�ན་ནན་བོད་�ི་�ལ་�ད་གསལ་བའི་མེ་ལོང་། ཚ�ག་གི་ས་�་བ�་ཐམ་པ་།

Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, Monograph Series No. 3

100 Linguistic Maps of the Swadesh Word List of
Tibetic Languages from Yunnan
Hiroyuki SUZUKIILCAA Joint Research Project 2015 - 2017 “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, Monograph Series No. 3

100 Linguistic Maps of the Swadesh Word Listof Tibetic Languages from Yunnan
Report of ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015–2017“Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
by Hiroyuki Suzuki
First published 2018

Copyright © 2018 Hiroyuki Suzuki

ISBN 978-4-86337-290-0
This is an electronic publication in PDF format.
This publication is offered under Creative Commons International License
Attribution 4.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/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/

-1-This work is a portion of the research outcomes of the Research Institute for Languages andCultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA) Joint Project ‘Studies in Asian Geolinguistics’ combinedwith a Grant-in-Aid from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), ‘Study on the
Dialectal Development of Tibetan Spoken in Yunnan, China, through a Description of
the Linguistic Diversity’ (headed by the present author, No. JP25770167, 2013-2016 fiscal
years) during my research stay at the Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages(IKOS) at the University of Oslo.

Cover photo: Khawa Karpo (2011) by Tshewang nGyurmé

-2-

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Professor Mitsuaki Endo for his suggestion to publish this work as a monographof the ILCAA Joint Project ‘Studies in Asian Geolinguistics’. I should like to express mygratitude to my Tibetan friends who helped me and taught me their mother tongue. Special
thanks also go to Professor Nicolas Tournadre, who offered Foreword of the monograph. Field
research was funded by six Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from JSPS: ‘Linguistic
Substratum in Tibet’ (headed by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 16102001), ‘Dialectological Study of
the Tibetan Minority Languages in the Tibetan Cultural Area in West Sichuan’ (headed by thepresent author), ‘International Field Survey of the rGyalrongic Languages’ (headed by Yasuhiko
Nagano, No. 21251007), ‘Study on the Dialectal Development of Tibetan Spoken in Yunnan,
China, through a Description of the Linguistic Diversity’ (headed by the present author, No.
25770167), ‘International Field Survey of Tibeto-Burman Link Languages’ (headed by
Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 16H02722), and ‘Investigation of Undescribed Languages in the Eastern
Tibetosphere and their Geolinguistic Research’ (headed by the present author, No. 17H04774) as
well as private financial support from the Tibetan Studies Committee of Yunnan Ethnology
Association, headed by Xu Jianhua. The final English proofreading work by Editage(www.editage.jp) was funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from JSPS
‘Geolinguistic Studies of China and Adjacent Multilingual Areas Using High-resolution and
Wide-area Maps’ (headed by Mitsuaki Endo, No. 18H00670)

-3-

SummaryThis monograph is a geolinguistic study featuring Tibetic languages spoken in Yunnan, China,
regarding the 100 words of the Swadesh word list, under the framework of Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics. It provides a linguistic map of each lexical item, regardless of the existence andnon-existence of variation of word forms. Designed by ArcGIS online, a linguistic map mainlyreflects a difference in word roots, and some reflect phonetic variation as well. The data used tocreate the linguistics maps only includes first-hand materials collected by the present author
from 2004 to 2017 from all over the area of the Tibetosphere of North-west Yunnan. The total
number of recorded vernaculars is 108. Each lexical item will be described in one or two pages,
including a map and an explanation.

要旨
本稿は、スワデシュ100語リストの各項目について、「アジア地理言語学」プロジェク
トの方針に従い、中国雲南省で話されるチベット系諸言語の事例を取り扱う地理言語学的研究である。各語彙項目について、語形の差異の有無にかかわらず、１枚の地図を配する。地図作成にはArcGIS onlineを用いて行う。言語地図は主として語形の異なりを反映しているが、いくつかは音声的な異なりもまた反映させている。地図作成に用いるデータは、すべて著者による2004年から2017年までに断続的に行った雲南省のチベット地域におけるフィールドワークを通して得られたものに限る。総地点数は108点である。各語彙項目は地図と解釈を合わせ１～２ページで記述する。

�ིང་ད ོན་།ཞིབ་འ�ག་འདི་ནི་ཨེ་ཤེ་ཡའི་ས་ཁམས་�ད་བ�་རིག་པའི་ཞིབ་འ�ག་གི་�ིག་གཞིའི་འོག Swadesh ཐ་�ད་བ�་ཐམ་པའི་ཐ་ོ ག�ང་�ད་དེ་

ཞིབ་འ�ག་�ས་པ་ཞིག་ཡིན་ཞིང་། འདིར་ས་ཆ་མི་འ�་བར་�ང་བའི་ཐ་�ད་རེ་རེ་ཕན་�ན་འ�འམ་མི་འ�་བ་གང་ཡིན་ཡང་ཐ་�ད་རེ་རེར་ས་�་རེ་

�ིས་ཡོད། ArcGIS online �ད་དེ་�ིས་པའི་ས་�་�་གཙ�་བོ་ཐ་�ད་རེ་རེའི་�ངས་གཅིག་མིན་ལས་གཞན་�འི་�ད་པར་ཡང་�ོན་�བ་ཅིང་།
ས་�་འ�ི་བའི་ད�ད་གཞིའི་�་ཆ་ནི་�ོམ་པ་པོས་ ༢༠༠༤ ནས ༢༠༡༧ ལོའ་ི བར་�ན་ནན་བོད་�ལ་�ི་�ོང་�ེ་མང་པོར་སོང་�ེ་བ�ས་པ་ཡིན་
ཞིང་�ལ་�ད་རིགས ༡༠༨ འ�ས་ཡོད། ཐ་�ད་རེ་རེར་ཤོག་ངོས་གཅིག་གམ་གཉིས་�ི་ས་�་དང་འ�ེལ་བཤད་འཁོད་ཡོད།།

-4-

Foreword by Nicolas Tournadre
The book entitled ‘100 linguistic maps of the Swadesh Word list of the Tibetic languages of Yunnan’ isa masterpiece of modern dialectology and geolinguistics. It is part of a wider joint project called ‘studies
in Asian geolinguistics’.
Its author, Hiroyuki Suzuki, is a linguist and worldwide expert on the languages of Tibet,
particularly the languages spoken in Yunnan, Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai (China).
The book provides a linguistic map for each item of the Swadesh list, and thus displays the phonetic
differences as well as the differences in word roots. For each word, the author also gives very usefulcommentaries. It is worth noting that all the data are first hand materials collected by H. Suzuki during aperiod of 13 years. The maps have been created by the author with the software ArcGIS online.
The choice of the Swadesh list first designed for lexicostatistics was rightly motivated by the factthat it would also allow geolinguistic comparisons across the world’s languages.
The Tibetic varieties of Yunnan are particularly interesting in the sense that this area has a great
dialectal variation and a lot of languages in contact: Kham Tibetan, Naxi, Lisu, Malimasa, Lama, Bai,
Nosu, Prinmi and Yunnanese Chinese.
Contrary to what the general public often thinks, the correct level of linguistic description is a dialect
not a language (or dialect group). Indeed, this book offers numerous examples of the fact that not only
lexicon but also grammar need to be described at the dialectal level. It also provides several interesting
examples of grammaticalization such as the partial replacement of the pandialectal negation by a word
meaning ‘where’.
This monograph clearly confirms that the geographic distribution of words and reflexes do notalways form a linguistic continuum. Indeed some words such as ‘all’ (# 9) appear in a completely
scattered way. The reasons for such erratic distributions still constitutes a challenge for scientific models
in dialectology. In some cases, H. Suzuki notes that “the main traffic roads divides the territory of eachtype regardless of the dialect classification”.
It is interesting to note that among the words exhibiting the greatest degree of variation, we also findgrammatical words such as the 1st person plural ‘we’ (#3), the proximal pronoun ‘this’ (#4) or the distal
pronoun ‘that’ (#5). According to the author, ‘we” is even the most ‘variegated’ among the words of thelist, with 3 different lexical roots and many phonetic variations.
Although H. Suzuki does not present any information concerning the number of speakers for eachdialect, and even for the whole area, it is clear that some of these dialects / languages are threatened todisappear rapidly or to change under the pressure of dominant languages.
As pointed out by a UNESCO team of linguists in 2003 “Conservation biology needs to besupplemented by conservation linguistics. Researchers are exploring not just the parallels but the links
between the world’s biodiversity and linguistic/ cultural diversity, as well as the causes andconsequences of diversity loss at all levels”.
Indeed the region described by H. Suzuki is located in a mountainous area, where not only thebiodiversity but also the linguistic diversity might rapidly be affected by climate change, migration andother factors. Thus this book with its very precise documentation is important beyond the mere linguistic
dimension. For all the above reasons, we warmly welcome this contribution to geolinguistics anddialectology of the Tibetic area.
Nicolas Tournadre, Institut Universitaire de France, Professor at Aix-Marseille and member of theand the CNRS Lacito laboratory
Thorame, July 5th 2018

-5-

Preface
It is certainly difficult to determine how one selects the words for which to draw linguistic maps using
accumulated data that follows the methodology of descriptive linguistics and not solely for the purposeof geolinguistics. Even personal preference influences the word choice. My interest in geolinguistics
dates back to when I wrote my dissertation (Suzuki 2007a), in which, however, I introduced linguistic
maps only to explain the distribution of various Tibetic languages and dialects. The examples cited in
Suzuki (2007b) are not completely appropriate for a geolinguistic analysis. One of my earlygeolinguistic works deals with names for ‘pig’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere (Suzuki2007), and this is just because I love pigs. This work presents an interesting result: the word form for‘pig’ as a categorical name is shared by almost all varieties, whereas subcategories such as ‘boar’, ‘sow’,and ‘piglet’ display variegated word forms and distributions.
Using a ready-made word list as a criterion of the choice of words is beneficial for advancing thestudy of geolinguistics, whether we can find significant phenomena or not. In this monograph, I follow
the Swadesh list of 100 words and draw linguistic maps of Yunnan Tibetan. I do not evaluate thesignificance of the list itself; rather, I am unwilling to consider much about its original purpose:lexicostatistics. For Tibeto-Burman languages, we have a refined word list named CALMSEA compiled
by James A. Matisoff (Matisoff 1978:283-296). However, because of its nature of orienting languages
spoken in Southeast Asia, this list is also to some extent inadequate for application to Tibetic languages.
Since the Swadesh list has been widely employed for the description of languages all over the world, themonograph might be able to contribute something to geolinguistics for Tibetic languages as well as
world languages.
The present monograph is incomplete in two aspects. On one hand, there are still varieties frommany hamlets to be researched; the amount of data will thus grow in forthcoming fieldwork. On theother hand, interpretations of linguistic phenomena presented on the linguistic maps are not always clear
and persuasive, mainly because of insufficient information regarding historical backgrounds. Despite
these incompletions, it seems to be time to publish the first step of the geolinguistic analysis for dialectsfrom the whole Tibetosphere in Yunnan based on the data collected, thanks to various intensive research
grants.

-6-

Table of contents
Acknowledgements
2
Summary (English, Japanese, and Tibetan)
3
Foreword by Nicolas Tournadre 4
Preface 5
Table of contents
6
Convention 9
Prolegomena
10
List of dialects 20
100 linguistic maps of the Swadesh word list
23
1. I (first person pronoun singular absolutive)
2. you (second person pronoun singular absolutive)
3. we (first person pronoun plural absolutive)
4. this (proximal demonstrative pronoun)
5. that (distal demonstrative pronoun)
6. who (interrogative word for persons)
7. what (interrogative word for things)
8. not (negative verb prefix)
9. all10. many
11. one12. two
13. big
14. long
15. small
16. woman
17. man
18. human
19. fish20. bird
21. dog
22. louse
23. tree
24. seed
25. leaf
26. root
27. bark
28. skin
29. meat
30. blood
31. bone
32. fat33. egg
34. horn
35. tail
36. feather
37. hair
38. head
39. ear-7-

40. eye
41. nose
42. mouth
43. tooth
44. tongue
45. fingernail
46. foot
47. knee
48. hand49. belly
50. neck51. breast
52. heart
53. liver
54. drink
55. eat56. bite
57. see58. hear
59. know
60. sleep
61. die
62. kill
63. swim
64. fly
65. walk
66. come
67. lie (down)
68. sit69. stand70. give
71. say
72. sun73. moon
74. star
75. water
76. rain
77. stone
78. sand79. earth
80. cloud81. smoke
82. fire
83. ash84. burn
85. road
86. mountain
87. red88. green
89. yellow
90. white
91. black
92. night

-8-

93. warm
94. cold
95. full
96. new
97. good
98. round
99. dry
100. name
Index
145
References
146

-9-

Convention
A dialect name follows a toponym in Tibetan, if one is available. A traditional toponym also follows the
Tibetan way of writing; however, a present administrative toponym is written in pinyin, except for some
toponyms in ‘List of dialects’, to distinguish it from the traditional counterpart. An exception is
Shangri-La (Municipality), which is not written as Xianggelila.
For the convention of Tibetan transliteration, I follow the style provided by de Nebesky-Wojkowitz(1956:xv).
For the convention of phonetic descriptions, phonetic symbols employed in the monograph are fromthe International Phonetic Alphabet, as well as several well-defined symbols provided in Zhu (2010),
with some arrangement proposed by Suzuki (2004, 2016). However, suprasegmentals are analysed as aword-tone system, which is applicable to all the dialects of Yunnan. There are five marks in total: ˉ :high-level, ´ : rising, ` : falling, ^ : rising-falling, and _ : low-level.
When citing phonetic forms to present the attributes for the classification of word forms, I uniformly
omit a suprasegmental description for the sake of simplicity. However, for explanations, I sometimes
add this information.
The term ‘Khams Tibetan’ in the monograph corresponds to both ‘Kang fangyan’ and ‘Kangba
Zangyu’ in literature in Chinese. See Suzuki (2015b, 2016c) for detailed discussions regarding theterminology in Chinese.
I use some abbreviations such as WrT (Written Tibetan), OT (Old Tibetan), and TAR (Tibet
Autonomous Region).

- 10 -

ProlegomenaThis monograph provides linguistic maps and their analyses for the 100 words of the Swadesh word list
(Swadesh 1971:283) for Tibetic languages spoken in the Yunnan Province, China. This word list wasused for lexicostatistics; however, the monograph does not have any purpose for this field of study. The
word list is simply a criterion used to select words to create linguistic maps as in study of geolinguistics,
and the 100 words discussed here are the equivalent to 100 case studies of geolinguistics regarding
Tibetic languages in Yunnan. Of course, some examples of the 100 words are mutually mentioned in themonograph. However, a discussion from a perspective of contrastive analysis among the 100 words isout of the scope of this study. The number of roots and classifications is listed in the Index at the end of
this monograph.
Each lexical item will be described in one or two pages including analysis and a map. In principle, anentry consists of four parts: (1) classification of word forms, (2) etymological note about the word forms,(3) geolinguistic observation and analysis, and (4) a linguistic map. For the sake of simplicity, aclassification is principally ordered as A, B, C, etc., and subclassification as A1, A2, B1, B2, etc. withsome exceptional cases. Twelve words in total do not display any clear differences in word form. Hence,the description of these words is simplified; however, a repeated monotone map is attached for each ofthem.
The methodology used for creating linguistic maps is based on the scope of the ILCAA Joint Project‘Studies in Asian Geolinguistics’, and all the maps are designed by ArcGIS online. The methodology
follows the project: the base map is grey, and symbols are in brown. All the symbols are uniformly takenfrom the following website: https://1431320719.jimdo.com/言語地図記号/色別/brown/. See Endo(2016) for the details of the project. The maps in the monograph display a result of an analysis of eachentry, which is represented by different symbols. The raw data, or phonetic forms, are not given on themaps. Even a monotonous map may include different but minute phonetic realisations, such as tones,
length of vowels, and the existence of preaspiration. The maps were produced intermittently fromFebruary to November in 2017. For this reason, there might be differences from the current version of
ArcGIS Online. However, I have not cited the production date for each. The copyright information
regarding the base map is included in each map.
A classification provided for each lexical item is principally based on differences in word roots andformations. However, due to the high similarity in lexical forms among Tibetic languages (see Beyer
1992; Tournadre 2005, 2014; Suzuki 2015b), many words present a monotonous distribution when one
merely focuses on a difference of roots. Hence, for several words, I intentionally make a classification
based on sound features, especially sound differences that are potentially able to point out a process ofchanges for a given word.
The database for creating maps only includes first-hand materials collected by the present author
from 2003 to 2017 from all over the Tibetosphere of Northwestern Yunnan. However, the original
research has had no intention of following the Swadesh list. Thus, several words within the list were notrecorded. In this case, the point(s) will not be indicated on the map. Moreover, the word list which I use
for the research is Hua (2002), which does not include the word for ‘bark’, which appears in the
Swadesh list. For this reason, I had to collect this form separately.
The total number of the recorded vernaculars is 108. However, this does not mean that each map has
all the data of the 108 varieties; each map merely includes the data which have been recorded, and when
the data is lacking, dialect points are not displayed on the maps. The linguistic maps reflect so-called‘regiolects’, dialects with regional differences. Sociolects, dialects by social class, which certainly exist
in the given area, are not addressed in the monograph. See Roche (2017), Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo(2017), and Konchok Gelek (2017) for examples of the sociolects of Tibetic languages.
The concept of ‘Yunnan Tibetan’ is determined following an administrative division, theTibetosphere within the Yunnan Province. Any varieties of Tibetic languages spoken in Yunnan
Province are considered to be members of the Khams Tibetan grouping the South-eastern Section

- 11 -

grouping proposed by Tournadre (2014) and Tournadre & Suzuki (forthcoming). The grouping named
Khams is simply based on its geographical location, and it is better that one considers Khams Tibetan to
be a language complex which contains many mutually unintelligible varieties (Suzuki 2015b:3-18,
2016c). Map 1 displays a classification of Tibetic languages following Tournadre & Suzuki(forthcoming) and the location of the Yunnan Tibetan grouping within the distribution range of Tibetic
languages.

