by a small dot, is the mostwidespread variety, as it is found across the whole KraDai area and includes Bangkok Siamese and Lunchow
Zhuang. The corresponding rule between proto-Tai andType H is as follows (Li, 1977):
proto-Tai

*t-

*th-

*d-

*ʔd-

*n-

*hn-

SiameseLungchow

tt-

thth-

tht-

dd-

nn-

nn-

Li (1977:107) described the phonetic nature of *ʔd-,as follows: “This consonant is preserved as apreglottalized consonant ʔd- in Wu-ming, but isrepresented by d- in most dialects – at least so
transcribed. It is generally pronounced with somelaryngeal stricture and depression, and may even be
implosive in the pronunciation of certain speakers.” In
this study, [ ɗ ] is used to indicate this sound, but it canalso be transcribed as d-, as mentioned above. It isnoteworthy that the pure voiced consonant *d- hasdisappeared in almost all Kra-Dai dialects, with lower
series of each tone emerging in its place. This has also
occurred in a majority of Sinitic dialects and it appears
that voiced initial consonants easily disappear in tonal
languages.
The descendants of *ʔd- occur in the upper tones,
and this series lacks a velar counterpart. These
properties indicate that the voicing is due to later
innovations caused by a change into an implosive.
Voiceless nasals also existed in proto-Tai, which in40

A: th-t-ɗ-nd-n-nh-ʔn
B: th-t-d-ɗ-n-nh
C: th-t-d-nd-n-ʔn
D: th-t-d-n-nh
E: th-t-ɗ-n-ʔn
F: th-t-n-nh
G: th-t-n-nt
H: th-t-ɗ-n
I: th-t-n
J: th-ɗ-n
K: th-t
L: t-ɗ-n-ʔn
M: t-ɗ-n41

Stop series in Tibeto-Burman

Lahu; Kucong; Tibetic (Lhasa, Largyab, Shigatse,
Ruthog)
D2a /th-t-n-n̥ / type
Ganan; Ao; Xiandao; Taungyo Burmese
D2b /th-t-n/ type (including /th-d-n/)Azha; Bai; Zozo; Hani (Biyue, Shuigui); Jino;
Zaiwa; Jinghpaw; Kadu; Selibu (Longwangbian); Tujia(Xianren); Phom; Manang
D3 /th-t/ type
Tujia (Pojiao, Tasha, Laxidong)E. others (with an implosive sound)
Karenic (Bwe, Geba, Manu, Kyonpyaw Pwo); Asho
Chin; Cak

1. Classification
A. /t-d/ type (/t-d-n/ only)
Trung; Puroik; Bangru; Galo (Tani)
B. /th-t-d/ typeB1a /th-t-d-nd-nt-nth-n-n̥ / type
Tibetic (Zulong, mPhagri); nDrapa (Ngwirdei);
Zakhring
B1b /th-t-d-nd-nt-nth-n/ type
Tibetic (Babzo); rGyalrongic (Situ, bTsanlha,
Khroskyabs, sTau, Nyagrong Minyag)
B2a /th-t-d-nd-nth-n-n̥ / type
Majority of dialects of Tibetic languages in Khams;
nDrapa (Mätro); Choyu; Lhagang Choyu; Lamo;
Larong sMar; Drag-yab sMar; Lizu
B2b /th-t-d-nd-nth-n/ type
Tibetic (sKyangtshang, Bragkhoglung, Phyugtsi,
Daan); Namuyi (Dzolo); Ersu
B3a /th-t-d-nd-n-n̥ / type
Tibetic (mDungnag); Betsi Choyu; Shuhing; Yi
Northern (Senza); Songlin
B3b /th-t-d-nd-n/ type
Tibetic (Chabcha, Mangra, Brag-g.yab, rTsamda,
Limi, Tabo); Pema; Basum; Darmdo Minyag; Yi
Eastern (Nersu, Nipu); Naxi; Malimasa; Dao; Selibu(Shuimofang)
B4 /th-t-d-nth-n/ type
Alo; Yi Eastern
B5a /th-t-d-n-n̥ (ʔn)/ type
Lidim; Laluba; Lalu; Northern Prinmi; Central
Prinmi; Burmese (Yangon, Yaw); Daai Chin
B5b /th-t-d-n/ type
Tibetic (gTsangbawa, kLurtse, Ladaks, Balti,
Khumbu, Chocha-ngacha); Rmaic (Mawo, Ronghong,Longxi, Taoping); nGochang (Qianxi); Yongning Na;
Yi Western (Lalo, Lipo); Yi Southern (Narsu, Nesu); Yi
Central; Axi; Lisu; Burmese (Palaw, Myeik); Kaman;
Idu; Hayu; Dolakha Newar; Chantyal; Kinnauri
B6 /th-t-d/ type
Tujia (Tanxi, Xiaqieji, Xiadu)
C. /th-t-d-t‘(d’/dɦ)/ type
Ca /th-t-d-dɦ-n-n̥ / type
Kathmandu Newar; Camling
Cb /th-t-d-t‘-n/ type
Tibetic (Denjongke, Dzongkha, Brokpa); Wambule
Rai
D. /th-t/ typeD1 /th-t-nd-n/ type

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The reconstruction of proto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB;
Matisoff 2003) includes a bipartite system of ‘voiceless’*t and ‘voiced’ *d in plosives. This is common withSinitic (Old Chinese; Baxter & Sagart 2014). Hence,
this bipartite system (Type A) takes first position in thepresent classification as the most archaic form, though
we do not confirm that the system reflects the reality ofarchaic forms. Referring to the sound developmentattested principally in Tibetic languages, we list thetypes as follows: a tripartite system, voiceless aspirated,voiceless non-aspirated, and voiced (Type B); a
quadripartite system (Type C); and another bipartite
system, aspirated and non-aspirated (Type D). Second,
the number of prenasalisations is classified (e.g., B1 &B2); finally, the nasals are considered (e.g., B1a & B1b).
The following types are in chronological order.
/n̥ / (or voiceless nasals) is mainly derived from an*s prefix, of which the evidence, in most cases, remains
in Written Tibetan forms as well as rGyalrongic
languages. The latter (B1b) still maintains a consonant
cluster /sn/ instead of /n̥ /.
Type A is marginally found. In our data, several
languages
distributed
between
BhutanandNorthwestern Yunnan are classified into this type.
Type B exhibits the widest distribution, which
nearly covers the whole TB area. It is first subclassified
based on the prenasalised pattern: Tripartite (Type B1),
bipartite (Type B2), voiced only (Type B3), voiceless
only (Type B4), and no prenasalisation (Type B5). Notethat we find a restriction of the appearance of
prenasalised forms. There are reports of several
languages, such as Ladaks and Balti, in which
prenasalisation only appears in word-medial position.
However, we do not reflect this case in the classification

42

Dzongkha and Denjongke and is to be merged with /th/as attested in Lhasa Tibetan, whereas in Brokpa, it
seems that /dɦ/ is derived from complex initials of
which the main initial is *d; a similar phenomenon is
attested in dPalskyid Tibetan (B2b).
Type D is found in the Tibet Plateau, scattered, as
well as in the border area of China (Yunnan) and Laos.
Type D1 seems similar to a subtype of Type B. However,a prenasalised sound /nd/ is not regarded as a substitutefor a simple /d/, regardless of its phonological status.
Lahu’s phonological description is /th-t-d-n/, but its
phonetic realisation is [th-t-nd-n]. We follow the latterfor the present analysis. Moreover, observing thetendency of sound change in Lhasa Tibetan, we can see
Type D1 going to merge into Type D2.
Type E is a group possessing an implosive /ɗ/. The
languages of Type E are spoken in Myanmar and
Bangladesh. Kato (2009:180) claims that it is alreadyan implosive at the proto-Karenic stage. At least thisphoneme does not date back to PTB. Hence, we set
Type E independently. A potential source of its
acquisition is language contact with Kra-Dai, MonKhmer, or Austroasian languages.
Even languages distributed in a small area display
different types. For example, Selibu has two points:
Shuimofang belongs to Type B3b, and Longwangbianto D2. The difference is due to the degree to which
words of Tibetan origin are incorporated into thesystem. Tujia is also in the same situation. Tanxi
belongs to Type B5, and Pojiao to D3. The former hasa more complex system than the latter that reflects thesound change process.

or the maps.
Some discrepancies due to different conventions oftranscription are unified into a representative one forsimplicity. For example, ‘th-t-d-nt-nth-n’ in Ringmo
Tibetan is unified into Type B2b. The transcription ‘ʔn’in Laluba is considered as bearing a close status to /n̥ /,although we need confirmation.
Type B1 is mainly distributed in the Ethnic Corridor
of West Sichuan. Note that the Tibetic languages withType B1 are derived from those with Type B2 due toindividual innovations. We also find it in Zakhring,which has had strong language contacts with Khams
Tibetan (B2a) and Kaman (B5b), spoken in Dzayul(Tibet).
Type B2 is found in the eastern Tibetosphere. Thereis a discrepancy between previous works and ourdescription regarding the existence of the prenasalised
voiceless aspirated /nth/ in Khams Tibetan. We follow adescription that recognises this sound as a part of thesystem.
Type B3 is marginally found: Tibetic languages
spoken in the northeasternmost and southeasternmost
areas, the Yi Northern and Eastern groups, as well as
Sinitic-based ‘mixed languages’ such as Dao and Selibu.
Type B4 is found in Yi Eastern in the small
easternmost area. It seems that this type is rare.
Type B5 is mainly distributed in the south of the
Tibeto-Burman linguistic sphere: from Guizhou to
Yunnan, Arunachal Pradesh, Bhutan, and Ladakh.
Types B6 and D3 lack the nasal sound; however,this is due to a merger of [n] with /l/. This phenomenon
is widely attested in Southwestern Mandarin (Cao2008).
Type C is found on the southern side of theHimalayas, namely, Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan. It canhave two patterns of origin: adaptation of the Indicsound system and a transitional status between Types B
and D. These two are not classified in the maps. For thelatter origin, we find several ways of representing thefourth feature, including /t‘/, /d’/, and /dɦ/, which all
represent a breathy sound. Some studies have described
it as ‘murmur voice’; at the present stage, we consider
both ‘breathy’ and ‘murmur’ in a single unit. There isan analysis of these types of phonation as part ofsuprasegmental realisations and thus not in the
consonant system. In this case, the breathy feature
would also appear resonant.
Considering its historical position, we find that thisphoneme is derived from a voiced simplex *d in

We collected the data of around 710 points.
Although PTB (and Old Chinese) includes a voicelessand voiced series in the plosives, almost all languages
and varieties of Tibeto-Burman have a distinction of
aspirated voiceless and non-aspirated voiceless series.
Languages in Nepal often have a quadripartite systemof aspirated voiceless, non-aspirated voiceless, voiced,
and breathy voiced, and several languages in Myanmar
have acquired an implosive which does not exist in PTB.
These phenomena are suggestive of intense language
contact influencing the sound system.
(SUZUKI Hiroyuki, EBIHARA Shiho, IWASA Kazue,
KURABE Keita, and SHIRAI Satoko)

43

Figure 1: Stop series in Tibeto-Burman

44

Figure 2: Stop series in Tibeto-Burman: An enlarged version

45

Stop series in Austroasiatic

Khmuic, Mangic, Monic and some Vietic languages.
Type A-2 is common in the Bahnaric, Khmeric,Monic, Palaungic, Pearic, Vietic and a few Waic
languages.
Type B is conservative in that it contains thecomplete proto AA series. The Kơho (Southern
Bahnaric), Mlabri (Khmuic) and Danaw (Palaungic)
languages use this system.
Type C lacks the voiced and voiceless contrast,
which is a typical case of the emergence of registral or
tonal contrasts. Most languages of this type (Suai,
Khmu, Lamet, Lai, Mường Danh, Kontoi Plang andSamtao) have registral or tonal contrasts, except for
Lawa (Waic). However, Lawa has a full nasal series: tht-nd-n-nh-Ɂn.
Type D is typical in the Aslian and Munda languages.
Type E is only found in the Car Nicobarese language.
In addition to the stop series considered above, AA
languages also possess prenasalized stops (nd-nt-nth), a
voiceless nasal (nh) and a preglottalized nasal one (Ɂn).
Their geographical distribution is shown in Fig.1.
Prenasalised series are found in the Bahnaric,
Khmuic, Palaungic, Bugan (Mangic), Nyah Kur(Monic), Lai (Vietic) and Lawa (Waic) languages.
Voiceless nasal stop is quite common in the Bahnaric,
Katuic, Khmeric, Khmuic, Monic, Palaungic and Waic
languages.
Preglottalized nasal stop is found in the Sedang(Northern Bahnaric), Eastern and Western Khmu
(Khmuic) and Lawa (Waic) languages.

1. Classification
This map shows types of (denti-)alveolar plosive
consonant series in Austroasiatic (AA) languages. In
languages with sesquisyllabic structures (C1-C2VC3),
the initial consonants of the major syllable (C2) aretaken into account. The types are classified into fivelarge categories as follows (‘/’ stands for ‘or’ and ‘|’ for‘and/or’).
A. th-t-d/ɗ-n type
A-1 th-t-d-n typeth-t-d-nth-t-d-dh-n-(nh)th-t-d-n-nh-(Ɂn)
th-t-d-nd|nt|nth-n-(nh)A-2 (th)-t-ɗ-n type(th)-t-ɗ-nth-t-dh-ɗ-nth-t-ɗ-nd|nt|nth-nth-t-ɗ-(nd|nt|nth)-n-nh
th-t-ɗ-nd|nt|nth-n-nh-ɁnB. th-t-d-ɗ-n typeth-t-d-ɗ-n-(nh)C. th-t-n typeth-t-nth-t-n-Ɂn/Ɂdth-t-nd|nt|nth-nth-t-(nd|nt|nth)-n-nh
th-t-nd|nt|nth-n-nh-Ɂn
D. t-d-n typet-d-n
E. t-n typet-n

(SHIMIZU Masaaki, MINEGISHI Makoto)

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Proto AA contains the dental series *t-d-ɗ-n (Sidwell2015), and most of the languages cited here contain /th/.
Hence, the classification proposed above is based on
the series: th-t-d-ɗ-n. Since the implosive sounds arewidespread in Southeast Asia (Maddieson 2013) andphonologically distinguished from the normal plosives
in proto AA, we think it important to distinguish thevoiced plosive /d/ from the implosive /ɗ/, even when
the distinction makes no sense phonologically. Here,
we follow the description of each author, even though
the identical target is sometimes described differently,
such as in the case of [ɗ] as /d/ or [Ɂd].
Type A-1 is quite common in the Katuic, Khasic,

Figure 1: nd/nt/nth: nh:＋ Ɂn:○

46

A-1.

th-t-d-n type

〇

A-2.

(th)-t-ɗ-n type×B.

th-t-d-ɗ-n typeC.

th-t-n type●D.

t-d-n type＋E.

t-n type◇

47

Stop series in Austronesianreconstructs the following 19: *p, *b, *m, *t, *d, *s, *n,*ł, *l , *c, *j, *k , *g, *ŋ, *ɣ, *q, *h, *w, *y, and Ross
1995 posits the following 23 consonants: *p, *b, *m, *t,*d1(/d/), *d2(/ʣ/), *d3(/ɖ/), *C(ʦ), *n, *s, *S(/ş, ç/),*Z(/ɟ/), *L(l, ł/), *l(/ɭ, ɻ/), *r, *k, *g, *ŋ, *q, *ʀ, *h, *w,*y.
It is hard to determine the sets of consonants, butthere are some consistent points. Place of articulation
are bilabial, alveolar, alveolar retroflex, palatal, velar,
uvular, and glottal. All the consonants are pulmonic.
Manners of articulation are stop, nasal, fricative, lateral,and trill.
Overall, PAN is supposed to have a fairly simple
phonemic system, so are the stop series.

1.

Classification
Consonants in Austronesian languages do not differ
very much if we look at dental stops and nasals.
A: t-n Languages with a voiceless stop and a nasal.
B: Languages with a voiceless and a voiced stop and anasal.
B1: t-d-n
B2: t-ɖ-n, t-d-ɖ-n With a retroflex voiced stop
C: t-d-dh-n Languages with a voiceless and a voicedstop, a nasal and other voiced consonant; an aspirated
voiced stop or a voiced retroflex stop
D: Languages with (a) prenasalised stop(s)D1: t-d-nd-n/t-d-ndr-n/t-d-nt-n Languages with avoiceless and a voiced stop, a prenasalised stop, and anasal
D2: t-d-nt-nd-n/t-d-ɗ-n-nt-nd-n Languages withtwo prenasalised stops in addition to stops and a nasal
E: Others: languages with aspirated consonants.
t-th-d-n-nh/t-th-nt-d-n-nh/t-th-d-n-nh(UTSUMI Atsuko)

2.

Distribution
Austronesian languages most frequently exhibit B-1
type, in which a voiceless and a voiced stop and a nasal
dental consonants (t-d-n) are found, and one language
has a retroflex voiced stop /ɖ/ instead of /d/. A few
languages lack a voiced stop (A type). In Taiwan, thePhilippines, and Sumatra, most languages fall intoeither A or B types. C type is only found in Madurese.
There are no languages that exhibit a prenasalised stop.
D-1 and D-2 types, which have more than one
prenasalised stop in a dental series are found in
Sulawesi, Papua, and some Oceanic languages. Morecomplicated inventories, such as t-th-d-n-nh, t-th-nt-dn-nh, and t-th-d-n-nh, are found in some Oceanic
languages. However, B type remains the most frequent
pattern in these areas, too.
Consonants in Proto-Austronesian (PAN) do not add
up to a large number. The four vowels, /i, a, u, ә/ andfour dephthongs /iw, ay, aw, uy/, are almost
unequivocally posited for proto-Austronesian (Dyen
1953, Dahl 1981, Mills 1981, Blust 2009, Wolff 2010,
among others). As for consonants, including semivowels, researchers may disagree. Blust 2009 posits
25 consonants, *p, *b, *m, *t, *d, *n *S, *C(ʦ), *l, *r,*R(/r/ or /ʀ/), *ɲ, *s(ç), *c(ʧ), *z(ʝ), *N(lj), *D(/ɖ/), *k,*g, *j(g j), *ŋ, *q, *h, *y(/j/), *w (Symbols in thebrackets are suspected actual phones). Wolff 201048

Figure 1: Taiwan and Philippine

Figure 2: Papua New Guinea and nearby islands

Figure 3: Indonesia

A type: t-n

B-1 type: t-d-n

B-2 type: t-ɖ-n, t-d-ɖ-n

C type: t-d-dh-n

D-1 type: t-d-nd-n/t-d-ndr-n/t-d-nt-n

D-2 type: t-d-nt-nd-n/t-d-ɗ-n-nt-nd-n
E type (others) t-th-d-n-nh/t-th-nt-d-n-nh/t-th-d-n-nh

49

Stop series in Tungusic
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
It is possible to say that all Tungusic languages havethe distinctive features of [+/- voice] and [+/- nasal].
This type is also observed in other obstruents as[k]/[ɡ]/[ŋ], but it may not be applicable to the labial
plosive, as in Evenki words which begin with /p/ arerelatively less than words with /b/ in the initial.

1. Classification
Tungusic languages have almost less differences inphonetic inventories. For example, Evenki’s inventory
is as following: stops /p/ [p], /b/ [b], /t/ [t], /d/ [d], /k/[k], /g/ [ɡ], affricates /č/ [tɕ], /ǰ/ [dʑ], fricatives /s/ [s],/h/ [h], nasals /m/ [m], /n/ [n], /ŋ/ [ŋ] and others /l/ [l],/r/ [r], /v/ [w], /j/ [j].
In Tungusic languages only one type A is observed:
A t-d-n(MATSUMOTO Ryo)

Figure 1: Stop series in Tugusic
t-d-n type50

Stop series in UralicFor example:(1) maito
milk.NOM

1. Classification
Uralic languages are classified into 3 groups, A1, A2
and B, as shown in Figure 1.
Type A1 has phonetically 3 series of alveolar
plosive; voiceless, voiced and nasal, but in Type A2 andB voiceless and nasal are distinctive in the initialphoneme of a word. In Type A2 voiced plosive canappear only in the middle of a word mainly as the resultof the morpho-phonemic alternation.
The phonetic form of the phoneme /d/ is different
according to the language group. In Type A2, which
includes Balto-Finn languages, it is pronounced by
weak-voiced or half voiced [d̥].
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Type A2 is widely observed in Uralic languages.
Especially most of the Finnic languages are belonging
to this type with the consonant gradation (CG). For
example, the Finnish CG of the alveolar series is shownin the table 1. It depends mainly on the morphologicaland phonetic conditions, which grade should be used.
Table 1: CG in Finnish
Strong Grade (SG)Weak Grade (WG)tttSulkala and Karjalainen (1992: 366) also mention:/d/ is substituted by other phonemes in the dialects,
and occurs only in word-medial position in native
Finnish words, acting as the weak variant of /t/ inconsonant gradation.
In Permic languages, 3 series of stops as Type A1 are
distinctive by [±voice] and [±nasal], as in Altaic
languages observed. They reside next to Tatar andBashkir, it is possible to expect that it is influenced
from neighboring Turkic languages. On the other hand,
Tatar and Bashkir are having contact also with VolgaFinnic languages (Mari and Mordvin) in the west,
which are type A2 without the phoneme /d/.
In Ugric languages, except Hungarian which was
moved to far west from the homologous Khanty andMansi, it seems that they do not have the feature of[±voice]. Selkup in Samojed has the same stop series
as Ugric, it may be because of the areal feature oflanguages of peoples along Yenisei called "Ostyak".
(MATSUMOTO Ryo)tdFigure 1: Stop series in Uralicmaido-ssa
milk.INESSt-d-nt-(d)-nt-n51

Stop series in Mongolic and Turkic

language or a dialect may exist, this is just a tentativeclassification.)

1. Classification
At the phonological level, there are two types of
initial dental stop series in Mongolic and Turkic:
t-n
Chuvash (a Turkic language)
t-d-n
Other languages

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Oral stops are mainly distinguished by voice in thewestern and northeastern languages as in Russian andby aspiration in southeastern ones as in Chinese.
Development of preaspiration in some languages isreported (Karlsson and Svantesson 2012). The figures
below show phonetic features of the Khalkha
Mongolian intervocalic /t/ and /d/. The phonemes areboth realized as a voiceless stop. The spectrograms
show that /a/ is breathy voiced with partial devoicing
before /t/ and modal voiced before /d/. (Creakinessobserved at the beginning of /a/ in /atū/ in this utterance
is just an accompaniment of a low pitch and should be
ignored in this discussion. Noise caused by breath
before /a/ in /adū/ has nothing to do with the discussion,
either.) We can also see the difference between thevowels from the waveforms. This situation can beinterpreted as the contrast between preaspirated andnon-preaspirated consonants, and the words can betranscribed as [aʰtoː] and [atoː] respectively.

The t-d-n type includes two sub-categories on thephonetic level characterized by voice and aspiration.
All Mongolic languages belong to the /t/-/d/-/n/ type.
Kalmyk in the lower Volga region, Buryad in southern
Siberia and Moghol in Afghanistan have a voicing
contrast between /t/ and /d/, while the other Mongoliclanguages including Oirad, which is closely related to
Kalmyk, show a contrast in terms of aspiration between
them:
A [t]-[d]-[n] (/t/ can be realized as a slightly aspirated[tʰ])Buryad, Kalmyk, Moghol
B [tʰ]-[t]-[n]Dagur (Butha), Dagur (Tacheng), Khamnigan,
Bargu Buryad, Mongol (Chakhar, Khalkha, etc.),
Oirad, Shira Yughur, Monguor, Baoan, Dongxiang,
KanjiaAll Turkic languages except Chuvash belong to the/t/-/d/-/n/ type.
A [t]-[d]-[n] (/t/ can be realized as a slightly aspirated[tʰ])Turkish, Azeri, Gagauz, Turkmen, Tatar, Bashkir,
Crimean Tatar, Kyrgyz, Kazakh (Kazakhstan),
Noghay, Uzbek, Uighur, Sakha, Dolgan, Khakas,
Shor, Chulym
B [tʰ]-[t]-[n]Kazakh (China), Sarïg Yughur, Salar, Tuvan (,Uighur)Chuvash belongs to the t-n type. Voiced stops,
however, appear in Russian loanwords. The realization of/t/ may vary to some extent depending on theenvironment.

/atū/ ‘female fish’(For the languages and dialects for which clear
phonetic descriptions are not available, the author
made use of recordings of native speakers provided byinstitutions and individuals including those uploadedon the Internet as well as linguistic and learningmaterials on the market. If voicing was observed in /d/in a sentence-initial position, the language or dialect
was classified as a member of the type A group. As theamount of data the author could obtain was small andvariations in terms of area and generation within a/adū/ ‘horse’Figure 1: Preaspirated and plain voiceless stops in
Khalkha Mongol (The waveforms and spectrograms
were obtained using the Praat program developed by
Paul Boersma and David Weenink.)(SAITÔ Yoshio)52

Mongolic
Turkic

t-d-n
t-d-n

tʰ-t-ntʰ-t-nFigure 2: Stop series in Mongolic and Turkic

53

t-n

Stop series in South Asia

This type is a subtype of C1 and has three languages:
Sinhala, Dhivehi (both IA), and Vedda (a creole
between pre-Vedda, a language isolate, and Sinhala).
These languages have a three-way distinction, <t-d-n>,in the word-initial position, same as the C1 languages.
However, the existence of a series of prenasalised stops<nd> in C2 languages is noteworthy. Prenasalised stops
in such languages occur only in the onset of a wordinternal syllable. They behave as single consonants andcontrast with nasal + stop clusters (e.g. ka.ndǝ ‘tree
trunk’ vs. kan.dǝ ‘hill’ [Gair 2003: 779] in Sinhala).
Marathi, Konkani, Vaagri Boli, and Saurashtra incentral-to-southern India, Bhojpuri and Awadhi innorthern India, and Torwali in northern Pakistan are all
IA and type D languages, which have a series ofaspirated nasals <nɦ> even word-initially, in addition to
the series of type A languages.
Type E contains only Sindhi (IA), and type F has
two languages, Saraiki and Marwari (both IA). These
three languages are located across or near the bordersof Pakistan and India. They gained a series of
implosives, anew, and type F languages have voiced
aspirated nasals, similar to type D languages. Type E
has a six-way distinction, <th-t-d-dh-ɗ-n>, while type F
has a seven-way, <th-t-d-dh-ɗ-n-nɦ>. Note that Sindhi
and Saraiki have lost the distinction between dental andretroflex implosives; they are actually pronounced as
the merged implosive as [ᶑ] rather than [ɗ] in Sindhi,
and vice versa in Saraiki, for example ᶑiʈho ‘s/he saw’
(Khubchandani 2003: 647) in Sindhi vs. ɗiʈhimis ‘I saw
it’ (Bashir & Conners 2019: 220) in Saraiki.
Only Bishnupriya, which has the set <th-t-d-dˀ-n>,
is classified as Type G in this study. This language has
lost its voiced aspirated series, instead showing a seriesof ‘voiced plosive with glottal closures’ (Sinha 1981).
Outside South Asia, there are several IA languages
in the west, see Figure 2. All Romani dialects andLomavren in and around Europe belong to type B, andthe dialects of Domari in the Middle East are of type H1<t-tˤ-d-dˤ-n> (Jerusalem) and H2 <t-tˠ-d-dˠ-n> (Aleppo).
These pharyngealised or velarised dentals are the resultof contact with Arabic, and are found mainly in words
borrowed from Arabic, but also in some non-Arabic
words, i.e., Indo-Aryan words. For example, Jerusalemdˤɑndˤ ‘tooth’ (Matras 2012: 43) and Aleppo pēṭ[peːtˠ]‘belly’ (Herin 2012: 7) correspond to dāt̃ and pēṭin Hindi-Urdu respectively.
(YOSHIOKA Noboru)

1. Classification
Here, I describe the languages of Indo-Aryan(hereinafterIA),severalsmalllanguagefamilies/branches, and language isolates in South Asia.
On Figure 1, the manners of articulation of the alveolar
stop series are classified into ten types.
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
As far as the entire Indian subcontinent isconcerned, we can see that geographical rather than
genealogical relationships have a stronger influence on
the manner of articulation of consonants (Figure 1).
Historically, Sanskrit, an archaic language of IA,
had five distinct alveolar stops <th-t-d-dh-n> (Cardona2003); thus, it belongs to the type A classification of thispaper. Even now, 21 (19 are IA) out of the 76 languages
have the same five stops, that is, voiceless aspirated,voiceless nonaspirated, voiced nonaspirated, voiced
aspirated plosives, and voiced nasals, just like Sanskrit.
These languages are distributed over India (except thesouth), Bangladesh, and Nepal, and some northwest IA
languages in northern Pakistan belong to this type.
Type B has lost the consonants of the voiced
aspirated series and kept the four-way distinction.
Languages belonging to this type are located inperipheral zones such as the Andaman Islands and anarea from Indian-administrated Kashmir via northern
Pakistan to northeastern Afghanistan. Genealogically, it
includes the languages of the Andamanese family,
Burushaski (isolate), and the northwest group of IA.
Besides the inland languages other than Andamanese,
Panjabi (both western and eastern dialects), which islocated slightly to the south, also exhibits this four-way
distinction. This language has lost the aspirated voiced
plosives and exhibits distinctive tones instead.
Further along in type B, the distinction of
aspiration has been lost even in voiceless stops, and thedistinction has become three-way <t-d-n> in type C1
languages. In South Asia, this type consists of Onge
(Andamanese) on Little Andaman Island, Pashayi (IA)and most Nuristanis in Afghanistan, and Chittagonian(IA) in Bangladesh. How has this language completely
lost its aspiration distinction while being surrounded bytype A languages is not clear. That Učida (1970) saysthat the fact that the language has a tonal system may
be relevant to the loss.
In the Indian Ocean, there exist type C2 languages.