Map 1: Tibetic languages and the Yunnan Tibetan geographical range
As Map 1 demonstrates, the position of Yunnan Tibetan is at the south-eastern corner of the
Tibetosphere, and it makes contact with other linguistic areas, such as Naxi (He 2015), Lisu (Mu & Sun2011), Yi (Chen 2010), Bai (Wang 2008) and Prinmi (Lu 2001), as well as Han Chinese (Yunnan
Shengzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui 1989). These languages all belong to Sino-Tibetan; see Thurgood(2017) for ideas of its genetic and areal subgrouping.
Previous works on Yunnan Tibetan have focused on rGyalthang Tibetan, on which there are various
publications as follows: preliminary linguistic reports (Lu 1990, 1992; Hongladarom 1996; Wang 1996,
2008; bSod-nams rGya-mtsho 2007; Pan 2013), lexicographical works (Yunnan Shengzhi
1998:651-1318; Hongladarom 2000), phonetics (Zhao & Li 2014), grammatical studies (Hongladarom
2007ab), and bibliographical works including Zhongdian Xianzhi (1997:147-153), Yunnan Shengzhi(1998:421-441), and Diqing Zangzu Zizhizhouzhi (2003:1282-1293), which include a description ofrGyalthang Tibetan. Other than rGyalthang Tibetan, there are several descriptive linguistic works:
Bartee (2007) for gTormarong (sPangteng) Tibetan, Suzuki (2011a) for Zhollam Tibetan (Pantiange,
Weixi), Suzuki (2012a) for Sakar Tibetan (Yanmen, Deqin), and Suzuki (2014ab) for Choswateng
Tibetan (Xiaozhongdian, Shangri-La), as well as Wang (2017) for Basmad Tibetan (Foshan, Deqin). In
addition to the works mentioned above, Les Missionnaires Catholique du Thibet (1899) and Giraudeau& Goré (1956) also include lexical items and descriptions regarding some varieties of Yunnan Tibetan.
According to Zhang (1996), in the 1950s, the Chinese Government conducted extensive fieldresearch on minority languages in China, including six points of Tibetan dialects from Yunnan(Zhongdian, Dongwang, Dapogang, Lapu, Benzilan, and Shengping). Although the data obtained fromthe 1950s government-sponsored fieldwork reflects the diversity of Yunnan Tibetan, unfortunately,- 12 -

existing studies such as those performed by Qu (1991) and Zhang (2009) have seldom used the data
effectively to discuss dialectal classification, geolinguistic aspects, or even typological features.
Map 2 displays the location of each vernacular. See ‘List of dialects’ for detailed toponyms andlocations. The points have not been selected based on any statistical methodology: They just represent
what I have recorded through many sessions of field work. At present, data from the varieties in thenorth-western area, particularly in the Foshan and Yangla townships, those around Benzilan Town, andthose spoken in the northern part of Gongshan County, as well as some from Lijiang Municipality,
mainly near the Lugu Lake, are missing. A future investigation needs to supplement data from theseareas. Of course, the Tibetosphere of Yunnan is not independent but continues over the Tibet
Autonomous Region (TAR) and Sichuan without any geographical barriers. In addition, there aredescendants of Tibetan families from rGyalthang living in Muli County, Sichuan. In future studies, wewill consider the production of broader linguistic maps containing dialects from these adjacent regions.

Map 2: Location of the recorded dialects- 13 -

There have been several ideas for dialectal classification mentioning Yunnan Tibetan proposed byseveral scholars, including Qu & Jin (1981) and Zhang (1993, 1996), as well as official publications like
Diqing Zangzu Zizhizhouzhi (2001). These sources recognise the dialects of the Yunnan Tibetan area as
members of the Khams Tibetan group; however, whilst scholars often mention ‘Diqing’ as anindependent subgroup of Khams Tibetan, the local official description, as well as Suzuki (2008b), claimthat there is not unity within the dialects of the region.
According to the present author’s latest classification (Suzuki 2018b), there are at least three dialectgroups, namely Sems-kyi-nyila, sDerong-nJol, and Chaphreng, each of which can be equivalent to an‘independent language’. Each of them has several subgroups as follows:
1. Sems-kyi-nyila Tibetan
a. rGyalthangb. East Yunling Mountainc. Melungd. dNgoe. Lamdo
2. sDerong-nJol Tibetan
a. West Yunling Mountainb. sPomtserag
c. gYagrwa
d. Bodgronge. mBalhag
3. Chaphreng Tibetan
a. gTormarong
The last group has only a single subgroup; however, Chaphreng’s principal language range isoutside Yunnan, in Xiangcheng County of Ganzi Prefecture, Sichuan. The gTormarong subgroup is
merely one of its subgroups.
The methodology of the language classification displayed above is principally based onphonological criteria seen from a historical perspective with the supplementary consideration ofgrammatical features (Suzuki 2008b, 2009ac, 2016cd, 2017d, 2018b). Additional descriptive studies ofthe present author, which support the classification above, are as follows:
1a. Suzuki (2011f, 2012c, 2014e)
1b. Suzuki (2009e, 2016g)
1c. Suzuki (2009f, 2010b, 2011ad, 2013f)
1d. Suzuki (2013d, 2017b, 2018b)
1e. Suzuki (2010a)
2a. Suzuki (2008a, 2011e, 2012af, 2017f)
2b. Suzuki (2009g)
2d. Suzuki (2014d, 2017f)
2e. Suzuki (2012d, 2013e)
Any specific research results have not been produced regarding groups (2c) and (3a). One can refer
to Bartee (2007) for group (3a), although she does not follow the classification above.
As many previous geolinguistic studies have pointed out, each word form has its own history (Sibata
1969), and an isogloss does not always correspond to dialect boundaries. Therefore, in this monograph,
the given classification is not preferentially considered; however, it can be mentioned in explanations,and for this reason, I have displayed a dialect classification like that mentioned above for each recorded
point on Map 3.

- 14 -

Map 3: Dialect classification of Yunnan Tibetan
A geolinguistic analysis should refer to sociolinguistic and historical situations of a given area asexternal linguistic factors which triggered various language changes. Historical descriptions regarding
the Tibetosphere of Yunnan are recorded in materials such as annals edited by governmentalorganisations (Zhongdian Xianzhi 1997, Diqing Zangzu Zizhizhouzhi 2001, etc.), monographs (Wang1995, Klu-sngags dBang-’dus 2009, etc.), and oral histories (e.g., a description of the origin of Daan
Tibetans in He 2001:247). However, it is difficult to find relevant descriptions to explain why thepresent dialect classifications above developed. This might be because I referred to an insufficient- 15 -

number of descriptions; however, for the monograph, I strived to collect data about dialects rather thanhistorical documents. Describing the present geographical and sociological backgrounds, in which I
briefly engage later, is more crucial in this context.
The Tibetosphere of Yunnan is a multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic region. Tibetans live together
with Naxi, Lisu, Bai, Yi, and Pumi nationalities as well as Han Chinese. They speak various languages
such as Khams Tibetan, Naxi, Lisu, Malimasa, Lama (Lemo), Bai, Nosu, Prinmi, and Chinese(Yunnanese). See Roche & Suzuki (2017, 2018). At present, Yunnanese almost functions as a lingua
franca among people with different mother tongues (Suzuki 2017a). Language contact of Khams
Tibetan with Naxi, Lisu (Mu & Sun 2011), Malimasa (Li 2013, Suzuki 2015a), and Yunnanese (Yunnan
Shengzhi 58 1989) emerged in Tacheng Town, Weixi County, is to be considered in geolinguistics inparticular. Additionally, Xue (2006) and Zhou (2018, forthcoming) report an existence of a peculiar
mixed language based on Chinese due to language contacts with local Naxi and Khams Tibetan varietiesin Annan Hamlet, Sanba Township, Shangri-La Municipality.
Administratively, the Tibetosphere of Yunnan consists of Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture
and its adjacent areas such as Gongshan Dulong and Nu Autonomous County and Lijiang Municipality.
Three units— Shangri-La Municipality, Deqin County and Weixi Lisu Autonomous County— exist
within Diqing Prefecture. This division reflects their historical territory to some extent. We have found
two important centres for Tibetans: rGyalthang (i.e. Jiantang Town) in the Shangri-La Municipality, andnJol (i.e. Shengping Town) in Deqin County. The former is also an administratively central place forboth the prefectural and municipal levels; meanwhile, this centre has played a historically important rolein politics and economics. The latter is the centre of Deqin County, which functions as an economic
centre for trade.
Within Yunnan Province, except for those living in Daan Township (Yongsheng County, Lijiang),
Tibetans living outside Diqing Prefecture are descendants who recently emigrated from Diqing.
According to He (2001:247) and local oral narratives, Tibetans in Daan are migrants from Tshawarongor sMarkhams in the Chamdo Municipality of TAR, just to the north of nJol.

- 16 -

Map 4: Principal areas in the Yunnan Tibetosphere of Yunnan
Map 4 displays principal Tibetan traditional names which are often mentioned in the monograph.
The two main central areas, rGyalthang and nJol are marked with a large black circle, and the others inblack are crucial for the present study: gYagrwa, gTormarong, Lamdo, sPomtserag, Nyishe, Bodgrong,
Budy, Byagzhol, mThachu, Yangthang, and Daan.
A principal traffic route connects the two centres through Benzilan Town, which played the role ofthe station on the ancient tea-horse trade route to Tibet from Dali and Lijiang. The tea-horse trade route- 17 -

had multiple routes; the road along the Jinshajiang River was frequented from the Lijiang up to Benzilan.
Weixi County was inhabited by Tibetans; however, it did not play a central role in the traffic within the
Tibetosphere. Rather, it is located in the boundary zone of multiple cultural areas, such as Tibetan, Lisu,
Prinmi, and Naxi.
There are three principal traffic connections between the Yunnan Tibetosphere and the adjacent
Tibetosphere. First, a route from rGyalthang directly to the north, which connects with XiangchengCounty of the Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan, via the gTormarong area. Second, aroute from Benzilan to Deirong along the Jinshajiang River. Third, a route from nJol to MangkangCounty along the Lancangjiang River. However, historically, there are smaller routes connecting
Yunnan with the adjacent areas, for example ancient tea-horse trade roads. They are so important that
we consider them to be historical social connections of the Yunnan Tibetan area. However, since thepresent study focuses on the current status to see historical changes having occurred while around 100
years, detailed descriptions of ancient traffic environment are not provided.
According to Tibetan historical geography (see ’Dzam-gling rgyas-bshad, ed. 1830; Wylie 1962,
Karma rGyal-mtshan 2002), the Tibetosphere of Yunnan would correspond to the southernmost areas ofthree plateaux within six in mDo-khams: sPo-’bor-sgang, sMar-khams-sgang, and Tsha-ba-sgang.
However, this geographical concept might date back to several hundred years ago; hence, it iscomplicated to refer to these traditional toponyms with a geolinguistic approach, which is based onpresent language data. Instead, watersheds can play a crucial role in dialectology in the Tibetosphere(Chamberlain 2015). There are three rivers flowing in this region: Jinshajiang (’Bri-chu), Lancangjiang(Zla-chu), and Nujiang (rGyal-mo rNgul-chu). The present analyses frequently mention these names.
Map 5 displays these rivers as well as the principal mountain peaks.

- 18 -

Map 5: Geographic features of the Yunnan Tibetosphere
The external factors mentioned above can be related to the dialect classification of Yunnan Tibetan.
I describe two principal dialect groups: Sems-kyi-nyila and sDerong-nJol.
The Sems-kyi-nyila group is spoken in the rGyalthang area and its surroundings, up to the Wengshui
Hamlet and gTormarong Valley to the north, Byagzhol Valley alongside the Jinshajiang River to thewest, and the central part of Weixi County as well as Lijiang Municipality to the south. Among the fivesubgroups of Sems-kyi-nyila, the Melung subgroup is considered to be a group of varieties whichdeveloped through heavy language contact with Naxi and Lisu. The rGyalthang subgroup has also, tosome extent, been influenced by Naxi. The East Yunling Mountain subgroup is spoken from Nyishe
Township to the eastern half area of Tacheng Town in Weixi along the Jinshajiang River. The dNgo
subgroup is spoken in the zone of dialect contact in Sems-kyi-nyila and Chaphreng, the third dialectgroup in Yunnan Tibetan for which the principal distribution area is Xiangcheng County on the north of
the Shangri-La Municipality. The Lamdo subgroup might have developed through language contact

- 19 -

with dialects of the sPomborgang (formerly called Muli-nDappa; see Suzuki 2018e for the appellation
change) group spoken in the adjacent area to the east.
The sDerong-nJol group is spoken in most of Deqin County. As its name suggests, varieties of
Deirong, the adjacent county to Deqin, also belong to this group. There are five subgroups, among
which the West Yunling Mountain subgroup is distributed in the widest area along the LancangjiangRiver. This subgroup includes various sound correspondences with several Written Tibetan (WrT)
forms; hence, it is unlikely to form a single subgroup (Suzuki 2017f). The sPomtserag subgroup ismainly spoken within Benzilan, facing other subgroups of the sDerong-nJol group as well as the East
Yunling Mountain subgroup of the Sems-kyi-nyila group. The gYagrwa subgroup is spoken in Yangla
Township in the northeast of Deqin County, the northernmost area of the Tibetosphere of Yunnanconnected with Mangkang County in TAR and Batang County on the opposite side of the JinshajiangRiver. A traffic road connects to Benzilan. It forms an independent subgroup with dialects in thistownship; however, there is a possibility that similar dialects exist on the side of TAR. The Bodgrong
subgroup is spoken in Bingzhongluo Township of Gongshan County. It is an enclaved area as a
Tibetan-spoken community, and speakers are said to be immigrants from the area along theLancangjiang River in Deqin County who relocated more than approximately 200 years ago. This
subgroup could have a relationship with the West Yunling Mountain subgroup. The mBalhag subgroupis spoken in three hamlets— Bala, Secang, and Zhengrong— which can be considered as the mostremote area from any administrative centres due to the bad traffic conditions. Dialects from thissubgroup are surrounded by all three dialect groups.
It is also possible to investigate the undocumented history based on linguistic evidence. Unlike
languages well-studied from dialectological and geolinguistic viewpoints, such as French (Gilliéron &Edmont 1902-10; Dauzat 1922), German (Wenker & Wrede 1895), Chinese (Grootaers 1994; Iwata
2009, 2012), and Japanese (Sibata 1969; Grootaers 1976; Tokugawa 1993), Tibetic languages havefewer historical descriptions which potentially contribute to the geolinguistic study. We can find a moredetailed historical relationship in a given area by analysing linguistic features. In this regard, the natureof discussions in the monograph is different from the cases of other well-investigated languages to someextent.
We do not describe how to follow the methodology of geolinguistics or how to analyse linguistic
phenomena for each of the 100 entries here. For this information, see relevant works containing various
linguistic maps and analyses regarding the word forms and expressions of the Tibetic languages in
Yunnan, listed as follows: Suzuki (2007b) for ‘pig’, ‘boar’, ‘sow’, and ‘piglets’, Suzuki (2008c) for‘heart’, ‘sun’, and ‘moon’, Suzuki (2012e) for ‘pig’, Suzuki (2013b) for ‘rain’ and ‘wind’, Suzuki(2014c) for ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘eleven’, and ‘twelve’, Suzuki (2017c) for cognates of WrT snang. See also
SAG I-V and VIII for the following word forms: ‘sun’ (Shirai et al. 2016; Suzuki 2016a), ‘rice’ (Suzuki
et al. 2016ab; Suzuki 2016b), ‘milk’ (Ebihara et al. 2016; Suzuki 2016c), ‘wind’ (Iwasa et al. 2017;
Suzuki 2017e), ‘iron’ (Kurabe et al. 2017), and ‘it rains’ (Shirai et al. 2018).

- 20 -

List of dialects
This is a list of the dialect names mentioned in the monograph in alphabetical order which follows
the position of the radical letter in the Tibetan script. Several Chinese administrative names are different
from what Wu (2009) mentions.
A dialect name is principally based on a Tibetan name of xingzheng cun ‘administrative village’ orziran cun ‘hamlet’ (locally often called she). The list does not include cun in the column for the Chinese
administrative name.
Dialect nameAdma
AlanguAga
BasmadBlosdodmBalhag
Bodgrong
Bodzhing
sBrulyulmBukhaByagkarByagmdoByagronglunglCagsgonglCagspellCagsphuglCangnangteng
Choswateng
Chulcang
Chumdolog
Daan
DimalorDolatengsGogrongsGogrags
mGonangteng
GongnongsGongnyangsGonyangsGorgangrGyaldeGyangmkhar
Gyennyemphel
Jesha

Chinese administrative name
格咱乡阿木
三坝乡安南
格咱乡浪都阿高佛山乡巴美虎跳峡镇鲁堆尼西乡巴拉丙中洛乡日当塔城镇巴珠白润
巴迪乡结义
尼西乡布喀
建塘镇霞给
霞若乡相多
塔城镇巴珠下龙农
羊拉乡甲功
云岭乡佳碧
佛山乡江坡
云岭乡九农顶
小中甸乡吹亚顶
塔城镇巴珠赤江燕门乡春多乐
大安乡下村
棒当乡迪麻洛羊拉乡都拉顶
奔子栏镇古龙
燕门乡谷扎升平镇雾浓顶
攀天阁乡工农燕门乡贡娘
云岭乡果念尼西乡江东贵岗
建塘镇吉迪东旺乡习克
小中甸乡吉念批
小中甸乡吉沙Dialect class
1d
1a
1e
2a
1a
2e
2d
1b
2a
1b
1a
1b
1b
2c
2a
2a
2a
1a
1b
2a
1c
2a
2c
2b
2a
2a
1c
2a
2a
1b
1a
3a
1a
1a

- 21 -

JiangdongnJol
JujarKangdagmKharmgo
nKhorloKhrezhag
Khyimphyuggong
sKobstengsKyidzhing-zhol
sKyidzhing-stod
Lamdo
Lamzang
Lothong
MelungMeyongMortags
MyigzurgNamlhaNagskerags
gNasgsargNasstoddNgo
sNgonshod
dNgulphung
NyangyeNyisharsNyingthong
Omachukha
dPadongdPariteng
Phula
Phuri
Sakar
Semszong
gSertshong
Sharthang
Shingkhugteng
ShingphungthongrTaphogong
mThachuThangsmadThangmphel
ThangstengThangstod

尼西乡江东胜里
升平镇阿墩子尼西乡江东居佳
升平镇阿东工打
尼西乡肯古
塔城镇柯那
尼西乡开香
小中甸乡期学谷
塔城镇格登
五境乡吉仁水五境乡吉仁格咱乡浪都义村
格咱乡浪藏巴迪乡洛通
保和镇、永春乡
升平镇明永
燕门乡木达
建塘镇尼汝
尼西乡南哈
格咱乡纳格拉小中甸乡奶思
建塘镇奶都
格咱乡翁上
格咱乡翁水
云岭乡红坡
升平镇阿东娘义
建塘镇尼史燕门乡尼通建塘镇旺池卡燕门乡巴东
云岭乡八里达
东旺乡普吕
格咱乡普上
燕门乡斯嘎
霞若乡石茸
东旺乡色仓
云岭乡西当
小中甸乡申科顶
塔城镇说朋通奔子栏镇打扑贡
塔城镇英都湾尼西乡汤满小中甸乡塘批
拖顶乡拖顶
尼西乡汤堆

1b
2a
1b
2a
1b
1c
1b
1a
1c
1b
1b
1e
1a
2a
1c
2a
2a
1a
1b
1d
1a
1a
1d
3a
2a
2a
1a
2a
1a
2a
2a
3a
1d
2a
1b
1a
2a
1a
1b
1b
1c
1b
1a
1b
1b

- 22 -

bTsanri
rTsedodrTsegnyis
rTserong
rTsethongrTsezhing
Tshareteng
Tsharethong
Tshodrug
TshokhathongmTshomgolung
mTshongu
rTswamarteng
Xinlian
XuehuaYangthang
Yarkha (Nyishe)
Yarkha (Yanmen)
gYaglamYamnying
gYanggril
gYanggril-3
YebzhigYegbamYulzhing
Zhollam

3a
东旺乡争仁
2a
升平镇阿东子都
1a
格咱乡孜尼
1d
格咱乡争茸
1b
五境乡泽通
2a
升平镇阿东直仁2a
云岭乡查里顶
2a
云岭乡查里通2a
燕门乡茨中1b
霞若乡茨卡通1a
建塘镇错古龙
1a
格咱乡初古1b
尼西乡祖莫顶
3a
东旺乡新联
1a
大具乡雪花
1a
小中甸镇小中甸
1b
尼西乡页卡
2a
燕门乡叶卡
1b
奔子栏镇亚浪2b奔子栏镇永泥云岭乡永支二村（简称永支） 2a2a
云岭乡永支三村
2b奔子栏镇叶日
2a
云岭乡雨崩
1b
霞若乡月仁
1c
攀天阁乡勺洛- 23 -

100 Linguistic Maps of the Swadesh Word List

- 24 -1

I (first person pronoun singular absolutive)

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT nga-type
A1 /ŋa/-type
A2 non-/ŋa/-type
B /ʔã/-type
There are two forms: one is almost pervasive, having a correspondence with WrT nga ‘I’ (Type A).
Type B is superficially similar to Chinese an 俺 ‘I’; however, it is also possible to consider the form ofType B to be a cognate of WrT ’u ‘we’.
Type A is attested pervasively in the Tibetic languages. Here, the difference of the vowel isillustrated, which reflects the sound correspondence of the open rhyme a. The distribution of A1 and A2
seems to be an ABA distribution with a centre of rGyalthang, however, considering the situation outside
the map, the distribution of A2 in the north is enlarged, and the central area of A2 is located in
Chaphreng County in Kandze Prefecture, just to the north of the Shangri-La Municipality. Type B isonly attested in Daan. Several Tibeto-Burman languages, such as Prinmi (Lanping) /ɛ55/ and Lyuzu /æ53/(Huang ed. 1992), use similar forms. However, this is unlikely to be a loan word. Traditionally, otherthan Yi, Naxi, and Tibetans, Daan Township has been inhabited by the Han Chinese; however, Naxi has
functioned as their lingua franca. Judging from the geographical distribution and historical migration ofDaan speakers, Type B is also unlikely to be a Prinmi loan.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘I’.

- 25 -

2

You (second person pronoun singular absolutive)

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT khyod ‘you’; thus, there is no need to classify
word forms.
This word form is mentioned by Tournadre (2005) as one of the words which show peculiarity in the
Tibetic languages within Tibeto-Burman. Differences are attested in the phonetic form. The initial has avariation, for example /tɕh, tsh, ɕh/, of which /tɕh/ is found most frequently. In some cases, we can find therhyme /eʔ/, which seems to correspond to WrT khyed ‘you’ (honorific form of khyod); however, it is aregular sound correspondence with WrT od rhyme in a given dialect.

MAP: Word form of ‘you’ (monotonous)

- 26 -3

We (first person pronoun plural absolutive)

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ’u-typeA2disyllabic form as /´ɦo tshə/, /ˉʔa sheʔ/A4
quadrisyllabic form (any syllable components included)
AKT trisyllabic form as /´ʔa ko tshɛ̃/, /´ʔa ko sõ/
AKK trisyllabic form as /´ʔa go kẽ/, /´ʔa gu kẽj/, /´ʔa ɣo ˉkẽ/, /´ʔa wo kẽ/
AKB trisyllabic form as /ˉʔa go na/, /´ʔa gu kẽj/AKR trisyllabic form as /´ʔa ku ʈa/, /ˉʔa kə ʈʂi/, /`ʔoː ji ʈa/
ANK trisyllabic form as /`ʔa ȵɑʔ kɯ̃/, /`ʔa na kɯ̃j/
ANR trisyllabic form as /´ʔa ȵaː ʈa/
ARK trisyllabic form as /´ʔə ɳɖa xa/
ART trisyllabic form as /´ʔa ɳɖə sõ/
ADD trisyllabic form as /´ʔᴀ dʑẽ ȵdʑe/
B WrT nga-type
B1 disyllabic form (mainly with WrT tsho)
B2 trisyllabic form
C WrT rang tsho-type
This word is the example with the most variegated forms among Swadesh’s 100 words. However,there are just three roots corresponding to the following WrT forms: ’u ‘we’ (Type A), nga ‘I’ (Type B),
and rang ‘self’ (Type C). Type A is further divided into many subclassifications depending on thesyllables following the root. The word forms for ‘we’ should be connected to the form for the ‘I’ first
person singular pronoun; however, it is totally different from the form displayed in 1 I.
The widespread form is, unlike the form for ‘I’, Type A. Most dialects in Yunnan distinguish an
inclusive form from the exclusive counterpart, and here the data is based on the former. Type B ismainly used for exclusive; however, some dialects use it as an inclusive form. Type A4 includes acompound ‘we (A2)’ + ‘all (see 9 All)’. Though the lexical variation is rich, Types AKK and AKR seemto have distribution areas which concentrate in the rGyalthang and nJol regions respectively. Types
AKT and A4 show a wider distribution around Types AKK and AKR.

- 27 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms of ‘we’

- 28 -

4

This (proximal demonstrative pronoun)

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ’di-type
A1 /nd/-type
A2 /n/-type
A3 WrT e ’di or a ’di-type
B W/O-type (/wo nə/, /ʔo nə/, etc.)
C T/C-type (/cə wa/, /tje/, etc.)
D /ʔa dʑi/-type
E /ʔa kə/-type
F /ji/-type
G WrT kho-type
H /ma/-type
I others
There are several roots used for ‘this’. Types A and B are likely to have the same root (WrT ’di).
Type C might be related to WrT de ‘that’. Types D, E, F, H and I are of unclear origin. Type G is thesame as the third person pronoun, which is diverted to or merged into a demonstrative counterpart.
The distribution of each form presents a geographical continuum. The distribution of Type A1 isscattered within the whole Yunnan Tibetan area, and the others display distribution by area: A2, A3, andB are mainly found in the rGyalthang area and its surroundings; Types D and F, in the area alongside theLancangjiang River; Type C, just in the eastern periphery of the rGyalthang area; Type E, in a marginalzone of the nJol area; Type G, in the central area of the map in a scattered way; Type H, in the central
area of Weixi County (dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup); and Type I, just in the gYagrwa
dialect.

- 29 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘this’- 30 -

5

That (distal demonstrative pronoun)

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT de-type
A1 monosyllabic form
A2 polysyllabic form
B WrT kho-type
C O/U-type (/ʔo tə/, /wo tə/, /ʔa tə/, /ʔu li/, /ʔu dʑi/, etc.)
D WrT phar-type
E others
There are several roots used for ‘that’. Types A and C are likely to have the same root (WrT de). See
also 4 This. Type B is the same as the third person pronoun, which is diverted to or merged into ademonstrative counterpart. Type D is a nearly pandialectal form, which corresponds to a distal
demonstrative pronoun in WrT.
The distribution of each form presents a geographical continuum. However, the distribution ofTypes A and C is not clear-cut. Type D is found in the central area of the map, in two parts of the area
along the Jinshajiang River and a part of the area along the Lancangjiang River.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘that’.

- 31 -

6

Who (interrogative word for persons)

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT su-type
B /ɕ/-type
C WrT gang-type
There are three forms used for ‘who’. Types A and C correspond to WrT words. However, Type C ispeculiar to the Yunnan Tibetan area. This WrT form is principally used for things such as what ‘what’,
not for persons. Type B is likely to be a variation of Type A; however, it is still of unclear origin. It
mainly has a /ɕ/ initial, younger speakers of dialects located to the west of the Lancangjiang River use a/ʂ/ initial. See Ikeda & Pad-ma mTsho-mo (2014).
Type A is the most widespread form in other areas than the Yunnan Tibetan. Type B is found in the
nJol and sPomtserag areas. Type C is mainly used in the lower area along the Lancangjiang River as well
as Melung. They two do not form a linguistic continuum, and Lisu is spoken between them. However,
several words are shared by dialects from these areas; hence, we should carefully examine therelationships between them. Cf. 65 Walk.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘who’

- 32 -

7

What (interrogative word for things)

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT chi-type
B WrT ga(ng)-type
B1 KD-type (/ka de/, /ka nde/, /ka ndzo/ etc.)
B2 KR/L-type (/ka re/, /ka le/, etc.)
B3 KZ-type (/ka zo/)
B4 KN-type (/ka nə/)B5 monosyllabic form with /k/-initial
B6 others
C AC-type (/ʔa htɕə/)There are mainly three forms for ‘what’, for which Types A and B occupy the majority in Yunnan
Tibetan. Type A corresponds with WrT chi ‘what’. It has an unaspirated counterpart, ci, as an archaic
form, and it appears in Type C. Type B, corresponding to another WrT word, gang ‘what, how’, hasmany subcategories depending on the second syllable. Forms with a prenasal in the second syllable ofType B1 might be related to those of B4 in terms of the development from prenasalisation to a nasal
initial.
Type A distributes is distributed throughout the area, especially in the north-western part of the map.
In Tibetic languages in Khams, Type A is frequently attested; Type B is thus a local feature found just in
the southern part of Khams. Type C is only found in Daan. Even though Types B1 and B4 arephonetically similar to each other, their distribution is not mutually related from a geographic aspect.

- 33 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘what’- 34 -

8

Not (negative verbal prefix)

This case does not present a difference in word forms, but the number of negative prefixes. There are
two main groups as follows:
A two prefixes (WrT myi and ma)
B three prefixes (WrT myi, ma, and gar)
B1 gar is almost grammaticalised
B2 gar only appears in some fixed verbs
This topic is discussed in Suzuki & Lozong Lhamo (2017). Type A is the basic system in the Tibetic
languages; however, in Yunnan Tibetan, Types B and C occupy the majority, and Type A is only foundin the periphery. For the usage and descriptive analysis of gar, the third negative prefix, see Suzuki &Lozong Lhamo (2017). Bartee (2007) reports another variety of negation form regarding gTormarong(sPangteng dialect; a.k.a. Dongwang), which is analysed as Type A based on my research because theissue discussed here is the existence of gar.
Suzuki & Lozong Lhamo (to appear) provide a hypothesis to regard the use of gar as agrammaticalisation from an interrogative word to a negative prefix. In this sense, Type B2 is at a
beginning stage of grammaticalisation. It is also attested in some dialects spoken in Mangkang andZuogong Counties in TAR; hence, the geographical continuum of B2 is much wider. The emergence ofType B is an innovation of dialects spoken in Southern Khams; however, the origin of Type B is notclearly explained at present. It is also noteworthy that this grammatical phenomenon is not shared with
the Melung subgroup even though it belongs to the same dialect group as rGyalthang Tibetan: theSems-kyi-nyila group.

- 35 -

MAP: Classification of the negative markers’ number and usage

- 36 -

9All

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT tshang ma-type
B WrT kun-type (including /k/- and /g/-initial)
C with an interrogative word (WrT gang)
D L/R-type (including /l/- or /r/-initial)
E J-type (/jiː htɑ̃/, /jiː tɕwaʔ/, etc.)
F TC-type (/tɑw tɕiː/, etc.)
G ST-type (/ɕɔ̃ tɕhe/, etc.)
H others
This word has various forms. There are two words which correspond to WrT forms: tshang ma ‘all’(Type A) and kun ‘all’ (Type B). Type C is an expression including a WrT interrogative word gang
‘what’ (cf. 6 Who and 7 What). The other types are of unclear origin.
All the word forms appear in a scattered way, among which Types A and B are found in a relatively
wide area. Types C and D are minorities and mainly found surrounding the rGyalthang area. Type F isalso a minority, found only in the rDolateng dialect. Types E and G have geographically continuous but
limited areas: along the main traffic route between nJol and rGyalthang. A part of this word might berelated to the form of 3 We, which is used for a plural or collective marker.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘all’- 37 -10

Many

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT mang po-type
B WrT ’ga’ re-type (/ŋgə rə/, etc.)
C WrT rgyas pa-type (/ɦdʑeː pa/, etc.)
D KC-type (/ko tɕa/, /wo tɕa/, etc.)
E NM-type (/ȵũ mo/, etc.)
F others
There are more than five forms used for ‘many’, of which three correspond to WrT forms: mang po‘many’ (Type A), ’ga’ re ‘some’ (Type B), and rgyas pa ‘fat’ (Type C). The last form is also related to
95 Full. The others are local words of unclear origin. Type F includes such forms as /lᴀ mᴀ/ or /tɕhom̥ hp ɛː/ of unclear origin. Type A is nearly pervasive within Tibetic languages.
Type A is widespread, and it can be used even in the several dialects which use Type B or Type C.
Type C is mainly found in the rGyalthang area, and Type D in the nJol area. Type F is found in dialectsof the Melung subgroup.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘many’- 38 -

11

One

This is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT gcig; thus, there is no need to classify wordforms.
If we consider the regularity of the sound correspondence, the word forms for ‘one’ can be classified
into a regular sound correspondence and an irregular counterpart. The irregularity generally appears in
the rGyalthang area and its surrounding areas. When a derivation form for ‘eleven’ (‘ten’ + ‘one’) isconcerned, differences are attested as presented in Suzuki (2014): the morpheme ‘one’ in ‘eleven’ either
changes the initial or does not. See the discussion of Suzuki (2014) for more details.

Map: Word forms for ‘one’ (monotonous).

- 39 -

12

Two

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT gnyis-type (/ȵ/-type)
B /n/-type
C /m/-type
There are three forms for ‘two’, of which one has a straightforward sound correspondence to WrT
gnyis is /ȵ/ (Type A). This is pervasive in Tibetic languages except for some dialects lacking thephoneme /ȵ/, for example, Sangdam (Suzuki 2012b), Bragkhoglung (Suzuki 2012g), sMarkhams(2018a), and Balti (Sprigg 2002). In these exceptional varieties, /ȵ/ in other languages consistently
corresponds to /n/ or /ŋj/. However, no dialects belonging to the exception are found in Yunnan Tibetan.
In this case, Type B is just an exceptional sound correspondence. Type C is an extreme case if /ȵ/ cancorrespond to /m/. However, there is a possibility that Type C has a different origin than WrT gnyis. For
instance, the mThachu dialect uses Type A as the number ‘two’, and Type C as a numeral accompanied
by a noun. However, this is not true in the sBrulyul dialect, in which Type C appears when it is amorpheme forming a part of ‘twelve’ (‘ten’ + ‘two’). See Suzuki (2009bd, 2014c) for detailed
discussion.
Type A has its principal distribution in the northern area of the map, which expands to the connected
Tibetosphere. Type B mainly appears in the rGyalthang area as well as the area along the JinshajiangRiver. Type C is interposed by Type A in the area along the Lancangjiang River. However, somedialects using Type A located to the south of Type C use the /m/-type in ‘twelve’; thus, these dialects arelikely to have used Type C even for ‘two’. Interestingly, the initial for ‘two’ is quite similar to the case in
18 Human, especially for Types B and C. The word ‘human’, however, must have a regular soundcorrespondence with WrT mi with /m/.

- 40 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘two’

- 41 -

13Big

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT che-type (/tɕhə ɦu/, /ʈʂhə gɛ/̃ , etc.)
B BL-type (/ɦba la/, /ɦbə lɛ/̃ , etc.)
C DD-type (/nda nde/, /ɦde na/, etc.)
D /ʔa dʑi/-type
E /n̥tsho/-type
There are five word forms, in which one corresponds to WrT che ‘big’ (Type A). WrT has anotherform chen ‘big’; however, it is rarely found in Yunnan Tibetan. Type A includes forms with various
suffixes, for example po and rgan. The other forms are regarded as local forms. The other types are of
unclear origin, of which Type E might be related to WrT chen because several examples display a soundcorrespondence between WrT c/ch/j and denti-alveolar affricates as well as between a WrT nasal final
and prenasalisation. CF. 56 Bite.
Type A principally appears in the northern area as well as the areas along the Jinshajiang and
Lancangjiang Rivers. Type B is used in the central rGyalthang area and on its north, in rGyalthang anddNgo subgroups. Type C is found on the south of rGyalthang as well as the mThachu area. Type D is
employed in the Melung subgroup. Type E exclusively appears in Daan.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘big’

- 42 -

14Long

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ring + suffix
B WrT rgyang ring po-type
C WrT ring followed by another syllable
D /da/-type
There are four types used for ‘long’. Types A, B, and C are mutually related in terms of the use of thecommon WrT root ring ‘long’. Type B is, indeed, used in many dialects of Yunnan Tibetan in the senseof ‘far, distant’, but not ‘long’. Type C has a particular second syllable such as /ȵdʑoː/ and /tɕoː/; hence,
it is separate from Type A. This is just a shared innovation within the subgroup; at present, there are noother similar examples found in the given area. Type D is of unclear origin. Type A includes various
pronunciations; however, they are not reflected on the map. See Suzuki (2009c, 2011c).
Type A is nearly pandialectal. Type C is attested in the dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup,and the other two types are only found in one variety for each. Types B and D just appear in Yarkha(Yanmen) and Daan respectively.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘long’- 43 -

15

Small

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT chung-type
A1 reduplicated form
A2 root only
A3 followed by WrT nyung
B /ka ka/-type
C S-type (/ɕi ka/, /ɕi mi/)D M-type (/me me/, /mi mje/, etc.)
E D-type (/ɖi ɖɔʔ/, etc.)
F TS-type (/tsə ka/, /tshõ/)There are six word forms, in which Type A corresponds to WrT chung ‘small’. This word isfrequently employed as a reduplicated form (A1). Other forms lack WrT correspondences but are widelyused for words denoting ‘a little’ or ‘a few’.
Type A1 is mainly found in the central area of the map, especially along the Jinshajiang River. TypeA2 mainly appears in the north-western area, together with Type B. Type C is distributed in two places:
inside the Byagzhol valley and Melung. Type D is widely attested within the rGyalthang area. Type F
appears to the north of rGyalthang, in the dNgo and Lamdo subgroups. Type E is a minority, only foundin sPomtserag. Type F is used in other dialects and means ‘a little’. Thus, the dialects using Type F for‘small’ are likely to have experienced a semantic change or expansion from ‘a little’ to ‘small’.