54

Figure 1: Types of stop series in Indo-Aryan, Nuristani (both in blue), Andamanese, and language isolates(those in black)

Figure 2: Types of Indo-Aryan languages outside of South Asia

55

Stop series in Dravidian

aspirated stops are the less stable of the two
aspirated series in this type, probably because
voiceless stops in these languages were inherently
aspirated. In order to maintain the distinction,
borrowed voiceless aspirated stops tend to be either
replaced by voiceless fricatives or characterized by
an extra-long VOT which makes the following
vowel as breathy as those following the voiced
aspirated stops. The dental series in Telugu is
known to have taken the latter course, ending up ina merger of the voiced and voiceless aspirated stops,
as is shown on the map. Similar phonetic
descriptions on some varieties of Kannada andMalayalam are found in literature but not
represented on the map.
C-2 type is also found in tribal languages in northand central India. Only Kurukh and Naiki areshown on the map as this type, although there arereports of dialects of this type in Gondi and Pengo.
This type may suggest the extent of bilingualismwith a Modern Indo-Aryan languages in the area.
Aspirated stops are not limited to borrowings andexpressives in some languages. Kobayashi &Tirkey(2017: 34-35) discusses Kurukh spontaneous
aspiration in medial positions in addition to theinitial kh which is cognate to Malto q. Aspirated
sounds and consonant clusters are reported to be
distinct in Kurukh.
Bh. Krishnamurti (2003: 155) includes aspirationin Telugu and Old Kannada numerals in his
evidence for the Dravidian laryngeal theory. (PDr.
*CVHCV > Telugu C[H]VCV).
OTe. padi ‘10’ ēṃbhadi ‘50’
OKa. ombhattu ‘9’ tombhattu ‘90’ cf. hattu <pattu ‘10’
Mod.Te. padi ‘10’ iravay ‘20’ mupphay ‘30’
nalabhay ‘40’ ēbhay ‘50’ aravay ‘60’ḍebbhay ‘70’ enabhay ‘80’ tombhay ‘90’
Together with some more examples of Telugu
numerals shown below, these may suggest a cluster
origin of the Telugu aspirated stops. Inserted -happears below to block deletion of the preceding
short vowel by a V-V sandhi which would result ina monomoraic allomorph.
pada-k-oṇḍu ‘11’ paṇ-ṇeṇḍu ‘12’ pada-mūḍu ‘13’
pad(h)-nālugu ‘14’ padi-h-ēnu ‘15’ pada-h-āru ‘16’
padi-h-ēḍu ‘17’ padd-h-enimidi ‘18’ pan-dhommidi‘19’(KODAMA Nozomi)

1. Classification
In this map, stop series are classified as 3 large
categories: t-n type, t-d-n type, and t-d-dh-n type.
A. t-n typet- [t-], n- [n-]-t- [-ð-], -n- [-n-]-tt- [-tt-] (< *-tt, <*-ntt)-nt- [-nd-] -nn- [-nn-]
B. t-d-n typet- [t-], d- [d-], n- [n-]-t- [-t-], -d- [-ð-]~[-d-], -n- [-n-]-tt- [-tt-], -dd- [-dd-], -nn- [-nn-]-nt- [-nt-](<*-ntt), -nd- [-nd-](<*-nt)
C. t-d-dh-n type
C-1 t-d-dh-n typet [tʰ], d [d], dh [dʱ]~[tʱ], n [n]C-2 th-t-d-dh-n typeth [tʰ], t[t], d [d], dh [dʱ], n [n]2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The Proto-Dravidian stop series are reconstructed
as belonging to the t-n type, without phonemic
distinctions
betweenvoiced/voicelessnor
aspirated/non-aspirated stop consonants, as is thecase with Old Tamil. Since Tamil Brāhmī script
shed all the voiced or aspirated
consonantcharacters for oral stops, Tamil orthography has
never reintroduced a device to distinguish thevoiced stops which appears to have become
phonemic through lexical borrowing at least in theword initial position in most spoken Tamil dialects
on the subcontinent. The stop series in Lankan
Tamil dialects, on the other hand, are reported tohave remained of this archaic type, such as in Jaffnavariety recorded by S. Kuno (1958).
The t-d-n type is dominant elsewhere for the stop
series in Dravidian. The reflex of the PDr. series asreconstructed above is observed in alternation
between the initial voiceless and voiced stops as
allomorphy in most languages.
Types which involve aspiration, i.e. C-1 and C-2
are attributed to the contact with Indo-Aryan
languages. C-1 type is typically observed in theso-called educated speech of the languages with along literary tradition, which incorporated a large
amount of Sanskrit vocabulary and (except Tamil)
its phonetic and phonological treatises. Voiceless56

A. t-n
B. t-d-n
C-1 t-d-dh-n
C-2 th-t-d-dh-n
Figure 1: Stop series in Dravidian57

Stop series in Iranian and Armenian

2018: 171). Armenian is classified into B-1. Haig
(2018: 170) supposes that Kurdish aspirated phonemes
are due to Armenian influence.
In addition, Eastern Balochi may also have thephoneme /th/, whose status as phoneme needs further
research (see Korn 2005).
Type C is quite a unique series, which is found onlyin Ossetic (Iron and Digoron dialect), spoken in
Caucasus, where ejective is quite common. There is athree-way contrast in stops: aspirated voiceless,ejective and voiced. Ejectives occur mainly inloanwords, although they could occur in someinherited words from Proto-Iranian.
ex.) Iron. t’yssyn-/ t’st- ‘to thrust’ < *tund-s cf. OIA.
tud- ‘beat, hit’ (Abaev 1979: 358)
Type D has pharyngealized (or velarized) stops.
This group is scattered around Arabian Peninsula,where Arabic is overwhelmingly dominant. It has two
subgroups: D-1 and D-2. The former has one
pharyngealized stop /tˤ/ whereas the latter has two (/tˤ/and /dˤ/).
Type E shows features of both type B-1 and D-1,
that is, it has both aspirated stop /th/ andpharyngealized one. Only Behdini dialect of Kurdish(Iraq) falls into this type. Interestingly, Type E islocated between Type B and Type D-1 zone, whichenables us to suppose that neighboring languages play
an important role here too.
In conclusion, the stop series types in Iranian
languages correlate roughly with their geographicaldistribution except for Sorani (Type A) and Parachi(Type B-3). This implies that language contact plays
important role in Iranian stop series. In fact, manyscholars point out that Iranian languages have attained
new phonemes through the substrata or neighboring
languages (Oranskij (1988: 41) for Eastern Iranian,Ėdel’man and Dodyxudoeva (2009) for Pamir
languages, Haig (2018: 170) for Kurdish).
Parachi, spoken in Afghanistan, not being
contiguous to any other languages that have aspirated
phonemes, do not seem to be explained byneighboring language’s influence.

1. Classification
Many modern Iranian languages have the same stop
series as that of Proto-Iranian (PIr.), in which *t-*d-*n
is reconstructed. However, some Iranian languages
have developed new stop series, such as aspirated,ejective and pharyngealized/ velarized stops mainly
due to language contacts. Although it is not an Iranian
language, we also deal with Armenian here because it
has strong relation with Iranian languages both
linguistically and geographically.
In this map, stop consonant series are divided into
following five large categories (type A through type E)
with some subgroups.
Type A
Type B

Type CType D
Type Et-d-n
B-1 th-d-n
B-2 th-t-d-n
B-3 th-t-dh-d-nh-nth-t’-d-n
D-1 t-tˤ-d-n
D-2 t-tˤ-d-dˤ-nth-t-tˤ-d-n

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Type A is the commonest stop series in Iranian
languages, especially in Eastern regions. Although
type A is the same as the reconstructed PIr. stop series(*t-*d-*n), this does not straightforwardly correspondwith type A (t-d-n) respectively. This type includes
Persian, Tajik and Dari (Southwestern), Central
Kurdish (Sorani) and some dialects of Balochi(Northwestern), Pashto, Yazglami, Shughni-Roshanigroup with Sarikoli, Ishkashimi-Snglechi, Wakhi and
Munji-Yidgha(Southeastern),
Yaghnobi(Northeastern) and Ormuri (controversial).
Type B is frequently observed around the CaspianSea and Armenia. This group is divided further into
three subgroups: B-1, which includes Tatic (Tati, Vafsi,
Talysh), Caspian (Gilaki) and Gorani/Hawrami(Northwestern); B-2, which includes Northern Kurdish(Kurmanji, Northwestern); B-3, which includes
Parachi (controversial).
The aspirated stops occur not only in loanwords.
For example, According to Stilo (2019: 676), allvoiceless stops (except /ʔ/) are aspirated in Tatic andCaspian languages. Also, aspirated consonants arefound in Northern Kurdish native words (see Haig

(IWASAKI Takamasa)

58

A

t-d-n

B-1 th-d-n
B-2 th-t-d-n
B-3

th-t-dh-d-nh-nCth-t’-d-nD-1t-tˤ-d-nD-2t-tˤ-d-dˤ-nEth-t-tˤ-d-n
Figure 1: Stop series in Iranian and Armenian59

Stop series in Semitic languages

Thus, classical Syriac (ṭaːb ‘good’) and classicalArabic likely exhibited Type B-1 (t-tˤ-d-n). It is
possible that the realization of ṭ of classical Arabic
was a voiced [dˤ], but there is some discussions about
this realization in Proto Arabic (Nakao 2018.)
Modern Aramaic languages such as Syriac (tˤɑːb‘good’), Mandaic, Ma’lula Aramaic (tˤoːb ‘good’) andAssyrian, spoken in Iraq and Syria (tˤava ‘good),
Arabic nomadic (Bedouin) dialects such as Iraqi (tˤeːr‘bird’), Arabian peninsula and Tunisian have apharyngal tˤ as an emphatic but do not have apharyngal dˤ. In addition, the reflex of ḍ in Arabic
Bedouin dialects is the fricative ðˤ.
Type B-2 (t-tˤ-d-n-dˤ) is found in the urban dialectsof Arabic such as Cairene in Egypt, Damascine in
Syria, and Maghrebi in Morocco, in which theinterdental pharyngal fricative ðˤ and *d͡ɮˤ or *d͡ˡˤ (<Proto Semitic ɬˤ according to Lipiński 2001: 135)
merged into dˤ (Cairene dˤalma < *ðˤalma ‘darkness’;dˤarab < *d͡ɮˤarab ‘to hit’). Thus, the system of thestop series has achieved symmetry in these dialects.
Moreover, the dialects have developed thepharyngalized consonants bˤ, mˤ, and zˤ apart from therˤ and lˤ that exist in classical Arabic.
Type B-3 (t-d-n-ɗ-dˤ), which is a variety of Type
B-2, is found in Nigeria. In this dialect, the reflex of ṭ
is a dental implosive emphatic [ɗ ̣] and the reflex of ḍ
of classical Arabic is dˤ (Owens 1993.) An implosive[ɗ] as the reflex of ṭ in Aswan, South Egypt is also
reported (Schroepfer 2015.)
Type B-4 (t-d-n) is found in the peripheral
varieties of Arabic dialects such as Maltese, Ki-Nubiin Kenya and Bukhari in Uzbekistan, and modern
Hebrew. In these varieties, the emphatic phonemes
have merged into the non-emphatic counterpart, thus tˤ
into t and dˤ into d; Ar. tˤaːr > Maltese tar. In the
Bukhari dialect, the interdental fricatives θ, ð, and ðˤ
merged into plane dental fricatives s and z. The
speakers of modern Hebrew of European origin
pronounce /ṭ/ as t, although the speakers of that of the
Arabian origin pronounce it as tˤ as in Arabic.
Type B-5 (t-n) is found only in Cypriot Arabic. In
this dialect, the opposition between voiced andunvoiced has disappeared in the stops, as has thatbetween emphatic and non-emphatic.
(NAGATO Youichi)

1. Classification of stop series
The stop series are classified as follows.
A. t-t’-d-n series
A-1. t-t’-d-n type
A-2. t-ṭ-d-n type
B. t-tˤ-d-n typeB-1. t-tˤ-d-n typeB-2. t-tˤ-d-n-dˤ type
B-3. t-d-n-ɗ-dˤ type
B-4. t-d-n typeB-5. t-n type
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
A. t-t’-d-n typeType A (t-t’-d-n) with an ejective is distributed in
the modern period in the Ethiopian area and thesouthern Arabian peninsula. The Ethiopian Semitic
languages such as Amharic (t’amə ‘taste’), the official
language of Ethiopia, Tigrinya (t’əʕmə) of theChristian language in Eritrea, and Tigre (t’əʕma),spoken by Muslims in the area, all exhibit this type. In
addition, in the southern Arabian peninsula, the SouthArabian languages including Jibbali (t’ad ‘one’),Hobyot (t’áat’) in Oman, Mehri (t’ād) in Yemen, andSoqotri (t’ad) in the Soqotra island exhibit this type.
The ancient Semitic languages in these area suchas Ge’ez, the classical language of Ethiopia, and theSouth Arabian epigraphic languages such as Sabaean
in Yemen probably had the ejective t’ as the emphatic ṭ
because the modern varieties have it.
Type A-2 (t-ṭ-d-n) was distributed in the ancient
Semitic languages in the Mesopotamia and Syria area,such as Akkadian (ṭaːbu ‘good’), Ugaritic (ṭaːbu‘good’), and ancient Hebrew (ṭoːb ‘good’) These
Semitic languages had the emphatic consonants ṭ, ṣ,and ḳ. These emphatics were probably ejectives rather
than the pharyngalized tˤ (or uvularized, palatalized)
as in Arabic because of the lack of a voiced
counterpart (Nakano 1998: 15).
B. t-tˤ-d-n typeThis type is widely distributed throughout theArabic area, namely in the regions other than the
Ethiopian area and the southern Arabian peninsula. In
the Syrian region, where the North Semitic languages
were spoken, the innovation of the pharyngalization of
the ejective t’ took place.

60Figure 1: Stop series in Semitic

Figure 2: Stop series in Semitic (Old Semitic)

61

Stop series in Nilo-SaharanNilo-Saharan, however, is disputable, and it has been
recently confirmed that the Koman languages have anadditional phoneme th (Killian 2015; Otero 2019).
Type A-1 is the most prevalent type, represented byKorandje (Songhay) in Algeria, Nobiin (Nubian) in
Egypt, and Datooga (Southern Nilotic) in Tanzania(although the t vs. d opposition in Datooga could betheoretically analyzed as /tt/ vs. /t/; see Hieda 2001).
Some phonemes and types exhibit obviously areal
distributions. The implosive ɗ (Types A-2, A-4, C, D,
E) is frequent in so-called Sudanic belt, i.e., from theWest African coasts to the southern and western
fringes of the Ethiopian Highlands, which is often
postulated as an areal feature of this region (Clements
and Rialland 2008; Güldemann 2008). Ejective t’(Type C-2, D, E) is found almost exclusively among
disputed Nilo-Saharan branches (Koman, Gumuz, andShabo) spoken on the fringes of Ethiopian Highlands,
with the notable exception of Ethiopian Berta, which
uniquely attests C-2. The existence of the ejective
series (and ɗ) is a feature shared with Afroasiatic
languages of the same region (Omotic, Cushitic, andEthio-Semitic) and often postulated as an areal feature(Crass & Meyer 2008). Central Sudanic Ngiti (Type D)
actually has an implosive [ɗ̥], which is here integrated
as a phonetic variant of t’. Type B is found only
among Southern Nilotic languages in East Africa.
Many Nilo-Saharan branches attest a full or partial
distinction of dental vs. alveolar (most Western Nilotic,
Gaam (Eastern Jebel), Nyimang and Maba (Mabang))or alveolar vs. retroflex (Eastern Nilotic Kakwa andsome Central Sudanic) series. The point of articulation
may be incoherent in some other languages, such as in
Mamvu (Central Sudanic; Type A-1) and in Chamus
and Ongamo (Eastern Nilotic; Type A-2). Phonetically,
however, Mamvu has ʈ-d-ɳ, Chamus has t̪ -ɗ-n̪, andOngamo has t̪ -ɗ̪-n. All Kadu languages have alveolar ɗand n in addition to dental t̪ (and d̪) and retroflex ʈ(and ɖ) and are classified here as Type A-2. Similarly,
Didinga (Surmic), with t̪ -ʈ-d-ɗ-n, is classified as C-1.
Central Sudanic Kresh and Bagirmi (t-d-n-ʈ-ɖ-ᶑ) andMangbetu (t-d-n-ʈ’-ɖ-ᶑ), classified as Type A-1, andSouthern Nilotic Pökoot (t-n-ᶑ), classified as Type B,
have retroflex implosive (and ejective). In addition, a
few languages under Arabic and/or Berber influence,such as Northern Songhay and Sudanese Berta attest
pharyngealized stops /tˁ/ (and /dˁ/).

1. Classification
On this map, the stop series is classified as consistingof 10 types, which could be consolidated into fivemain types:
A. t-D-n types (two-way laryngeal distinction)
A-1 t-d-n type (core type)
A-2 t-ɗ-n type (including /ɗ/ [d]~[ɗ])A-3 t-d-n-nd type (A-1 plus a prenasalized stop)
A-4 t-ɗ-n-nd type (A-2 plus a prenasalized stop)
B. t-n type (no laryngeal distinction)
C. T-d-ɗ-n type (three-way laryngeal distinction)
C-1 t-d-ɗ-n type (core type)C-2 t’-d-ɗ-n type (with an ejective stop)
C-3 t-d-ɗ-n-nd type (C-1 plus a prenasalized stop)
D. t-t’-d-ɗ-n type (four-way laryngeal distinction)
E. th-t-t’-d-ɗ-n type (five-way laryngeal distinction)
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Nilo-Saharan is a loosely defined group of African
languages spoken between the domains of Afroasiaticand Niger-Congo language phyla. Although there is noconsensus about the phylogenetic membership or theinternal relationships, at least two large families havebeen established in the comparative linguistic debates:
Central Sudanic (with its Western and diverse Easternbranches) and Eastern Sudanic (Nubian, Nara, Taman,
Nyimang, Eastern Jebel, Temein, Daju, Surmic, andNilotic). The largest of these groups is the Nilotic
languages, with its Southern, Eastern and Western subbranches. In addition, the following languages haveappeared in the arena of “Nilo-Saharan” linguistics:
Berta, Fur-Amdang, Mabang, Kuliak, Kunama and
Saharan, as well as Koman, Gumuz, Songhay, Kadu
and Shabo, whose Nilo-Saharan affiliations have beendisputed (Dimmendaal 2020). In the following maps,
at least one member of these groups is represented. To
these we could add the two extinct languages not
represented here: Meroitic, spoken in ancient Sudan,and “Mimi of Decorse,” recorded in ca. 1900 in Chad.
There is as yet no accepted phylum-level soundcorrespondence, and the findings of previous studies
cannot be taken for granted. To take an example, Ehret(2001) once proposed the proto-Nilo-Saharan stop
series as *t-*t’-*d-*ɗ-*n-*nd, analyzing then available
Uduk (Koman; Type E) and typical Central Sudanic(Type C-3) data as the most archaic types. The
membership of Uduk (or Koman in general) within(NAKAO Shuichiro)

62

Figure 1: Stop Series in Nilo-Saharan (in general)

A-1. t-d-n
A-2. t-ɗ-n
A-3. t-d-n-nd
A-4. t-ɗ-n-nd
B. t-nC-1. t-d-ɗ-nC-2. t’-d-ɗ-nC-3. t-d-ɗ-n-nd
D. t-t’-d-ɗ-n
E. th-t-t’-d-ɗ-nFigure 2: Stop Series in Nilo-Saharan languages around South Sudan

63

Stop series in Niger-Congo

What is immediately suggested by these patterns isthat feature [Ḁ] plays a distinctive role insubcategorisation of all types defined by the numberof distinctions, except Type A, which itself can bedivided into the ‘voice contrast’ type (A-1: [2] t-d) andthe ‘oral-nasal’ type (A-2: t-n or d-n). The latter type,in turn, can be regarded as a basis for Type B-2: [3-Ḁ],which is configurated by adding [Ḁ] to Type A-2: [2’].
On the other hand, the ‘voice contrast’ type serves as abasis for the ‘canonical’ type where the marked feature[Ḁ] is not relevant to the systematic configuration. A
configurational hierarchy of the canonical types isformalised as follows: A-1 > +n > B-1 > +nd/ɗ >C-1/C-5 > +ɗ/nd > D-1 > +nt > E-1.

1. Classification
The following is a list of articulatory types of stop
consonant series attested in 85 sample languages fromthe following branches: 1. Kordofanian (2 languages),
2. Mande (5), and sub-branches of Atlantic-Congo
including 3a. Atlantic (8), 3b. Ijoid (2), and 3c.
Volta-Congo (68, including 25 Bantu languages spreadover 13 of 15 zones of geographic classification
proposed by Guthrie 1970:11−15). Systematic types
are primarily classified by the number of distinctions,
ranging from 2 to 7, and further subcategorised by thefollowing features defining each subtype: [Ḁ]Aspiration (th), [A̬] Breathiness (dh), [NC̥] Voiceless
Prenasal/ Nasal Cluster (nt), [NC̬] Voiced Prenasal/
NC (nd), [GC̥] Ejective (t’), and [GC̬] Implosive (ɗ).
Type codes, consisting of the number of distinctions
and feature tags, are provided in square brackets (e.g.
[4-Ḁ-GC̥] for the 4-way distinction with aspirated andejective consonants), and the number of attested
languages of each pattern is shown in parentheses.
A. 2-way distinction
A-1: [2] t-d (1)A-2: [2’] t-n (1) or d-n (1)B. 3-way distinction
B-1: [3] t-d-n (36)B-2: [3-Ḁ] th-d-n (4) or th-t-n (1)B-3: [3-NC̬] t-nd-n (3) or t-d-nd (1)C. 4-way distinction
C-1: [4] t-d-nd-n (5)C-2: [4-Ḁ] th-t-d-n (2)C-3: [4-Ḁ-GC̥] th-t-t’-n (1)C-4: [4-Ḁ-NC̬] th-t-nd-n (1)C-5: [4-GC̬] t-d-ɗ-n (7)C-6: [4-GC̬-NC̬] t-ɗ-nd-n (1)C-7: [4-NC̥] t-d-nt-n (1)C-8: [4-NC̥-NC̬] t-nd-nt-n (1)D. 5-way distinction
D-1: [5] t-d-ɗ-nd-n (8)D-2: [5-Ḁ] th-t-ɗ-nd-n (1)D-3: [5-Ḁ-A̬-GC̥] th-t’-dh-ndh-n (2)D-4: [5-NC̥] t-d-nd-nt-n (5)E. 6-way distinction
E-1: [6] t-d-ɗ-nd-nt-n (1)E-2: [6-Ḁ-A̬] th-t-ƭ-d-dh-n (1)F. 7-way distinction
F-1: [7-Ḁ-A̬] th-t-dh-ɗ-nd-ndh-n (1)2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
A general tendency of geographical distribution isthat the Benue-Congo (BC) sub-branch of theVolta-Congo (VC) languages, especially Southern
Bantu languages, shows more complexity than otherlanguages spoken in the western part of the continent(for further discussions on phonological areas inAfrica, see Clements & Rialland 2008).
Type A is attested in Kwa and Kru sub-branches of
VC as well as in Kordofanian.
Type B, which is the overwhelming majority of all
types of distinctions, is spread widely throughout thecontinent but with a concentration in the west. It isalso noted that the less marked canonical subtypes aredensely distributed in the non-BC area, while [3-Ḁ]seems to be typical in Kwa (VC), and [3-NC̬] isdominant in the Bantu area.
Type C consisting of the greatest number ofsubtypes still shows a regular geographic pattern;
while all subtypes with [NC̬] are distributed in the
Bantu area, those with the [GC̬] feature are wellobserved in non-Bantu BC and other VC subgroups
such as Kwa and Ubangian.
Type D is also distributed in a principled way; thecanonical type is exclusively found in North
Volta-Congo as well as in non-VC languages such as
Atlantic and Ijoid, while marked subtypes are
predominantly distributed in the Bantu area.
While two Type E languages are sporadicallyfound in Igboid (VC) and Atlantic, Type F, the mostcomplex pattern in our sample, is found in theSouthern Bantu zone, following the general tendency.
(SHINAGAWA Daisuke & KOMORI Junko)64

Figure 1: Geographical distribution of systematic types of stop series in Niger-Congo languages *Geographicalinformation for plotting the sample languages is based on Glottolog 4.3 (Hammarström et al. 2020).