- 44 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘small’- 45 -

16

Woman

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT bu (mo) nag-type
B WrT bu mo-type
B1 WrT bu mo-type
B2 WrT bu mo followed by another syllable
C WrT a ma-type
D WrT mi nyung-type
E WrT nag cha-type
E1 WrT nag cha-type
E2 WrT nag cha bu mo-type
E3 WrT nag cha followed by another syllable
F /a ge/-type
There are many word forms used for ‘woman’ in WrT as well as spoken varieties (Tournadre &Suzuki forthcoming). Type A is one of the typical words for ‘woman’ in WrT, and Type B originallydenotes ‘girl’ or ‘daughter’. Type C’s a ma means ‘mother’, Type D means ‘small person’, and Type Emeans ‘black one’.
Type A is mainly attested in the north-western area of the map, and the other forms are found in therGyalthang area and its surrounding areas. Type B mainly appears in the periphery of the rGyalthangarea. Type C is used in the rGyalthang and dNgo subgroups from rGyalthang to its northernsurroundings. Type D is mainly attested inside Byagzhol Valley. Type E is found on the periphery of therGyalthang area. In the rGyalthang area, we can analyse the distribution of Types C and E by applying
the ABA distribution rule. The original form for ‘woman’ in this region is Type E; it is replaced by TypeC in the central area. Type C principally denotes ‘aunt’ in this region, and it is used for a term to address
term women in general.

- 46 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘woman’- 47 -

17

Man

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT pho-type
A1 WrT pho gsar-type
A2 WrT pho gsar rogs-type
A3 WrT pho-type
B WrT mi-type (including OT myi)
C WrT a zhang-type
D WrT a khu-type
E WrT skyes pa-type
E1 WrT skyes pa-type
E2 WrT mi skyes pa-type
E3 WrT skyes pa bu-type
E4 WrT bu skyes pa-type
F WrT skyes pa pho gsar-type (E1+A1 compound)
G /ra ri/-type
H others
There are many word forms used for ‘man’ in WrT as well as spoken varieties. However, Tournadre& Suzuki (forthcoming) point out that there is no specific term and general concept for “man” in thesense of “adult male”. Type A is one of the typical words for ‘man’ in WrT; however, Type A3 is mainly
used for animals, not for human beings. Type B originally denoted ‘human, person’ (see 18 Human),however, some dialects use it just for ‘male’. Types C and D originally specified ‘maternal uncle’ and‘paternal uncle’ respectively; however, they are also used to denote ‘male person’. Type E originallydenoted ‘one who was born’, and also means ‘male person’. Type F is a compound of Types E and A1.
There are several forms which have an unclear origin.
Type A mainly appears in the area along the Lancangjiang River, and it is scattered in thesurroundings of the rGyalthang area. Types B, C, D, E, and F are found together in the eastern area of themap. Type G is attested in the nJol area, which is analysed as a newly emerged form within the dialects
using Type A. This is an example of the ABA distribution.

- 48 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘man’- 49 -

18

Human

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT mi-type (including OT myi type)
A1 /ȵ/-type (reflect of OT form)
A2 /n/-type
A3 /m/-type (reflect of WrT form)
The word for ‘human’ or ‘person’ is pandialectal, which corresponds to WrT mi ‘person’ or OT myi‘person’. However, there is a variation of the initial nasal as shown in 12 Two. A straightforward soundcorrespondence of WrT mi is /m/ (Type A3); however, it also exists as a form that is likely to correspond
to OT myi (Type A1). It is still unclear whether all the cases with the /ȵ/-initial correspond to the OT
form. In addition, many dialects use a form with another initial (Type A2).
Type A1 mainly appears from nJol to gTormarong (to the north of rGyalthang), over several dialectgroups. Type A2 is attested all over the rGyalthang area and its surroundings. Type A3 is found in thearea along the Lancangjiang River as well as Melung. Except for the north-western corner of the map,the initial type of this word and ‘two’ (see 12 Two) are similar. It is still unclear whether this feature isjust coincidental or mutually related.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘human’- 50 -19

Fish

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT nya-type
A1 plain vowel
A2 nasalised vowel
There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT nya ‘fish’. However, it can be divided into
two subcategories due to a nasal vowel feature. A straightforward sound correspondence of WrT nya
should be a non-nasalised vowel (Type A1); however, there are examples including a nasal vowel (TypeA2).
Type A1 is attested more widely than A2. As the map suggests, the distribution of Types A1 and A2
do not show any significance for dialectology. The phenomenon of A2, nasalisation of the vowel, might
simply be an influence of the nasal initial in a given variety; however, this should be confirmed from awider perspective because there are certainly Tibetic varieties which have an irregular form for ‘fish’,such as the /mȵ/ initial and high-level tone (Suzuki 2009d).

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘fish’- 51 -

20

Bird

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT bye’u-type
A1 monosyllabic form
A2 with a suffix
There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT bye’u ‘bird’, a diminutive form of bya‘bird, chicken’. However, it can be divided into two subcategories regarding the number of syllables. A
straightforward lexical correspondence of WrT bye’u should be monosyllabic (Type A1); however,there are examples including a suffix in addition to the diminutive suffix in WrT (Type A2).
The map displays that Type A1 is attested more frequently than A2. Type A2 might have different
origins in terms of geographical distribution (varieties near nJol and those of Lamdo). A2’s suffix might
be related to WrT phrug ‘child’. The form of ‘bird’ is a diminutive form of ‘chicken’ because somesmall birds look like small chicks regardless of species.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘bird’- 52 -

21Dog

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT khyi-type
A1 /tsh/, /sh/-type
A2 /ts/-type
A3 /tɕh/, /cch/-type
A4 /tɕ/-type
A5 /ɕh/-type
B WrT khyi with a suffix
There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT khyi ‘dog’. Most dialects have a form
which corresponds to WrT khyi with an exceptional sound correspondence; hence, I have divided TypeA into five subgroups based on the initial. Type B consists of the WrT root followed by a suffix, which
is of unclear origin: /-koʔ/ or /-kwoʔ/.
Type A is intentionally classified by phonetic form. The unaspirated types (A2 and A4) arenoteworthy within Tibetic languages and suggest the existence of dialects maintaining an archaic
phonetic variant (OT kyi). Types A2 and A4 are attested in the northern part of the map, mainly along
the Jinshajiang River and its tributaries. This noticeable form— with an unaspirated initial— is also
attested in adjacent areas such as sDerong and Chaphreng. It is noticeable that Daan also has anunaspirated initial despite its geographic isolation. Type A4 keeps a regular, systematic soundcorrespondence of WrT Ky-type with prepalatal affricates. However, Type A2 has an irregular soundcorrespondence attested only in ‘dog’, so it is Type A1. The spread of this exceptional sound throughout
the whole Tibetosphere in Yunnan cannot currently be explained. Type B is clearly a minority, foundonly in two varieties: Sharthang and gYegbam.

- 53 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘dog’

- 54 -

22

Louse

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT shig-type
B /´ndɯː ´tɕe mɐ/ typeA nearly pandialectal word corresponds to WrT shig ‘louse’ (Type A). However, another form of
unclear origin (Type B) is also attested.
Type A is pervasive. Type B is only attested in the nKhorlo dialect in Weixi (Melung subgroup).

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘louse’- 55 -

23

Tree

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT shing phung-type
B WrT shing-type
C WrT shing sdong -type
There is a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT shing ‘tree’. However, it is classified into threesubcategories by word formation. Type A is a compound with phung ‘body’. Type B is root only, which,however, often means ‘log’, ‘wood’ or ‘firewood’ in WrT. Type C is a compound with sdong ‘tree’.
Type A is widespread and nearly pervasive in any dialect group. Type B is mainly used in the Lamdo
subgroup and some varieties from the rGyalthang and nJol areas. Type C is found only in the sGogrong
dialect from the sPomtserag subgroup. It is difficult to relate them to each other from a geolinguistic
perspective.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘tree’- 56 -

24

Seed

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT sa bon-type
A1 monosyllabic form
A2 dissyllabic form
B With various second syllables
B1 SL/SJ-type (/sho lʉ̃/, /sho nʉ̃/, /sha jĩ/, etc.)
B2 SG-type (/sha ŋʉː/, /sha xẽ/, etc.)
C Others
There are more than two forms used for ‘seed’, one of which has a correspondence with a WrT formsa bon ‘seed’ (Type A). The form of rTsethong is classified into B1 in spite of its nasal initial in thesecond syllable; this is because this dialect has a regular sound correspondence of /n/ with WrT l. The
form of Khyimphyuggong, gYaglam, and Yebzhi is classified into B1 in spite of its denti-alveolar
affricate initial in the first syllable; see 43 Tooth and 79 Earth. Type C includes forms such as /ȵdʑəwa/ and /htso/; both are of unclear origin.
Roughly speaking, Types A and B are distributed in the northern and southern areas of the map,
respectively. The main traffic road divides the territory of each type regardless of dialect classification.
Exceptionally, some dialects in the Byagzhol valley and Melung County use Type C; however, it isnoteworthy that Zhollam and sKobsteng (Melung subgroup) use Type A despite their geographic
location. This situation implies that Type B, attested in the rGyalthang area, is a new form which has
mainly developed along the principal traffic route from the nJol area. The difference between Type A
and Type B is the form of the second syllable; the first syllable is common to both. Hence, it might beeasy for this type of lexical change to happen.

- 57 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘seed’- 58 -

25

Leaf

The word forms are classified as follows:
A L-type (cf. WrT lo ma)
A1 WrT lo ma-type
A2 AL-type (/ʔa lɑʔ/, /ʔa ju/, etc.)
A3 /lu/-type (/wlu/, etc.)
A4 WrT shing lo-type
B D/N-type (cf. WrT ’dab ma)
B1 DP/NP-type (/ndɑʔ pa/, /nɑʔ pɑ/, etc.)
B2 DM/NM-type (/ɦdɑʔ ma/, /nə ma/, etc.)
C Others
There are at least two word forms used for ‘leaf’ that correspond to WrT: lo ma ‘leaf’ and ’dab ma‘leaf’. The former is related to lo ‘year’ and the latter to ’dab ‘duplicated’. However, since sounds [n], [l],[nd], and [nd] are to some extent related to each other in Yunnan Tibetan, the classification is mainly
based on phonetic forms rather than WrT cognates; hence, the given types do not mean that they sharethe common origin. Type A is a group which includes a /l/-initial, and Type B is a counterpart which
includes either /n/, /nd/, or /ɦd/. Type A includes forms with a /j/- initial, which regularly corresponds to
WrT l. See 48 Hand. Type C includes forms such as /ndzə ju/, /ŋgɑ lɑʔ/, /phja˞ʔ/, etc., which are of
unclear origin.
Roughly speaking, Type A is attested in the central area of rGyalthang and Lamdo as well as Melung,whereas Type B is found in the rest of the map. Type C is a minority that is found in scattered locations.
Within Type A, the distribution of A1 and A2 seems to be an ABA distribution, and A3 and A4 arelightly found in the central area of the map. As for Type B, B1 is attested in the Nyishe and gTormarong
areas, and B2 is found in the area along the Lancangjiang River. Subclassifications of both Types A and
B form a continuum; however, only Types A1 and A2 can be analysed as an ABA distribution, whichshows that A1 is an older form than A2.

- 59 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘leaf’- 60 -

26

Root

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT rtsa-type
A1 root only
A2 WrT rtsa ba-type
A3 WrT rtsa rgyas-type
A4 preceded by another syllable, which includes WrT shing ‘tree’ or ’bras ‘rice’
B WrT rgyas pa-type
C WrT rkang pa-type
D others
There are more than three forms used for ‘root’. Type A shows a direct correspondence with WrT
rtsa ‘root’, and Types B and C mean ‘fat’ and ‘foot’ respectively. These are metaphors indicating that‘root’ is a thing which grows plants and looks like the foot of plants. Such semantic changes are easy tounderstand. Type D includes /lɑʔ/ and /lɛː r̥ɐ/. Type A is further divided into four subcategories: root
only (A1), root followed by a suffix (A2), root followed by another root rgyas ‘fat’ attested in Type B(A3), and root preceded by another syllable (A4).
Type A is widespread over the area of the map, and Type B is mainly found in the area along theLancangjiang River. Types C and D are principally attested in the Tacheng area. Within Type A, A1 andA3 are majorities. A2 is found in the northern periphery, and A4 is only found in Choswateng. The map
shows that Type A3 is located between Type A1 and Type B; since the word formation of A3 seems to
be a mixture of A1 and B, there might have been mutual influences between these two types.

- 61 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘root’- 62 -

27

Bark

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT shing lpags-type
A1 disyllabic form
A2 tri- or quadrisyllabic form (WrT shing lpags pa or shing phung lpags pa)
There are several word forms including the two roots corresponding to WrT shing ‘tree’ (see 23
Tree) and lpags ‘skin’ (see 28 Skin). This means that Yunnan Tibetan is unlikely to have an
independent root for the word ‘bark’ and expresses it as a compound: ‘tree skin’. Even WrT does nothave an independent root. This word is not included in Hua (2002), which I basically use as aquestionnaire for word forms.
The difference between A1 and A2 is whether a given word is a compound or not. Type A1 mainly
has two forms of the sound corresponding to WrT lpags. See also 28 Skin. A1 is nearly pervasive, andA2 is a minority.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘bark’- 63 -

28

Skin (man’s)

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT lpags-type
A1 monosyllabic form
A2 with a WrT suffix pa and reduplicated syllables
A3 preceded by a body part’s word like WrT gdong ‘face’ and sha ‘flesh’
B PL/PR-type
C PK-type
All the types include at least one syllable with a /p/-initial. I do not have sufficient information toconfirm whether forms with a /p/-initial in Types B and C are related to WrT lpags ‘skin’ because theyoften have the /e/-rhyme, which is not an ordinary sound correspondence for WrT ag(s) in any dialectsof Yunnan Tibetan. Please see Suzuki (2009a, 2015b).
Type A is widespread, and Types B and C are mainly found in the rGyalthang area. Due to lack ofseveral data from varieties of rGyalthang, it is uncertain whether there is a significant difference
between Types A and B in this area.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘skin (man’s)’

- 64 -

29

Meat

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT sha-type
A1 root only
A2 with a second syllable
B /ȵa/-type
There are two forms for ‘meat’, of which one corresponds to WrT sha ‘meat’ (Type A). Type B has
a /ȵ/-initial of unclear origin; however, it might be related to a verb, ‘cut (meat)’, /ȵa/, attested in several
varieties. Type A includes different pronunciations which are not reflected on the map because thedifference originates from a different regularity of sound correspondences. See Suzuki (2009a, 2016c).
Type A further distinguishes a form that only includes the root (A1) from one followed by a nasal
syllable.
A1 is nearly pandialectal. Type B and the second syllable in the forms from Type A2 are probably
related to each other. Both Types A2 and B are found in dialects belonging to the Melung subgroupspoken in Weixi County.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘meat’- 65 -30

Blood

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT khrag; thus, there is need to classify wordforms.
The word form derived from khrag is one of the typical words characterising Tibetic languages.
Tournadre (2005) chooses this word as one of the criteria with which one distinguishes Tibetic
languages from non-Tibetic.

Map: Classification of the word for ‘blood’ (monotonous)

- 66 -

31

Bone

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT rus-type
A1 WrT rus pa-type
A2 RT-type (/reː thɯ/, /ɦə˞ thuː/, etc.)
A3 RK-type (/rẽ kwã/, /reː ku/, etc.)
Every word form includes a root corresponding to WrT rus ‘bone’. Type A1 is nearly pervasive
within Tibetic languages, whereas Type A2 and A3 have different suffixes.
Type A1 is widespread, and Type A2 is mainly found in the lower area along the Jinshajiang Riverand Weixi County, whereas Type A3 is attested in some peripheral areas of rGyalthang. Lothongdisplays a noteworthy distribution of Type A2: In spite of the geographical continuum as well as dialect
affiliation with the sDerong-nJol group, its word form for ‘bone’ is Type A2, which is principally foundin a different tributary than Lothong’s. It is uncertain whether this dialect would have originated both theword forms (A1 and A2) or if it originally developed from another dialect group --- Sems-kyi-nyila. See
also 34 Horn, 35 Tail, and 65 Walk for similar distribution cases. It is certain that dialects spoken on
the southernmost tip of the Lancangjiang River, indicated on the map (to the south of Huafengping
Hamlet of Yanmen Township; dialects of Lothong, sBrulyul, dPadong, Tshodrug, Sakar, Chumdolog,
and sGornyang), have typologically different sound correspondences for WrT from the other dialects
spoken along Lancangjiang (Suzuki forthcoming). A systematic investigation of the relationshipbetween these varieties and the Sems-kyi-nyila group would be indispensable.

- 67 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘bone’- 68 -

32

Fat

The number of dialects in which I collected a word form for ‘fat’ is relatively small; nevertheless, there
are many kinds of roots as follows:
A WrT tshil-type
B WrT dkar-type
C WrT snum-type
D /dz/-type
E /d/-type
Despite a small number of data points, at least five mutually independent forms are attested. Type A
is an ordinary lexical correspondence of WrT for ‘fat’. Type B is related to the word ‘white’, denoting
the colour of fat; Type C is a general word for ‘oil’ in WrT as well as in spoken varieties. Type D is of
unclear origin. Type E is used for ‘oil’ in some dialects of Yunnan Tibetan; however, its WrT cognate isunclear.
Type A is widespread, and Type B is mainly found in the Nyishe area. To the south of Nyishe, Types
D and E are attested. The data is insufficient to claim something characteristic from a geolinguistic
standpoint.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘fat’- 69 -

33

Egg

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT sgo nga-type
A1 monosyllabic typeA2 disyllabic type
There is just one word form for ‘egg’, corresponding to WrT sgong or sgo nga ‘egg’. Even WrT has
two variants, monosyllabic and disyllabic; however, this does not seem to be related to the difference inthe spoken forms attested in Yunnan Tibetan. As the map displays, the monosyllabic form (Type A1) is
the majority, unlike the WrT form. However, most monosyllabic forms in Yunnan Tibetan are analysed
as a coalescence of the two syllables of WrT, such as /ɦgwɑ̃/ and /ɦgwɑʔ/. Phonetic differences, except
for the number of syllables, are not reflected on the map.
Type A1 is widespread, whereas Type A2 is mainly found in several varieties along theLancangjiang River and in the central area of the map. It is difficult to conclude that the word for ‘egg’
displays an ABA distribution. However, a geographic continuity of the distribution of A2 exists to someextent. Especially, the use of Type A2 in Bodgrong, located in the westernmost place on the map, might
be due to lexical diffusion from dialects spoken in an adjacent area to the east.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘egg’

- 70 -

34

Horn

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT rwa-type
A1 monosyllabic typeA2 disyllabic type
A3 WrT rwa cog-type
A4 reduplicated form
B /tshʉː wa/-type
There are two word forms attested in Yunnan Tibetan. Type A has a common word root for ‘horn’corresponding to WrT rwa. Note that this word has a glide /w/ corresponding to WrT wa-zur in mostvarieties of Yunnan Tibetan, for which there are examples that reflect /w/ on the inital of the secondsyllable (Type A2). A WrT cognate of Type B is unclear.
The distribution of each form, except for Types A4 and B, displays a clear geographical difference:
A1 is mainly found in the central area and Weixi County, and A2 is attested on the northern and eastern
peripheries of the rGyalthang area. A3 is found in the nJol area, with some varieties using A2. Since
Types A1 and A2 are closely related in lexical origin, we can consider them as a single unit; then, thedistribution of word forms is characterised by the existence of A3 on the map. Again, it is worth notingthat the dialects of the Budy area use the same type as dialects in Weixi and rGyalthang (cf. 31 Bone).

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘horn’.

- 71 -

35

Tail

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT mjug ma-type
B WrT rnga ma-type
There are two word forms attested in Yunnan Tibetan, both of which correspond to WrT: mjug ma‘tail’ (Type A) and rnga ma ‘tail’ (Type B). For both of them, there are many phonetic forms regarding
the first initial and the suffix form, which are not reflected in the classification.
Roughly speaking, the distribution of the two types is divided into north (Type B) and south (TypeA). It is worth noting two areas of contact: one is between the rGyalthang and dNgo subgroups, and theother is in the southernmost tip of the West Yunling Mountain subgroups, in the Budy area. In theformer case, it is an issue that Phuri, using Type B, is surrounded by dialects using Type A. It is still
unclear whether this is a remnant of an archaic form or a new acquisition; see Suzuki (2018b) for a
detailed background of the dialects in this area. In the latter case, see the description in 31 Bone.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘tail’- 72 -

36

Feather

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT bya spu-type
B WrT spu-type
B1 root only
B2 followed by another syllable
B3 others
C Others
There are several word forms for ‘feather’. Types A and B include a cognate of WrT spu ‘body hair’.
The direct translation of Type A (WrT bya spu) is ‘bird hair’, which was originally a compound. Type
B1 is the same as the form for ‘body hair’. Types B2 and B3 are compound types. An example of TypeC includes a form corresponding to WrT gshog pa ‘wing’. WrT has a term for ‘feather’, sgro; however,it does not appear in Yunnan Tibetan.
Type A is widespread. The others are mainly attested on the centre of the map, along the
Jinshajinang River as well as in a few dialects in the rGyalthang and nJol areas.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘feather’- 73 -

37

Hair (head’s)

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT skra-type
A1 root only
A2 WrT skra spu-type
A3 WrT mgo skra-type
B WrT mgo spu-type
The word for ‘head hair’ has a nearly pandialectal root corresponding to WrT skra (Type A).
However, some dialects use a compound form including this root: A2 is a compound of the words for‘head hair’ and ‘body hair’, and A3 is a compound of the words for ‘head’ and ‘head hair’. Type B is acompound of the words for ‘head’ and ‘body hair’.
Type A1 is widespread. A2 is mainly found in the nJol area together with A1. The distribution of A3
is scattered and found in two varieties from the Melung subgroup and Phuri from rGyalthang. They
might have developed independently. Type B is only attested in rDolateng. It is necessary to investigate
whether a similar form is used in varieties spoken outside Yunnan, mainly in TAR.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘hair (head’s)’

- 74 -

38

Head

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT mgo-type
A1 root only
A2 with a suffix /lo/
The word for ‘head’ has a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT mgo ‘head’. This root is usedalone as a word (Type A). Additionally, a form with a suffix /lo/ is also attested (Type A2). The suffix
might be related to WrT log log ‘round’. See also 77 Stone and 98 Round.
Type A1 is pervasive. Type A2 only appears in Daan. The form of rTswamarteng is /ˉwo/, which
seems to be a cognate of WrT dbu ‘head (honorific)’. However, this dialect tends to have a soundcorrespondence of /w/ initial with /ŋgw/ in surrounding dialects. See also 65 Walk. The honorific form is
not frequently used in Yunnan Tibetan; however, according to the available data, it is never pronounced
as /wo/, but /ɦwɯ/ or /wɯ/.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘head’- 75 -

39

Ear

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT rna-type
A1 WrT rna cog-type
A2 NZ-type (/ɦna ʐɤ/, /ɦnə ʐu/, etc.)
A3 WrT rna pa-type
A4 NJ-type (/ɦnɑ jiː/, /ɦna jĩ/, etc.)
A5 /ɦnə ɦdwoʔ/-type
The word for ‘ear’ has a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT rna ‘ear’. However, all the dialects
use a compound form that includes this root. The principal difference is suffix form. A1 and A2 arelikely to be of the same origin, but with a clear difference in the manner of articulation. A3 corresponds
to WrT rna pa ‘ear, hearing’. The suffixes of A4 and A5 are unclear.
If we consider A1 and A2 as a single unit, they are widespread over the Tibetosphere of Yunnan. A2
is mainly attested to the north and south of the rGyalthang area. In this area, A1 and A2 seem to form an
ABA distribution. However, taking a widespread form used in the centre of the given area into
consideration, it is uncertain that this case is typical because A2 might derive from A1 through aweakening process of the second syllable. A3 is mainly attested in the central area of the map, whichcorresponds to both the sides of Yunling Mountain as well as the central area of Weixi County,
regardless of the dialect affiliation (Melung, East and West Yunling Mountain subgroups). This might
be the most archaic form among Yunnan Tibetan varieties because this form first has a WrT cognate asa disyllabic form and second appears in the peripheral areas of each dialect subgroup or Tibetic-spoken
area. A4 is found in gTormarong and Yebzhi. A5 is only attested in Lamzang, a variety of therGyalthang subgroup.

- 76 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘ear’

- 77 -

40

Eye

The word forms are classified as follows:
A OT dmyig-type
A1 root only
A2 with a suffix /tsə/ or /sə/B OT dmig-type
The word for ‘eye’ has a pandialectal root corresponding to OT dmyig (Type A) or dmig (Type B),
not to WrT mig ‘eye’. In many Tibetic languages, the WrT form does not reflect the spoken form. TypeA2 is a form with a suffix and also denotes ‘eye ball’ in some dialects.
Type A is widespread, in which A2 is principally found in the nJol area, except for its central part.
Type B is attested in peripheral areas around those in which A2 is used: the form of Bodgrong in theseareas is remarkable. Since this dialect is regarded as a variety spoken by immigrants from the nJol area
(Suzuki 2017f), it is curious that it uses Type B, which is not attested in any varieties in the area along
the Lancangjiang River. We need to check the word form spoken in the adjacent areas inside TAR.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘eye’

- 78 -

41

Nose

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT sna-type
A1 root only
A2 with a nasalised vowel
A3 WrT sna ba-type
A4 WrT sna sgang-type
The word for ‘nose’ has a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT sna ‘nose’. The principal
difference is found in the suffixes. Type A2 is provisionally derived from A1 rather than a coalescencewith a suffix.
Type A1 is widespread. Type A2 is mainly attested in a scattered manner over several dialect groups
in the central area of the map. This suggests that the nasalised vowel of A2 is just a phonetic feature
triggered by the nasal initial /n̥/; hence, it might be a form close to A1. Types A3 and A4 are minorities,
mainly found in the periphery of the rGyalthang area.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘nose’- 79 -

42

Mouth

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT kha-type
B WrT mchu-type
B1 compound mchu sha
B2 with a WrT suffix to
B3 with a WrT suffix pa
B4 compound mchu sgang
B5 with a suffix /le/There are two roots found which correspond to WrT kha ‘mouth’ (Type A) and mchu ‘lip’ (Type B).
Type B generally does not appear alone but accompanies a suffix or another morpheme.
Type A is widespread, and Type B appears in the central area of the map, divided into fivesubcategories. Type B1 is attested in the dialects belonging to the Lamdo subgroup and several varieties
around the rGyalthang area. Type B2 is found in several dialects spoken in the tributaries of the
Jinshajiang, Lancangjiang, and Nujiang Rivers. Types B3, B4, and B5 are minorities. B3 appears indialects spoken in the south of Yanmen, B4 only in sNyingthong, and B5 only in sPomtserag. Roughly
speaking, Type B is distributed in peripheral areas; hence, we could claim that this is a kind of ABA
distribution and that Type B is an older form than Type A in Yunnan Tibetan.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘mouth’

- 80 -

43

Tooth

Word forms can be classified based on sound correspondence as follows:
A WrT so-type
A1 non-/ts/-type
A2 /ts/-type
The word for ‘tooth’ has just one pandialectal root corresponding to WrT so ‘tooth’, regardless ofwhat initial sounds it has. The straightforward sound correspondence of WrT s should be /sh/ in manycases (Type A); however, the word for ‘tooth’ has some exceptions (A2). Concerning the phonetic
phenomenon of Type A2, see Suzuki & rTa-mgrin Chos-mtsho (2012) for more details.
Type A1 is pervasive, and Type A2 appears only in two dialects, gYaglam and Khyimphyuggong.
The two do not have any geographical relationship indicated by the map. See also 79 Earth.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘tooth’- 81 -

44

TongueThe word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT lce-type
A1 with a suffix /le, li/
A2 monosyllabic form
The word for ‘tongue’ has a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT lce ‘tongue’. However, many
dialects use a form with a suffix which is of unclear origin (Type A1). Type A2 is either an originallymonosyllabic word or a coalescent form of Type A1’s form.
Type A1 is widespread, and Type A2 is principally found in the lower area along the JinshajiangRiver and in Weixi County. The distribution of A2 clearly displays an areal feature rather than a genetic
relationship as a dialect subgrouping.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘tongue’- 82 -

45

Fingernail

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT sen mo-type
A1 disyllabic form
A2 monosyllabic form
B WrT mdzub mgo-type
There are two forms which correspond to WrT forms: sen mo ‘fingernail’ (Type A) and mdzub mgo‘fingertip’ (Type B). Type A2 is a coalescent form of the disyllabic form (Type A1). Type B does notdirectly denote ‘nail’, but ‘the place where nails exist’. This means that Type B experienced a semanticchange.
Type A1 is widespread, and Type A2 is mainly found in the nJol area and the area to the north ofrGyalthang. Type B is only attested in Xinlian and can be regarded as an exceptional form.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘fingernail’- 83 -

46

Foot

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT rkang ba ‘foot. leg’; thus, there is no need toclassify word forms.
WrT rkang is a morpheme denoting both ‘foot’ and ‘leg’; however, it is not used alone in Yunnan
Tibetan. The existence of the suffix corresponding to WrT ba is attested in every variety.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘foot’- 84 -47

Knee

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT pus-type
A1 WrT pus mo-type
A2 WrT pus thog-type
A3 WrT pus rkan-type
B GD-type (/ɦgɛ dõ/, /ŋa ɦdõ/, etc.)
C /pho lo/-type
D others
There are more than four word forms for ‘knee’, of which one corresponds to a WrT root pus ‘knee’(Type A). The WrT form is generally followed by suffix mo (Type A1), and there are two more suffixes
attested in Yunnan Tibetan. Types B, C, and D are unlikely to have WrT cognates.
Type A1 is principally found in the rGyalthang area and its surroundings. Type A2 is attested in thetributaries of the Jinshajiang River and the lower area of the Lancangjiang River. Type B is attested innJol and its surroundings. Types A3, C, and D are minorities. If we take rGyalthang as the centre of thearea, we can analyse relationship Types A1 and A2 as an ABA distribution and A2 as an older form.
However, if we consider the whole area of the map, A2 might be the newer form which developed fromthe area along the Jinshajiang River. Looking at the area along the Lancangjiang River, we see theexistence of Type B around the centre, nJol. Therefore, Type B is the newest, most innovative form in
the area.

- 85 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘knee’- 86 -

48

Hand

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT lag-type
A1 WrT lag pa-type, the second syllable initial: /k(w)V/-type
A2 WrT lag pa-type, the second syllable initial: /pV/-type
A3 WrT lag pa-type, the second syllable initial: /wV/-type
A4 monosyllabic form
A5 compound lag mgo
The word for ‘hand’ has a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT lag, which is generally followedby suffixes or another word. Type A1 is a form in which the final of the first syllable re-analysed as an
initial of the second syllable. Type A2 is a straightforward correspondence of WrT lag pa. Type A3 is aform in which the second syllable initial has weakened, probably after the first syllable changed into an
open syllable. Type A4 is either a root only or a coalescent form. Additionally, the soundcorrespondence of WrT l initial has two types: /l/ or /j/ (or rarely /n/, just in sKyizhing); however, I do
not consider this regularity in sound correspondence in the classification above. See Suzuki (2009,2016) for this sound correspondence.
Type A1 is widespread. Type A2 is found in various peripheral areas as well as dialects belonging to
the Melung subgroup. Type A3 is principally attested in the rGyalthang area. Type A4 only appears in
two dialects: rTserong and nKhorlo. Type A5 is mainly found in the area to the north of rGyalthang,such as gTormarong and Lamdo. Type A2 can be considered to be an older form following the ABA
distribution of the whole area of the map. This point of view is reasonable because A2 directly
corresponds to the WrT form, whereas A1 has, to some extent, changed in its pronunciation.

- 87 -

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘hand’- 88 -

49

Belly

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT grod pa-type
A1 regular sound correspondence
A2 with /k/-initial
B /a po/-type
C WrT lto ba-type
D WrT /lõ kha/-type
There are four word forms, two of which correspond to WrT forms: grod pa ‘belly’ (Type A) and lto
ba ‘stomach’ (Type C). Types B and D might be related to WrT pho ba ‘stomach’ and long ga ‘entrails’
respectively.
Type A is found in the areas to the north and west of rGyalthang. A1 is distributed more widely thanA2, which is limited to the Nyishe area. Type B appears in the central and southern areas of rGyalthang.
Type C is attested in the wide area to the west of the Jinshajiang River. Type D is only found in twoplaces which are not geographically connected. They seem to have their own territories, in which TypeA1 also appears in the area of Type C. It is still unclear whether this is a case of lexical expansion of A1
to the area of Type C or the influence of WrT.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘belly’- 89 -

50

Neck

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ske-type
A1 with WrT suffix le, /lĩ/, and /leʔ/A2 with WrT suffix pa
A3 with second syllables /ruʔ/ and /reʔ/
A4 with second syllable /tshɑʔ/ɦB / ba/-type
C /hsoː kõ/-type
There are three kinds of word forms. Type A has a root corresponding to WrT ske ‘neck’, which is
generally followed by a suffix. Type B is of unclear origin, and Type C is the same as the word denoting‘throat’.
Type A1 is mainly attested in the area along the Lancangjiang River and the area to the north ofrGyalthang as well as some dialects from Byagzhol and mBajo villages. Type A2 is found in therGyalthang area and its surroundings. Types A3 and A4 are minorities, found only in mBalhag and
Myigzur for A3, and in rDolateng for A4. Type B appears in some dialects of gTormarong and Sakar in
Yanmen. Type C is attested in the dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup. The situation in therGyalthang area indicates that the relationship between A1 and A2 is an ABA distribution and A1 is anolder form.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘neck’- 90 -

51

Breast

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT brang-type
A1 root only
A2 with a suffix (/ta/, /kha/, /tẽ/, etc.)
A3 irregular sound correspondence (/tõ kha/, etc.)
B WrT snying sgang-type
C M-type (/mejʔ/, etc.)
D CK-type (/ʈʂhẽ kha/, etc.)
E KN-type (/kha ȵɔw/, etc.)
F PT-type (/pĩ tsa/, etc.)
There are more than five forms attested in Yunnan Tibetan, in which Type A corresponds to WrT
brang ‘breast’, and Type B might correspond to WrT snying ‘heart’ (see 52 Heart) and sgang ‘hill’ foreach syllable. The others are considered to be local oral forms with unclear origins.
Type A is widespread, in which A1 is principally found in the eastern area of the map, and A2 in therest of the area. A3 is only attested in dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup. The rest of the types
are minorities: Type B appears in Zhollam, Type C in rTsanri and rTsegnyi, Type D in rGyalde, Type E
in Sakar, and Type F in sPomtserag. They are analysed as local words.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘breast’- 91 -

52

Heart

The word ‘heart’ here denotes an organ. The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT snying-type
A1 root only
A2 with a suffix /tsa/
B WrT sems-type
There are two roots, both of which correspond to WrT forms: snying ‘heart’ and sems ‘heart, mind’.
Some dialects using Type B also use Type A. Note that Type B is principally pronounced as /ɕɑ̃/; see
Suzuki (2008c).
Type A1 is nearly pervasive. Type A2 is attested in the central area of the map along the tributariesof the Jinshajiang River. Type B is found in the vicinity of the Type A2 area and in Lothong locatedalong the Lancangjiang River (cf. 31 Bone). However, Type B is widely used in the rGyalthang area andits surroundings as a word for ‘mind’ (not for the heart as an organ). This semantic division is often
found in Tibetic languages in Khams; therefore, dialects which use Type B for ‘heart’ as an organ might
have simplified this division and unified them to Type B.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘heart’- 92 -

53

Liver

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT mchin pa-type
B others
A nearly pandialectal word corresponds to WrT mchin pa ‘liver’. Type B is a group of unclear origin,such as /ɦjwa/, /tɕə ɦlwo/, and /ɦlɛː wa/; however, it might include a morpheme of ‘lung’ corresponding to
WrT glo (ba). However, these are not the same as the word form for ‘lung’.
Type A is pervasive, and Type B has a scattered distribution. The latter is originally a group ofvarious word forms; thus, the distribution of Type B simply reflects the independence of different wordforms.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘liver’- 93 -

54

Drink

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT ’thung; thus, there is no need to classify wordforms.
The word for ‘drink’ has just one root. WrT ’thung displays a stem alternation and includes anunaspirated counterpart btung, which does not exist as a verb stem form in any variety of Yunnan
Tibetan.

Map: Word forms for ‘drink’ (monotonous)

- 94 -

55

Eat

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT za-type
B WrT ’cha’-type
There are two roots, both of which correspond to WrT za ‘eat’ (Type A) and ’cha’ ‘chew’ (Type B).
Type A is a form which appears pervasively within the Tibetic languages. Type B displays a limited
distribution principally in some areas of the eastern Tibetosphere. WrT za has a stem alternation;
however, the varieties of Yunnan Tibetan have only one form corresponding to WrT za. The noun for‘food’ is a cognate of WrT zan ‘food’, a form derived from WrT za, which is used even in the dialects
using Type B for ‘eat’.
Type A is mainly found in the area along the Lancangjiang River and in the dialects belonging to the
Melung subgroup, and Type B is attested in the rest of the area. It is very interesting that Types A and B
form a border within Tacheng Town, where there are no geographical barriers. Type B is also used indialects spoken in Xiangcheng and Daocheng counties to the north and east of the Shangri-La
Municipality; hence, this word form is distributed in a wider range than shown on the map.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘eat’- 95 -

56

Bite

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT so btab-type
B WrT ’brad-type
C X-type (/xɑw/, etc.)
D /htsɑː/-type
There are four forms attested in Yunnan Tibetan, two of which have cognates with WrT so btab
‘bite’ (Type A) and ’brad ‘scratch’ (Type B). The word formation of Type A is literally understood as acompound of the nouns so ‘tooth’ and a verb btab ‘plant’. Type D might correspond to WrT bcag
‘break’; see 13 Big. Type C is of unclear origin.
Type A is widespread. Type B is mainly attested in the rGyalthang area and its surroundings as wellas Weixi County. Type C is scattered among three areas: inside Byagzhol Valley and the southernmost
tip of the Tibetic-spoken area along the Lancangjiang River, Bazhu village in Tacheng Town, and inside
gTormarong Valley. This peripheral distribution implies an establishment of ABA distribution, andType C can be regarded as an older form in the area as a whole. Type D exclusively appears in Daan.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘bite’- 96 -

57

See

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT mthong; thus, there is no need to classify wordforms.
The word for ‘see’ has just one root. In Daan, this root is also used for ‘hear’. See 58 Hear. Note thatYunnan Tibetan strictly distinguishes ‘see’ (noncontrollable verb) from ‘look, watch’ (controllableverb).