Figure 2: Enlargement of the Western Coastal area
A-1
A-2
B-1
B-2
B-3
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5

[2]
[2’]
[3]
[3-Ḁ]
[3-NC̬][4][4-Ḁ][4-Ḁ-GC̥][4-Ḁ-NC̬][4-GC̬]t-dt-n or d-n
t-d-n
th-d-n or th-t-nt-nd-n or t-d-nd
t-d-nd-nth-t-d-nth-t-t’-nth-t-nd-nt-d-ɗ-n

C-6
C-7
C-8
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
E-1
E-2
F-1

65

[4-GC̬-NC̬][4-NC̥][4-NC̥-NC̬]
[5]
[5-Ḁ]
[5-Ḁ-A̬-GC̥][5-NC̥][6][6-Ḁ-A̬][7-Ḁ-A̬]t-ɗ-nd-nt-d-nt-nt-nd-nt-nt-d-ɗ-nd-n
th-t-ɗ-nd-nth-t’-dh-ndh-n
t-d-nd-nt-nt-d-ɗ-nd-nt-nth-t-ƭ-d-dh-n
th-t-dh-ɗ-nd-ndh-n

Coronal stop series in the Kalahari Basinarealanguage families in KBA, namely Tuu, Kx’a andKhoe-Kwadi, are marked with orange, brown and light
blue symbols respectively.
Note that, for reasons of space, other non-clickcoronal consonants, namely affricates, fricatives,
nasals, and liquids, are not discussed in this article.

1. Classification
Figure 1 shows the geographical distributions of
selected coronal stop consonants in KBA languages.
Classifications are made based on the series types,
which are specified in terms of three laryngeal features,that is, voicing, aspiration, and ejection.
In the current sample, five click series types areattested, as illustrated with the relevant laryngeal
features below (the click type is represented by thedental ǀ).
A: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ɡǀʰ-ǀʼ-ɡǀʼ [±voiced, ±aspirated, ±ejective]
B: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ɡǀʰ[±voiced, ±aspirated]
C: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ǀʼ[±voiced, ±aspirated, ±ejective]
D: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ[±voiced, ±aspirated]
E: ǀ-ǀʰ[±aspirated]
NB: There is a hierarchy: {ǀ, ǀʰ} > ɡǀ > {ɡǀʰ, ǀʼ} > ɡǀʼ.
(This implies [±aspirated] > [±voiced] > [ ±ejective].)
Non-click alveolar stops also show a parallel tendency
to the click series with some disagreements, whichyield two subtypes for series types C and D. Table 1
presents the series types of KBA coronal clicks andnon-clicks, together with sample languages.

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
As seen on Figure 1, the relationship between thegeographical and genealogical distributions of stop
series types is not straightforward. Type A is observed
only in the Tuu family, type B only in the Kxʼa family,
and type E only in Namibian Khoekhoe of the KhoeKwadi family. In contrast, the other two types areshared by two families: type C by Khoe-Kwadi andKxʼa, and type D by Khoe-Kwadi and Tuu. The crossfamily distribution of type C can apparently be
explained in terms of language contact, but at this stage,
it is still unclear how the cross-genetic distributions oftype D should be accounted for.
In addition, the distribution of click series types
indicates that the ubiquitous laryngeal feature among
KBA languages is [±aspirated] instead of globally
unmarked [±voiced]. Historically, this can be explained
as a result of the tonogenesis occurring in Khoekhoe(Haacke 1999). Khoekhoe is the only language (cluster)
in KBA that contrasts four level tones and two simple(non-complex) stop series, that is, [–voiced, –aspirated]vs. [–voiced, +aspirated]. In contrast, all other sample
languages contrast less than four level tones and at least
three simple series, that is, [–voiced, –aspirated], [–voiced, +aspirated], and [+voiced, –aspirated]. Thissuggests that the pitch lowering associated with thevoiced series was phonologized and the contrast in
voicing was neutralized during a certain stage of
Khoekhoe history. However, this is an over-simplified
scenario and there are complicated details that we are
not ready to present at this stage.
Unlike clicks, the non-click alveolar stops in the
KBA languages involve many gaps, the detailed
discussion of which is beyond the scope of this article.
Comparative investigations have revealed thatpalatalization (/t d tʰ tʼ/ > /c ɟ cʰ cʼ/) yielded the gaps ofthe alveolar stops (type C2) in Khute Gǀui, Khoe-Kwadi(Nakagawa 1998), and N!arqriaxe, Kxʼa (Gerlach2018). A similar sound shift probably involved the lossof the alveolar stops in N|uu (type D2) in the Tuu family.
(KIMURA Kimihiko, NAKAGAWA Hirosi)

Table 1ː Series types of KBA coronal consonants (Gaps
are indicated with ∅)
Type
Click
NonLanguageclickAǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ɡǀʰ- t-d-tʰ-dʰ-  West ǃXoon
 East ǃXoon
ǀʼ-ɡǀʼtʼ-∅

Tsumkwe Juǀ'hoanBǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ɡǀʰt-d-tʰ-dʰ Heikkinen ǃXuun W
 Heikkinen ǃXuun E ǂHabaC1
ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ǀʼt-d-tʰ-tʼ Xade Gǀui Gǁana TshilaC2
ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ǀʼ∅-∅-∅-∅  Khute Gǀui Nǃaqriaxe NǀuuD1
ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ∅-∅-∅ NaroD2ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰt-d-tʰ-tʼ Windhoek
E
ǀ-ǀʰ
t-∅
Khoekhoe
On Figure 1, series types of click and non-click stops
are combined, and displayed as types A-E. The three66

Figure 1: The geographical distribution of coronal series types
Tuu (orange)
A: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ɡǀʰ-ǀʼ-ɡǀʼ
D1: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰKx’a (brown)
B: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ɡǀʰC2: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ǀʼKhoe-Kwadi (light blue)
C1: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ǀʼ
C2: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ-ǀʼ
D2: ǀ-ɡǀ-ǀʰ
E: ǀ-ǀʰt-d-tʰ-dʰ-tʼ-∅∅-∅-∅t-d-tʰ-dʰ∅-∅-∅-∅
t-d-tʰ-tʼ∅-∅-∅-∅
t-d-tʰ-tʼ
t-∅67

Cumulative references
PaleoasianГруздева. Е. Ю. (1997) Нивхский язык. // Языки мира. Палеоазиатские языки. Индрик: Москва. 139154.
Инэнликэй П. И. (2006) Словарь чукотско-русский и русско-чукотский. Дрофа: СПб.
Kurebito, Megumi (2009) Koryak gengo-minzokushi. Hokkaido univ. press.
Kurebito, Megumi, Tokusu Kurebito, Yukari Nagayama, Chikako Ono, Mitsuhiro Yazu (2001),
Comparative Basic Vocabulary of the Chukchee-Kamchatkan Language Family:1. Megumi
Kurebito ed. Osaka-Gakuin Univ.
Ono, Chikako (2020) Itelmen-go bunpo. Dousi keitairon wo chuusin ni. Hokkai-Gakuen univ. press.
Shiraishi, Hidetoshi (2010) Topics in Nivkh phonology. A description and analysis of the phonologicalsystem of Nivkh. VDM Verlag Dr, Mueller.
Shiraishi, Hidetoshi and Itsuji Tangiku (2015) Nivkh-go Amur hougen no kisogoi 3. Hoppou Gengo
Kenkyu. 5. 215-226.
Скорик П. Я. (1961) Грамматика чукотского языка. Часть первая. Фонетика и морфология
именных частей речи. Изд-во академии наук СССР. М-Л.
Tangiku, Itsuji (2014) Sakhalin Nivkh Word List. Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies. Sapporo.
Жукова А. Н. (1999) Корякский язык. // Языки мира. Палеоазиатские языки. Индрик: Москва. 39-53.

Ainu
Hattori, Shirō and Mashiho Chiri (1960) Ainugo shohōgen no kisogoi tōkeigakuteki kenkyū [Alexicostatistic study on the Ainu dialects]. The Japanese Journal of Ethnology 24(4): 31-66. Tokyo:
Seibundo Sinkosha.
Murayama, Shichirō (1971) Kitachishima Ainugo [Northern Kuril Ainu]. 134–244. Tokyo: Yoshikawa
Kobunkan.
Tamura, Suzuko (2000) The Ainu Language. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Uehara, Kumajirō (1792) Moshiogusa. Reprint: (1972) Ainugo shiryō sōsho Moshiogusa. Tokyo: Kokusho
Kankokai.

Japonic
Asō, Reiko 麻生玲子 (2020) Minami Ryūkyū Yaeyamago hateruma hōgen no bumpō 南琉球八重山語
波 照 間 方 言 の 文 法 [Grammar of Hateruba dialect, Yaeyaman, South-Ryukyuan]. Doctral
Dissertation in TUFS 東京外国語大学博士論文.
GAJ: National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (1989–2006) Grammar Atlas of Japanese
Dialects.
Hino, Sukezumi, Kiichi Ītoyo and Ryōichi Satō 日野資純、飯豊毅一、佐藤亮一 (ed.) (1998) Kōza

68hōgengaku (4-10) 講座方言学 (4-10) [Lecture of dialectology (4-10)]. Kokusho Kankōkai 国書刊行会
Igarashi, Yosuke (2018) Bunkigakuteki shuhoo ni motozuita nihongo·ryuukyuugo shohoogen no
keitoobunrui no kokoromi [An attempt to genealogize Japanese and Ryukyuan dialects based on
cladistic methods] Oral presentation in the symposium on "Genealogy and History of Japonic
languages from the viewpoint of fields and texts.
Katō, Kanji 加藤幹治 (2020) Tokunoshima Isenchō hōgen bumpō gaisetsu 徳之島伊仙方言文法概説[A sketch grammar of the Tokunoshima Isen dialect] In: Gengo Chiiki bunka kenkyū 言語・地域文化研究 [Studies of Languages and Regional Cultures]. 26: 211–227.
Kajiku, Shin’ichi 加治工真市 (1982) Ryūkyū, Kohama hōgen no on’in kenkyū josetsu 琉球、小浜方言の音韻研究序説 [An Introduction to Phonological Studies of the Kohama Dialect, Ryukuan] In:
Ryūkyū no gengo to bunka 琉球の言語と文化 [Languages and Cultures of Ryukyus] 81–106.
Publishing Committees for Collection of Papers 論集刊行委員会.
Kibe, Nobuko 木部暢子 (ed.) (2013) Hachijō hōgen chōsa hōkokusho 八丈方言調査報告書 [Research
Report on the Hachijō Dialect]. National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics 国立国語研究所.
Kibe, Nobuko 木部暢子 (ed.) (2017) Kumejima hōgen chōsa hōkokusho 久米島方言調査報告書[Research Report on the Kumejima Dialect]. National Institute for Japanese Language andLinguistics 国立国語研究所.
Kibe, Nobuko 木部暢子 (ed.) (2018) Shimaneken Okinoshima hōgen chōsa hōkokusho 島根県隠岐の島方言調査報告書 [Research Report on Okinoshima Dialect (in Shimane Prefecture)]. National
Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics 国立国語研究所
LAJ: National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (1966–1974) Linguistic Atlas of Japan.
Miyagi, Shin’yū 宮城信勇 (2003) Ishigaki hōgen jiten 石垣方言辞典 [Dictionary of the Ishigaki
dialect]. The Okinawa Times 沖縄タイムス.
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics 国立国語研究所 (ed.) (1963) Okinawago jiten
沖縄語辞典 [Dictionary of the Okinawan language]. Ministry of Finance Printing Bureau 大蔵省印刷局.
Okumura, Mitsuo 奥村三雄 (ed.) (1976) Gifuken hōgen no kenkyū 岐阜県方言の研究 [Studies of the
Dialects in Gifu Prefecture]. Taishūshobō 大衆書房
Oshio, Mutsuko 生塩睦子 (1999) Okinawa Iejima hogen jiten 沖縄伊江島方言辞典 [Dictionary of the
Iejima dialect, Okinawan]. Board of education in Iejima village 伊江島教育委員会.
Pellard, Thomas (2010) Ōgami (Miyako Ryukyuan) In: Shimoji, Michinori and Thomas Pellard (ed.) An
introduction to Ryukyuan languages. 113–166. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures ofAsia and Africa.
Pellard, Thomas (2015) The linguistic archeology of the Ryukyu Islands. In: Patrick Heinrich, Shinsho

69Miyara, Michinori Shimoji (eds.) Handbook of the Ryukyuan languages: History, structure, anduse: 14–37.
Shimoji, Kayoko 下 地 賀 代 子 (2017) Tsukaeru Taramafutsu jiten つ か え る た ら ま ふ つ 辞 典[Dictional of the Tarama dialect in daily life]. Board of education in Tarama village 多良間村教育委員会.
Umegaki, Minoru (ed.) (1962) Kinki hōgen no sōgōteki kenkyū 近畿方言の総合的研究 [Extensive
Studies of the Kinki Dialects]. Sanseidō 三省堂
Urabe, Yūko 占部 由子 (2019) Minami-ryūkyū Yaeyamago Iriomotejima Funauki hōgen no bumpō
gaisetsu 南琉球八重山語西表島船浮方言の文法概説 [A sketch grammar of Funauki dialect inIriomote Island, Yaeyaman, South-Ryukyuan] In: Ryūkyū no hōgen 琉球の方言 [Dialects in
Ryukyus]. 44: 91–150. Institute for Okinawan Studies in Hosei University 法政大学沖縄文化研
究所.
Uwano, Zendō 上野善道 (ed.) (1989) On’in sōran 音韻総覧 [Overview of Phonemes (in Japan)]. In:
Nihon hōgen daijiten 日本方言大辞典 [Grand dictionary of Japanese dialects]. Shōgakukan 小
学館.
Yamada, Masahiro and Akiko Yokoyama 山 田 真 寛 、 横 山 晶 子(2016) Ryūkyū Okinoerabu

Kamihirakawa hōgen no gengoshiryō. 琉球沖永良部上平川方言の言語資料 [Texts of the
Okinoerabu-Kamihirakawa dialect, Ryukyuan] In: Gengo kijutsu ronshū 言語記述論集 [Journalof Kijutsuken, Descriptive Linguistics Study Group]. 8: 231–251.

Korean
IPA (1999) Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge University Press.
Kagaya, Ryohei (1974) A fiberscopic and acoustic study of the Korean stops, affricates and fricatives.
Journal of phonetics 2: 161-180.
Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson (1996) The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Blackwell Publishers.
Lee, Ki-Moon and S. Robert Ramsey (2011) A History of the Korean language. Cambridge University
Press.
Lisker, L. and A. S. Abramson (1964) A cross- language study of voicing in initial stops: acousticalmeasurements. Word 20: 384-422.
Silva, David J. (2006) Acoustic evidence for the emergence of tonal contrast in contemporary Korean.
Phonology 23: 287-308.

Sinitic
Baxter, William H. and Laurent Sagart (2014) Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chao, Yuan Ren (1928) Xiandai Wuyu de Yanjiu. Guoli Qinghua daxue chuban shiwusuo.

70

Chao, Yuan Ren (1968) Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press.
Cui, Rongchang (1996) Sichuan Jingnei de Xiang Fangyan. Zhongyang Yanjiuyuan Lishi Yuyan Yanjiusuo.
Hou, Jingyi (2002) Xiandaihanyu fangyanxue gailun. Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe.
Lu, Jifang (2007) Ganyu Changdu pian Fangyan Yuyin Yanjiu. Shangwu YinshuguanLong, Haiyan (2008) Dongkou Gan Fangyan Yuyin Yanjiu. Minzu Chubanshe.
Qian, Zengyi et al. (2010) Hanyu guanhua fangyan yanjiu. Qilu shushe.
Wurm, S. A. et al. (1987) Language atlas of China. Longman.
Zhan, Bohui et al. (2017) Hanyu fangyanxue dacidian. Guangdong jiaoyu chubanshe.
Zhang, Huiying (2009) Chongming Fangyan Yanjiu. Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.
Zhongguo shehuikexueyuan yuyan yanjiusuo et al. (2012) Language atlas of China, 2nd ed. Shangwu
Yinshuguan.

Kra-Dai
Li, Fang Kuei (1977) A handbook of comparative Tai. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

Tibeto-Burman
Badenoch, Nathan and Norihiko Hayashi (2017) Phonological sketch of the Sida language of Luang
Namtha, Laos. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 10.1: 1-15.
Baxter, William H. and Laurent Sagart (2014) Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bodt, Timotheus A. and Ismael Lieberherr (2015) First notes on the phonology and classification of theBangru language of India. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 38(1), 66-123.
Cao, Zhiyun 曹志耘 (2008) Hanyu fangyan dituji 汉语方言地图集 [Linguistic atlas of Chinese dialects].
Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Chen, Kang 陈康 (2006) Tujiayu yanjiu 土家语研究 [Study on Tujia]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu
Daxue Chubanshe.
Coupe, Alexander R. (2020) Northern Sangtam phonetics, phonology and word list. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 43(1): 147-189.
Dai, Qingxia 戴庆厦 (ed) (2009) Taiguo Akayu yanjiu 泰国阿卡语研究 [Study of Akha in Thailand].
Beijing: Zhongguo Shehuikexue Chubanshe.
Dai, Qingxia 戴庆厦 and Min Zhao 赵敏 (2009) Mojiang Hanizu Kaduohua gaikuang 墨江哈尼族卡多话概况 [Outline of the Kaduo variety of Hani in Mojiang]. Hanzangyu Xuebao 4: 189-215.
Dai, Qingxia 戴庆厦, Juhuang Liu 刘菊黄 and Ailan Fu 傅爱兰 (1991) Kelunyu 克 伦 语 [Karen
language]. In: Dai et al., 388-414.
Dai, Qingxia 戴庆厦, Bufan Huang 黄布凡, Ailan Fu 傅爱兰, Rig-'dzin dBang-mo 仁增旺姆 and
Juhuang Liu 刘菊黄 (1991) Zangmianyu shiwuzhong 藏缅语十五种 [Fifteen Tibeto-Burman

71languages]. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan Chubanshe.
van Driem, George Lodewijk (1995) Een eerste grammaticale verkenning van het Bumthang, een taal van
midden-Bhutan met een overzicht van de talen en volkeren van Bhutan. Leiden: Onderzoekschool
CNWS.
van Driem, George (2015) Tibeto-Burman. In William S-Y. Wang and Chaofen Sun (eds) The Oxford
Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, 135-148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edmondson, Jerold A. (2005) The Central and Southern Loloish languages inVietnam. In: Patrick Chew(ed) Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 15-18,
2002 Special session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian linguistics, 1-13. Berkeley: Berkeley
Linguistics Society.
Fu, Ailan 傅爱兰 (1991) Nuyu 怒语 [Nu language]. In: Dai et al., 223-248.
Gawne, Lauren (2016) A sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
Gerber, Pascal (2020) Areal features in Gongduk, Bjokapakha and Black Mountain Mönpa phonology.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43(1): 55-86+appendix 13pp.
Hari, Anna Maria (2004) Appendix 6: Phonological sketch of Yohlmo. In Anna Maria Hari and Chhegu
Lama (compiled) Hyolmo-Nepali-Amgreji śabdakośa [Yohlmo-Nepali-English dictionary], 793810. Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University.
Hayashi, Norihiko 林範彦 (2013) Jinuoyu Buyuanhua yinxi jianjie 基诺语补远话音系简介 [Outline ofphonology of the Buyuan dialect od Jino]. Ota Itsuku Furuya Akihiro ryoo kyoozyu kanreki kinen
tyuugokugogaku ronsyuu kankookai (ed) Ota Itsuku Furuya Akihiro ryoo kyoozyu kanreki kinen
tyuugokugogaku ronsyuu, 383-393. Tokyo: Koobun Syuppan.
Hayashi, Norihiko (2016) A phonological sketch of Akha Buli—A Lolo-Burmese language of Muang Sing,
Laos—. Researches in Asian Languages 10: 67-98.
Hayashi, Norihiko (2018) A phonological sketch of Akha Chicho—A Lolo-Burmese language of Luang
Namtha, Laos—. Proceedings of the 51st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages
and Linguistics.
Hayashi, Norihiko 林範彦 and Xiang Gao 高翔 (2019) Zhongguo Yunnansheng Menglun Akeyu yinxi
jianjie 中国云南省勐仑阿克语音系简介 [A phonological sketch of Menglun Akeu, Yunnan,
China]. Kobe Gaidai Ronsoo 70.1: 37-66.
He, Jichuan 和继全 (2015) Baidi Bowancun Naxi Dongbawen diaocha yanjiu 白地波湾村纳西东巴文
调查研究 [Research on Naxi Dongba manuscripts in Bowan Village in Baidi]. Beijing: Minzu
Chubanshe.
Huang, Bufan 黄布凡 (2009) Muli Shuitianhua yanjiu 木里水田话研究 [Study on the Shuitian variety
in Muli]. Hanzangyu Xuebao 3: 30-55.
Ikeda, Takumi 池田巧 (2010) Seireki 1853 nen ni kiroku sareta Ryuzugo no goi 西暦 1853 年に記録されたリュズ語の語彙 [Vocabulary of Lyuzu recorded in 1853]. Toohoo Gakuhoo 85: 653-672.

72

Jiang, Di (2005) Yiduyu yanjiu 义都语研究 [Study on Idu]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Jiang, Ying 蒋颖 (2013) Dayang Pumiyu gaikuang 大羊普米语概况 [Outline of Dayang Prinmi].
Hanzangyu Xuebao 7: 54-90.
Jin, Youjing 金有景 (ed) (1992) Zhongguo Lahuyu fangyan dituji 中国拉祜语方言地图集 [Linguisticatlas of the Lahu dialects in China]. Beijing: Shehuikexueyuan Chubanshe.
Kato, Atsuhiko (2009) A basic vocabulary of Htoklibang Pwo Karen with Hpa-an, Kyonbyaw, and ProtoPwo Karen forms. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 4: 169-218.
Kurosawa, Naomichi 黒澤直道 (2009) Nasigo Dayanzhen hoogen no on-in taikei: senkookenkyuu to nohikaku wo tyuusin ni ナシ（納西）語大研鎮方言の音韻体系---先行研究との比較を中心に[On the phonological system of the Dayanzhen dialect of Naxi comparing with previous studies].
Journal of Asian and African Studies 77: 63 -81.
Li, Daqin 李大勤 (2001) Sulongyu yanjiu 苏龙语研究 [Study on Puroik]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Li, Daqin 李大勤 (2002) Gemanyu yanjiu 格曼语研究 [Study on Kaman]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Li, Zihe 李子鹤 (2013) Malimasahua gaikuang 玛丽玛萨话概况 [Outline of Malimasa]. Hanzangyu
Xuebao 7: 91-117.
Libu Lakhi (Jianfu Li/Dawa Tenzin) (2017) A descriptive grammar of Namuyi Khatho spoken by Namuyi
Tibetans. PhD thesis, La Trobe University.
Liu, Huiqiang 刘辉强 (1996) Luoguodi Namuyiyu 锣锅底纳木依语 [Luoguodi Namuyi]. Yuyan Yanjiu
2: 185-198.
Liu, Jie 刘洁 (2015) Songgu Zhahua de yuyin xitong yanjiu 松古扎话的语音系统研究 [Study on thephonology of Songgu Zakhring]. MA thesis, Zhongguo Chuanmei Daxue.
Lu, Shaozun 陆绍尊 (1985) Zhabayu gaikuang 扎巴语概况 [Overview of Zhaba]. Minzu Yuwen 2: 6776.
Lu, Shaozun 陆绍尊 (1986) Cuonamenbayu jianzhi 错那门巴语简志 [Brief description of mTshosna
Dakpa]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Lu, Shaozun 陆绍尊 (2002) Menbayu fangyan yanjiu 门巴语方言研究 [Study on Dakpa dialects].
Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Matisoff, James A. (2003) Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan
reconstruction. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Mu, Shihua 木仕华 (2002) Kazhuoyu yanjiu 卡卓语研究 [Study on Khatso]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Ouyang, Jueya 欧阳觉亚 (1985) Luobazu yuyan jianzhi (Bengni-Bogaeryu) 珞巴族语言简志 [Brief
description of languages of Klopa Nationality (Bengni-Bogar)]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Pema Wangdi (2020) Segmental and suprasegmental features of Brokpa. Himalayan Linguistics 19(1): 393422.
Plaisier, Heleen (2007) A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden: Brill.
Pu, Lichun 普丽春 and Chengyou Wang 王成有 (2007) Xiaobai Yiyu gaikuang 小白彝语概况. Minzu

73

Yuwen 1: 63-80.
Rutgers, Roland (1998) Yamphu: Grammar, texts & lexicon. Leiden: Research School CNWS.
Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill
and Johann-Mattis List (2019) Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of SinoTibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(21): 10317-10322.
Schwieger, Peter (1989) Tibetisches Erzählgut aus Brag-g.yab : Texte mit Übersetzungen, grammatischem
Abriß und Glossar. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
Shao, Mingyuan 邵明园 (2018) Hexi zoulang binwei Zangyu Dongnahua yanjiu 河西走廊濒危藏语东纳话研究 [Study on the mDungnag variety, the endangered Tibetic language spoken in the Hexi
Corridor]. Guangzhou: Zhongshan Daxue Chubanshe.
Shi, Jian 时建 (2009) Lianghe Achangyu cankao yufa 梁河阿昌语参考语法 [Reference grammar of
Lianghe Achang]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehuikexue Chubanshe.
Song, Cheng, Yingying Xie, Daqin Li and Zuowen Li 宋成、謝穎瑩、李大勤、李佐文 (2019) Xizang
Chayu Songlinyu 西藏察隅松林语 [The Songlin language in Chayu, Tibet]. Beijing: Minzu
Chubanshe.
Strahm, Esther and Anita Maibaum (2005) Jirel-Nepali-Angriji śabdakośa [Jirel-Nepali-English
dictionary]. Kathmandu: Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University.
Sun, Hongkai 孙宏开 (1982) Dulongyu jianzhi 独龙语简志 [Brief description of Trung]. Beijing:
Minzu Chubanshe.
Sun, Hongkai 孙宏开, Chenglong Huang 黄成龙, and Zhoumaocao 周毛草 (2002) Rouruoyu yanjiu 柔若语研究 [Study on Zozo]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe.
Tournadre, Nicolas and Karma Rigzin (2015) Outlines of Chocha-ngachakha: An undocumented languageof Bhutan related to Dzongkha. Himalayan Linguistics 14(2): 49-87.
Tournadre, Nicolas, Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa, Gyurme Chodrak, and Guillaume Oisel (2009) Sherpa-English
and English-Sherpa dictionary with Literary Tibetan and Nepali equivalents. Kathmandu: Vajra
Publications.
Wilde, Christopher Pekka (2001) Preliminary phonological analysis of the Limi dialect of Humla Bhotia.
MA thesis, Helsingin Yliopisto.
Xu, Shibo 许仕波 (2020) Zangyu Shannan Lajiaohua yuyin yanjiu 藏语山南拉郊话语音研究. MA
thesis, Shanghai Shifan Daxue.
Yliniemi, Juha (2019) A descriptive grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). PhD thesis, University of
Helsinki.
Yu, Defen (2007) Aspects of Lisu phonology and grammar: a language of Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.
Zakaria, Muhammad (2020) The segmental phonetics and phonology in Hyow, a Tibeto-Burman languageof Bangladesh. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43(2), 309-346.

74

Zhang, Hanzhi, Ting Ji, Mark Pagel and Ruth Mace. 2020. Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic originof Sino-Tibetan languages. Scientific Reports 10(20792): 1-8.
Zhang, Menghan, Shi Yan, Wuyun Pan and Li Jin (2019) Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in
northern China in the Late Neolithic. Nature 569(7754): 112-115.
Zhou, Yulou (2020) Proto-Bizic: A study of Tujia historical phonology. Bachelor of Arts thesis, Stanford
University.