Map: Word forms for ‘see’ (monotonous)

- 97 -

58

Hear

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ’tshor-type
B WrT nyan-type
B1 WrT nyan gragB2 WrT nyan + verb
C WrT mthong-type
There are three roots, all of which correspond to WrT forms: ’tshor ‘hear’ (Type A), nyan ‘listen’(Type B), and mthong ‘see’ (Type C). The last one is rarely used for ‘hear’ in Tibetic languages. Type B
may be followed by a verb rag ‘obtain’ and a direct non-visual sensory suffix grag, with which one
differentiates it from the word ‘listen’ (controllable verb). See Tournadre & LaPolla (2014) for the useof grag.
Type A is nearly pervasive, and Types B and C are minorities. Type B has scattered distribution.
Type C is exceptionally attested in Daan. It is unclear whether the minorities have any significant
background from a geolinguistic perspective.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘hear’- 98 -

59

Know

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ha go-type
A1 /h/ as the main initial of the first syllable
A2 /ç/ as the main initial of the first syllable
B WrT shes-type
There are two words corresponding to WrT ha go ‘understand’ (Type A) and shes ‘know’ (Type B)
respectively. The former has an exceptional variant /ça ko/ (Type A2). Type B is also widely used as aword for ‘know (person, how to do, etc.)’ in most dialects in Yunnan Tibetan.
Type A is widespread, and Type B is just used in the dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup as
well as Xinlian. Type A2 is mainly found in the nJol area. This form is only a phonetic variant, and thefactors that produced a form like A2 are still unclear. The dialects using A2 have a phoneme /ç/ in otherexamples, which corresponds to the WrT initials sl and lh.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘know’- 99 -

60

Sleep

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT nyal-type
B WrT gnyid-type
C /joʔ/-type
There are three forms, two of which have WrT cognates: nyal ‘sleep’ (Type A) and gnyid ‘fall
asleep’ (Type B). Type C is of unclear origin. Type A is a form widely attested within the Tibetic
languages.
Type A is widely found. Type B is mainly attested in the dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup,
and in a scattered distribution in some dialects. Type C displays a limited distribution principally in thecentral area of the Shangri-La Municipality as well as Byagzhol Valley. Type C is peculiar to therGyalthang subgroup and several dialects of the East Yunling Mountain group; dialects in the Nyishearea use Type A. This implies that the use of Type A has been influenced along the Jinshajiang River by
the dialects located to the north of that area.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘sleep’- 100 -61

Die

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT shi ‘die’; thus, there is no need to classify
word forms.
The word for ‘die’ has just one WrT root: shi. In WrT, it displays a stem alternation and includes anaspirated affricate counterpart, ’chi, which does not exist in any varieties of Yunnan Tibetan except for a
person’s name: ’Chi med.

Map: Word forms for ‘die’ (monotonous)

- 101 -62

Kill

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT bsad-type
B WrT bsha’-type
There are two roots corresponding to WrT bsad ‘kill’ (Type A) and bsha’ ‘slaughter’ (Type B).
Some native speakers consider Type B to be a Chinese loan word: sha 杀 ‘kill’. However, this is a folk
etymology with no basis in fact.
Type A is widespread. Type B has a scattered distribution; however, it principally appears in therGyalthang area. Originally, the forms of Types A and B can co-occur because their semantic fields are
not totally in accordance with each other. It is undeniable that the Chinese form sha influenced the use ofType B.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘kill’- 102 -63

Swim

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT chu rkyal-type
A1 WrT chu rkyal as a verb
A2 WrT chu rkyal with a light verb
A3 WrT rkyal only
B others
There are many kinds of word forms which can be arranged into two types: forms related to a WrT
compound chu rkyal ‘water’+’swim’ (Type A) and those not related to it (Type B). Type B also has asyllable corresponding to WrT chu ‘water’, for example /`cçhu lɑ̃/ and /ˉʈʂhʉ ʐo ´be/.
Type A is nearly pandialectal. A2 mainly appears in the rGyalthang area. A3 is only found in
Tsharethong. Type B is attested in the south part of the map, including dialects belonging to the Melung
subgroup, some dialects from Yangthang, and Daan as well as Bodgrong. However, Type B includes
various forms, differing in the second syllable following the syllable denoting ‘water’. This distribution
suggests that they have independently developed similar forms which are different from Type A.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘swim’

- 103 -64

Fly

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT lding ‘float, hover, soar’; thus, there is noneed to classify word forms.
The word for ‘fly’ has just one root in Yunnan Tibetan. However, this form is not widespread within
the Tibetic languages but is a local feature of the Southern Khams area. A widely employed word in
WrT is ’phur ‘fly’, which does not exist in oral expressions. See Suzuki (2009a) for a brief map of wordforms for ‘fly’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere.

MAP: Word forms for ‘fly’ (monotonous)

- 104 -65

Walk

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ’gro-type
A1 /ɳɖ/, /n/-type
A2 /ŋg/, /ŋ/-type
A3 /w/-type
The word for ‘walk’, used for the meaning ‘go’ in many cases, has just one root corresponding to
WrT ’gro, with two different principal sounds: A1 and A2. A3 is considered to be a particular sounddevelopment from Type A2: /ŋgo/ > /ŋgwo/ > /ŋwo/ > /wo/; hence, A3 should be related to A2, not to A1.
See also 38 Head. Type A1 is a straightforward sound correspondence with the WrT form. Type A
includes a form with a /n/-initial, appearing in Thangsmad, analysed as an inevitable sound change froma retroflex nasal to a denti-alveolar nasal required by the sound structure (*/ɳ/ > /n/) after a nasal
assimilation from /ɳɖ/ > /ɳ/ occurred (cf. Suzuki 2016g).
Type A is attested in the northern areas of the map, both the area along the Lancangjiang (except for
the lower area) and gTormarong Valley. This type is almost pandialectal and has regular soundcorrespondence within Tibetic languages, and similar forms are attested in dialects spoken in theadjacent areas of TAR and Sichuan. Types A2 and A3 are peculiar to dialects in the rest of the area. All
the dialects of the Sems-kyi-nyila group except Thangsmad display these types. A noteworthy
phenomenon is that they are also attested in the dialects distributed in the Yanmen and Badi Townships
along the Lancangjiang River. This has previously been discussed regarding a subclassification of theWest Yunling subgroup (Suzuki 2017f). This characteristic sound change might have been triggered bydifferent factors, or it might have had a genetically close relationship between these groups and theSems-kyi-nyila group. See also 31 Bone. Type A3 has two principal places of the distribution, theNyishe and Budy areas. Since they have no direct connection, the sound change can be regarded as anindependently occurring phenomenon.

- 105 -MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘walk’- 106 -66

Come

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT ’ong ‘come’; thus, there is no need to classify
word forms.
The word for ‘come’ has just one WrT root, ’ong, and the pronunciation of its non-imperative form
is the same in almost all varieties. WrT has another root, yong, which is etymologically related to ’ong,
but this form never appears in Yunnan Tibetan. The imperative form, a suppletive type, is WrT shog,
which is also pervasive, with various phonetic forms (cf. 29 Meat). This form is also shared by all
varieties with various methods of pronunciation.

MAP: Word forms for ‘come’ (monotonous)

- 107 -67

Lie (down)

In many cases, the word ‘lie down’ is the same as 60 Sleep. In order to avoid repetition, I have describedanother word here: ‘take a rest by lying down’. Word forms can be classified as follows:
A WrT ngal gso-type
A1 /ŋ/ is the main initial of the first syllable
A2 /ȵ/ is the main initial of the first syllable
A3 /m/ is the main initial of the first syllable
B Others
There are several word forms, of which the majority is the word corresponding to WrT ngal gso‘take a rest’. Its subclassification is based on the initial of the first syllable. Type B includes forms of
unclear origin, those related to WrT nyal ‘sleep’, and Chinese loan words. See Tournadre & Suzuki(forthcoming) for examples which show a sound correspondence between /ȵ/ and /m/.
Type A is nearly pervasive, and A2 is widespread. The others are minorities. Type A1 is mainly
found in sPomtserag and its surrounding areas, and Types A3 and B have scattered distribution. Except
for A2, these are unlikely to have a mutual relationship.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘lie (down)’

- 108 -68

Sit

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ’dug-type
B WrT sdod-type
C WrT bzhag-type
There are three roots corresponding to WrT ’dug ‘sit’, sdod ‘sit’, and bzhag ‘sit’. The wordcorresponding to WrT ’dug is identical to one of the existential verbs to describe existence, location, andpossessive for animate objects in many dialects of Yunnan Tibetan. In some dialects, a form
corresponding to WrT, bzhag, is used for ‘exist’ for persons other than those indicated by WrT ’dug. In
general, a semantic difference of the words for ‘sit’ and ‘exist’ is ambiguous in many dialects.
Type A is nearly pervasive. Type B is mainly found in the central area of the map in a scattered way.
Type C only appears in sBrulyul; however, this form is also used in dialects belonging to the Melung
subgroup. See Suzuki (2017f).

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘sit’

- 109 -

69

Stand

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT (yar) lang ‘stand (up)’; thus, there is no needto classify word forms.
The word for ‘stand’ has just one root. Depending on varieties, its pronunciation varies; the initial iseither /l/ or /j/. Cf. 48 Hand.

MAP: Word forms for ‘stand’ (monotonous)

- 110 -70

Give

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT ster ‘give’; thus, there is no need to classify
word forms.
The word for ‘give’ has just one root. In other surrounding Tibetic languages, a word form
corresponding to WrT, sbyin ‘give’, is also used; however, it does not appear in Yunnan. The humilificcounterpart of this word, corresponding to WrT ’bul, is widely used in Yunnan.

Map: Word forms for ‘give’ (monotonous)

- 111 -71

Say

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT zer-type
B WrT bshad-type
C WrT smra-type
D /phje/-type
E /kha wa/-type
F /ʂhwa/-type
G Others
The word for ‘say’ has many roots, and several dialects use two or more words. Types A, B, and C
correspond to WrT zer ‘say’, bshad ‘tell’, and smra ‘speak’ respectively. The others are unlikely to have
WrT cognates. Type A can be used as a hearsay marker in any dialects except for most varieties
belonging to the Sems-kyi-nyila group. Type G includes three forms: /ɬhjə/, /hʈʂɔ/̃ , and /ɦduʔ/.
Types A and B are widespread. Type A often appears in dialects belonging to the Sems-kyi-nyila
group, and Type B in those spoken in the nJol area and gTormarong Valley. The distribution of Types A
and B in the area along the Lancangjiang River seems to be an ABA distribution, and Type B is a newer
form. Type C is only found in sPomtserag. Type D is attested in the periphery of the rGyalthang area.
Type E appears only in gYegbam. Type F is attested in some dialects in Yangthang. Type G is found ina scattered distribution in the central area of the map.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘say’- 112 -72

Sun

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT nyi ma-type
A1 /ȵV mV/-type
A2 /ȵV wV/-type
A3 monosyllabic form (coalescent form)
B WrT gnam lha-type
B1 gnam lha-type
B2 nangs lha-type
There are two forms, both of which have WrT cognates: nyi ma ‘sun’ (Type A) and gnam lha‘celestial deity’ (Type B). Type A is further classified into three forms based on phonetic realisation.
Type B is not only idiosyncratic within the Tibetic languages but also has two types with very close
phonetic forms: WrT gnam lha ‘celestial deity’ and nangs lha ‘morning deity’. The provided forms are
WrT forms, which are, in fact, compounds created only based on the phonetic form. See also Shirai et al.
(2016) and Suzuki (2016a, 2017g). Type A is used as a person’s name; in this case, each of the twosyllables is pronounced independently. Consequently, all varieties use Type A1.
Most dialects use Type A. The three subgroups of this type can be compared with 74 Star forphonetic classification, which is mainly related to the sound correspondence of the second syllable,
WrT suffix ma. Type A1, a form with a straightforward sound correspondence, is principally attested in
the areas along the two rivers Jinshajiang and Lancangjiang, as well as in Weixi County. Type A2 ismainly attested in the rGyalthang area and the gTormarong Valley. Type A3 appears around therGyalthang area and the nJol area. In general, the sound change concerning this case should be orderedas A1 > A2 >A3; however, if one considers that the map reflects a continuum of historical changes, TypeA2 is the most innovative, surrounded by Types A1 and A3 in the rGyalthang area. In this case, dialects
spoken to the north of rGyalthang might have developed their own sound changes. In the nJol area, theword form might have experienced a sound change directly from A1 to A3. Type B only appears inseveral of the varieties spoken in Yangthang. Type B2 is found only in a single variety: Choswateng(Suzuki 2017g). The origin of the word form itself is unclear; no similar forms are attested insurrounding non-Tibetic languages.

- 113 -MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘sun’- 114 -73

Moon

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT zla ba-type
A1 /d/ as the first main initial
A2 /l/ as the first main initial
A3 /n/ as the first main initial
B WrT zla dkar-type
B1 /d/ as the first main initial
B2 /l/ as the first main initial
B3 /j/ as the first main initial
C monosyllabic form (coalescent form)
D WrT zla dkar mo-type
E WrT a ne zla-type
The word for ‘moon’ just includes one root corresponding to WrT, zla ‘moon’, regardless of theinitial sounds it has. However, this root does not appear alone: it requires either a suffix ba (Type A),
another morpheme dkar ‘white’ (Type B), coalescent forms of Type A or B (Type C), an adjective dkar
mo ‘white’ (Type D), or an addressing title a ne ‘aunt’ (Type E). The subclassification of Types A and B
are related to each other except for the third category, and symbols on the map are also connected. The
initial sound of the morpheme corresponding to WrT zla in Type C is /l/, which is close to A2 and B2.
The difference in the initial is related to examples such as 48 Hand and 85 Road. Type A is used as aperson’s name. In this case, most varieties use a phonetic form of Type A1; however, Type A2 might
exist.
Types A and B are widespread. A1 and B1 are principally attested in the rGyalthang area. A2 and B3
are mainly attested in the areas along two rivers Jinshajiang and Lancangjiang. A3 appears only insKyezhing due to its general sound correspondence between /n/ and /l/ in other varieties. B3 appears in
the area between rGyalthang and gTormarong, sPomtserag and some areas along the LancangjiangRiver. Type C is attested in sNgonshod and Tsharethong. Type D is found in Weixi County. Type E
appears only in Myigzur. Type A2, attested around the nJol area, might be a new word form which ispart of an ABA distribution with Types B2 and B3.

- 115 -MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘moon’- 116 -74

Star

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT skar ma-type
A1 /kV mV/-type
A2 /kV wV/, /kV ɦV/, /kV jV/-type
A3 /kV ŋV/-type
B /nlə ȵə/-type
C /ŋgu ma/-type
There are three forms, one of which corresponds to WrT skar ma ‘star’ (Type A). Type B is of
unclear origin and might be related to zla ‘moon’ (see 73 Moon). Type C is also of unclear origin. A
sound difference is reflected in the classification to show geographical distribution of the sounddifference of the second initial. See also 72 Sun. Type A1 is a phonetic form with a straightforward
correspondence of WrT skar ma. Type A2 is not a nasal initial, and a nasalised vowel appears in thesecond syllable in many cases. Type A3 is an exceptional form compared with the WrT form. Type A is
used as a person’s name; in this case, each of the two syllables is pronounced independently.
Consequently, all the varieties use Type A1.
Type A1 is widespread and intensively appears in the area along the two rivers, Jinshajiang and
Lancangjiang. Type A2 is mainly found in the rGyalthang area and to its north, as well as the nJol area.
Type A3 is only found in some dialects from Yangthang. Type B only appears in Yarkha (Nyishe). A
general order of sound change in Type A can be found from A1 to A2. Then, the West Yunling
Mountain subgroup was analysed as an ABA distribution, and a new form (A2) attested in the central
area of nJol emerged which follows the principle of this analysis, as with the rGyalthang area. Types B
and C are found in rTswamarteng and Daan respectively, and they are considered to be an independent
development of word forms.

- 117 -MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘star’- 118 -

75

Water

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT chu ‘water’; thus, there is no need to classify
word forms.
Depending on the differences in the regular sound correspondence, the first initial is /ʈʂh/, /tɕh/, /ȶh/,h/c /, or /cçh/.