Austroasiatic
Alves, Mark J. (2015) Pacoh. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic
Languages, 837-880. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Anderson, Gregory, D.S. (2015) Overview of the Munda languages. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell(eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 364-414. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Aung Si (2015) Danau. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic
Languages, 1105-1141. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Baetscher, Kevin (2015) Mlabri. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic
Languages, 1003-1030. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Bishop, N. (1996) A preliminary description of Kensiw (Maniq) phonology. The Mon-Khmer Studies
Journal 25: 227-253.
Butler, Becky (2015) Bunong. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic
Languages, 719-745. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Charoenma, Narumol (1982) The phonologies of a Lampang Lamet and Wiang Papao Lua. The Mon-Khmer
Studies Journal 11: 35-45.
陈国庆. 2002. 克木语研究. 民族出版社.
Conver, L.C. (1999) A sketch of the phonology of a Lamet dialect. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 29:
35-56.
Crowley, J.D. (2000) Tampuan phonology. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 30: 1-21.
Dai, Qingxia and Liu Yan (1997) Analysis of the tones in the Guangka subdialect of De’ang. The MonKhmer Studies Journal 27: 91-108.
Deepadung, Sujaritlak, Ampika Rattanapitak and Supakit Buakaw (2015) Dara'ang Palaung. In: Jenny,
Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 1065-1103. Leiden,
Boston: Brill.
Downer, G. (1989-1990) The Tai element in Khmu? The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 18-19: 44-51.
Ferlus, M. (1983) Essai de phonétique historique de môn. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 12: 1-90.
Ferlus, M. (1997) Le maleng brô et le vietnamien. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 27: 55-66.
Filbeck, D. (1989-1990) Mal phonology revisited. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 18-19: 232-239.
高永奇. 2004. 布兴语研究. 民族出版社.

75

高永奇. 2003. 莽语研究. 民族出版社.
Hoàng Thị Châu (2004) Phương Ngữ học Tiếng Việt. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội.
Hoàng Văn Ma and Tạ Văn Thông (1998) Tiếng Bru-Vân Kiều. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội.
Huffman, F. (1987-1988) Burmese Mon, Thai Mon, and Nyah Kur: a synchronic comparison. The MonKhmer Studies Journal 16-17: 31-84.
Jacq, P. (2004) The Development of a Lao-based orthography for Jrù. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 34:
97-112.
Jenny, Mathias (2015) Modern Mon. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook ofAustroasiatic Languages, 553-599. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Jenny, Mathias, Tobias Weber and Rachel Weymuth (2015) The Austroasiatic languages: a typologicaloverview. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages,
13-143. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Kees Joan Bos and Paul Sidwell (2015) Kui Ntua. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbookof Austroasiatic Languages, 837-880. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Kingsada, Th. and Kosaka, R. (1999) Khabit. In: Kingsada, Th. and Kosaka, R. (eds) Basic Vocabulariesof the Languages spoken in Phangxaly, Lao P.D.R., 297-317. Tokyo: Institute for the Study ofLanguages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Kingsada, Th. and Kosaka, R. (1999) Khmu. In: Kingsada, Th. and Kosaka, R. (eds) Basic Vocabularies of
the Languages spoken in Phangxaly, Lao P.D.R., 318-338. Tokyo: Institute for the Study ofLanguages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Kosaka, R. (2001) Then. In: Shintani T., Kosaka R. and Kato T. (eds) Linguistic Survey of Phangxaly, lao
P.D.R., 213-234. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Krupse, Nicole (2015) Northern Aslian. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook ofAustroasiatic Languages, 475-516. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Krupse, Nicole, Niclaus Burenhult and Ewelina Wnuk (2015) Northern Aslian. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul
Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 419-474. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Li Jingfang (1996) Bugan: a new Mon-Khmer language of Yunnan Province, China. The Mon-Khmer
Studies Journal 26: 135-159.
Li, Jinfang and Luo Yongxian (2005) Bugan. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook ofAustroasiatic Languages, 1033-1062. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
李旭练. 1999. 俫语研究. 中央民族大学出版社.
Maddieson, Ian (2013) Consonant Inventories, WALS online. https://wals.info/ [accessed October 2020]
Matisoff, J.A. (2003) Aslian: Mon-Khmer of the Malay Peninsula. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 33: 158.
Migliazza, B. (2003) So stories: a preliminary analysis of texts in a Mon-Khmer language. The Mon-Khmer
Studies Journal 33: 67-158.

76

Mikegishi, Makoto (1985)「現代クメール語の正書法と諸方言」, 『言語研究』88: 41-67.
Nagaraja, S. K. (1996) The Status of Lyngngam. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 26: 37-50.
Nagaraja, S. K. (2015) Standard Khasi. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook ofAustroasiatic Languages, 1146-1185. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Nguyễn Văn Tài (2005) Ngữ âm tiếng Mường qua các phương ngôn. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Từ điển báchkhoa.
Nguyễn Phú Phong (1996) The Nguồn language of Quảng Bình, Vietnam. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal
26: 179-190.
Nguyễn Hữu Hoành and Nguyễn Văn Lợi (1998) Tiếng Katu. Hà Nội: Nhã xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội.
Nguyễn Văn Lợi (1993) Tiếng Rục. Hà Nội: Nhã xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội.
Olsen, Niel H. (2015) Kơho-Sre. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic
Languages, 746-788. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Osada, Toshiki (2008) Mundari. In: Anderson, Gregory, D.S. (ed) The Munda Languages, 99-164.
Routredge Language Family Series. Oxford: Routledge.
Anderson, Gregory, D.S. (2015) Overview of the Munda languages. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell(eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 364-414. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Paulsen, D. (1989-1990) A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Plang. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal
18-19: 160-222.
Peterson (2011) cited in Jenny, Mathias, Tobias Weber and Rachel Weymuth (2015) The Austroasiatic
languages: a typological overview. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook ofAustroasiatic Languages, 13-143. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Preecha Sukgasame (1993) Correlates of the register complex in Kuay. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal
22: 245-251.
Premsritat, Suwilai and Nattamon Rajanakul (2015) Chong. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The
Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 603-640. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Ring, Hiram (2015) Pnar. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic
Languages, 1186-1226. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Sakamoto (1969)「標準カンボジア語の音韻体系」『アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究』 2: 88-99.
Shintani, T. (2008) The Palaung Language Comparative Lexicon of its Southern Dialects (I). Tokyo:
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, T. (2014) The Riang Language. Linguistic Survey of Tay Cultural Area (LSTCA) No.101. Tokyo:
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, T. (2016a) The Siam (Hsem) Language. Linguistic Survey of Tay Cultural Area (LSTCA) No.107.
Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, T. (2016b) The Va (En) Language. Linguistic Survey of Tay Cultural Area (LSTCA) No.108.
Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.

77

Shintani, T. (2019) The Sen Tsum (I-Mok) Language. Linguistic Survey of Tay Cultural Area (LSTCA)
No.121. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Shintani, T. (2020) The Kanaw (Danaw) Language. Linguistic Survey of Tay Cultural Area (LSTCA)
No.127. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Sidwell, Paul (2015) Austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul
Sidwell (eds) The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 13-143. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Sidwell, Paul (2015). Car Nicobarese. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbook ofAustroasiatic Languages, 1229-1265. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Smith, Kenneth and Paul Sidwell (2015). Sedang. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The Handbookof Austroasiatic Languages, 789-833. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Sujaritlak Deepadung (1996) Mon at Nong Duu, Lamphun Province. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 26:
411-418.
Suriya Ratanakul (1996) Lawa Lәsɔm ˀLɛ Poetry Revisited. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 26: 387-410.
Suwilai Premsrirat (1996) Phonological characteristics of So (Thavung), a Vietic language of Thailand. The
Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 26: 161-178.
Suwilai Premsrirat (1999) Phonological variation and change in the Khmu dialects of northern Thailand.
The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 29: 57-69.
Suwilai Premsrirat (2004) Register complex and tonogenesis in Khmu dialects. The Mon-Khmer Studies
Journal 34: 1-17.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof and Arthur Holmer (2015) Kammu. In: Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds) The
Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages, 957-1002. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Tạ Văn Thông (2004) Ngữ âm tiếng Kơho. Hà Nội: Nhã xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội.
Thach Ngoc Minh (1999) Monosyllabization in Kiengiang Khmer. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 29:
81-95.
Theraphan L. Thongkum (1986) An acoustic study of the register complex in Kui (Suai). The Mon-Khmer
Studies Journal 15: 1-20.
Thomas, D. and Wanna Tienmee (1987-1988) An acoustic study of Northern Khmer vowels. The MonKhmer Studies Journal 16-17: 99-108.
Yamada, A. (2007) Parauk Wa Falktales 佤族(巴绕克)的民间故事. Tokyo: Research Institute for
Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.

Austronesian
Blust, Robert A. (1980) Austronesian etymologies I. Oceanic Linguistics 19: 1-181.
Blust, Robert A. (1999) Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative
linguistics. In: Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul J.-K. Li (eds) Selected papers from the EighthInternational Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 31-94. Taipei: Symosiu series of the78Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.
Blust, Robert A. (2009) The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School ofPacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
Dahl, Otto Christian (1981) Early Phonetic and Phonemic Changes in Austronesian. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei (2008) The great diversity of Formosan Languages. Language and Linguistics 9.3: 523546.
Ross, Malcom (1995) Introduction to the Comparative Austronesian Dictuionary. In Darrell T. Tryon(ed) Comparative Austronesian Dictionary. Part 1: Fascicle 1. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Tryon, Darrrell T. (1995) The Austrone sian Langugages. In Darrell T. Tryon (ed) Comparative
Austronesian Dictionary. Part 1: Fascicle 1: 5-44. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolff, John U. (2010) Proto-Austronesian phonology with glossary. Southeast Asia Program Publications.
Vol. 1. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

Tungusic
Ikegami, Jiro (1989) Tungus-shogo. In Gengogaku daijiten, Vol. 2. Tokyo: Sanseido.

UralicAbondolo, Daniel (1998) Introduction. In: Daniel Abondolo (ed) The Uralic Languages. London and New
York: Routledge.
Sulkala, Helena and Merja Karjalainen (1992) Finnish. London and New York: Routledge.

Mongolic and Turkic
Aizezi Abulimiti and Huhe 艾则孜 阿不力米提・呼和 (2020)『维吾尔语语音声学研究』北京: 社会科学文献出版社.
Buhe and Liu Zhaoxiong 布和・刘照雄 (1982)『保安语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Caodaobate’er 曹道巴特尔 (2007)『喀喇沁蒙古语研究』北京: 民族出版社.
Chen, Zongzhen and Lei Xuanchun 陈宗振・雷选春 (1985)『西部裕固语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Chen, Zongzhen and Yiliqian 陈宗振・伊里千 (1986)『塔塔尔语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Cheng, Shiliang and Abudureheman 程适良・阿不都热合曼 (1987)『乌孜别克语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Doerfer, Gerhard (1971) Khalaj materials. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Doerfer, G. und W. Hesche (1993) Chorasantürkisch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Dyrenkova, N.P. [Дыренкова, Н.П.] (1941) Грамматика шорского языка. Москва-Ленинград:Издательство Академии наук СССР.

79

Ercilasun, A.B. ed. (2007) Türk lehçeleri grameri. Ankara: Akçağ yayınları.
Gajdarzhi, G.A. [Гайдаржи, Г.А.] et al. (1973) Гагаузско-русско-молдавский словарь. Москва:Советская энциклопедия.
Geng, Shimin and Li Zengxiang 耿世民・李增祥 (1985) 『哈萨克语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Iskhakov, F.G. i A.A. Pal’mbakh [Исхаков, Ф.Г. и А.А. Пальмбах] (1961) Грамматика тувинского
языка. Москва: Издательство восточной литературы.
Janhunen, Juha ed. (2003) The Mongolic Languages. London: Routledge.
Johanson, Lars et al. eds. (1998) The Turkic languages. London and New York: Routledge.
Karlsson, A. and J.-O. Svantesson (2012) Aspiration of stops in Altaic languages: An acoustic study. Altai
Hakpo 22, 205-222.
Kavitskaya, Darya (2010) Crimean Tatar. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
Kuribayashi, Yuu 栗林裕 (2009) 「カシュカイ語の基礎語彙」久保智之・林徹・藤代節（編）『チュルク諸語における固有と外来に関する総合的調査研究』九州大学人文科学研究院言語学研究室.
Li Dejun and Yan Liu 李德君・刘岩 (2007)『少数民族语言音档（修订版）』北京: 民族音像出版社.
Li, Yong-Sŏng (2011) A study of Dolgan. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
Li, Yong-sŏng et al. (2008) A study of the Middle Chulym dialect of the Chulym language. Seoul: Seoul
National University Press.
Liu, Zhaoxiong 刘照雄 (1981)『东乡语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Lin, Lianyun 林莲云 (1985)『撒拉语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Minawa’er Aibibula 米娜瓦尔 艾比不拉 (2004)『维吾尔语方言和语言调查』北京: 民族出版社.
Neimenggu zizhiqu difangzhi bangongshi 内蒙古自治区地方志办公室 (2013a)『内蒙古自治区志 方
言志 蒙古语卷』北京: 方志出版社.
Neimenggu zizhiqu difangzhi bangongshi 内蒙古自治区地方志办公室 (2013b)『内蒙古自治区志 方
言志 达斡尔语 鄂温克语 鄂伦春语卷』北京: 方志出版社.
Nugteren, Hans (2011) Mongolic Phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu Languages. Utrecht: LOT.
Siqinchaoketu 斯钦朝克图 (1999)『康家语』上海: 上海远东出版社.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof et al. (2005) The phonology of Mongolian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Takeuchi, Kazuo and Takahiro Fukumori 竹内和夫・福盛貴弘（2012）『トルクメン語⼊⾨』東京: ⼤
東⽂化⼤学
Tuya 图雅 (2008)『卫拉特方言元音的实验语音学研究』呼和浩特: 内蒙古人民出版社.
Weiers, Michael (1972) Materialen zu Sprache und Literatur der Mongolen von Afghanistan, Bd. I: Die
Sprache der Moghol der Provinz Herat in Afghanistan. Opladen.
Wu, Hongwei 吴宏伟 (1999)『图瓦语』上海: 上海远东出版社.
Yu, Wonsoo (2008) A study of the Tacheng dialect of the Dagur language. Seoul: Seoul National University
Press.

80

Yu, Woonsoo (2011) A study of the Mongol Khamnigan spoken in northeastern Mongolia. Seoul: Seoul
National University Press.
Zhao, Xiangru and Zhining Zhu 赵相如・朱志宁 (1985)『维吾尔语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Zhaonasitu 照那斯图 (1981)『东部裕固语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Zhaonasitu 照那斯图 (1981)『土族语简志』北京: 民族出版社.
Zhong, Suchun 仲素纯 (1982)『达斡尔语简志』北京: 民族出版社.

South Asia (Indo-Aryan and North Pakistan)Abbi, Anvita (2013) A Grammar of the Great Andamanese Language: An Ethnolinguistic Study. Leiden:
Brill.
Baart, Joan L.G. (1997) The Sounds and Tones of Kalam Kohistani: With Wordlist and Texts. Islamabad:
National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University.
Bashir, Elena (2003) Dardic. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan Languages, 818–
894. Oxford: Routledge.
Bashir, Elena and Thomas J. Conners (2019) A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki.
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Basu, E. M. Siddique (2003) Rohingyalish Book 1. Reprint, London: Rohingya Language Foundation, 2011.
Bhadari, Bh. and M.K. Chaudhari (2011) Tcharu jazyk [The Tharu language]. In: Tatiana I. Oranskaja,
Yulia V. Mazurova, Andrej A. Kibrik, Leonid I. Kulikov, and Aleksandr Y. Rusakov (eds.) Jazyki
Mira: Novye indoarijskie jazyki [Languages of the World: New Indo-Aryan languages], 310–316.
Moscow: Academia.
Blevins, Juliette (2007) A Long Lost Sister of Proto-Austronesian? Proto-Ongan, Mother of Jarawa andOnge of the Andaman Islands. Oceanic Linguistics 46: 154–198.
Buddruss, Georg (1960) Die Sprache von Woṭapur und Kaṭārqalā [The language of Woṭapur andKaṭārqalā]. Bonn: Orientalischen Seminar der Universität Bonn.
Buddruss, Georg and Almuth Degener (2017) Materialien zur Prasun-Sprache des afghanischen
Hindukusch, Teil 2: Grammatik [Materials on the Prasun language of the Afghan Hindukush, vol2: Grammar]. Cambridge: Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University.
Cardona, George (2003) Sanskrit. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan Languages,
104–160. Oxford: Routledge.
Cardona, George and Babu Suthar (2003) Gujarati. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The IndoAryan Languages, 659–697. Oxford: Routledge.

Dasgupta, Dipankar (1978) Linguistic Studies in Juang, Kharia Thar, Lodha, Mal-Pahariya, Ghatoali,
Pahariya. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India.
De Silva, M.W. Sugathapala (1972) Vedda Language of Ceylon: Texts and Lexicon. München: Kitzinger.
Degener, Almuth (1998) Die Sprache von Nisheygram im afganischen Hindukusch [The language of81

Nisheygram in the Afghan Hindukush]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Dewan, Baṅkim Kriṣṇa and Sugaṭa Cākma (2000) Cākmā bhāṣā śikṣār pratham pāṭh [The first lesson of
Chakma language teaching]. Rangamati: Tribal Cultural Institute.
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.) (2021) Ethnologue: Languages of theWorld. Twenty-fourth edition. http://www.ethnologue.com [accessed on 27 April 2021].
Edelman, D.I. (1983) The Dardic and Nuristani Languages. Moscow: Nauka.
Gair, James W. (2003) Sinhala. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan Languages,
766–817. Oxford: Routledge.
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. (2017) Dhivehi: The Language of the Maldives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Grjunberg, Aleksandr L. (1971) K dialektologii dardickich jazykov (glangali i zemiaki) [To the dialectologyof the Dardic languages (Glangali and Zemiaki)], In: N. A. Dvorjankov (ed.) Indijskaja i iranckaja
filologija: Voprocy dialektologii [The Indic and Iranian philology: Dialectological issues], 3–29.
Moscow: Nauka.
Hallberg, Daniel G. and Calinda E. Hallberg (1999) Indus Kohistani: A Preliminary Phonological andMorphological Analysis. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam
University.
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath and Sebastian Bank (eds.) (2020) Glottolog 4.3.
http://glottolog.org [accessed on 27 April 2021].
Herin, Bruno (2012) The Domari Language of Aleppo (Syria). Linguistic Discovery 10 (2): 1–52.
Kachru, Yamuna (2006) Hindi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Khubchandani, Lachman M. (2003) Sindhi. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan
Languages, 622–658. Oxford: Routledge.
Kogan, A.I. (2011) Avadchi jazyk [The Awadhi language]. In: Tatiana I. Oranskaja, Yulia V. Mazurova,
Andrej A. Kibrik, Leonid I. Kulikov, and Aleksandr Y. Rusakov (eds.) Jazyki Mira: Novye
indoarijskie jazyki [Languages of the World: New Indo-Aryan languages], 105–118. Moscow:
Academia.
Kuiper, F.B.J. (1962) Nahali: A Comparative Study. Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers
Maatschappij.
Lehr, Rachel (2014) A Descriptive Grammar of Pashai: The Language and Speech Community of Darrai
Nur. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Liljegren, Henrik (2016) A grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Masica, Colin P. (1991) The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matras, Yaron (2002) Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matras, Yaron (2012) A Grammar of Domari. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Miranda, Rocky V. (2003) Konkani. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan
Languages. 729–765. Oxford: Routledge.

82

Morgenstierne, Georg (1942) Notes on Dameli. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap [Norwegian Journalof Linguistics] 12: 115–198.
Morgenstierne, Georg (1945) Notes on Shumashti. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap [Norwegian
Journal of Linguistics] 13: 240–281.
Morgenstierne, Georg (1950) Notes on Gawar Bati. Oslo: I Kommisjon hos Jacob Dybwad.
Pardeshi, Prashant (2016) A Functional Account of Marathi's Voice Phenomena: Passives and Causatives
in Marathi. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Radloff, Carla F. (1999) Aspects of the Sound System of Gilgiti Shina. Islamabad: National Institute ofPakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University.
Ramaswami, N. (1904) Brokskat Grammar. Reprint, Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 1982.
Ray, Tapas S. (2003) Oriya. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan Languages, 444–
476. Oxford: Routledge.
Reinhard, Johan and Tim Toba (1970) A Preliminary Linguistic Analysis and Vocabulary of the Kusunda
Language. self-published.
Riccardi, Theodore (2003) Nepali. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan Languages.
538–580. Oxford: Routledge.
Schmidt, Ruth Laila (2003) Urdu. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan Languages,
286–350. Oxford: Routledge.
Shackle, Christopher (2003) Panjabi. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan
Languages, 581–621. Oxford: Routledge.
Sharma, J.C. (1901) Gojri Phonetic Reader.Reprint, Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 1979.
Sinha, Kali Prasad (1981) The Bishnupriya Manipuri language. Calcutta: Firma KLM.
Strand,RichardF.

(2011a)

The

Sound

Systemofsaňu-vi:ri.

http://nuristan.info/Nuristani/AshkunEtc/SaNu/SaNuLanguage/Lexicon/phon.html [accessed on
29 September 2020].
Strand,RichardF.

(2011b)

The

Sound

Systemof

kâmvʹiri.

http://nuristan.info/Nuristani/Kamkata/Kom/KomLanguage/Lexicon/phon.html [accessed on 29
September 2020].
Strand,RichardF.

(2011c)

The

Sound

Systemofktʹivřâ·ivari.

http://nuristan.info/Nuristani/Kamkata/Kata/KataLanguage/Lexicon/phon.html [accessed on 29
September 2020].
Sumi, Yūsuke (2018) Nyū ekusupuresu roma (jipushī) go [New Express to the Romani (Gypsy) language].
Tokyo: Hakusuisha.
Trail, Ronald L. (1970) A Grammar of Lamani. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the Universityof Oklahoma.
Trail, Ronald L. and Gregory R. Cooper (1999) Kalasha Dictionary —with English and Urdu. Islamabad:

83

National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University.
Učida, Norihiko (1970) Der Bengali-Dialekt von Chittagong: Grammatik, Texte, Wörterbuch [The Bengali
dialect of Chittagong: Grammar, text, dictionary]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Učida, Norihiko (1979) Oral Literature of the Saurashtrans. Calcutta: Simant Publications India.
Varma, G. Srinivasa (1970) Vaagri Boli: An Indo-Aryan Language. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University.
Verma, Manindra K. (2003) Bhojpuri. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan
Languages, 515–537. Oxford: Routledge.
Verma, Sheela (1985) The Structure of the Magahi Verb. New Delhi: Manohar.
Voskanjan, V.S. (2011) Lomavren Jazyk [The Lomavren language]. In: Tatiana I. Oranskaja, Yulia V.
Mazurova, Andrej A. Kibrik, Leonid I. Kulikov, and Aleksandr Y. Rusakov (eds.) Jazyki Mira:
Novye indoarijskie jazyki [Languages of the World: New Indo-Aryan languages], 811–818.
Moscow: Academia.
Wali, Kashi and Omkar N. Koul (2007) Kashmiri: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London and New
York: Routledge.
Yadav, Ramawatar (2003) Maithili. In:

George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) The Indo-Aryan

Languages, 477–514. Oxford: Routledge.
Zamponi, Raoul and Bernard Comrie (2020) A Grammar of Akabea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DravidianAndronov, Mikhail S. (1970) Dravidian Languages. Moskow: Nauka Publishing House.
Andronov, Mikhail S. (2003) A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Annamalai, E. and Sanford B. Steever (1998) Modern Tamil. In: Steever (1998) 100-128.
Asher, R.E. and T. C. Kumari (1997) Malayalam. London and New York: Routledge.
Bhaskararao, Peri (1998) Gadaba. In Steever (1998) 328-358.
Bhat, D.N.S. (1971) The Koraga Language. Pune: Deccan College.
Bhat, D.N.S. (1998) Tulu. In Steever (1998) 158-180.
Bhattacharya, S. (1961) Naiki of Chanda. Indo-Iranian Journal 5: 86-117.
Burrow, Thomas and S. Bhattacharya (1953) The Parji Language: A Dravidian Language of Bastar.
Hereford: Stephen Austin and Sons.
Burrow, Thomas and S. Bhattacharya (1970) The Pengo Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Elfenbein, Josef. (1998) Brahui. In Steever (1998) 388-414
Emeneau, Murray Barnson (1955) Kolami, a Dravidian Language. UCPL12. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Emeneau, Murray Barnson (1957) Toda, a Dravidian Language. Transactions of the Philological Society
56: 15-66.

84

Israel, M. (1979) A Grammar of the Kuvi Language. Tiruvananthapuram: International School of Dravidian
Languages.
Kekunnaya, Padmanabha (1994) A Comparative Study of Tuḷu Dialects. Udupi: Rashtra Kavi Govind Pai
Research Centre.
Kobayashi, Masato and Bablu Tirkey (2017) The Kurux Language. Leiden: Brill.
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (1969) Koṇḍa or Kūbi: a Dravidian Language. Hyderabad: Tribal Cultural
Research and Training Institute.
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (2001) Comparative Dravidian Linguistics: current perspectives. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (2003) Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju and J.P.L. Gwynn (1985) A Grammar of Modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Lehmann, Thomas (1998) ‘Old Tamil’. In Steever (1998) 75-99.
Lehmann, Thomas (1993) A Grammar of Modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Institute of Language and Culture.
Kuno, Susumu (1958) Phonemic Structure of Colloquial Tamil. Gengo Kenkyu 34: 16-42.
Sridhar, S.N. (1990) Kannada. London and New York: Routledge.
Steever, Sanford B. (ed.) (1998) The Dravidian Languages. London and New York: Routledge.
Steever, Sanford B. (1998) Gonḍi. In Steever (1998) 270-297.
Subrahmanyam, P. S. (1983) Dravidian Comparative Phonology. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University.
Subrahmanyam, P. S. (2008) Dravidian Comparative Grammar I. Chennai: Central Institute of ClassicalTamil.
Tyler, Stephen A. (1969) Koya: An Outline Grammar. UCPL 54. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press.
Winfield, W. W. (1928) A Grammar of the Kui Language. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal.
Zvelebil, Kamil (1970) Comparative Dravidian Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.
Zvelebil, Kamil (1973) The Irula Language. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Iranian and Armenian
Abaev, V. I. [Абаев, В. И.] (1979) Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского языка. том III.
s-t’. Ленинград: Наука.
Anonby, Christina van der Wal (2019) Kumzari. In G. Haig and G. Khan (2019), 625-656.
Efimov, V. A. [Ефимов В. А.] (1986) Язык Ормури В синхронном и историческом освещении.
Москва: Наука.
Efimov, V. A. [Ефимов, В. А.] (2008) Хазара. In В. А. Ефимов (ред.), 344-414.
Efimov, V. A. [Ефимов, В. А.] (отв. ред). (2008) Основы Иранского языкознания. Среднуиранские иновоиранские языки. Москва: Восточная литература РАН.

85Ėdel’man, D. I. [Эдельман, Д. И.] (1966) Язгулямский язык. Москва: Наука.
Ėdel’man, D. I. [Эдельман, Д. И.] (2000) Шугнанский язык. In В. С. Расторгуева (ред.), 225-242.
Ėdel’man, D. I. and L. R. Dodyxudoeva (2009) The Pamir languages. In G. Windfuhr (ed.), 773-786.
Grjunberg A. L. [Грюнберг А. Л.] (1972) Языки восточного Гиндукуша: Мунджанский язык.
Ленинград: Наука.
Grjunberg, A. L. and I. M. Steblin-Kamenski [Грюнберг, А. Л. и И. М. Стеблин Каменский] (1976)Языки восточного Гиндукуша: Ваханский язык. Москва: Наука.
Grjunberg A. L. [Грюнберг А. Л.] (2000) Мунджанский язык. In В. С. Расторгуева (ред.), 154-170.
Haig, Geoffrey (2019) The Iranian languages of northern Iraq. In G. Haig and G. Khan (eds.), 67-304.
Haig, Geoffrey (2019) Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) In G. Haig and G. Khan (eds), 106-158.
Haig, Geoffrey and Geoffrey Khan (eds.) (2019) The languages and linguistics of western Asia: An areal
perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Haig, Geoffrey and Ergin Öpengin (2018) Kurmanji Kurdish in Turkey: Structure, variety and status. In
Bulut Christiane (ed.) (2018) Linguistic minority in Turkey and Turkic-speaking minority periphery.
157-229. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Isaev, M. I. [Исаев, М. И.] (1966) Дигорский диалект осетинского языка. Москва: Наука.
Isaev, M. I. [Исаев М. И.] (2000) Осетинский язык. In В. С. Расторгуева (ред.), 311-323.
Kieffer, Charles M. (1989) Le Parāčī, l’Ōrmuṛī et le groupe des langues Iraniennes du sud-est. In R. Schmitt(ed.), 445-455.
Kieffer, Charles M. (2003) Grammaire de l’ōrmuṛī de Baraki-Barak (Lōgar, Afghanistan) Wiesbaden:
Ludwig Reichert.
Kieffer, Charles M. (2009) Parachi. In: G. Windfuhr (ed.), 693-720.
Kiseleva, L. N. [Киселева, Л. Н.] (1985) Язык Дари Афганистана. Москва: Наука
Korn, Agnes (2005) Towards a historical grammar of Balochi: Studies in Balochi historical phonology
and vocabulary. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
MacKenzie, D. N. (1961) Kurdish dialect studies I. London: Oxford university Press.
Mahmoudveysi, Parvin and Denise Bailey (2019) Hawrāmī of western Iran. In G. Haig and G. Khan (eds.),
532-568.
Morgenstierne, Georg (1929) Indo-Iranian frontier languages: vol. I Parachi and Ormuri. Oslo: Institut
for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning.
Morgenstierne, Georg (1938) Indo-Iranian frontier languages. vol. II. Iranian Pamir languages (YidghaMunji, Sanglechi-Ishkashmi and Wakhi). Oslo: H.Aschehoug.
Oranskij I. M. [Оранский, И. М.] (1988) Введение в иранскую филологию. Москва: Наука.
Ovsepjan, L. S. [Овсепян, Л. С.] (2013) Восточноармянский литературный язык. In Ю. Коряков и А.
А. Кибрик. Языки мира: Реликтовые индоевропейские языки Передней и Центральной
Азии. Москва: Academia. 242-291.

86

Pakhalina, T. N. [Пахалина, Т. Н.] (1959) Ишкашимский язык. Москва: Академия Наук СССР.
Pakhalina T. N. [Пахалина, Т. Н.] (1966) Сарыкольский язык. Москва: Наука.
Paul, Ludwig (1998) Zazaki: Grammatik und Versuch einer Dialektologie. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
Rastorgueva, V. S. [Расторгуева В. С.] (отв. ред) (2000) Языки Мира: Иранские языки IIIВосточноиранские языки. Москва: Индрик.
Rastorgueva, V. S. [Расторгуева В. С.] (отв. ред) (1971) Гилянский язык. Москва: Наука.
Robson, Barbara and Habibullah Tegey (2009) Pashto. In G. Windfuhr (ed.), 721-772.
Skjærvø, Prods O. (1989) Pashto. In R. Schmitt (ed.), 384-410.
Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) (1989) Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
Sokolova, V. S. [Соколова, В. С.] (1953) Очерки по фонетике иранских языков. том II. МоскваЛенинград: Академия Наук СССР.
Stilo, Donald (2019) The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic. In G. Haig and G. Khan
(eds.), 659-823.
Todd, Terry Lynn (2002, Electronic publication 2008) A grammar of Dimili also known as Zaza.
Vinogradova, S. P. [Виноградва, С. П.] (2000) Ягнобский язык. In В. С. Расторгуева (ред.), 290-310.
Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.) (2009) The Iranian languages. Routledge.
Windfuhr, Gernot and John Perry (2009) Persian and Tajik. In G. Windfuhr (ed.), 416-544.
Yoshie, Satoko (2005) The sound system of Gojal Wakhi. In Area and culture studies vol. 71. 43-82.
Tokyo: Tokyo university of foreign studies.
Yusufbekov, Š. P. and L. R. Dodyxudoeva [Юсуфбеков, Ш. П. и Л. Р. Додыхудоева] (2008)Сангличский язык. In В. А. Ефимов (ред.), 110-234.

Semitic
Nakano, Akio 中 野 曉 雄 (1998) A Sketch of Phonetic and Phonological Systems of Afro-Asiatic
Languages: Consonantal Features アフロ・アジア語の音声・音韻－子音音素論. Journal of thePhonetic Society of Japan 音声研究 Vol.2, No.3: 9–30.
Nakao, Shuichiro 仲尾周一郎 (2018) Shūen Arabiago ni okeru kōtōkaon 周縁アラビア語における喉頭化音. Journal of Arabic and Islamic studies アラブ・イスラム研究 16: 71–92.
Owens, J. (1993) Nigerian Arabic in Comparative Perspective. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 14, pp.
85–176.
Schroepfer, J. (2015) Ethnic Variation of */tˁ/ in Aswan Arabic. Selected Papers from New Ways ofAnalyzing Variation 22 (2), pp. 151–160.

Nilo-SaharanAbdel-Hafiz, Ahmed Sokarno (1988) A reference grammar of Kunuz Nubian: a Nile Nubian. Doctoral
dissertation, University of New York at Bufallo.

87

Ahland, Colleen Anne (2012) A grammar of Northern and Southern Gumuz. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Oregon.
Andersen, Torben (1989) The Päri vowel system with an internal reconstruction of its historicaldevelopment. Journal of African languages and linguistics 11: 1-20.
Andersen, Torben (1993) Aspects of Berta phonology. Afrika und Übersee 76: 41–80.
Andersen, Torben (2004) Jumjum phonology. Studies in African linguistics 33: 133–162.
Andersen, Torben (2007) Kurmuk phonology. Studies in African linguistics 36: 29–90.
Andersen, Torben (2009) Verbal suffixes and suffix reduction in Surkum and other Northern Burun
languages: Interaction with Focus. Journal of African languages and linguistics 30: 147–191.
Bender, M. Lionel (1983) Proto-Koman phonology and lexicon. Afrika und Übersee 66: 259–297.
Bender, M. Lionel (1997) The Nilo-Saharan languages: A comparative essay. Munich: Lincom.
Bender, M. Lionel (1997b) The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan (1). Afrika und Übersee 80: 189-215.
Boyeldieu, Pascal (2000) La langue Bagiro (République Centrafricaine). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Boyeldieu, Pascal (2009) Adjectifs et qualification en dadjo-Sila. Africana linguistica 15: 5–26.
Bryant, Michael G. (1999) Aspects of Tirmaga grammar. MA thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.
Christiansen-Bolli, Regula (2010) A grammar of Tadaksahak: A northern Songhay language of Mali.
Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
Clements, G. N. and Annie Rialland (2008) Africa as a phonological area. In: Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse(eds.) A linguistic geography of Africa, 36–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, Kevin Bretonnel (2000) Aspects of the grammar of Kukú. Munich: Lincom.
Crass, Joachim and Ronny Meyer (2008) Ethiopia. Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse (eds.), A linguistic
geography of Africa, 228–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. (2009) Tama. In: Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (ed.) Coding participant marking:Construction types in twelve African languages, 305–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. (2020) Nilo-Saharan and its limits. In: Rainer Vossen and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal(eds.) The Handbook of African Languages, 392–407. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J., Colleen Ahland, Angelika Jakobi and Constance Kutsch Lojenga (2019) Linguistic
Features and Typologies in Languages Commonly Referred to as ‘Nilo-Saharan’. In: H. Ekkehard
Wolff (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics, 326–381. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Edgar, John (1989) A Masalit grammar. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Ehret, Christopher (2001) A historical-comparative reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan. Cologne: Rüdiger
Köppe.
Güldemann, Tom (2008) The Macro-Sudan belt: Towards identifying a linguistic area in Northern SubSaharan Africa. In: Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse (eds.) A linguistic geography of Africa, 151–185.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

88Hall, Ed and Marian Hall (2004) Kadugli-Krongo Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese languages
9: 57–68.
Heath, Jeffrey (1999) A grammar of Koyra Chiini: The Songhay of Timbuktu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, Bernd and Christa König (2010) The Labwor language of Northeastern Uganda: A grammaticalsketch. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Hieda, Osamu (1992) A grammatical sketch of the Koegu language. Journal of Swahili and African studies
3: 131–155.
Hieda, Osamu 稗 田 乃 (2001) Datoogago no shiin taikei saikoo ダ ト ー ガ 語 の 子 音 体 系 再 考[Revisiting Datooga consonant system]. Suwahiri & Afurika kenkyuu スワヒリ&アフリカ研究[Studies in Swahili & Africa] 11: 102–117.
Inui, Hideyuki 乾秀行 (2011) Kowegugo no onso mokuroku コウェグ語の音素目録 [Consonant
inventory of Kowegu]. Ippan gengogaku ronsoo 一般言語学論叢 [Papers in general linguistics]
14: 41–64.
Jakobi, Angelika (1990) A Fur grammar: Phonology, morphophonology and morphology. Hamburg:
Helmut Buske.
Joswig, Andreas (2019) The Majang language. Amsterdam: LOT.
Kamei, Takashi 亀井孝, Rokuroo Koono 河野六郎 and Eiichi Chino 千野栄一 (eds.) (1988–2001)
Gengogaku daijiten 『 言 語 学 大 辞 典 』 [The Sanseido Encyclopedia of Linguistics]. Tokyo:
Sanseido Press.
Keegan, John M. (1997) A reference grammar of Mbay. Munich: Lincom.
Killian, Don (2015) Aspects of Uduk morphology and phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Helsinki.
Kilpatrick, Eileen (2004) Orthographies of Moru-Ma’di languages. Occasional papers in the study of
Sudanese languages 9: 85–91.
Kutsch Lojenga, Constance (1994) Ngiti: A Central-Sudanic language of Zaire. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Moges, Yigezu and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (1998) Notes on Baale. In: Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last
(eds.) Surmic languages and cultures, 273–318. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Moodie, Jonathan Paul (2019) A grammar of the Lopit language. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Melbourne.
Moser, Rosmarie. 2004. Kabba: A Nilo-Saharan language of the Central African Republic. Munich:
Lincom.
Mubarak, Suzan Alamin (2006) An initial description of Laggori noun morphology and noun phrase. In:
Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley and Anne Storch (eds.) Insights into Nilo-Saharan language,
history and culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan linguistic colloquium, Institute of Africanand Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16-19 February 2004, 9–24. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Nakao, Shuichiro (2019) Fundamental dialogues in Berta/Funj (1) Studies in Ethiopian languages 8: 20–

89

55.
Nougayrol, Pierre (1989) La langue des Aiki dits Rounga (Tchad, République centrafricaine): esquisse
descriptive et lexique. Paris: Geuthner.
Onziga, Yuga Juma and Leoma Gilley (2012) Phonology of Kakuwâ (Kakwa). Occasional papers in the
study of Sudanese languages 10: 1–16.
Otero, Manuel Alejandro (2019) A historical reconstruction of the Koman language family. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Oregon.
Palayer, Pierre (2011) Grammaire du dadjo d’Eref (Tchad). Louvain: Peeters.
Persson, Janet (2004) Bongo-Bagirmi languages in Sudan. Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese
languages 9: 77–84.
Randal, Scott (1998) A grammatical sketch of Tennet. In: Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last (eds.)
Surmic languages and cultures, 219–272. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Schröder, Martin C. (2004) Issues in Toposa orthography. Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese
languages 9: 27–37.
Souag, Mostafa Lameen (2010) Grammatical contact in the Sahara: Arabic, Berber, and Songhay inTabelbala and Siwa. Doctoral dissertation, University of London.
Stirtz, Timothy M. (2011) A grammar of Gaahmg, A Nilo-Saharan language of Sudan. Utrecht: LOT.
Weiss, Doris (2009) Phonologie et morphosyntaxe du Maba. Doctoral dissertation, Université Lumière
Lyon 2.
Werner, Roland (1987) Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch): Phonologie, Tonologie und Morphologie.
Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Yip, May (2004) Phonology of the These language. Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese languages
9: 93–117.

Niger-Congo
Clements, G. N. (2000) Phonology. In: Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse (eds.) African Languages: An
introduction, 123−160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clements, G. N. and Annie Rialland (2008) Africa as a phonological area. In: Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse(eds.) A Linguistic Geography of Africa, 36−85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit and Anne Storch (2016) Niger-Congo: A brief state of the art. DOI:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.3.
Güldemann, Tom (ed.) (2018) The Languages and Linguistics of Africa. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Guthrie, Malcolm (1970) Comparative Bantu: An Introduction to the Comparative Linguistics andPrehistory of the Bantu Languages. Vol. 3. London: Gregg Press.
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath and Sebastian Bank (2020) Glottolog 4.3. Jena:
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4061162

90

(Available online at http://glottolog.org, Accessed on 2021-02-06.)
Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson (1996) The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Simple UPSID database (hosted in Institut für Empirische Sprachwissenschaft, Abteilung Phonetik, Johann
Wolfgang

Goethe-Universität

Frankfurt)(2018)

URL:

http://web.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/upsid.html [Accessed October 2020]
Williamson, Kay and Roger Blench (2000) Niger-Congo. In: Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse (eds.) African
Languages: An introduction, 11−42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kalahari Basin Area
Auer, Daniel and Tom Güldemann (unpublished) Primary materials of East !Xoon (reanalysis of Traill2018), database of the project “Toward a better understanding of the extension of speech sounds:
the phonological typology of the Kalahari Basin Area”.
Gerlach, Linda. (2018). Palatalization in ǂʼAmkoe. Africana Linguistica 24, 31-43.
Gerlach, Linda (unpublished) Primary materials of N!aqriaxe, database of the project “Toward a better
understanding of the extension of speech sounds: the phonological typology of the Kalahari BasinArea”.
Haacke, Wilfrid (1999) The Tonology of Khoekhoe (Nama/Damara). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
Heikkinen, Terttu (1987) An Outline of the Grammar of the !Xũ Language spoken in Ovamboland and West
Kavango. South African Journal of African Languages 7 Supplement 1, 1-2.
Job, Sylvanus (unpublished) Primary materials of Namibian Khoekhoe, database of the project “Toward abetter understanding of the extension of speech sounds: the phonological typology of the Kalahari
Basin Area”.
Lionnet, Florian (unpublished) Primary materials of !Xuun W and E (reanalysis of Heikkinen 1987).
database of the project “Toward a better understanding of the extension of speech sounds: thephonological typology of the Kalahari Basin Area”.
Nakagawa, Hirosi (1998) Unnatural palatalization in |Gui and ||Gana?. In: Mathias Schladt (ed.) Language,
identity, and conceptualization among the Khoisan, 245-263. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
Nakagawa, Hirosi (unpublished) Primary materials of Gǀui, G‖ana, and ǂHaba, database of the project“Toward a better understanding of the extension of speech sounds: the phonological typology of
the Kalahari Basin Area”.
Nakagawa, Hirosi (unpublished) Primary materials of Naro (reanalysis of Visser 2001), database of the
project “Toward a better understanding of the extension of speech sounds: the phonologicaltypology of the Kalahari Basin Area”.
Naumann, Christfried (unpublished) Primary materials of West !Xoon, database of the project “Toward abetter understanding of the extension of speech sounds: the phonological typology of the Kalahari
Basin Area”.

91Ono, Hitomi (unpublished) Primary materials of Tshila, database of the project “Toward a better
understanding of the extension of speech sounds: the phonological typology of the Kalahari BasinArea”.
Pratchett, Lee (unpublished) Primary materials of Tsumkwe Juǀʼhoan, database of the project “Toward abetter understanding of the extension of speech sounds: the phonological typology of the Kalahari
Basin Area”.
Traill, Anthony (2018) A Trilingual !Xóõ Dictionary. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
Traill, Anthony and Rainer Vossen (1997) Sound change in the Khoisan languages: New data on click loss
and click replacement. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 18, 21-56.
Visser, Hessel (2001) Naro Dictionary. Gantsi: Naro Language Project.
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (unpublished) Primary materials of N|uu, database of the project “Toward abetter understanding of the extension of speech sounds: the phonological typology of the Kalahari
Basin Area”.

92Interesting sounds and sound changes in Japonic
Kohei Nakazawaa and Akiko Yokoyamab
Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of TokyoJapan Society for the Promotion of Science / Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa,
Tokyo University of Foreign Studiesab

Abstract
In this article, we summarize the notable points about the consonant system of Japonic languages(Japanese and Ryukyuan) and their changes: 1. a change of d > r (rhoticism) can be seen as inmaro ‘window,’ 2. voiceless nasals such as [n̥] in n̥ne ‘ship’are found, 3. various geminate
consonants such as tta ‘did’ and madde ‘as if’ are seen, 4. it is presumed that the Ryukyuan
languages also had prenasalized consonants: 5. regarding the phonologization of allophones, suchas [t-] ~ [-d-], and 6. about the proto-Japonic consonant system (I: t-ⁿt-n).

0Introduction

The synchronic types of stop series in Japonic (Japanese-Ryukyuan) are classified into seven categories:
A: t-ⁿd-n type with prenasalized voiced obstruents
B: t-d-ⁿd-n type with distinctive prenasalization in the voiced obstruents
C: t-d-n type without prenasalization in the voiced obstruents
D: t-tˀ-d-n-ʔn type with distinctive glottalization in both voiceless obstruents and nasals.
E: t-tˀ-d-n type with distinctive glottalization in the voiceless obstruents
F: t-d-n-ʔn type with distinctive glottalization in the nasals.
G: t-n type with no voiced obstruents
In addition, there are other stop consonants in Japonic that cannot be described under thesecategories. In this study, we report interesting sounds and sound changes in the Japonic languages. We
also talk about the changes that cannot be fully discussed in the main article. However, this paper deals
only with alveolar stops following the main article, and does not examine other places or the mannersof articulation.

1

Rhotacism

The Naha dialect (southern Okinawan) does not have /d/ and, at first glance, looks like Type G (tn). In actuality, this dialect has voiced obstruents such as in tabi ‘trip’ and kaagi ‘shape’ (Uchima andNohara 2006) so we must classify it as Type C. The lack of /d/ is due to rhotacism from /d/ to [r] (e.g.
ruru < duru ‘mud’). Although there are not so many dialects where /d/ has completely merged with /r/,such as the Kunigami-Uka dialect and the Benoki dialect of Okinawa (Karimata 2010: 129), theconfusion between /d/ and /r/ is widely observed, including in mainland dialects (e.g. ido ~ iro ‘water93

well’ in Fukuoka). Like dakura < rakuda ‘camel’ in some Awaji
dialects, there is a tendency for both /d/ and /r/ to be realized as[d] at the beginning of a word and [r] in the interior of a word. In
the Kami-Yaku and Naka-no-shima dialects, /d/ > [r] has also
occurred, but this [r] is somewhat different from the original /r/(Kamimura 1966: 46). In this case, /d/ and /r/ have not completely
merged. In the present Iwaya dialect of Awaji Island, rhotacism
has not been found, but this is due to standardization (replacement
by standard Japanese), so words that do not have standard forms
such as otoroi < otodoi ‘brothers’ retain the rhotic form. In Awaji
Island, there are dialects in which word-medial /d/ is realized as[ɾ]̃ or [ɹ]̃ (e.g. soɾã ʦu ‘to grow,’ imaɾã ɲi ‘still’). This is distinct
from /n/ (cf. Eng. winter [ˈwɪɾɚ
̃ ] vs. winner [ˈwɪnɚ]).
In the Kamikoshiki-mura Segami dialect (Kagoshima
Map 1: Rhotacism of /d/ in Japonic
Prefecture), intervocalic /-t-/ regularly changes into [r] as a resultof rhotacism, as can be seen with arama ‘head’ and oro ‘sound’.
In the Segami dialect, intervocalic /d/ merges with [n] (e.g. jonai ‘drool,’ sone ‘sleeve,’ nono ‘throat’)(Kibe 2001: 45).
In addition, the rhotacism of /n/ > /r/, such as in garime, garima(me) ‘crab’ in the Hachijo dialect(cf. kani ‘crab’ in standard Japanese) is attested (Yamada 2010: 66–67). In the Yonaguni dialect, there
are examples such as mbirumi ‘anus’ < *tubenome (cf. Shuri cibinumi) and taruŋa ‘shrimp’ < tanaga(cf. Shuri tanagee) (Ikema 2003). In Ryukyuan languages, there are many dialects in which /n/ of*kunebu ‘orange’ has become /r/ (e.g. Okinoerabu kuribu, Kin kiribu ~ kirubu) (Lawrence 2011: 117).
In the Shuri dialect, tanunuɴ ~ tarunuɴ ‘to ask’ and maruʧa < *manaita ‘chopping board’ also
demonstrate the change of /n/ > [r] (NINJAL ed. 1969). Words in (northern) Ryukyuan languages suchas gai ‘crab’ and tai ‘tick’ in the Ie dialect (Oshio 2009) are also considered to reflect this change suchas *gani > *gari and *tani > *tari (cf. nai < *nari ‘fruit’). *kani > *kari might also have occurred in
Yonaguni kainuʦu ‘meconium’ (cf. Yonaguni nai < nari ‘fruit,’ Hateruma kḁr̥ï ‘meconium,’ Jpn.
kani[kuso] ‘meconium’). However, there is no dialect that lacks /n/ due to this change because /n/ > /r/is a sporadic change in all Japonic languages1.
Although not the theme of this paper, /z/ may also turn into [r] (e.g. Oita surume < suzume ‘sparrow,’
Kudaka-jima hara < kaza ‘smell’). After all, alveolars /t/, /d/, /n/ (, and /z/) can all change into /r/. In
addition, there are dialects where /d/ and /z/ have merged, but in these dialects, the direction of themerger is /z/ > /d/. Thus, /z/ is missing due to the merger, as in the Yoron and Yonaguni dialects, but no
dialect lacks /d/.
/d/ > [r] is a kind of lenition, and a similar lenition is observed for other consonants: /b/ > [w] inToyama kawa ‘hippo,’ ʃiwa ‘firewood,’ Izena ʧiːwa ‘fang,’ tawi ‘travel,’ naːwi ‘pot,’ Nago suwa ‘side,’ta(ː)wi ‘travel.’ /g/ sometimes dropped, as in kaami ‘mirror’ and tamaeru ‘be surprised’ in the NaganoIiyama dialect.

On the other hand, in some dialects, /mi/ corresponds to the nasal vowel [ĩ](e.g. kagaĩ ‘mirror,’ hasaĩ ‘scissors,’suĩ ‘ink,’ goĩ ‘garbage’). So it is possible that the correspondence between /ni/ :: /i/ was established through theprocess of /ni/ > [ĩ]> /i/ instead of /ni/ > [ri] > /i/. /ŋi/ (< [gi]) :: /nʲi/ ~ [ĩ]~ /i/ also supports this change: Kikaijima muɲi ‘wheat,’ Yaku-shima kuĩ ‘nail,’ Kabira mui ‘wheat,’ Kohama mui ‘wheat’.
1

94

2

Voiceless nasals

Voiceless nasals such as [n̥] are phonetically observed insome dialects of Yaeyama, such as in the Hateruma dialect (e.g.
pḁn̥a ‘flower’) (Asō 2020), but they do not seem to bephonological and are instead allophones of /n/.
In the Hateruma dialect, short vowels that follow voicelessconsonants are devoiced, and consonants after voiceless vowels
are also devoiced. Therefore, sonorants [n], [m], and [r] aredevoiced, and the voiced obstruents merge with the voicelessobstruents (e.g. tḁpi < *tabi ‘trip,’ ki̥ pusï < *kebusi ‘smoke,’su̥purïɴ < *tuburi ‘gourd,’ kḁʦi < *kaze ‘wind’). Alternation
below indicates that [n̥], [m̥], and [r̥] are not phonemic but
phonetic: kḁn̥i ‘metal’ ~ fu-gani ‘iron,’ kḁm̥i ‘jar’ ~ buta-gami‘big jar,’ tu̥r̥ï ‘bird’ ~ miʃu-durï ‘sparrow’. Hateruma kḁr̥ï <*kani ‘meconium’ has experienced both devoicing and /n/ > /r/. Map 2: Voiceless nasals
Voiceless [n̥] can also be found in Ishigaki-Kabira, Iriomotejima, Hatoma-jima, Aragusuku-jima, and Kohama-jima in the Yaeyama Islands. If the complementary
distribution is broken and become contrastive, voiceless [n̥] will be phonologized.
Consonant devoicing after voiceless vowels is also found in Iwate Prefecture (Uwano 2021: 116):ku̥ta < *kuda ‘tube,’ hi̥ ta < *hida ‘fold,’ hu̥ta < *huda ‘label,’ hu̥te < *hude ‘brush’. A similarcorrespondence can be seen for /b/, such as ki̥ pa < *kiba ‘fang’ and ku̥po < *kubo ‘hollow’. Note that/g/ in standard Japanese corresponds to /ŋ/ (e.g. muŋi ‘wheat,’ kaŋe ‘shade’).
Voiceless nasals are also found in the Miyako Ikema dialect (e.g. n̥nu ‘horn’) (Pellard and Hayashi
2012: 44), but they do not seem to be consonant phonemes: they may be phonologically interpreted as/hN/ or /N̥/ (e.g., [n̥nu] /hNnu/ or /N̥nu/), where /N/ is a moraic phoneme. Northern Yambaru hini [çiɲi]‘ship’ and Okinoerabu hinni [çiɲɲi] ‘ship’ are thought to be developed from N̥ɲi [ɲ̥ɲi] (as in Aguni-jimaand Tonaki-jima dialects) (Karimata 2010:139–140). The change of /N̥/ [ɲ̥] > [çi] or [çiN] is a kind of
unpacking, the separation of the features of one segment into plural segments.
The Yonaguni dialect might have once had [n̥]: nnatˀi < [n̥natˀi] < *tunapiki ‘tug-of-war,’ nni < [n̥ne]< *pune ‘ship,’ nnu < [n̥nu] < *kinou ‘yesterday’. These [n̥n] may have been distinguished from [nn] innnatˀu < *minato ‘port,’ nni < *mune ‘chest,’ and nnu < *mino ‘(straw) raincoat’. However, all of themare /N̥/, which is different from an onset consonant (C in CV), in that /N̥/ can make a syllable by itself.
nda < [n̥da] < *kuda ‘tube,’ ndai < [n̥dai] < *pidari ‘left’ would also have been distinguished from nda< *nigasa ‘bitterness’.
Voiceless nasals also appear phonetically in some Japanese dialects, such as n̥na ‘such,’ n̥de ‘and’in Kyoto (Nakai 2002a: 575–579) and n̥ne ‘ship’ in Awaji, where they are interpreted as /N̥na/, /N̥de/,and /hune/, respectively. The change from /N̥/ into the usual /N/ has occurred in Osaka dialect and the
younger Kyoto dialect (Nna, Nde), which probably also has occurred in Yonaguni dialect.