Map: Word forms for ‘water’ (monotonous)

- 119 -76

Rain

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT char pa-type
A1 disyllabic form
A2 monosyllabic form (coalescent form)
There is just one word corresponding to WrT char pa ‘rain’ or ‘raindrop’. Depending on the
differences in the regular sound correspondence, the first initial is /ʈʂh/, /tɕh/, /ȶh/, /ch/, /cçh/, or /c/. The
last sound is under the influence of a peculiar prosodic pattern (see Suzuki 2011b, 2013b). Also, see
Shirai et al. (2018ab).
Type A1 is principally attested in the Shangri-La Municipality and the area along the JinshajiangRiver. Type A2 is found in the area along the Lancangjiang River and in the dialects belonging to the
Melung subgroup. Since Type A2 is considered to be a form after a sound change from A1, the dialects
found in the rGyalthang area might be an independent phenomenon of the case attested in the nJol area.
However, a monosyllabification in a given dialect does not seem to be regular. See 73 Moon.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘rain’- 120 -

77

Stone

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT rdo-type
A1 root only
A2 WrT rdo log-type
A3 WrT rdo ba-type
A4 /tɕə ɦdo/-type
There is just one root corresponding to WrT rdo ‘stone’. However, it is used either alone or with anaffix. Type A2 has a suffix related to WrT log log ‘round’ (see 98 Round). Type A4 includes the root;
however, the meaning of its prefix is unknown.
Type A1 is widespread. Type A2 principally appears in the Byagzhol Valley and its surrounding
areas. Type A3 has a scattered distribution in such dialects as Lamdo, rGyalde, and mThachu. Type A4
is only found in gYagrwa. The distribution of A3 and A4 might have occurred independently in eacharea. However, the A2 counterpart might be connected because Type A2 shares a common, peculiar
suffix.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘stone’- 121 -78

Sand

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT bye ma-type
A1 disyllabic form
A2 monosyllabic form (coalescent form)
B WrT rdo-type
C /mbə ʑuʔ/-type
There are three forms, two of which correspond to WrT forms: bye ma ‘sand’ (Type A) and rdo‘stone’ (Type B; see 77 Stone). Type A is further divided into two subclassifications based on thenumber of syllables. See 72 Sun, 73 Moon, and 76 Rain for similar cases. Depending on differences in
the regular sound correspondence, the first initial is /ɕ/, /s/, or /ʂ/. Type B is followed by an adjective or
morpheme. Type C is of unclear origin.
Type A is nearly pervasive, and Types B and C are minorities. Type B appears in two dialects from
Nyishe, and Type C, only in Nagskerags. They are likely to be locally developed forms.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘sand’- 122 -

79

Earth

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT sa-type
A1 non-/ts/-type
A2 /ts/-type
B /ka tsa/-type
The word for ‘earth’, aside from one form (Type B), has just one root corresponding to WrT, sa‘earth, land’, regardless of the initial sounds it has (Type A). The straightforward sound correspondenceof WrT s should be /sh/ in ordinary cases, however, the word for ‘earth’ has some exceptions (Type A2).
See also 43 Tooth.
Type A1 is nearly pervasive, and Type A2 is attested in lCagspel and Khyimphyuggong. Comparedwith 43 Tooth, Khyimphyuggong shares this exceptional sound correspondence; however, lCagspel
does not. The example of 43 Tooth has another dialect which displays Type A2. Therefore, this soundcorrespondence is not produced through a regular sound change process. Unfortunately, I cannot explain
any factors or reasons behind this exception. Type B is only found in Daan. It is unknown whether thesecond syllable of /ka tsa/ is related to Type A2.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘earth’- 123 -

80

Cloud

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT sprin-type
A1 root only
A2 with other syllables
B Others
There are more than two forms for ‘cloud’, one of which certainly corresponds to WrT sprin ‘cloud’(Type A). Type A has various sounds as its initial depending on the regularity of the soundcorrespondence. Type A2 includes forms with a suffix pa and nag ‘black’ as a prefix. Type B includes
various forms such as /ɦnɑ̃ m̥uʔ/, /ŋ̊õ wa/, etc. They are to some extent related to WrT forms, for example,
smug ‘fog’.
Type A is nearly pervasive, and A2 is only found in Zhollam and Thangsmad. Type B is attested in
two scattered varieties (Zhollam and rTswamarteng). The two are unlikely to be related to each other.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘cloud’- 124 -

81

Smoke

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT du ba-type
A1 /tV wV/, /tV bV/, /tV ɦV/-type
A2 /tV jV/-type
A3 compound as du (ba) nag
A4 compound as du khu
B /ȵi tɕɯ/-type
C Chinese loan yan 烟
There are three forms attested in Yunnan Tibetan. Of them, just one form has a WrT cognate: du ba‘smoke’ and its derivations (Type A). A1 is a straightforward sound correspondence of the WrT form.
A2 is considered as a form after a sound change from A1. A3 is a form with a morpheme nag ‘black’. A4
is with a suffix khu. Type B is of unclear origin, and Type C is a Chinese loan word.
Type A1 is widespread, and the others are minorities. A2 is attested in a scattered distribution on the
periphery of the rGyalthang area. A3 is found in some dialects spoken along the Jinshajiang River. A4 is
only attested in Bodgrong. Type B is only found in sGorgang, and Type C is found in the dialects
belonging to the Melung subgroup. These minorities probably developed in each local area.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘smoke’- 125 -82

Fire

The word forms are classified as follows:
A OT mye-type
A1 low tone typeA2 high tone typeB OT smye-type
The word for ‘fire’ has just one root. However, it corresponds to two kinds of OT forms: mye ‘fire’(Type A) and smye (Type B). They are considered to be variants. Examples with a /ȵ̊/-initial evidently
reflects the latter spelling. Type A is further classified into two subcategories based on tonal feature. The
OT form mye suggests a correspondence with the low tone (Type A1); however, there are examples withthe high tone (Type B), so it is not predictable (cf. Suzuki 2018c). Due to their similarities, Type B may
be somewhat related to Type A.
Type A is widespread, and Type B principally appears in the areas along the Lancangjiang River.
Type A2 seems to be distributed around the rGyalthang area. Additionally, it also appears around TypeB to the north and east of nJol. mTshonggu, the only dialect using Type B near rGyalthang, is an
exception. However, it is noteworthy that this dialect is spoken next to dialects using Type A2. An
analysis of the ABA distribution can be applied to the dialects in the rGyalthang area. Type A2 isconsidered to be an older form than Type A1. Additionally, we can find a common lexical feature (TypeA1) between Bodgrong and sBrulyul; the latter is spoken within the dialects using Type B.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘fire’- 126 -83

Ash

The number of dialects in which I collected the word form for ‘ash’ is small. The main reason is that
Chinese, as well as Tibetan, often use the same root for both ‘ash’ and ‘dust’. In the present data, theword form for ‘ash’ is classified as follows:
A WrT thal-type
A1 forms related to WrT thal ka
A2 forms related to WrT rtswa thal ka
A3 forms related to WrT thal dkar
A4 forms related to WrT rtswa thal dkar
B Others
There are mainly two types of word forms here: the one including a WrT root thal ‘ash’ (Type A)
and the other, which does not (Type B). The WrT root means ‘ash of plants, such as trees, logs, andgrasses’. There is a form with rtswa ‘grass’ (Type A2), which might correspond to a Chinese word cao
草 ‘grass’ in caomuhui 草木灰 ‘plant ash’ in the questionnaire (Hua 2002); hence, the forms A2 and A4
might be a Chinese calque. Considering the word forms, we can also say that A1 and A2 form one groupwhereas A3 and A4 form another group. Type B includes various forms, such as /^hpõ wã/ and /´phiː wa/,
all of which are of unclear origin.
Type A1 appears in the rGyalthang area and gTormarong Valley, together with Type A2. Type A3 is
attested in the area along the Lancangjiang River as well as in the Nyishe area. Type A4 is only found in
gYaglam and rTaphogong. Type B appears in the whole area in a scattered way. Due to the lack of data,
it is difficult to claim areal features and their historical changes; however, Type A3 seems to be the mostwidespread pattern.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘ash’

- 127 -84

Burn

This word should be understood as an intransitive verb, like ‘(something) burns’. The word forms areclassified as follows:
A WrT ’bar-type
B WrT sbar-type
C WrT sreg-type
There are three roots for ‘burn’, all of which correspond to WrT forms: ’bar ‘light up’ (Type A),
sbar ‘burn (something) into ashes’ (Type B), and sreg ‘roast’ (Type C). For the given meaning, Type A
is a straightforward lexical correspondence, and Type B might be considered as a usage not registered in
Literary Tibetan. However, several dialects are losing this kind of morphological derivation and explain
their differences with various light verbs. Type C is a form with a semantic change.
Type A is widespread. Type B is attested in some dialects belonging to the Sems-kyi-nyila groupwith a scattered distribution. As mentioned above, the use of this word form originates from theneutralisation of monovalent and bivalent verbs for the same semantic category; thus, its distribution isrelated to Type A’s distribution. Type C is attested in sPomtserag as well as rTsethong and gYegbam.
They might be independent of each other in the process of semantic change regarding Type C.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘burn’- 128 -85

Road

There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT: lam ‘road’.
The word form uniformly corresponds to WrT lam; however, the pronunciation is principally
divided into two types: /l/-initial and /j/-initial. This difference merely reflects a regular soundcorrespondence in a given dialect. See also 48 Hand.

MAP: Word forms for ‘road’ (monotonous)

- 129 -86

Mountain

A nearly pandialectal word corresponds to WrT ri.
A WrT ri-type
B WrT la-type
C Others
There are more than two roots for ‘mountain’, two of which correspond to WrT ri ‘mountain’ or‘place with dangers’ (Type A) and la ‘mountain path’ (Type B). Type C includes two forms /ɳɖɯ wa/
and /nɑː/; the former is of unclear origin, and the latter is related to WrT nags ‘forest’. Type A includes
various pronunciations; however, they are not reflected on the map. See Suzuki (2009c, 2011e, 2013c)
Type A is nearly pervasive. Type B is only attested in Phula and Bodgrong, and Type C in Dimalo
and sBrulyul. Type B is an individual semantic change in each dialect, and so is Type C. It is noteworthy
that the two dialects in Gongshan County use two different forms, both of which are not the pervasive
form.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘mountain’- 130 -87

Red

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT dmar-type
A1 reduplicated form
A2 with a suffix /sẽ/ or /ɕĩ/
A3 with a suffix other than A2
A4 root only
There is a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT: dmar ‘red’. The word form is either reduplicated(Type A1), with a suffix (Types A2 and A3), or root only (Type A4). Reduplication does not mean arepetition of the same syllable (cf. 89 Yellow, 90 White), and the two syllables are slightly different
from each other in most dialects. Suffixes vary, in which Type A2 includes /sẽ/ or /ɕĩ/, whereas Type A3
includes /ʈʂə/, /tshɐ/, etc.
Type A1 is widespread. Type A2 is mainly found in the rGyalthang area as well as in the area along
the Jinshajiang River. Type A3 is found in the dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup. Type A4 has
a scattered distribution in Sharthang, bLodod, and bTsanri; there is no mutual contact among the threevarieties. The relationship between A1 and A2 does not look like an ABA distribution; however, thedistribution of Type A2 displays an areal feature.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘red’

- 131 -

88

Green

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ljang khu-type
B WrT sngon-type (same as ‘blue’)B1 reduplicated form
B2 with a suffix /sẽ/ or /ɕĩ/
B3 with a suffix other than B2
B4 monosyllabic form
C Others
There are several word forms for ‘green’, in which two correspond to WrT ljang gu ‘green’ (Type A)
and sngon ‘blue’ (Type B). In many dialects, ‘green’ is not clearly distinguished from ‘blue’. Type A isreserved for ‘green’ in WrT, and Type B was originally used for ‘blue’ in WrT; however, it is widelyused for ‘green’ in Yunnan. Unfortunately, the Swadesh list does not contain the word ‘blue’. However,based on my data, dialects using Type A for ‘green’ have a different word form for ‘blue’ (mainly
related to Type B here), whereas those using Type B for ‘green’ also have the same root as the word for‘blue’ (some dialects, however, use different formation to distinguish ‘green’ from ‘blue’). Type C is agroup of words of unclear origin, such as /ˉʈʂhɯ luː mwə/, /ˉtɕhi tɕha/, and /`pə ɕhũ pə ɕhũ/.
Type B2 is widespread but mainly concentrated in the central area of the map. Other types appear
locally, forming, to some extent, independent areas. Type A appears in gTormarong Valley as well as in
the area to the north of rGyalthang. Type B1 is found in the upper area along the Lancangjiang River.
Type B3 appears in the Melung area as well as in rGyalde. Type B4 is attested in the peripheries of therGyalthang area. Type C appears in dialects spoken in the southwestern areas on the map.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘green’- 132 -89

Yellow

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT ser-type
A1 reduplicated form
A2 root only
A3 with a suffix /kha/
There is a pandialectal root that corresponds to WrT ser ‘yellow’. The word form is either
reduplicated (Type A1), root only (Type A2), or with a suffix (Type A3). Type A does not repeat thesame syllable (cf. 87 Red), and the first syllable tends to weaken, forming a schwa. The form oflCagspel is /tsha tsha/, which, in fact, corresponds to WrT ser ser; however, for this word, I do not divide
it from other phonetic forms for the sake of simplicity. See 43 Tooth and 79 Earth for similar cases.
Type A1 is nearly pervasive. Types A2 and A3 are minorities and only appear in some individual
dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘yellow’

- 133 -

90

White

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT dkar-type
A1 reduplicated form
A2 with a suffix /sẽ/ or /ɕĩ/
A3 with a suffix /xwa/
A4 root only
There is a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT: dkar ‘white’. The word form is either
reduplicated (Type A1), with a suffix (Types A2 and A3), or root only (Type A4). Reduplication does
not mean a repetition of the same syllable, and the two syllables are slightly different from each other inmost dialects. See 87 Red for a similar classification.
Type A1 is widespread. Type A2 is mainly found in the area along the Jinshajiang River. Type A3 isfound in dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup. Type A4 appears only in nKhorlo and gNasgsar.
The relationship between A1 and A2 does not look like an ABA distribution; however, the distributionof Type A2 displays an areal feature.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘white’- 134 -

91

Black

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT nag-type
A1 reduplicated form
A2 monosyllabic form
A3 with a suffix /sẽ/, /ɕĩ/ or /dej/
A4 with a suffix /gɔ̃/, /ɦõ/, or /xo/
A5 with a suffix po
There is a pandialectal root corresponding to WrT: nag ‘black’. The word form is either reduplicated(Type A1), root only (Type A2), or with a suffix (Types A3, A4, and A5). Type A1 appears as acomplete reduplication, a repetition of the same syllable, in many cases; however, there is also a case inwhich the two syllables are slightly different from each other. See also 87 Red, 89 Yellow, and 90
White.
Type A1 is widespread. Types A2 and A4 have scattered distribution. Type A3 is attested in someparts along the Jinshajiang River as well as in dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup. Type A3 isfound in dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup. Type A5 appears only in gYagrwa. Type A3 mightreflect an areal feature.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘black’- 135 -

92

Night

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT mtshan-type
B WrT nag-type
C NM-type (/´ȵi mi/, /nʉ mɵʔ/, etc.)
D SG-type (/shə gə/, /ɕhə gə/, etc.)
E MK-type (/m̥a kha/, etc.)
F Others
There are more than five forms used for ‘night’, two of which correspond to WrT forms: mtshan‘night’ (Type A) and nag ‘black’ (Type B; cf. 91 Black). Types C, D, E, and F are of unclear origin.
However, Type C might be related to WrT nub ‘(the sun) set’. Type D is often used for ‘afternoon’ and‘evening’; considering the phonetic variations /shə/ and /ɕhə/, I can claim that the first syllable is related
to the WrT phyi dro ‘afternoon’ counterpart. Type E can denote ‘evening’ in Yunnan Tibetan dialects.
Type F includes the following forms: /´mɯ̃ rɔʔ ^theː neː/ (Nagskerags), /ˉnɑ̃ kha/ (sGogrong), and /´ʔanɯ̃ʔ ´ɦdʑəwʔ/ (Bodgrong). The last one literally means ‘after this evening’.
Type D is relatively widespread. Type A is also widely distributed but in a scattered way. Type B ismainly attested in the Yangthang area. Type C is found in the dialects belonging to the Melung subgroup.
Type E mainly appears in the area along the Jinshajiang River as well as on the northern tip of the area
long the Lancangjing River.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘night’- 136 -93

Warm

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT dro(n)-type
A1 root only
A2 WrT dro(n) mo/po-type
A3 with other affixes
A4 trisyllabic form
B WrT tsha-type
C NL-type (/ɳɖɔʔ li/, /ȵɑ̃ hl̥ eʔ/, etc.)
D Others (same as ‘good’)
There are more than three forms used for ‘warm’, two of which correspond to WrT forms: dro(n)‘warm’ (Type A) and tsha ‘hot’ (Type B). Type A is further classified into four subcategories: root only
(A1), with a suffix mo or po (A2), other affixes (A3), or the trisyllabic form (A4). Types C and D are of
unclear origin.
Type A is widespread, and A2 appears in the widest area. Type A1 is found to the north of therGyalthang area. Types A3 and A4 are attested in the central area of the map. The other types are foundin a marginal way; Types B and C are attested in some dialects spoken along the two rivers, Jinshajiangand Lancangjiang. Type D appears in Weixi County.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘warm’

- 137 -94

Cold

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT grang-type
A1 root only
A2 with a suffix
B WrT ’khyags-type
There are two word forms for ‘cold’, both of which correspond to WrT forms: grang ‘be cold
(endopathic)’ (Type A) and ’khyags ‘freeze’ (Type B). Most varieties of Yunnan Tibetan do not
distinguish the two kinds of ‘cold’ from each other as defined in WrT or attested in other Tibetic
languages (see Tournadre & Suzuki forthcoming). Type B ’khyags is considered as a stative verb andcan take any suffixes for stative verbs.
Types A and B are distributed together throughout the Tibetosphere in Yunnan. In the rGyalthangarea, Type B is used in the central area, and Type A is found in the peripheral areas. This can beconsidered to be an example of ABA distribution. Likewise, in the nJol area, Type B is surrounded byType A; however, in the centre of nJol, Type A is used. This case implies that the centre of nJol is notconsidered as a centre of the language change. Type A2 is attested in a wider area than A1. The
distribution of these two types seems to be independent of each other; it is thus difficult to determine alecixal history regarding Types A and B from the viewpoint of Yunnan Tibetan.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘cold’- 138 -95

Full

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT gang-type
A1 root only
A2 reduplicated form
B WrT mang-type
C WrT rgyas pa-type (/ɦdʑeː pa/, /htɕeʔ pa/, /pə ɦdʑeʔ/ etc.)
D DG-type (/ndə gaː/, /də gaː/, etc.)
There are four types used for ‘full’, three of which correspond to WrT forms: gang ‘be full’ (Type A),
mang ‘many’ (Type B), and rgyas pa ‘fat’ (Type C). The last two forms are also used for ‘many’. See 10
Many. Type D is of unclear origin. The word form gang from Type A is considered to be a stative verb
and can take any suffixes for stative verbs. Type A is further classified into two types; however, thereduplicated form (A2) is a rare case.
Type A is the most widespread. The other types are attested in a scattered way in the peripheral areaof rGyalthang as well as sPomtserag.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘full’- 139 -96

New

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT gsar pa-type
A1 disyllabic form
A2 monosyllabic form
There is a single pandialectal word corresponding to WrT: gsar pa. The word form is either ofdisyllabic (Type A1) or monosyllabic form (Type A2). It is unclear whether Type A2 is a coalescentform or a root only. Type A1 has different phonetic realisations depending on the dialect; these have notbeen applied for classification.
Type A1 is pervasive, and Type A2 can be regarded as an exceptional form only attested inrDolateng and Gyennyemphel. Judging from the distribution of A2, there is no relationship between thetwo dialects. Additionally, these dialects do not have a regular rule of coalescence for two syllables, andthus the word for ‘new’ signifies an independent sound development.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘new’- 140 -97

Good

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT yag-type
B WrT bzang-type
C WrT red-type
D WrT nyan-type
E WrT chog-type
F /pə tsõ/, /pja/-type
G /ɦo/, /wo/, /wa/-type
H others
The word form for ‘good’ has more than seven roots; moreover, some of them exist in a single
dialect to convey different meanings of ‘good’ following semantic categories or degrees of ‘good’. Fiveof them correspond to WrT forms: yag ‘good, beautiful’ (Type A), bzang ‘good, kind-hearted’ (Type B),
red ‘good, correct’ (Type C), nyan ‘good, possible’ (Type D), and chog ‘good, permitted’ (Type E).
Types F, G, and H are of unclear origin. Type H includes such examples as /ˉʔə/̃ (mTshongu) and /´ɦga/(Bodgrong). The form displayed on the map is for ‘this is a good thing’ or ‘good quality’. As anotherexample, ‘good’ for ‘good weather’ often corresponds to Type B in many dialects.
Type A is widespread. Type B mainly appears in the rGyalthang area. Type F is attested in the
periphery of the rGyalthang area. The other types are minorities with scattered distribution. In therGyalthang area, Types A and B seem to form an ABA distribution, and Type A is analysed as a more
recent form than Type B. However, since both Types A and B are of WrT origin, the chronological orderof the lexical change might not be an emergence of a new form, but an influence of other dialects such as
nol through the main traffic route.