3

Geminate obstruents

In standard Japanese, geminate consonants are distinctive in the middle of a word (e.g. ɕita ‘did’ vs.
ɕitta ‘knew’), but not at the beginning of the word. On the other hand, geminate (obstruent) onsets are95

found in some Japonic languages.
(1) tta ‘did,’ ttotsu ‘one,’ ttatsu ‘two’ in the Nakagawa dialect,
Kyoto (Nakai 2001, Nakai 2002b)
There are glottalized sounds in the Irabu Nagahama dialect,
but they are interpreted as geminate obstruents rather thansingletons.
(2) ˀttaɭ /ttar/ ‘came,’ ˀttjaː /ttjaa/ ‘then’ (Shimoji 2018)
If we include (initial) geminate obstruents, glottalizedsounds are widely seen in Japanese and Ryukyuan languages andare considered a matter of phonotactics (cf. tʨu /Qcu/ ‘person’ in
the Shuri dialect). In fact, geminate obstruents are phonologicallyglottalized, but they are distinguished from glottalized sigletons(e.g. wuttˀi ‘day before yesterday’ vs. ʔumutˀi ‘obverse’ in the Ie Map 3: Sounds corresponding tostandard Japanese [nd]dialect, Oshio 2009). It may be necessary to consider the
possibility of language contact and the influence of thesubstratum in addition to the possibility that the phonologization of the laryngeal sounds is limited to
the northern Ryukyuan and the Yonaguni dialect (Hashimoto 1978).
Voiced geminates such as [dd] are prohibited in standard Japanese except for loanwords and someemphasized forms (e.g. beddo ‘bed’ and hiddeː ‘terrible’), but we can find voiced geminates in somedialects (e.g. teddoː ‘railroad,’ Kami-goto madda ‘pillow’ and adda ‘oil’ in Nagasaki Prefecture, madde‘as if’ and kuddaː ‘will come’ in Awaji). In some dialects, voiced geminates are avoided and [dd] ischanged into [nd] or [tt] (e.g. mande ~ matte ‘as if’ < madde < marude in Awaji). Relatedly, in Haterumada ‘you’ and Yonaguni nda ‘you,’ such changes as [ɾɾ] > [dd] > [nd] are considered (*ura > *rra > *dda
> da / nda. cf. Ie-jima ʔra). In mainland Japan, there are cases where [ɾɾ] is avoided, turning into [nɾ]
and further [nz], such as in Awaji daɾɾa ~ danza ‘who (plural)’ and boɾɾjoɾu ~ bonɾjoɾu ~ bonʒoɾu ‘beleaking’.
According to Nomura (1980), there are “implosives” in the Tonyū dialect of Gifu Prefecture (e.g.
noˁdo ‘throat,’ huˁdoʃi ‘waistcloth’). [ˁd] is distinct from [dd], as in udde ‘giving birth’ and ʃidda ‘died’.
If phonation has both voicing and glottalized features, it might be implosive (i.e. [ɗ]). However, it isunclear whether they are really implosive. The relationship between [ˁd] and [dd] seems to be parallelto that between [ⁿd] and [nd]. [-dd-] corresponding to [-nd-], such as seddaku for sendaku ‘washing,’
can be found in various dialects, frequently in East Japan. In the case of Tonyu, [-nd-] > [-dd-] hasdefinitely occurred, so it is possible that [-ⁿd-] has changed into [-ᵈd-] ([-ˁd-]) in parallel, but when wecheck the examples, we can find variants like [noˁdo] ~ [noddo], so there is a greater possibility thatsome of them changed from [-dd-] to [-ˁd-]. [ˁd] is phonologically opposed to [d] in the Tonyu dialect.
[d] corresponds to a singleton, [ˁd] corresponds to an old geminate, and [dd] corresponds to new
geminates.
In the Awaji Yura dialect, length distinction is observed in nasal geminates at the beginning of words,
as in (3).

96

(3) n̆neru ‘simmer’ vs. nˑne ‘big sister,’ m̆meru ‘(can) see’ vs. mˑmeru ‘bury’
This may be due to the difference in syllabification (i.e., /Nne/ vs. /N.ne/ and /Nme/ vs. /N.me/).
The difference between [ˁd] and [dd] in the Tonyu dialect may also lie in the length, as in Awaji.
However, in the Awaji dialect, there is no difference within a word, and it is difficult to interpret thedifference of [ˁd] and [dd] in the Tonyu dialect as a difference of syllabification like Awaji.
If the prior report on the Tonyu dialect is correct, we must classify the consonant system of the
Tonyu dialect as Type H: t-d-ˁd-n. The following relationships can be considered between consonantsequences and phonemes.
Table 1: The correspondence between consonant sequence and phonemes
consonant sequence
tt
˂ (˃)
dd
˅
phoneme

4

tˀ

˅
?

ˁd

˂˃

nd
˄
˅
?
ⁿd
A > B: A (can) change to B

Evidence for prenasalization in Ryukyus

Types with prenasalization (A and B) are distributed in themainland dialects but are not distributed in Ryukyuan languages.
There is some evidence, that Ryukyuan languages may have had
prenasalized consonants. For example, Okinawan *d is written as{nd} or {nt} in some old texts recorded by speakers of foreign
languages (e.g. 日頭 텬다 tʰjǝn-ta /tïda/ ‘sun’ and 筆 푼디 pʰunti /pudï/ in Haedong Jegukgi). In the Kohama dialect, a voiced
obstruent within a word became /NC/, such as [nd], suggesting that
Map 4: Traces of prenasalization
Ryukyuan languages also had prenasalized consonants. However,in Ryukyuan
these may be notational conventions or the result of phonotactic
constraints. Here, we consider other evidence of prenasalization in
Ryukyuan languages.
After the Great Yaeyama tsunami in 1771, Shiraho village was rebuilt by immigrants from
Hateruma. From this, we know that the two dialects are descended from a common ancestor spoken only
approximately 250 years ago. Therefore, full mutual comprehensibility has been reported between the
Hateruma and Shiraho dialects. Nevertheless, there are some differences between Hateruma and Shiraho.
(4) H pi̥ n̥ari :: S pi̥ tari ‘left,’ H ʃi̥ n̥a :: S ʃi̥ ta ‘sun’ (Hateruma :: Shiraho)
Hateruma [n̥] and Shiraho [t] correspond to standard Japanese /d/ (e.g. hidari ‘left’). We cannot
explain Hateruma [n̥] from [d] because there is no motivation for nasalization, such as phonotactics, as
you can see from the Shiraho dialect. Instead, it must be reconstructed as follows, [ⁿd]: Strong aspiration
is a common feature (see section 2), so Hateruma pi̥ n̥ari and Shiraho pi̥ tari may be derived from *piⁿdari> pĩ̥ d̥ari [pĩ̥ tari]: This is one piece of strong evidence for the existence of prenasalization in Ryukyu. The
fact that Ryukyuan languages also had prenasalized sounds strongly supports the hypothesis ofreconstructing prenasalization in Proto-Japonic.

97

5

Phonologization of conditional allophones

Some analyses of phonological consonant systems in
Tohoku dialects do not regard [ⁿd] as a phoneme: There are
only /t/ [t-] ~ [-d-] and /d/ [d-] ~ [-ⁿd-]. These interpret
intervocalic [-d-] as /t/ and [d-] as /d/. Therefore, [d] isinterpreted as a different phoneme at the beginning andwithin a word. However, we found that synchronicallythere are minimal triplets.
(5) sɯ̥̈ ta ‘did’ ↔ sɯ̈da ‘laid’ ↔ sɯ̈ⁿdare- ‘drooping’(Uwano 1973: 29)
In addition, we cannot explain the motivation forprenasalization phonetically. We have to admit three
Map 5: Dialects which have more distinctive
distinctive phonemes synchronically: /t/, /d/, and /ⁿd/.
features than standard JapaneseOn the other hand, [ᵐp], [ⁿʦ] and [ᵐb], [ⁿʣ] are incomplementary distribution (i.e. [ᵐpV̥] ~ [ᵐbV] and [ⁿʦV̥]~ [ⁿʣV]), so they do not need to be regarded as separate phonemes. Free variants such as [toᵐpi̥ tɛ] ~[toᵐbitɛ] ‘want to fly,’ [toⁿʦɨ̥ tɛ] ~ [toⁿʣɨtɛ] ‘want to close’ are also observed (Uwano 1986: 11). Notethat [ᵐb] and [ⁿʣ] (other than [ⁿʣɨ]) tend to alter in [b] and [ʣ] because prenasalization is often lost
where there is no phonological contrast of prenasalization.
Phonologization of conditional allophones can be found in the phonological reorganization for /t/[tʰ-] ~ [-t(ˀ)-] due to the occurrence of [tˀ-] at the beginning of a word. On the other hand, [n̥] (and [ⁿt])does not require such a reorganization, so it is difficult to regard them as phonemes.
In addition, we have to consider whether the laryngeal features of Ryukyu languages really only
involve a binary opposition between /t/ and /tˀ/. Considering compound words, there may be three-way
distinction in (voiceless) obstruents: ubutʰu ‘mighty ocean,’ butu ‘husband,’ and ubutˀu ‘adult’.

6

The type of proto-Japonic

Type A (t-ⁿd-n) is considered to be the oldest synchronic type of stop series in modern Japonic languages,
but it is debatable whether the proto-Japonic consonant system was actually type A.
Type A is redundant in that obstruents are distinguished by both voicing and nasal features.
Therefore, either voicing or nasality is the original distinctive feature, and either may be redundant. The
voiced/voiceless opposition is found in almost all dialects (except the Ogami dialect), while
prenasalization is found only in some of the mainland dialects. However, some voiced obstruents
correspond to nasal + stop clusters such as hude < *pumde < pumite ‘brush’ and nodo < nomdo <*nomito ‘throat,’ and the nasal sounds are reconstructed not only in the mainland but also in Ryukyu;
therefore, we think that prenasalization can be reconstructed for proto-Japonic. In Japonic languages, asa general rule, /d/ does not appear at the beginning of a word, and word initial /d-/ has occurred throughsporadic changes: dasu < idasu ‘emit’ and doko < idoko ‘where’ (aphaeresis); dare < tare ‘who’ and dani
< tani ‘tick’ (initial voicing), which also indicates that most /d/ may have originated from the NC cluster.
It is likely that the consonant system of proto-Japonic may be reconstructed as t-ⁿt-n (Type I), which98

has a system distinguishing consonants only by nasality. Although *[ⁿt] > [ⁿd] occurred in all Japonic
languages, the stage of [ⁿt] might have long been retained in Tohoku dialects since devoicing occurs
even with prenasalized consonants, which may reflect the retention of [ⁿt].
(6) oⁿʦɯ̥ ̈ ko ‘little brother’ < *woⁿti-ko(??)
Prenasalized obstruents might come from nasal-obstruent clusters, namely, NC > ⁿC. If so, theproto-Japonic consonant system would ultimately be Type G (t-n), which is the same as that of theŌgami dialect. However, Ōgami’s Type G is not a retention of the proto-Japonic system. In Ogami, [b]from word-initial /w/ is also found (as in pakamunu from wakamono, in comparison to bakamunu inother Miyako dialects), so it is clearly an innovation of the Ogami dialect and ([nt] >) [ⁿt] > [ⁿd] > [d]also occurred in this dialect.
There is a claim that prenasalized [ⁿd] comes from voiced geminate *dd (Hizume 2004). In ProtoJaponic, voicing was not distinctive in stops, so */t/ was always voiced in medial position and was
simply an allophone of */t/ [t- ~ -d-]. Moreover, some instances of *t were lengthened at the morphemeboundary to indicate emphasis, resulting in [-dd-] > [-nd-] > [-ⁿd-]. Since -t- > -d- and -dd-> -nd-> -ⁿdare actually attested or assumed, [ⁿd] < *dd is a possible change if -d-> -dd- occurred. In any case, thiswould indicate that the oldest consonant system of proto-Japonic was Type G (t-n).
Both voicing and devoicing were observed in Tohoku, Kagoshima, and Yaeyama. This may also be
a reflection of the Proto-Japonic language lacking the voiced/voiceless distinction. In ancient Kansai
dialects, the usage in the Man'yōgana and pronunciation of Chinese loanwords clearly shows that *[ⁿt]> [ⁿd] had already occurred.
In conclusion, it is presumed that Proto-Japonic is of Type G or Type I, without a distinctive voicedfeature.

7

Further Research

In this paper, we do not discuss anything other than the alveolar stops (plosive and nasal) except forrhotacism, but in the Japonic languages, there are also interesting consonant types: oppositions between
affricates and fricatives, the distribution of labiodental consonants ([f], [v], and [ɱ]), nasalized
approximants ([ȷ ]̃ and [w̃]), and phonotactic phenomena such as the opposition between [jwa] and [wja].
We would like to discuss this on another occasion.

Sources
The data for Awaji dialect(s) are from the first author’s field notes. Data for other dialects which do
not have particular references are from Uwano (ed.) (1989).

Acknowledgments
The work is part of the research outcomes of following Grants-in-Aid of JSPS: ‘The genealogy of
Awaji dialects and the reconsideration of the classification of Western Japanese dialects’ (headed by
Kohei Nakazawa, JP19K20801), ‘Studies in historical linguistics on the Nankaido dialects and theestimation of dialectal divergence time’ (headed by Kohei Nakazawa, JP21H00354), ‘The Effects ofLanguage Environmental on Language Shift: The case of Okinoerabu Language, Ryukyuan’ (headedby99

Akiko Yokoyama, JP18K12392), and ‘Action research for revitalizing endangered languages’ (headedby Akiko Yokoyama, JP20J40023).

References
Asō, Reiko 麻生玲子 (2020) Minami Ryūkyū Yaeyamago hateruma hōgen no bumpō 南琉球八重山語波照間
方言の文法 [Grammar of Hateruba dialect, Yaeyaman, South-Ryukyuan]. Doctral Dissertation in TUFS
東京外国語大学博士論文.
Hashimoto, Mantarō 橋本萬太郎 (1978) Gengo ruikei chiriron 言語類型地理論 [Typological geography ofLanguages]. Kōbundō 弘文堂.
Hizume, Shūji 肥爪周二 (2004) Ketsugō hyōji to naibukōzō hyōji 結合標示と内部構造標示 [Compatibilityof Keeping Word Coherence at the Same Time Making Morphemes Distinct]. In. Onsei Kenkyū 音声研
究 [Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan]. 8(2): 5–13.
Ikema, Nae 池間苗 (2013) Yonagunigo jiten 与那国語辞典 [Dictionary of Yonaguni language]. Private edition
私家版.
Kamimura, Takaji 上村孝二 (1966) Yakushima hōgen no kenkyū: onsei no bu 屋久島方言の研究―音声の部― [Study of Yakushima Dialect Part I― On Sounds]. In. Bungakka ronshū: Kagoshimadaigaku
hōbungakubu kiyō 文学科論集：鹿児島大学法文学部紀要 [Cultural science reports of Kagoshima
University]. 2: 35–60.
Karimata, Shigehisa かりまたしげひさ (2010) Kitaryūkyū hōgen niokeru dōka to ika 北琉球方言における同化と異化 [Dissimilation and Assimilation in Northern Ryukyuan Dialects]. In. International journal of
Okinawan studies. 1(1): 123–143.
Kibe, Nobuko 木部暢子 (2001) Kagoshima hōgen ni mirareru onhenka nitsuite 鹿児島方言に見られる音変化について [Sound Changes in Kagoshima Dialect]. In. Onsei Kenkyū 音声研究 [Journal of thePhonetic Society of Japan]. 5(3): 42–48.
Lawrence, Wayne ローレンス，ウエイン (2011) Kikaijima hōgen no keitōtekiichi nitsuite 喜界島方言の系
統 的 位 置 に つ い て [On the Phylogenetic Position of the Kikaijima Dialects]. In. Kibe, Nobuko,
Kubozono, Haruo, Shimoji, Kayoko, Lawrence, Wayne, Matsumori, Akiko, Takeda, Kōko 木部暢子・窪薗晴夫・下地賀代子・ローレンス・ウエイン・松森晶子・竹田晃子 Kikaijima hōgen chōsa hōkokusho
喜界島方言調査報告書 [Research Report on the Kikaijima Dialects]. 115–122.
Nakai, Yukihiko 中井幸比古 (2001) Kyōto-shi hōgen akusento shōjiten 京都市方言アクセント小辞典[Small dictionary of Kyoto city accents]. Private edition 私家版.
Nakai, Yukihiko 中井幸比古 (2002a) Keihankei akusento jiten 京阪系ア クセント辞 典 [Dictionary of
Keihan-style accents]. Bensei Shuppan 勉成出版.
Nakai, Yukihiko 中井幸比古 (2002b) Kyōto-fu hōgen jiten 京都府方言辞典 [Dictionary of Dialects in Kyoto
Prefecture]. Izumi Shoin 和泉書院.
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics 国立国語研究所 (ed.) (1963) Okinawago jiten 沖縄語辞典 [Dictionary of the Okinawan language]. Ministry of Finance Printing Bureau 大蔵省印刷局.
Nohara, Masayoshi 野村正良 (1980) Tonyū hōgen no nyūhaon to tōgokugokei hōgen no sogo saikō notameno
ichishiron 戸入方言の入破音と東国語系方言の祖語再構のための一試論 [The Implosives of the
Tonyu-Dialect: An Approach to the Reconstruction of Primitive Eastern-Japanese]. In. Kyōto Sangyō
daigaku kokusaigengokagaku kenkyūjo shohō 京都産業大学国際言語科学研究所所報 [The bulletin of
the International Institute for Linguistic Sciences Kyoto Sangyo University]. 1(3): 124–141.
Oshio, Mutsuko 生 塩 睦 子 (2009) Shimban Okinawa Iejima hōgen jiten 新 版 沖 縄 伊 江 島 方 言 辞 典

100[Dictionary of the Iejima dialect, Okinawan, new edition]. Board of education in Iejima village 伊江島教育委員会.
Pellard, Thomas, Hayashi, Yuka ペラール，トマ・林由華 (2012) Miyako shohōgen no on’in: taikei to hikaku
宮古諸方言の音韻－体系と比較－ [The Phonology of the Miyako Dialects: Phonological Systems andComparisons]. In. Kibe, Nobuko 木部暢子 (ed.) Minami ryūkyū Miyako hōgen chōsa hōkokusho 南琉
球宮古方言調査報告書 [Research Report on Miyako Ryukyuan]. 13–51.
Shimoji, Michinori 下地理則 (2018) Minamiryūkyū Miyakogo Irabujima hōgen 南琉球宮古語伊良部島方言[(A grammar of) Miyako Irabu language, Southern Ryukyuan]. Kurosio Publishers くろしお出版.
Uchima, Chokujin, Nohara, Mitsuyoshi 内間直仁，野原三義 (2006) Okinawago jiten: Naha hōgen o chūshin
ni 沖縄語辞典―那覇方言を中心に [Dictionary of the Okinawan language: focusing on the Naha
Dialect]. Kenkyūsha 研究社.
Uwano, Zendō 上野善道 (1973) Iwateken Shizukuishi-machi hōgen no on’in taikei 岩手県雫石町方言の音韻体系 [Phonological System of the Shizukuishimachi dialect, Iwate Prefecture]. In. Nihon hōgenkenkyūkai
dai 17 kai happyōgenkōshu 日 本 方 言 研 究 会 第 17 回 発 表 原 稿 集 [Conference Papers of the
Dialectological Circle of Japan No. 17]. 23–34.
Uwano, Zendō 上野善道 (1986) : Aomorishi hōgen no dōshi no akusento 青森市方言の動詞のアクセント[Verbal accents of Aomori-shi diakect]. In. Nihonkai bunka 日本海文化 [Journal of Japan Sea Culture
Research Institute]. 13: 1–49.
Uwano, Zendō 上野善道 (ed.) (1989) On’in sōran 音韻総覧 [Overview of Phonemes (in Japan)]. In: Nihon
hōgen daijiten 日本方言大辞典 [Grand dictionary of Japanese dialects]. Shōgakukan 小学館.
Uwano, Zendō 上野善道 (2021) Iwateken Tanohata-mura hōgen no akusento chōsa hōkoku : Hokuō hōgenakusento sotaikei tono kanren de 岩手県田野畑村方言のアクセント調査報告：北奥方言アクセント
祖体系との関連で [Accent Data from the Tanohata Dialect, Iwate Prefecture: The Proto-Accent System
of Northern Tohoku Dialects]. In. Kokuritsu kokugo kenkyūjo ronshū 国立国語研究所論集 [NINJAL
Research Papers]. 20: 115–147.
Yamada, Heiuemon [sic] 山田 平右エ門 (2010) Kiete iku Shimakotoba: Hachijōgo no keishō to sonzoku onegatte 消えていく島言葉―八丈語の継承と存続を願って [The dialect in danger: hoping for the
succession and survival of Hachijo language]. Ikuhōsha 郁朋社.

101

Prenasalisation in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere
Hiroyuki SuzukiaaInstitute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University

Abstract
This article describes details of prenasalised sounds attested in Tibetic languages in the eastern
Tibetosphere. The existence of prenasalisation is one of the striking features of these languages.
However, previous descriptions varied in their view of the phonemic status of prenasalised
aspirated sounds. The article provides an overview of prenasalised stops, represented by thedenti-alveolar series.

1

Introduction

Suzuki et al. (2021) provide linguistic maps based on the dataset of Tibeto-Burman languages (as well asa small number of Chinese-Tibetan mixed languages) regarding the stop series of the consonant systemfollowing the first topic of the Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics-I (SAAG-1) project. We
found that many Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere possess prenasalised stops. However,comparing previous descriptions with ours highlights a crucial difference in the attitude to the voicelessaspirated prenasalised sounds. This article clarifies the factor of the different observations and analyses
and claim that we should consider two aspects separately: the existence and the phonological function of
the given sound.
sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med and sKal-bzang dByangs-can (2002:92) describe prenasalised stops ofDerge Tibetan (Northern Route, a.k.a. Zalmogang Khams), which include the voiced initial type, as wellas the voiceless aspirated initial type in parentheses, namely, /(n̥ th)/ and /(ŋ̊kh)/ for instance. Häsler
(1999:22-23), describing the same target language, Derge, considers both types to exist, adding a note:‘Prenasalised aspirated stops and affricates frequently occur as the initial of a second syllable. In
absolute initial position, prenasalised aspirated stops and affricates are less frequent and often difficult
to perceive’ (p. 23).
Based on my description of Derge Tibetan (the dGonchen dialect), the prenasalised voicelessaspirated initial type exists in the pronunciations among speakers of various generations. The sounditself is attested not only as prenasalisation but a nasalised initial or nasalised aspiration. For thisphenomenon, I provided the following observation regarding the Cherje dialect of Amdo Tibetan(Suzuki 2004:160):
In the above-mentioned phonetic description [prenasalisation], I describe, for example, n̥ tsh as aphonetic notation [n̥ tsn̥ h]. This phonetic realisation is explained as a sound whose [post-]aspirated
part is accompanied by resonance in the nasal cavity. In this case, the prenasalised part preceding
the release of the stop may be so weak that the prenasalisation seems to be omitted. This is themanner of pronunciation which is characteristic of the Chabcha/Cherje dialect; however, it is notalways necessary that the [post-]aspirated sound be accompanied by resonance in the nasal
cavity.
The notation [n̥ tsn̥ h] in this citation can also be described as [n̥ tsh̃] (Suzuki 2015a). The realisation ofprenasalisation observed and described by the present author differs from the descriptions by
sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med and sKal-bzang dByangs-can (2002) and Häsler (1999). However, therelationship between a glottal fricative and a nasal feature has been discussed in some Tibeto-Burman
languages, which Matisoff (1975) terms ‘rhinoglottophilia’. Suzuki (2015a) also describes relevant102phenomena attested in Tibetic languages. I have never seriously discussed the phonological function of
the given sound in any previous descriptions; however, the nearly ubiquitous existence of the nasalisedfeature in the voiceless aspirated initial series has been confirmed through fieldwork on more than 200
dialect points from the eastern Tibetosphere. This prenasalised feature has clearly effected a soundchange in some dialects.
The following sections deal with the sound correspondences of prenasalised sounds in Tibetic
languages with Literary Tibetan (LT) forms (Section 2) and non-straightforward sound correspondences(Section 3) attested in several varieties from the eastern Tibetosphere. For a phonetic description, themethod for displaying the syllable structure follows Suzuki (2005). The description of segmental sounds
follows the framework by Zhu (2010) as well as Suzuki (2016a), including IPA (International Phonetic
Alphabet) and additional indispensable phonetic symbols employed in Chinese linguistics. The analysis
of suprasegmental sounds follows Kitamura (1977), with necessary expansions.

2Regular sound correspondences of prenasalised initials

As many works describe, prenasalisation corresponds to LT preinitials ’ and m preceding voiced andvoiceless aspirated initials kh, g, ch, j, th, d, ph, and b, as well as several consonant combinations
including them; see sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med and sKal-bzang dByangs-can (2004) for the provisionalsounds of LT forms. Hence, if the sound correspondence is straightforward, a given Tibetic language
may have the voiced initial type and the voiceless aspirated initial type. Since the SAAG-1 projectfocuses on the denti-alveolar series, the following description also concerns the same series.
I tabulate data from Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere which have already appeared in a
publication so that we can refer to the full picture of the sound system and more examples. Each example
in Table 1 is accompanied by an English translation and LT form in italics.
Table 1: Prenasalisation as a regular sound correspondence.
/n̥ th/-type
Language/nd/-typenn̥ h
Chabcha/Cherje Amdodə ‘this’t əɣ po ‘thick’’di’thug ponn̥ hMabzhi Amdoda rə ‘damaru’t əŋ ‘drink, eat’’dar bu’thungnn̥ hrNgawa Amdodə ‘this’t ək ‘pick’
’di
’thog
Bragkhoglung Coneˉnda ‘arrow’ˊn̥ thõ mbo ‘high’mda’
mthon bonn̥ hdGonpa mBrugchudə ‘arrow’t ɯ ɦɤ ‘thick’
mda’’thug ponn̥ h hBabzo dPalskyiddoʔ ‘colour’t o po ‘high’mdogmtho ponn̥ h mAstong Sharkhog
də̃ mba ‘mad’t õ bo ‘high’’dam bamthon bo
Lhagang Khams
ˉnda ‘arrow’`n̥ thõ mbo ‘high’mda’
mthon bo
Khromtshang Khams`nda ‘arrow’ˉn̥ thuʔ po ‘thick’
mda’’thug poSakar Khams
ˊnda pa ‘mud’ˉn̥ thʉ̃ mo ‘thick’’dam pamthon mo
Choswateng Khams
ˉnda ‘arrow’ˉn̥ tha ‘edge’
mda’
mtha’
Zhollam Khams
ˊndɛ ɦbA ‘mud’`n̥ thõ tɛj ‘high’’dam pamthon ?
n
Sangdam Khams
ˉ da ‘arrow’ˉn̥ tha mõ ‘thumb’
mda’
mthe mong

103

SourceSuzuki (2004)
Tsering Samdrup andSuzuki (2019)
Suzukiand
Yeshemtsho (2006)
Suzuki (2012d)
Suzuki (2015b)
Suzuki (2007b)
Suzuki (2010c)
Suzuki and Sonam
Wangmo (2015)
Suzuki (2010a)
Suzuki (2012a)
Suzuki (2014b)
Suzuki (2011a)
Suzuki (2012b)

According to the examples in Table 1, prenasalisation exhibits a regular correspondence with LT
forms. See also Suzuki (2007a, 2008abc, 2009abc, 2010b, 2011cde, 2012c, 2013abd, 2014acd, 2020),
Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo (2016), and Suzuki and Yudron (2019) for further references to phonetic
descriptions of prenasalisation as well as word lists of various Tibetic languages in the eastern
Tibetosphere.
Note that there are several dialects which only have the prenasalised voiced stop series; for instance,
dialects belonging to the Tsongkha group of Amdo Tibetan (Tournadre and Suzuki 2021), also known as
the farmers’ dialect group of Amdo Tibetan.

3

Irregular sound correspondences of prenasalised initials

This section discusses cases which do not fit the regular sound correspondences described in Section 2.
I present the following two phenomena:- prenasalised voiceless unaspirated initial type and its sound correspondence with LT- prenasalisation which does not correspond to LT
The following description contains both published and unpublished data of the present author.
3.1

Prenasalisation of voiceless unaspirated stops

Prenasalised voiceless unaspirated stops are attested in some dialects belonging to the dPalskyid group(mDzorge and Khodpokhog [a.k.a. gZitsa sDegu] counties of rNgawa Prefecture, Sichuan) and thesDerong-nJol group (sDerong County of Kandze Prefecture, Sichuan, and nJol County of Dechen
Prefecture, Yunnan). These groups are distributed far from each other. In addition, the mechanism of
producing the given sounds also differs.
Babzo Tibetan (Suzuki 2007b) has a prenasalised voiceless unaspirated plosive series: /m̥ puʔ/‘blow’ ’bug; /n̥ tɑʔ/ ‘border’ mtha’; and /ŋ̊kaː ra/ ‘blacksmith’ mgar ba. As the LT forms show, theprenasalised voiceless unaspirated plosives are derived from combinations with both voiced andvoiceless aspirated initials. The same case is also attested in gZhungwa Tibetan (Suzuki 2008b). For
example, /m̥ peː/ ‘shout’ ’bod and /n̥ teː/ ‘read’ ’don. These dialects also have regular prenasalised stops(see Section 2); hence, the prenasalised voiceless unaspirated plosive series is an irregular form that wecannot explain based on the LT forms.
Another case is described by Suzuki (2011b, 2013c): a prenasalised voiceless unaspirated plosive
series triggered by an iambic prosodic pattern. This case is widely attested in dialects spoken along the
Jinshajiang River. This phenomenon occurs in any aspirated initials in the word-initial position of amulti-syllabic word, for example, /ˊpuː/ ‘piglet’ phag gu and /ˊce wa/ ‘rain’ char pa. Whenprenasalisation is expected from the LT forms, the target phenomenon appears: /ˊn̥ tə tɕhẽ/ ‘thumb’ mthechen and /ˉȵ̊tɕɯ rɯ/ ‘lip’ mchu ru. This sound correspondence is further applied in a proper name. The
Chinese administrative name of the township where mPhagri Tibetan is spoken is Bari, reflecting avoiceless unaspirated form (Suzuki 2011b). This Chinese transcription represents the sound /ˊm̥ pa
rə/ ’phag ri, an unaspirated realisation caused by the iambic prosody (see also Suzuki 2017).
3.2

Prenasalisation which does not correspond to LT ’ and m preinitials

There are word forms with prenasalisation that does not correspond to LT ’ and m preinitials. However,such examples often have a nasal final consonant in the corresponding LT form, for example, khang‘house’ and phreng ‘religious beads’. Varieties with these examples are found from the Amdo region to
the easternmost Khams region. Tournadre and Suzuki (2021) suggest that this is an exceptional but tosome extent regular sound development. Table 2 displays two lexical examples:104

Table 2: Irregular sound correspondences concerning prenasalisation.
Language‘house’ khang ba‘religious beads’ phreng bam̥ hgSerkha Tibetan (rMewa Amdo) ŋ̊khə ŋaʈ eŋ waŋ̊ hɳ̊ hsTaglo Tibetan
k ɑː
ʈ ɑː
Rangakha Tibetanˉɳ̊ʈhe waː
(Minyag Rabgang Khams)
In addition, Tibetic varieties spoken in Khodpokhog (Jiuzhaigou) underwent one more soundchange of voicing after having acquired the present prenasalisation derived from the nasal final ng. For
example, nKhyungkyog Tibetan /ŋgo wɐ/ ‘house’ khang ba and gTsangtsa Tibetan /ɳɖẽ bo/ ‘religious
beads’ phreng ba. It is also noteworthy that this rule applies to proper names such as the word-initial /ŋg/of Khodpokhog (which suggests its origin as Khongpokhog) and /ndz/ for nKhyungkyog. Thisphenomenon is also attested in Baima (Nishida and Sun 1990, Zhang 1997).
3.3

Other relevant phenomena

Irregularity of sound changes relevant to prenasalisation is also attested. I summarise two phenomena
below. The first is nasal stops derived from prenasalised sounds, and the second is prenasalised glottal
fricatives derived from prenasalised voiceless aspirated initials.
Nasal stops derived from prenasalisation are further divided into voiced and voiceless aspirated
initials. However, the appearance of the two differs: The voiced series principally appears in dialects in
the Southern Khams region, whereas the voiceless aspirated series is attested in several specific dialectsof Amdo in the easternmost Tibetosphere.
The first case is that /n/ appears when one expects /nd/ based on the sound correspondence with LT.
For example, mTshongu Tibetan /^nə mbɑʔ/ ‘mad’ ’dam pa and /ˉnɵ̃j/ ‘read’ ’don. This type appears inindividual lexical items. We also find postplosive-nasals (see Zhu 2007:10) written as /nd/,
distinguished from /nd/: Myigzur Tibetan /ˉndã/ ‘read’ ’don. See also Suzuki (2016b). This nasal
production process is also attested in denti-alveolar affricates (*ndz > /nd/ > /n/) in several varieties
spoken along the Lancangjiang River (Suzuki and rTa-mgrin Chos-mtsho 2012).
The second case is not widely attested; moreover, it appears in a limited number of words throughmorphological innovation. In the varieties of, for example, Astong, rMewa, and gSerkha, one finds animperative forms /n̥ əŋ/ or /n̥ oŋ/ ‘drink!’ ’thung instead of /n̥ thəŋ/ or /n̥ thoŋ/. This phenomenon is counted
as a shared innovation when determining the genetic proximity of dialects (Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo2019). The lexical innovation is probably related to the aspiration character of the imperative stem,
which is widely attested in various dialects of Amdo Tibetan and its surrounding varieties. See, forexample, Haller (2004:269) and Sun (2006:115).
The second phenomenon is a prenasalised glottal fricative /n̥ h/ derived from the prenasalised
voiceless aspirated initial /m̥ ph/ (see Suzuki 2015a). Prenasalisation of fricatives is rarely attested even in
Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere (and the SAAG-1 project does not count prenasalised
fricatives; see Suzuki et al. 2021). The prenasalised glottal fricative is attested only in several varieties in
the Amdo region.

4

Concluding remarks

In the eastern Tibetosphere, the phonological distinction of prenasalised sounds is pervasive.
Prenasalisation of voiced and voiceless aspirated initials appears as a regular sound correspondence with
LT forms, as well as of voiceless unaspirated initials as an irregular counterpart. The present article
presents examples of prenasalised initials from the single descriptive view with their LT correspondence.
However, their phonemic status may be argued from various phonological viewpoints and approaches.
The crucial point is to take a single phonological viewpoint when drawing linguistic maps of soundvariation in a language group or a linguistic area.

105

Appendix: Map of Tibetic languages with prenasalisation in the eastern Tibetosphere
The following map highlights the varieties with the irregular sound correspondences described in
Section 3. The map does not include non-Tibetic languages; see Suzuki et al. (2021) as well as Rocheand Suzuki (2017) and Tashi Nyima and Suzuki (2019) for their distribution.

Acknowledgements
This work is a part of research outcomes of two Grants-in-Aid of JSPS: ‘Investigation of Undescribed
Languages in the Eastern Tibetosphere and their Geolinguistic Research’ (headed by Hiroyuki Suzuki,
No. JP17H04774) and ‘Geolinguistic Studies of China and Adjacent Multilingual Areas Using
High-resolution and Wide-area Maps’ (headed by Mitsuaki Endo, No. JP18H00670). The fieldwork ofdata collection for this study was also funded by the following Grants-in-Aid of JSPS: JP16102001,
JP07J00250, JP25770167, and JP16H02722.

106

References
Haller, Felix. 2004. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines
Nomadendialektes aus Nord-Amdo. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
Häsler, Katrin Louise. 1999. A grammar of the Tibetan Degeེ་དགེ (Sde dge) dialect. Zürich: Selbstverlag.

sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med & sKal-bzang dByangs-can. 2002. Zangyu fangyan gailun. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
sKal-bzang ’Gyur-med & sKal-bzang dByangs-can. 2004. Shiyong Zangwen wenfa jiaocheng [xiudingben].
Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe.
Kitamura, Hajime. 1977. Tibetan (Lhasa dialect). Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia
and Africa.
Matisoff, James A. 1975. Rhinoglottophilia: The mysterious connection between nasality and glottality. In Charles
A. Ferguson, Larry M. Hyman & John Ohala (eds.) Nasálfest: Papers from a symposium on nasals andnasalization,
265-87.
Stanford:
Stanford
University.
URI:
https://stedt.berkeley.edu/pdf/JAM/Matisoff_1975_rhinoglottophilia.pdf
Nishida, Tatsuo & Hongkai Sun. 1990. Baima Yiyu no kenkyuu: Sinhakken gengo Pemago no koozoo to keitoo.
Kyoto: Shokado.
Roche, Gerald & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2017. Mapping the linguistic minorities of the eastern Tibetosphere. Studies in
Asian Geolinguistics VI —“Means to Count Nouns” in Asian Languages—, 28-42. URI:
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag6_count_2017.pdf
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2006. Special linguistic features of gSerpa Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
29.1: 107-126. URI: http://doi.org/10.15144/LTBA-29.1.107
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2004. Amudotibettogo Tyaputya-Tyeruzye bokumin hoogen no onsei bunseki. Kyoto University
Linguistic Research 23: 145-165. doi: https://doi.org/10.14989/87841
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2005. Tibettogo onsetu koozoo no kenkyuu. Journal of Asian and African Studies 69: 1-23.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/20212
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2007a. Kamutibettogo Kangding-Xinduqiao [Rangakha] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and
African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 2, 131-162. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/51094
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2007b. Tibettogo Baozuo [Babzo] hoogen no onsei bunseki to sono hoogen tokutyoo. Journal of
Asian and African Studies 74: 101-120. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/42695
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2008a. Nouveau regard sur les dialectes tibétains à l’est d’Aba : phonétique et classification dudialecte de Sharkhog [Songpan-Jiuzhaigou]. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31.1: 85-108. doi:
http://doi.org/10.15144/LTBA-31.1.85
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2008b. Hyarutibettogo Jiuzhaigou-Yuwa [gZhungwa] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and
African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 3, 135-168. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/51104
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2008c. Gyaron tiiki no Kamutibettogo Danba-ken Pujiaoding [Rongbrag] hoogen no onsei
bunseki to goi. Bulletin of National Museum of Ethnology 33.1: 39-80. doi: http://doi.org/10.15021/00003941
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009a. Sensei minzoku sooroo-Tibettogo hogen bunrui goisyuu. In Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.)
Report of the reserach project “Linguistic Substratum in Tibet” (No. 16102001), Vol.2, i-xxii + 1-457.
National Museum of Ethnology. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10502/4342
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009b. Naxi bunkaken no Tibettogo Yongsheng-ken Daan [Daan] hoogen no hoogen syozoku.
Bulletin of National Museum of Ethnology 34.1: 167-189. doi: http://doi.org/10.15021/00003919
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009c. Kamutibettogo Benzilan [sPomtserag] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and African
Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 4, 219-258. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/61392
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2010a. Kamutibettogo Qiongbo/Chongcang [Khyungpo/Khromtshang] hoogen no onsei
bunseki to sono hoogen tokutyoo. Journal of Asian and African Studies 79: 95-120. URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/57437
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2010b. Kamutibettogo Xianggelila-ken Langdu [Lamdo] hoogen no hoogen syozoku. Bulletinof National Museum of Ethnology 35.1: 231-264. doi: http://doi.org/10.15021/00003898

107

Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2010c. Hyarutibettogo Songpan Dazhai [Astong] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and African
Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 5: 117-155. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/64040
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011a. Kamutibettogo Gagatang Shaoluo [Zhollam] hoogen no bunpoo suketti. Tikyuuken
Gengo Kizyutu Ronsyuu 3: 1-35. URI: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000837/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011b. Sisen-Unnan kyookaibu Jinshajiang ryuuiki no Kamutibettogo ni okeru yuukion no
mukika gensyoo. Nidaba 40: 75-81. URI: https://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045555
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011c. Phonetic analysis of dGudzong Tibetan: The vernacular of Khams Tibetan spoken in therGyalrong area. Bulletin of National Museum of Ethnology 35.4: 617-653. doi:
http://doi.org/10.15021/00003880
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011d. Dialectal particularities of Sogpho Tibetan: An introduction to the “Twenty-four
villages’ patois”. In Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler (eds.) Himalayan languages and linguistics: Studies inphonology,
semantics,
morphology
andsyntax,55-73.
Brill.
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004194489.i-322.25
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011e. Kamutibettogo Xiaozhongdian-Jinianpi [Gyennyemphel] hoogen no onsei bunseki.
Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 6: 137-173. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/69377
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012a. Kamutibettogo Yanmen Siga [Sakar] hoogen no bunpoo suketti. Tikyuuken Gengo
Kizyutu Ronsyuu 4: 123-158. URI: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000849/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012b. Kamutibettogo Sangdam hoogen no onsei bunseki to sono hoogen tokutyoo. Journal of
Asian and African Studies 83: 37-58 URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/69336
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012c. Kamutibettogo Xianggelila-ken Bala [mBalhag] hoogen no hoogen tokutyoo. Bulletin of
National Museum of Ethnology 37.1: 53-90. doi: http://doi.org/10.15021/00003855
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012d. Kansyuku-syoo Gannan-syuu Zhuoni-ken no tibettogo hoogen ni tuite: Zoobun taioukeisiki kara mita Zhagulu [Bragkhoglung] hoogen no hoogen tokutyoo. Kyoto University Linguistic Research
31: 1-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.14989/182195
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012e. Kamutibettogo Yunling-Chalitong [Tsharethong] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and
African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 7: 55-94. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/73110
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013a. Jiuzhaigoukou neiwai Zangyu yuyin mianmao. Researches in Asian Languages 9: 37-76.
URI: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1085/00001318/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013b. Kamutibettogo Geza-Pushang [Phuri] hoogen no hoogen tokutyoo. Nidaba 42: 60-69.
URI: http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045558
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013c. Kamutibettogo sDerong-nJol (Deirong Deqin) hoogengun no syohoogen ni okeru
zyakukyoogata no inritu tokutyoo to bunsetuon ni mieru sono han-eikei. Journal of RIHN Descriptive
Linguistic Group 5: 1-15. URI: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000854/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013d. Kamutibettogo Tacheng-Gedeng [sKobsteng] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and
African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 8: 123-161. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/75672
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014a. Zhouqu-ken Tibettogo Baleng [Ongsum] hoogen no onsei kizyutu to sono hoogen
tokutyoo. Journal of Asian and African Studies 87: 241-263. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/77225
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014b. Kamutibettogo Xianggelila ken Xiaozhongdian kyoo Chuiyading [Choswateng] hoogen
no onsei bunseki to goi: rGyalthang kaihoogengun ni okeru hoogen sai ni kansuru koosatu wo soete. Bulletinof National Museum of Ethnology 39.1: 45-122. doi: http://doi.org/10.15021/00003815
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014c. Niru Zangyu de xiaoshe fuyin yu qi Zangwen duiying guilü. Dongfang Yuyanxue 14:
1-12.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014d. Kamutibettogo Bingzhongluo [Bodgrong] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and African
Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 9: 153-193. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/80349
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2015a. h̃ to ɦ̃: Bikuu kyoomei wo tomonau seimon masatuon ni kansuru oboegaki. Journal of
RIHN Descriptive Linguistic Group 7: 141-149. URI: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000875/

108

Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2015b. Esquisse phonétique du tibétain de dGonpa : un dialecte parlé à mBrugchu. Revued’étudestibétaines33:
231-249
URI:
http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_33_07.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016a. In defense of prepalatal non-fricative sounds and symbols: towards the Tibetan
dialectology. Researches in Asian Languages 10: 99-125. URI: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1085/00002195/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016b. Xianggelila Zangyu Yalanghua de biyin xitong. Dongfang Yuyanxye 16: 114-122.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017. Suprasegmentals in Tibetic languages of the eastern Tibetosphere: From a geolinguistic
perspective. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VII —Tone and Accent—, 41-49. URI:
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag7_tone_2017.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2020. Kamutibettogo Chawalong [Tshawarong] hoogen no onsei kizyutu to goi. Asian and
African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 15: 105-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.15026/99899
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2015. Lhagang Tibetan of Minyag Rabgang Khams: Vocabulary of two
sociolinguistic varieties. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 10, 245-286. URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/85072
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2016. Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan: A dialect of Amdo Tibetan spoken
in Lhagang, Khams Minyag. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 11: 101-127. URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89211
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2019. Migration history of Amdo-speaking pastoralists in Lhagang, Khams
Minyag, based on narratives and linguistic evidence. In Bianca Horlemann, Ute Wallenböck, & Jarmila
Ptáčková (eds.) Mapping Amdo: Dynamics of power, 203-222.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & rTa-mgrin Chos-mtsho. 2012. Deqin-ken Yunling-kyoo no Kamutibettogo ni okeru syoometu
no kiki ni hinsiteiru kamosirenai sikeihasatuon ni tuite---hoogensa to nendaisa no aida de---. Journal of RIHN
Descriptive Linguistic Group 4: 159-163. URI: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000850/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Yeshemtsho. 2006. Amdotibettogo Zhong Aba [rNgawa] hoogen no onseibunseki. Asian and
African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 1: 59-88. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/51084
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Yudron. 2019. Kamutibettogo Zhangna [nGramsna] hoogen no onsei kizyutu to goi. Asianand African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 14: 265-304. doi: http://doi.org/10.15026/94525
Suzuki, Hiroyuki, Shiho Ebihara, Kazue Iwasa, Keita Kurabe, & Satoko Shirai. 2021. Stop series in
Tibeto-Burman. In this volume.
Tashi Nyima & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2019. Newly recognised languages in Chamdo: Geography, culture, history, andlanguage. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 42.1: 38-82. doi: http://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.18004.nyi
Tournadre, Nicolas & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2021. The Tibetic languages: An introduction to the family of languages
derived from Old Tibetan (with the collaboration of Xavier Becker and Alain Brucelle for the cartography).
LACITO Publications (CNRS).
Tsering Samdrup & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2019. Humilifics in Mabzhi pastoralist speech of Amdo Tibetan. Linguisticsof the Tibeto-Burman Area 42.2: 222-259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.17008.sam
Zhang, Jichuan. 1997. Particularités phonétiques du baima. Cahiers de linguistique - Asie orientale 26.1: 131-153.
doi: https://doi.org/10.3406/clao.1997.1507
Zhu, Xiaonong. 2007. Shuo biyin. Yuyan Yanjiu 3: 1-13.
Zhu, Xiaonong. 2010. Yuyinxue. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.

109

Stop series in Caucasian languages: Preliminary mapping
Hiroyuki SuzukiaaInstitute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University

Abstract
This article arranges data of the stop series from previous works on Caucasian languages(Kartvelian, Abkhazo-Adyghean, and Nakho-Dagestanian) as supplementary material for theStudies in Asian and African Geolinguistics project. These languages generally show aquadripartite system in which the ejective feature is nearly pervasive, while the aspirated featureis regarded as a variant of an unaspirated voiceless sound and thus analysed as ‘non-ejective’.

1

Dataset and sources

This article provides supplementary data of the Caucasian languages for the project Studies in Asian and
African Geolinguistics-I (SAAG-1). The distribution of Caucasian languages and their topography isreflected in Map 1.

Map 1: Distribution of Caucasian languages with topography.
Map 1 reflects three language groups of the Caucasian languages: Kartvelian, Abkhazo-Adyghean,
and Nakho-Dagestanian.
The sources of data for each language shown in the maps are in Table 1. Main reference works forthis article are Klimov (1994), Alekseev (red) (1999), and Hewitt (2004). Literary (or standardised)language (indicated as ‘L’) data are also included.

110

Table 1: Dataset.
Language
Kartuli (Georgian)
Mingrelian
Laz
Svan
AdygheKabardian (East Circassian)
Temirgoi (West Circassian) (L)Abzhywa (Abkhas)
T’ap’anta (Abaza)
Ubykh
ChechenIngushBats (Ts[’]ova-Tush)
Avar
Avar
Andi
Botlikh
GodoberiAkhvakhKarataBagvalalTindi
ChamalalBezhtaHunzibTsez
HinukhKhvarshiLak
DargwaDargwaSanzhi Dargwa
Mehweb
Lezgi
Maza Lezgi
Gutum Lezgi
Tabasaran
Agul
Rutul
Ts’akhurTs’akhurArchi
Kryz
BudukhUdi
Khinalug

Dental/alveolar
stop series
t-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-tː-tː’-d-nt-tː-d-nt-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-tː-d-nt-tː-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nth-t-t’-d-nth-t-t’-d-nth-t-t’-d-nth-t-t’-d-nth-t-t’-d-nth-t’-d-nt-t’-tː-d-n
th-t-t’-d-nth-t’-tː-d-n
th-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-d-nt-t’-tː-d-n

SourceHewitt (2004)
Klimov (1999a)
Klimov (1999b)
Sharadzenidze (1999)
Kumakhov (1999a)
Shagirov (1999)
Hewitt (2004)
Klychev & Chkadua (1999a) / Yanagisawa (2010)
Klychev & Chkadua (1999b) / Hewitt (2004)
Hewitt (1986) / Kumakhov (1999b)
Desherieva (1999)
Desheriev & Desherieva (1999)
Holisky & Gagua (1994) / Hewitt (2004)
Chikobava & Tsertsvadze (1962) / Hewitt (2004)
Alekseev (1999a)
Alekseev (1999b)
Magomedbekova (1999a)
Tatevosov (1999)
Magomedbekova (1999b)
Magomedbekova (1999c)
Lyutikova & Tatevosov (1999)
Magomedbekova (1999d)
Magomedova (1999)
Testelets & Khalilov (1999)
Berg (1995) / Hewitt (2004)
Khalilov (1999)
Khalilov & Isakov (1999)
Testelets (1999)
Gigineishvili (1977) / Hewitt (2004)
Berg (2001) / Hewitt (2004)
Musaev (1999)
Forker (2020)
Moroz (2019)
Meylanoba & Sheykhov (1999)
Ganieba (2011)
Ganieba (2011)
Khanmagomedov (1999)
Alekseev (1999c)
Alekseev (1999d)
Gigineishvili (1977) / Hewitt (2004)
Talibov (1999)
Kibrik (1994, 1999)
Saadiev (1999)
Sheykhov (1999) / Talibov (2007)
Dzheylanishvili (1999)
Alekseev (1999e)111

Among various phonological interpretations, /t/ in Kartuli may include unaspirated and aspirated
variants: [t, th], whereas Tschenkéli (1965:XXXII-XXXIII), Fähnrich (1993:18-19), and Kojima(2011:17) clearly mentions that /t/ (interpreted in Table 1) is aspirated. Aliroev (2004:18) describes /t/ in
Chechen as an aspirated sound. I follow the description cited in the ‘Source’ column of Table 1 andrecognise this phoneme as /t/ in the system of the present SAAG-1 project.
The phoneme described as /тт/ in the original documents has two explanations: ‘intensive’(Alekseev 1999e) and ‘unaspirated’ (Meylanoba & Sheykhov 1999, Ganieva 2011). In Table 1, they areinterpreted as /tː/ and /t/, respectively; in the latter case, the original /т/ is consequently interpreted as /th/.
According to Desheriev (1959:12-15), the alveolar stop series in Khinalug is /t-t’-tː-tː’-d-n/. This
description and that of Alekseev (1999e) are mutually different, but the background of the difference isunidentified.
There are reports on dialectal differences of the languages above, for example, Gigineishvili et al.
(1961) on Kartuli. However, in this article, I do not mention details on dialectal differences.

2

Mapping with ArcGIS online

Map 2 shows the dental/alveolar stop series of the Caucasian languages cited in Table 1.

Map 2: Stop series in the Caucasian languages.
Noteworthy differences in the components of the series are aspirated and geminate features. It is
unclear whether a given language has an aspirated or unaspirated (non-ejective) feature in most cases(except for Type /th-t-t’-d-n/). In the Caucasian languages, the ejective feature is nearly pervasive, while
the aspirated feature is regarded as a variant of an unaspirated voiceless sound and thus analysed as‘non-ejective’, for example in the description by Kartuli by Dzidziguri and Chanishvili (1999:27). A
similar phenomenon that a voiceless plosive is often realised as an aspirated sound is attested in several
Iranian languages, as reported by Iwasaki (2021).
The existence of the geminate (‘intensive’ or ‘unaspirated’) consonant is attested in several
languages spoken in the region from South Dagestan to Azerbaijan. This sound is related to an

112

unaspirated feature, which might form a contrast with an aspirated feature represented by non-intensive
voiceless phoneme.

Acknowledgements
This work is part of the research outcomes of two Grants-in-Aid of JSPS: ‘Investigation of Undescribed
Languages in the Eastern Tibetosphere and their Geolinguistic Research’ (headed by Hiroyuki Suzuki,
No. JP17H04774) and ‘Geolinguistic Studies of China and Adjacent Multilingual Areas Using
High-resolution and Wide-area Maps’ (headed by Mitsuaki Endo, No. JP18H00670).
References
Alekseev, M. E. [Алексеев, М. Е.]. 1999a. Аварский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 203-216.
Alekseev, M. E. [Алексеев, М. Е.]. 1999b. Андийский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 220-228.
Alekseev, M. E. [Алексеев, М. Е.]. 1999c. Агульский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 399-408.
Alekseev, M. E. [Алексеев, М. Е.]. 1999d. Рутульский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 409-420.
Alekseev, M. E. [Алексеев, М. Е.]. 1999e. Хиналугский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 460-469.
Alekseev, M. E. [Алексеев, М. Е.] (отв. ред). 1999. Языки мира: Кавказские языки. Москва: Издательство
Academia.
Aliroev, Ibragim Yu. [Алироев, Ибрагим Ю.]. 2004. Самоучитель чеченского языка. Москва: Издательство
Academia.
van den Berg, H. 1995. A grammar of Hunzib (with texts and lexicon). München: Lincom Europa.
van den Berg, H. 2001. Dargi folktales: Oral stories from the Caucasus and an introduction to Dargi grammar.
Leiden: Research School CNWS.
Chikobava, A. & I. Tsertsvadze [ჩიქობავა, ა., ი. ცერცვაძე]. 1962. ხუნძური ენა. თბილისი: თბილისის
სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი.
Desheriev, Yu. D. [Дешериев, Ю. Д.]. 1959. Грамматика хиналугского языка. Москва: Издательство
Академии Наук СССРDesheriev, Yu. D. & T. I. Desherieva [Дешериев, Ю. Д. и Т. И. Дешериева]. 1999. Ингушский язык. In М. Е.
Алексеев (ред.), 186-196.
Desherieva, T. I. [Дешериева, Т. И.] 1999. Чеченский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 173-186.
Dzheylanishvili, E. F. [Джейланишвили, Э. Ф.]. 1999. Удинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 453-458.
Dzidziguri, Sh. & N. Chanishvili [Дзидзигури, Ш. и Н. Чанишвили]. 1999. Грузинский язык. In М. Е.
Алексеев (ред.), 20-52.
Forker, Diana. 2020. A grammar of
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3339225

Sanzhi

Dargwa.

Berlin:Language

Science

Press.

doi:

Fähnrich, Heinz. 1993[1986]. Kurze Grammatik der georgischen Sprache, 3. Auflage. Leipzig:
Langenscheidt-Verlag Enzyklopädie.
Ganieva, F. A. [Ганиева, Ф. А.]. 2011. Диалекты и говоры самурского наречия лезгинского языка
(мазинский и гутумский диалекты, мичахский и смугульский говоры). Махачкала: Институт языка илитературы и искусства им. Г. Цадасы.
Gigineishvili, B. K. [Гигинеишвили, Б. К.] 1977. Славнительная фонетика дагестаниских языков. Tbilisi:
University Press.
Gigineishvili, Ivane, Varlam Topuria, & Ivane Kavtaradze [გიგინეიშვილი, ივანე, ვარლამ თოფურია &ივანე ქავთარაძე]. 1961. ქართული დიალექტოლოგია (Kartuli dialekt’ologia) I. Tbilisi: TSUG.
Hewitt, B. George. 1986. The labialised sibilants of Ubykh (North West Caucasian). Revue des études géorgiennes
et caucasiennes 2, 21-30.

113

Hewitt, B. George. 2004. Introduction to the study of the languages of the Caucasus. München: Lincom Europa.
Holisky, D. A. & R. Gagua. 1994. Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). In Rieks Smeets (ed) The indigenous languagesof the
Caucasus 4: The North East Caucasian languages, Part 2, 147-212. Delmar: Caravan Books.
Iwasaki, Takamasa. 2021. Stop series in Iranian and Armenian. In this volume.
Khalilov, M. Sh. [Халилов, М. Ш.]. 1999. Цезский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 320-331.
Khalilov, M. Sh. & I. A. Isakov [Халилов, М. Ш. и И. А. Исаков]. 1999. Гинухский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев
(ред.), 331-339.
Khanmagomedov, B.-G. K. [Ханмагомедов, Б.-Г. К.]. 1999. Табасаранский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.),385-398.
Kibrik, A. E. 1994. Archi. In Rieks Smeets (ed) The indigenous languages of the Caucasus 4: The North East
Caucasian languages, Part 2, 297-365. Delmar: Caravan Books.
Kibrik, A. E. [Кибрик, А. E.]. 1999. Арчинский язык. М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 428-437.
Klimov, G. A. 1994. Einführung in die kaukasische Sprachwissenschaft (Aus dem Russischen übersetzt und
bearbeitet von Jost Gippert). Hamburg: Hemut Buske Verlag.
Klimov, G. A. [Климов, Г. А.]. 1999a. Мегрельский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 52-59.
Klimov, G. A. [Климов, Г. А.]. 1999b. Лазский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 59-65.
Klychev, R. N. & L. P. Chkadua [Клычев, Р. Н. и Л. П. Чкадуа] (1999a) Абхазский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев
(ред.), 113-131.
Klychev, R. N. & L. P. Chkadua [Клычев, Р. Н. и Л. П. Чкадуа] (1999b) Абазинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев
(ред.), 131-146.
Kojima, Yasuhiro. 2011. Nyuuekusupuresu Guruziago. Tokyo: Hakusuisya.
Kumakhov, M. A. [Кумахов, М. А.]. 1999a. Адыгейский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 91-102.
Kumakhov, M. A. [Кумахов, М. А.]. 1999b. Убыхский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 146-155.
Lyutikova, E. A. & S. G. Tatevosov [Лютикова Е. А. и С. Г. Татевосовы]. 1999. Багвалинский язык. In М. Е.
Алексеев (ред.), 269-283.
Magomedbekova, Z. M. [Магомедбекова, З. М.]. 1999a. Ботлихский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 228-236.
Magomedbekova, Z. M. [Магомедбекова, З. М.]. 1999b. Ахвахский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 252-261.
Magomedbekova, Z. M. [Магомедбекова, З. М.]. 1999c. Каратинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 261-269.
Magomedbekova, Z. M. [Магомедбекова, З. М.]. 1999d. Тиндинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 283-291.
Magomedova, P. T. [Магомедова, П. Т.]. 1999. Чамалинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 291-303.
Meylanova, U. A. & E. M. Sheykhov [Мейланова, У. А. и Э. М. Шейхов]. 1999. Лезгинский язык. In М. Е.
Алексеев (ред.), 373-385.
Moroz, George. 2019. Phonology of Mehweb. In Michael Daniel, Nina Dobrushina & Dmitry Ganenkov (eds) The
Mehweb language: Essays on phonology, morphology and syntax, 17-37. Berlin: Language Science Press.
doi: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3374730
Musaev, M.-S. M. [Мусаев, М.-С. М.]. 1999. Даргинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 357-369.
Saadiev, Sh. M. [Саадиев, Ш. М.]. 1999. Крызский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 437-445.
Shagirov, A. K. [Шагиров, А. К.]. 1999. Кабардинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 102-113.
Sharadzenidze, T. [Шарадзенидзе, Т.]. 1999. Сванский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 65-74.
Sheykhov, E. M. [Шейхов, Э. М.]. 1999. Будухский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 445-453.
Talibov, B. B. [Талибов, Б. Б.]. 1999. Цахурский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 420-428.
Talibov, Bukar Bekirovich [Талибов, Б. Б.]. 2007. Будухский язык. Москва: Издательство Academia.
Tatevosov, S. G. [Татевосов, С. Г.]. 1999. Годоберинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 236-252.

114

Testelets, Ya. G. [Тестелец, Я. Г.]. 1999. Хваршинский язык. In М. Е. Алексеев (ред.), 339-347.
Testelets, Ya. G. & M. Sh. Khalilov [Тестелец, Я. Г. и М. Ш. Халилов]. 1999. Бежтинский язык. In М. Е.
Алексеев (ред.), 303-311.
Tschenkéli, Kita. 1965-1974. Georgisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch I-III. Nach dem Tode des Verfatters fortgeführt
von Yolanda Marchev unter Mitwirkung von Lea Flury, Ruth Neukomm und Victor Nosadzé. Zürich:Amirani-Verlag.
Yanagisawa, Tamio. 2010. Abuhazugo no sekai. In Ken Machida (ed) Yooroppa no omosiro gengo, 8-27. Tokyo:
Hakusuisya.

115

Stop series in Saami languages: A geolinguistic approach
Hiroyuki SuzukiaaInstitute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University

Abstract
This article arranges data of the stop series from previous works on Saami languages (Uralic)
and provides a geocoding mapping for future geolinguistic studies as well as for the projectStudies in Asian and African Geolinguistics (SAAG). Many works on these languages have been
described with SUT (Suomalais-ugrilainen transkriptio) ‘Finno-Ugric transcription’, which has
functioned as a barrier in a typological and cross-linguistic analysis, particularly on phonetics
and phonology. The article first interprets each phonetic description with SUT to correlate thedata of Saami with the project and tries to re-describe it in another phonetic alphabet system
similar to IPA as a working hypothesis. With the newly described dataset, the article produces
linguistic maps with ArcGIS online.

1

Introduction

This article contains supplementary data from the Saami languages1 (Uralic; see Abondolo 2017) for the
project Studies in Asian and African Geolinguistics-I (SAAG-1), in relation to Matsumoto (2021), witha linguistic map. For Saami languages, most data are transcribed in SUT (Suomalais-ugrilainentranskriptio); however, I re-analyse each description using modern phonetic terminology, and thus haveinterpreted the entirety of the data to adjust them to the framework of the SAAG-1 project.
First I present an overview of the classification of the Saami languages. The language/dialect
classification of Sammallahti (1998:6-34) is summarised as follows:
Western Saami languages
Northern group
North Saami (Davvisámegiella2)
Sea Saami
Eastern dialect
Central dialect
Western dialect
Finnmark Saami
Eastern dialect group
Sieiddá-Bonjakas dialect
Skiippagurra-Buolbmát dialect
Njuorggán-Sirbmá dialect
Upper Deatnu dialect
Vuovdaguoika subdialect
Anárjohka subdialect
Kárášjohka resident subdialect
Kárášjohka reindeer herder subdialect
1 I use the term ‘Saami languages’ following Sammallahti (1998). Note that he (1998:3) also uses another term

‘Saamic’, which designates a protolanguage.
2 As a glottonym, I use the term Davvi, which denotes ‘the direction towards the sea’ (Jensen and Buljo
2014:93-94).

116

Porsáŋgu subdialect
Western dialect group
Máze-Láhpoluoppal dialect
Guovdageaidnu dialect
Eastern Eanodat dialect
Vuočču dialect
Torne Saami
Finnish Wedge dialectGárasavvon dialectČohkkiras-Jukkasjärvi dialect
Girjjis dialect
Western group
Lule Saami (Julevsámegiella)
Northern dialect
Central dialect
Southern dialect
Forest dialectsPite Saami
Northern dialect
Central dialect
Southern dialect
Southern group
Ume SaamiSouth Saami (Åarjelsaemien3)
Northern dialect
Southern dialect
Eastern Saami languages
Mainland group
Inari Saami
Skolt group
Skolt Saami
Northern group
Neiden dialect
Paatsjoki dialect
Southern groupSuõˊnn’jel dialectNjuõˊttjäuˊrr dialect
Akkala Saami
Peninsular group
Kildin SaamiŠoŋguj dialect
Teriberka dialect
Luujaavv’r dialect
Aarsjogk dialect
Ter Saami
Among the entries in the classification list, the names with ‘Saami’ are considered language names.
Most dialects are based on toponyms. The location of the languages above can be displayed as in Map 1.

3 As a glottonym, I use the term Åarjel, which exclusively designates the South/Southern Saami language. The

word åarjel denotes ‘the left direction towards the coast’ (Jensen and Buljo 2014:93-94).

117

Map 1: Distribution of the Saami languages, displayed by dots. Data from Sammallahti (1998),
Lagercrantz (1939) and works cited in Table 1.
The symbols of Map 1 reflect a classification of ten languages, as indicated in the legend. Note thatsome communities have been relocated to new settlements, but Map 1 reflects the places found in thereferences.
The distribution map of the Saami languages has been displayed by regions (Bartens 1989:534;
Sammallahti 1998:5), not with dots as shown in Map 1. However, for a geolinguistic study, each variety
should be pointed out separately. Nevertheless, the essay of Map 1 is not always appropriate, because
many Saami people have long spent their lives as pastoralists, principally herding reindeer (see Turi
1987, Benjaminsen et al. 2016, etc.); moreover, there have been migrations to newly built settlements.4
Therefore, Map 1, a collection of the data recorded from the end of the nineteenth to the twenty-first
centuries (from Wiklund 1890 to Rießler, forthcoming; see Section 2), does not always reflect thepresent language distribution.

2

Dataset and the sources

Many works on the Saami languages and dialects have used phonetic descriptions following SUT, forinstance, Lagercrantz (1923, 1926ab, 1929). Since the SAAG project deals with a phonemic description,
we should interpret the data phonologically. We find some phonemic approaches in previous works. For
example, Bergsland (1992:167-169) uses the ‘phonemic’ description for Røros Saami. However, we
encounter a difficulty; there are works which do not provide an overview of sounds but focus on specifictopics such as ‘grade alternation’ (astevaihtelu in Finnish; Wechsel or Quantität in German), such as
Itkonen (1916), Lagercrantz (1929), Itkonen (1946), and McRobbie-Utasi (1999).5
4 Pastoralists’speech in geolinguistics requires careful examination. For the case of varieties spoken by
pastoralists in the Tibetosphere, see Tsering Samdrup and Suzuki (2017) and Suzuki and Tsering Samdrup (2018),
as well as Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo (2019).
5 See Toivonen and Nelson (2007) for the exhaustive bibliography of Saami linguistics.

118

In general, the phonemic description is connected to the orthography of each language. The literarylanguages have been established based on many phonetic descriptions by scholars; in this case, theorthography might more or less reflect phonemic status. Referring to the treatment in the orthography in
Roman and Cyrillic alphabets, I interpret the sound description of each work employing phonetic
notation.6
The languages (the order is south to north; west to east) and the sources are as follows.
Table 1: Dataset for the present mapping.
Language
ToponymÅarjelÅarjelÅarjelÅarjel
Ume
Pite
Lule
Lule
Lule
Davvi
Davvi
Davvi
Davvi
Inari
Skolt
Skolt
Skolt
KildinKildin
Ter

Røros
Vefsn
TännäsVilhelmina
MalåStenudden
Gällivare
Jokkmokk
Flakaberg
Guovdageaidnu
Kárášjohka
PolmakEanodat (Itä-Enontekiö)
Anár
Paaččjokk
SevettijärviNjuõˊttjäuˊrr
unspecified
unspecified
Jokanga

Interpreted
dental/ alveolar
stop series
th-t-nth-t-n-n̥
th-t-nth-t-nt-d-nth-t-nth-t-n-n̥
th-t-n-n̥
th-t-n-n̥
t-d-n-n̥t-d-n-n̥t-d-n-n̥t-d-n-n̥
th-t-n
t-d-n
t-d-n
t-d-n
t-d-n-n̥t-d-nt-d-n-n̥

SourceBergsland (1946)
Lagercrantz (1923)
Collinder (1943)
Hasselbrink (1981)
Schlachter (1958)
Ruong (1943)
Grundström (1952-1954)
Grundström (1952-1954)
Grundström (1952-1954)
Nielsen (1979)
Nielsen (1979)
Nielsen (1979)
Sammallahti (1998)
Itkonen (1986-1991)
Sammallahti & Mosnikoff (1991)
Feist (2011)
Sammallahti & Mosnikoff (1991)
Kuruch (1985)
Kert (1971)
Itkonen (1916)

The sound system reflected in literary languages or the orthography (i.e. a variety standardised tosome extent) is not counted as a source for geocoding in the present analysis. However, we observe thefollowing:
Table 2: Sound system based on the literary languages.
Language
Interpreted dental/ alveolar stop series
Davvith-t-n-n̥Åarjelth-t-nLule
th-t-nInarit-d-n

SourceNickel (1994)
Bergsland (1994)
Nystø & Johnsen (2000)
Sammallahti & Morottaja (1993)

In addition to the present task, when we consider a geolinguistic approach to word forms in Saami
languages, we can refer to the following lexicographical works: Lagercrantz (1926a), Collinder (1943),
Hasselbrink (1981), and Bergsland & Magga (1993) for Åarjel, Schlachter (1958) for Ume, Grundström(1952-1954) for Lule, Nielsen & Nesheim (1979) for Davvi, Itkonen (1986-1991) and Sammallahti &Morottaja (1993) for Inari, Sammallahti & Mosnikoff (1991) for Skolt, and Kuruch (1985) for Kildin.
6 Several recent works such as Wilbur (2014) and Rießler (forthcoming) have provided a phonemic analysis which

differs from previous works. For example, Wilbur (2014:37) counts t, ht, tː, htː; n, and nː in the alveolar stop series.
I do not include this description in Table 1.

119

3

Mapping on the stop series

Map 2 reflects the stop series represented by dental/alveolar sounds in the interpreted phonemic
description.

Map 2: Stop series in Saami languages.
Preliminary findings are as follows:
The interpretation relating ‘fortis/lenis’ to an aspirated-prominence feature (i.e. possibility of an
emerging aspirated feature7) is shown using coloured symbols (black: aspirated-unaspirated; yellow:
voiceless-voiced). Based on the distribution of Map 2, I suggest that a strong influence from Nordic(Germanic) languages contributes to the acquisition of the aspirated feature, except in the case of Ume(Schlachter 1958). The aspirated distinction at a word-initial position is attested in some varieties, andthe aspirated initial consonant is mainly attested in loanwords from Nordic languages. The varieties
spoken in the Kola Peninsula are marked with yellow symbols, where other spoken languages such as
Finnish and Russian do not have an aspirated-unaspirated distinction.8
The existence of the voiceless nasal /n̥ / is shown as the shape of the symbols (diamond: with /n̥ /;star: without /n̥ /). Note that /n̥ / does not appear word-initially in any Saami language, and that it appears
marginally. This phoneme is considered an acquired member in the consonant inventory; however, as
Map 2 shows, varieties having /n̥ / are spoken in the northern part of the Saami linguistic sphere. Hence,
it is also a potential understanding that /n̥ / emerged in an earlier stage of the (proto-)Saamic language
and then began to diminish in the southern part.

The aspirated or ‘post’-aspirated feature is not attested at any protolanguage-levels of Finno-Ugric,Finno-Saamic, and Uralic. Cf. Collinder (1955, 1960) and Korhonen (1981). However, if we pay attention topreaspiration in Saami languages, we may consider that they have an ‘aspirated’ feature.
8 The difference of the nature of aspiration between Davvi and Kildin is illustrated in Sammallahti andKhvorostukhina (1991:89-94).
7

120

4

Concluding remarks

This article examined a geolinguistic approach to the stop series of the Saami languages by referring toprevious works. The linguistic map (Map 2) shows that the ‘fortis’ of the fortis-lenis distinction isinterpreted as an aspirated-prominence feature in the Saami languages spoken in the Nordic-speaking
region. We consider that this distribution is a result of mutual, constant language contact.
For Saami linguistics, reports on dialectal variation have been accumulated (see Map 1); however,the dialectal data for phonetic and phonological description are limited (see Map 2) or restricted to
specific sound phenomena. To examine lexical variety, fewer data are available than for the soundsystem. Nevertheless, following the present article’s approach, we can try to apply a geolinguistic
analysis of lexical varieties to published data of the Saami languages.

Acknowledgements
This work is a portion of the research outcomes of two Grants-in-Aid of JSPS: ‘Investigation ofUndescribed Languages in the Eastern Tibetosphere and their Geolinguistic Research’ (headed by
Hiroyuki Suzuki, No. JP17H04774) and ‘Geolinguistic Studies of China and Adjacent Multilingual
Areas Using High-resolution and Wide-area Maps’ (headed by Mitsuaki Endo, No. JP18H00670).
References
Abondolo, Daniel. 2017. Uralic languages. 31pp. Oxford handbooks online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.6
Bartens, Hans-Hermann. 1989. Lehrbuch der saamischen (lappischen) Sprache. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Benjaminsen, Tor A., Inger Marie Gaup Eira & Mikkel Nils Sara (red.). 2016. Samisk reindrift: Norske myter.
Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Bergsland, Knut. 1946. Røros-lappisk grammatikk: et forsøk på strukturell språkbeskrivelse. Oslo: Instituttet for
sammenlignende Kulturforskning.
Bergsland, Knut. 1992 [1943]. Røros-samiske tekster: opptegnet og oversatt. Oslo: Norsk Folkemuseum.
Bergsland, Knut. 1994. Sydsamisk grammatikk. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji OS.
Bergsland, Knut & Lajla Mattsson Magga. 1993. Åarjelsaemien-daaroen baakoegærja. Indre Billefjord: Idut.
Collinder, Björn. 1943. Lappisches Wörterverzeichnis aus Härjedalen. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska
Bokhandeln.
Collinder, Björn. 1955. Fenno-Ugric vocabulary: An etymological dictionary of the Uralic languages. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell.
Collinder, Björn. 1960. Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Feist, Timothy Richard. 2011. A grammar of Skolt Saami. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Manchester.
Revised version in the same title published in 2015, Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Online:
https://www.sgr.fi/fi/items/show/77
Grundström, Harald. 1952-1954. Lulelapsk ordbok: På grundval av K. B. Wiklunds, Björn Collinders och egna
uppteckningar. 12 Fasc. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln.
Hasselbrink, Gustav. 1965. Alternative analyses of the phonemic system in Central South-Lappish. Bloomington:
Indiana University.
Hasselbrink, Gustav. 1981. Südlappisches Wörterbuch I-III. Uppsala: AB Lundequistska Bokhandeln.
Itkonen, Erkki. 1946. Struktur
Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

undEntwicklung

derostlappischen

Quantitätssysteme.

Helsinki:

Itkonen, Erkki (hrsg). 1986-1991. Inarilappisches Wörterbuch I-IV. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

121

Itkonen, Toivo. 1916. Venäjälapin konsonanttien astevaihtelu: Koltan, Kildinin, ja Turjan murteiden mukaan.
Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Kirjapainon Osakeyhtiö.
Jensen, Hege & Karen Anne Buljo. 2014. På vei til de åtte årstiders land. Oslo: Språkjensen Forlag.
Kert, Georgiy M. [Керт, Г. М.]. 1971. Саамский язык (Кильдинский диалект): Фонетика, морфология,синтаксис. Ленинград: Издательство Наука.
Korhonen, Mikko. 1981. Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Kuruch, Rimma D. [Куруч, Р. Д.]. 1985. Саамско-русский словарь. Москва: Русский язык.
Lagercrantz, Eliel. 1923. Sprachlehre des Südlappischen nach der Mundart von Wefsen. Kristiania: Kristiania
Etnografiske Museum.
Lagercrantz, Eliel. 1926a. Wörterbuch des Südlappischen nach der Mundart von Wefsen. Oslo: Oslo Etnografiske
Museum.
Lagercrantz, Eliel. 1926b. Sprachlehre des Westlappischen nach der Mundart von Arjeplog. Helsinki:
Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Lagercrantz, Eliel. 1929. Sprachlehre des Nordlappischen nach den seelappischen Mundarten. Oslo: Oslo
Etnografiske Museum.
Lagercrantz, Eliel. 1939. Lappischer Wortschatz I-II. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Matsumoto, Ryo. 2021. Stop series in Uralic. In this volume.
McRobbie-Utasi, Zita. 1999. Quantity in the Skolt (Lappish) Saami language: An acoustic analysis. Bloomington:
Indiana Univesity.
Nickel, Kraus Peter. 19942. Samisk grammatikk. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji OS.
Nielsen, Konrad. 1979 [1926-1929]. Lærebok i lappisk (samisk) I-III. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Nielsen, Konrad & Asbjørn Nesheim. 1979 [1932-1962]. Lappisk (samisk) ordbok: Grunnet på dialektene i
Polmak, Karasjok og Kautokeino I-V. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Nystø, Anders & Sigmund Johnsen. 2000. Sámásta 1: Julevsáme giellakurssa, Julevsámegiella álggijda. Norsk
utgave. Bodø: Báhko.
Posti, Lauri & Terho Itkonen. 1973. FU-transkription yksinkertaistaminen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Rießler, Michael. forthcoming. Kildin Saami. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso, & Elena Skribnik (eds)
The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ruong, Israel. 1943. Lappische Verbalableitung dargestellt auf Grundlage
Inaugural-dissertation. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri A.-B.

desPitelappischen.

Sammallahti, Pekka. 1998. The Saami languages: An introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji OS.
Sammallahti, Pekka & Anastasiya Khvorostukhina [Анастасия Хворостухина] (1991) Unna sámi-са̄мьса̄мь-sámi sátnegirjjáš / Удць sámi-са̄мь са̄мь-sámi соагкнэгка. Ohcejohka: Girjegiisá Oy.
Sammallahti, Pekka & Matti Morottaja. 1993. Säämi-suomâ sänikirje. Ohcejohka: Girjegiisá Oy.
Sammallahti, Pekka & Jouni Mosnikoff. 1991. Suomi-koltansaame sanakirja. Ohcejohka: Girjegiisá Oy.
Schlachter, Wolfgang. 1958. Wörterbuch des Waldlappendialectes von Malå und Texte zur Ethnographie.
Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2019. Migration history of Amdo-speaking pastoralists in Lhagang, Khams
Minyag, based on narratives and linguistic evidence. Archiv Orientální Supplementa XI / Bianca Horlemann,
Ute Wallenböck, & Jarmila Ptáčková (eds.) Mapping Amdo: Dynamics of power, 203-222.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Tsering Samdrup. 2018. How geolinguistics deals with pastoralists’ speeches and their
history: A case study on Amdo Tibetan in Eastern Tibet. Paper presented at the 9th Congress of theInternational Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics (Vilnius).
Toivonen, Ida & Diane Nelson.
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.288

2007.

Saami

122

linguistics.

Amsterdam:John

Benjamins.

doi:Tsering Samdrup & Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2017. Migration history and tsowa divisions as a supplemental approach todialectology in Amdo Tibetan: A case study on Mangra County. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VII —Tone
and Accent—, 57-65. URI: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag7_tone_2017.pdf
Turi, Johan. 1987. Muitalus sámiid birra. Jokkmokk: Sámi Girjjit.
Wilbur, Joshua. 2014. A grammar
http://doi.org/10.17169/langsci.b17.34

of

Pite

Saami.

Berlin:Language

Science

Press.

Wiklund, Karl Bernhard. 1890. Lule-Lappisches Wörterbuch. Helsingfors: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

123

doi:

Contributors
ENDO Mitsuaki

Aoyama Gakuin University

ONO Chikako

Hokkai-Gakuen University

NAKAZAWA Kohei

The University of Tokyo

YOKOYAMA Akiko

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

YAGI Kenji

Kokushikan University

TAGUCHI Yoshihisa

Chiba Univeristy

SUZUKI Hiroyuki

Fudan University

EBIHARA Shiho

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

IWASA Kazue

Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

KURABE Keita

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

SHIRAI Satoko

The University of Tokyo

SHIMIZU Masaaki

Osaka University

MINEGISHI Makoto

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

UTSUMI Atsuko

Meisei University

MATSUMOTO Ryo

Kobe City University of Foreign StudiesSAITÔ Yoshio

Takushoku University

YOSHIOKA Noboru

National Museum of Ethnology

KODAMA Nozomi

Kumamoto University

IWASAKI Takamasa

Kyoto University

NAGATO Youichi

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

NAKAO Shuichiro

Osaka Univeristy

SHINAGAWA DaisukeTokyo University of Foreign Studies

KOMORI Junko

Osaka University

KIMURA KimihikoTokyo University of Foreign Studies

NAKAGAWA Hirosi

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

FUKAZAWA Mika

National Ainu Museum

FUKUI Rei

The University of Tokyo

Acknowledgements
This volume is a part of the results of the ILCAA Joint Project ‘Studies in Asian and African
Geolinguistics’ 2020–2022. The articles are partially supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific
Research(KAKENHI)

JP18H05510,

JP21H00354,

JP20J40023,

JP19K20801,

JP17H04774, JP18H00670, JP19H01254, JP20H00011, and JP16H01925, respectively.

124

JP18K12392,