- 141 -MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘good’- 142 -

98

Round

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT sgor-type
A1 reduplicatedA2 with a suffix (/re/. /ru/, /lo/, /ro/, /tɕiʔ/, etc.)
B WrT log log-type
There are two forms, both of which correspond to WrT forms sgor ‘round’ (Type A) and log log‘round’ (Type B). Type A is classified into a reduplicated form (Type A1) and one with a suffix (TypeA2). Reduplication does not mean a repetition of the same syllable, and the two syllables are slightly
different from each other in many dialects. For this type of reduplication, see also 87 Red, 89 Yellow, 90
White, and 91 Black.
Type A is nearly pandialectal and A1 is widely attested. Type A2 is mainly found in the area fromgTormarong Valley to Nyishe as well as in an area along the Lancangjiang River. It is difficult to explain
a historical background regarding the distribution of Type B, which is attested in a scattered distribution
in the peripheral area of rGyalthang.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘round’- 143 -99

Dry

The word forms are classified as follows:
A WrT skam-type
A1 with a suffix of which the initial is /b, mb, mb, m/
A2 with a suffix of which the initial is /ɕh, ɕ, t/
A3 root only
The root for ‘dry’ is pandialectal, corresponding to WrT skam ‘dry’. Word forms are either with asuffix corresponding to WrT po or mo (Type A1), with another suffix (Type A2), or root only (Type A3).
Regarding Type A1, we cannot exactly specify which suffix of WrT appears in dialects of Yunnan, since
the first syllable includes a nasal feature on the rhyme and the initial corresponding to the WrT suffix po
can also be pronounced as /m/ in this situation. Type A3 is similar to usage as the stative verb ‘get dry’.
Type A1 is widely attested, and Type A2 principally appears in the area along the Jinshajiang River.
Interestingly, the three types show an ABA distribution in longitude. Type A3 is found in the centre of
the map, surrounded by A2, and A1 is located around the centre. However, this appearance might just bea coincidence. The area along the Jinshajiang River as well as in the dialects belong to the Melung
subgroup. Type A3 is also distributed near Type A2 as well as in the southernmost area. It iscomplicated to consider the central area of the map as the centre of the whole region; hence, we cannot
simply analyse a lexical development of the word ‘dry’, although the lexical forms display an ABA
distribution.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘dry’

- 144 -100 Name
The word forms are classified as follows:
A OT mying-type
A1 monosyllabic form (root only)
A2 disyllabic form
B WrT ming-type
The root for ‘name’ is pandialectal; however, a difference in the sound correspondence with OT(Type A) or WrT (Type B) exists. Type A is further divided into two subcategories: root only (Type A1)
and a form with a suffix (Type A2). Yunnan Tibetan has another fairly common feature in the rhyme.
The rhyme that appears most frequently is /ɔ̃/, which is not a regular sound correspondence with a WrT
rhyme ing. Other than this, one can find /õ/, /ə̃/, etc.
Type A is nearly pandialectal, in which Type A2 only appears in Daan. Type B is only attested in
gYagrwa, the northernmost area of Yunnan, which makes contact with another dialect group of Khams
called the Southern Route (Suzuki 2009a), including the dialects of mBathang and sMarkhams, andgYagrwa uses the common form used in dialects of this group.

MAP: Classification of the word forms for ‘name’- 145 -Index
A. Number of roots or representative word forms
Monotonous type
2 You, 11 One, 30 Blood, 46 Foot, 54 Drink, 57 See, 61 Die, 64 Fly, 66 Come,
69 Stand, 70 Give, 75 Water, 85 Road
One-root (A) type
18 Human, 19 Fish, 20 Bird, 27 Bark, 31 Bone, 33 Egg, 38 Hand, 39 Ear, 41
Nose, 43 Tooth, 44 Tongue, 48 Hand, 65 Walk, 76 Rain, 77 Stone, 86
Mountain, 87 Red, 89 Yellow, 90 White, 91 Black, 96 New, 99 Dry
Two-root (A, B) type
1 I, 8 Not, 21 Dog, 22 Louse, 29 Meat, 34 Horn, 35 Tail, 37 Hair, 40 Eye, 42
Mouth, 45 Fingernail, 52 Heart, 53 Liver, 55 Eat, 59 Know, 62 Kill, 63 Swim,
67 Lie, 72 Sun, 79 Earth, 80 Cloud, 82 Fire, 83 Ash, 94 Cold, 98 Round, 100
Name
Three-root (A-C) type 3 We, 6 Who, 7 What, 12 Two, 23 Tree, 24 Seed, 25 Leaf, 28 Skin, 36 Feather,
50 Neck, 58 Hear, 60 Sleep, 68 Sit, 74 Star, 78 Sand, 81 Smoke, 84 Burn, 88
GreenFour-root (A-D) type
14 Long, 26 Root, 47 Knee, 49 Belly, 56 Bite, 93 Warm, 95 Full
Five-root (A-E) type5 That, 13 Big, 32 Fat, 73 Moon
Six-root (A-F) type
10 Many, 15 Small, 16 Woman, 51 Breast, 92 Night
Seven-root (A-G) type 71 Say
Eight-root (A-H) type 9 All, 17 Man, 97 Good
Nine-root (A-I) type4 ThisB. Number of total classifications
Monotonous 2 You, 11 One, 30 Blood, 46 Foot, 54 Drink, 57 See, 61 Die, 64 Fly, 66 Come, 69 Stand,
70 Give, 75 Water, 85 Road2
19 Fish, 20 Bird, 22 Louse, 27 Bark, 33 Egg, 35 Tail, 38 Hand, 43 Tooth, 44 Tongue, 53
Liver, 55 Eat, 62 Kill, 76 Rain, 96 New
3
1 I, 6 Who, 8 Not, 12 Two, 18 Human, 23 Tree, 29 Meat, 31 Bone, 40 Eye, 45
Fingernail, 52 Heart, 59 Know, 60 Sleep, 65 Walk, 68 Sit, 79 Earth, 80 Cloud, 82 Fire,
84 Burn, 86 Mountain, 89 Yellow, 94 Cold, 98 Round, 99 Dry, 100 Name
4
14 Long, 37 Hair, 41 Nose, 56 Bite, 58 Hear, 63 Swim, 67 Lie, 77 Stone, 78 Sand, 87
Red, 90 White
5
13 Big, 24 Seed, 28 Skin, 32 Fat, 34 Horn, 36 Feather, 39 Ear, 48 Hand, 49 Belly, 72
Sun, 74 Star, 83 Ash, 91 Black, 95 Full
6
5 That, 10 Many, 21 Dog, 42 Mouth, 47 Knee, 50 Neck, 81 Smoke, 88 Green, 92 Night
7
25 Leaf, 26 Root, 71 Say, 93 Warm
8
7 What, 9 All, 15 Small, 51 Breast, 97 Good9
16 Woman, 73 Moon
10
11
4 This12
13
17 Man14
3 We

- 146 -References
Bartee, Ellen Lynn. 2007. A Grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Santa
Barbara.
Beyer, Stephan V. 1992. The Classical Tibetan Language. State University of New York Press.
Chamberlain, Brad. 2015. Linguistic watersheds: A model for understanding variation among the Tibetic
languages. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 8: 71-96. Online:
http://hdl.handle.net/1885/95120
Chen, Kang. 2010. Yiyu Fangyan Yanjiu [Study on Yi dialects]. Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe.
Dauzat, Albert. 1922. La géographie linguistique. Flammarion.
Diqing Zangzu Zizhizhouzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui. 2001. Diqing Zangzu Zizhizhouzhi [Annals of Diqing Tibetan
Autonomous Prefecture]. Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
Ebihara, Shiho, Satoko Shirai, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Keita Kurabe, Kazue Iwasa, and Ikuko Matsuse. 2016. Milk:
Tibeto-Burman.
Studiesin
AsianGeolinguistics
III—Milk—,
14-17.
Online:https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag3_milk_2016.pdf
Endo, Mitsuaki. 2016. Goals of the Project “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics” 2015-2017. Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics I —Sun—, 1-4. Online: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag1_sun_2016.pdf
Gilliéron, Jules et Edmond Edmont. 1902-10. Atlas linguistique de la France. Champion.
Giraudeau, Pierre-Philippe et Françis Louis Noël Goré. 1956. Dictionnaire français-tibétain (Tibet oriental).
Adrien-Maisonneuve.
Grootaers, Willem A. 1976. Nihon no hoogentirigaku no tameni [For studies of dialect geography in Japan].
Heibonsya.
Grootaers, Willem A. 1994. Tyuugoku no hoogentirigaku no tameni [For studies of dialect geography in China].
Koobun Syuppan.
He, Jiquan. 2015. Baidi Bowancun Naxi Dongbawen Diaocha Yanjiu [Study on Naxi Dongba manuscripts in
Bowan hamlet of Baidi]. Minzu Chubanshe.
He, Xudong (ed.). 2001. Lijiang Diqu Minzuzhi [Annals of the Ethnic Groups of Lijiang District]. Yunnan Minzu
Chubanshe.
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 1996. Rgyalthang Tibetan of Yunnan: a preliminary report. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman
Area
19.2:
69-92.
Online:http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/hongladarom1996rgyalthang.pdf
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2000. Rgyalthang Tibetan lexicon and an appraisal of a Southeast Asian wordlist.
Mon-Khmer Studies 30: 83-94. Online: http://sealang.net/archives/mksj/pdf/MKSJ-30.83.pdf
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007a. Grammatical peculiarities of two dialects of Southern Kham Tibetan. In
Roland Bielmeier and Felix Haller eds. Linguistics of the Himalayas and Beyond, 119-152. Mouton de
Gruyter.
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007b. Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
30.2: 17-44. Online: http://sealang.net/archives/ltba/pdf/LTBA-30.2.17.pdf
Hua, Kan. 2002. Zangyu Anduo Fangyan Cihui [Lexicon of Tibetan Amdo Dialects]. Gansu Minzu Chubanshe.
Huang, Bufan ed. 1992. Zangmianyuzu Yuyan Cihui [Tibeto-Burman Lexicon]. Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan
Chubanshe.
Ikeda, Takumi and Pad-ma mTsho-mo. 2014. Diqing Zangyu Mingyong hua yanjiu [Study on the Mingyong
dialect of Dechen Tibetan]. Paper presented at 47th International Conference of Sino-Tibetan Languages and
Linguistics (Kunming)

- 147 -Iwasa, Kazue, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Keita Kurabe, Shiho Ebihara, Satoko Shirai, and Ikuko Matsuse. 2017. Wind:
Tibeto-Burman.
Studiesin
AsianGeolinguistics
IV—Wind—,
9-12.
Online:https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag4_wind_2017.pdf
Iwata, Ray (ed). 2009. Hanyu Fangyan Jieshi Ditu [Interpreted maps of Chinese dialects]. Hakuteisya.
Iwata, Ray (ed). 2012. Hanyu Fangyan Jieshi Ditu (Xuji) [Interpreted maps of Chinese dialects (Continued)].
Koobun Syuppan.
Karma rGyal-mtshan. 2002. mDo-Khams gnas-yig phyogs-bsgrigs dad-bskul lha-dbang rnga-sgra zhes bya-ba
bzhugs-so [A guide to sacred places of mDo Khams]. Minzu Chubanshe.
Klu-sngags dBang-’dus. 2009. Dangdai Yunnan Zangzu Jianshi [Concise history of the contemporary Yunnan
Tibetans]. Yunnan Renmin Chubanshe.
Konchok Gelek. 2017. Variation, contact, and change in language varieties in Yul shul (northern Khams).
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 245: 91-111. [DOI: 10.1515/ijsl-2017-0004]
Kurabe, Keita, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Shiho Ebihara, Satoko Shirai, Kazue Iwasa, and Ikuko Matsuse. 2017. Iron:
Tibeto-Burman.
Studiesin
AsianGeolinguistics
V—Iron—,
9-12.
Online:https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag5_iron_2017.pdf
Les Missionnaires Catholiques du Thibet. 1899. Dictionnaire thibétain-latin-français. Imprimerie de la Sociétédes Missions Étrangères.
Li, Zihe. 2013. Malimasahua gaikuang [Introduction to the Malimasa speech]. Hanzangyu Xuebao 7: 91-117.
Lu, Shaozun. 1990. Zangyu Zhongdianhua de yuyin tedian [Phonetic characteristics of rGyalthang Tibetan].
Yuyan Yanjiu 2: 147-159.
Lu, Shaozun. 1992. Yunnan Zangyu yuyin he cihui jianjie [Introduction to the phonetics and lexicon in Yunnan
Tibetan]. Zangxue Yanjiu Luncong 4: 120-131.
Lu, Shaozun. 2001. Pumiyu Fangyan Yanjiu [Study on Prinmi dialects]. Minzu Chubanshe.
Matisoff, James A. 1978. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman: The “organic” approach to linguisticcomparison. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.
Mu, Yuzhang and Hongkai Sun. 2011. Lisuyu fangyan yanjiu [Study on Lisu dialects]. Minzu Chubanshe.
de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, René. 1956. Oracles and demons of Tibet: the cult and iconography of the Tibetan
protective deities. Mouton.
Pan, Fasheng. 2013. “Jian-Yang-ge” fangyan bufen teshu ciyu ji qi yuyin yanjiu [Study on several peculiar words
and sounds of rGyalthang-Yangtang speech]. In Jianhua Xu ed. Yunnan Zangxue Yanjiu 1: 243-250. Minzu
Chubanshe.
Qu, Aitang. 1991. Zangyu Yunmu Yanjiu [Study on the rhyme of Tibetan]. Xining: Qinghai Minzu Chubanshe.
Qu, Aitang and Xiaojing Jin. 1981. Zangyu fangyan de yanjiu fangfa [Method of the researches in Tibetan
dialects]. Xinan Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao 3: 76-84.
Roche, Gerald. 2017. Introduction: the transformation of Tibet’s language ecology in the twenty-first century.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 245: 91-111. [DOI: 10.1515/ijsl-2017-0001]
Roche, Gerald and Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2017. Mapping the Linguistic Minorities of the Eastern Tibetosphere. Studiesin
Asian
Geolinguistics
VI—MeanstoCount
Nouns—,
28-42.
Online:https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag6_count_2017.pdf
Roche, Gerald and Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2018. Tibet’s minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern
Asian Studies 52.4: 1227-1278. [DOI: 10.1017/S0026749X1600072X]
Shirai, Satoko, Keita Kurabe, Kazue Iwasa, Hiroyuki Suzuki, and Shiho Ebihara. 2016. Sun: Tibeto-Burman.
Studies in Asian Geolinguistics I —Sun—, 14-17. Online: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag1_sun_2016.pdf
Shirai, Satoko, Hiroyuki Suzuki, and Keita Kurabe. 2018a. Semantic shifts in expressions for ‘it rains’ inTibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VIII —It Rains—, 62-76.
Shirai, Satoko, Keita Kurabe, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Kazue Iwasa, and Shiho Ebihara. 2018b. It rains: Tibeto-Burman.
Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VIII —It rains—, 35-38.

- 148 -Sibata, Taskesi. 1969. Gengotirigaku no hoohoo [Methodology of Linguistic Geography]. Tokyo: Tikuma
Syoboo.
bSod-nams rGya-mtsho. 2007. Zailun Zhongdian Zangyu fangyan [Discussion again on rGyalthang Tibetan]. In
Sulang Jiachu Zangxue Wenji, 130-142. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
Sprigg, Richard Keith. 2002. Balti-English English-Balti Dictionary. Abingdon: Routledge.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2004. Tibettogo onsetu koozoo no kenkyuu [Study of the syllable structure in Tibetan]. Journalof Asian and African Studies 61: 1-24. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/20212
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2007a. Sensei Minzoku Sooroo Tibettogo Hoogen Kenkyuu [Study on the Tibetan Dialects
spoken in the Ethnic Corridor of West Sichuan]. Doctoral dissertation, Kyoto University.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2007b. Sensei Minzoku Sooroo Tibettogo hoogen ni okeru “buta” wo arawasu go [Words for‘pig’ in the Tibetan Dialects spoken in the Ethnic Corridor of West Sichuan]. Kyoto University Linguistic
Research 26: 31-57. http://hdl.handle.net/2433/57308
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2008a. Diqing-syuu Lancangjiang ryuuiki Khams-Tibettogo (Deqin/Yunling/Yanmen/Badi
hoogen) no hoogen tokutyoo [Dialectal characteristics of Khams Tibetan (nJol/Yungling/Yanmen/Budy
dialects) spoken along Lancangjiang River of Diqing Prefecture]. Nidaba 37: 115-124. Online:
http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045549
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2008b. Diqing Zangyu shi Kangba Zangyu zhong de “yige” cifangyan ma? [Is Diqing Tibetan“one” dialect subgroup of Khams Tibetan?]. Kangding Minzu Shifan Gaodeng Zhuanke Xuexiao Xuebao 3:
6-10.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2008c. Tibettogo ni okeru “kokoro,” “taiyoo,” “tuki” no hoogentirigakuteki bunseki —“Xianggelila” to sems kyi nyi zla no taioo ni kanren site [Geolinguistic analysis of “heart,” “sun” and “moon”
in Tibetan: with reference to the correspondence between “Shangri-La” and sems kyi nyi zla]. Kyoto University
Linguistics Research 27: 23-48. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2433/73227
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009a. Introduction to the method of the Tibetan linguistic geography — a case study in theEthnic Corridor of West Sichuan. In Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.) Linguistic Substratum in Tibet——New
Perspective towards Historical Methodology (No. 16102001) Report Vol. 3, 15-34. Suita: National Museumof Ethnology. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10502/4341
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009b. Preliminary report on the linguistic geography for multicoloured Tibetan dialects of
Yunnan. In Makoto Minegishi, Kingkarn Thepkanjana, Wirote Aroonmanakun, and Mitsuaki Endo eds.
Proceedings of the Chulalongkorn-Japan Linguistics Symposium, 267-279. Fuchu: Global COE Program‘Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education,’ Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009c. Deux remarques à propos du développement du ra-btags en tibétain parlé. Revue
Online:d’étudestibétaines
16:
75-82.
http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_16_03.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009d. Origin of non-Tibetan words in Tibetan dialects of the Ethnic Corridor in West Sichuan.
In Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.) Issues in Tibeto-Burman Historical Linguistics, 71-96. Suita: National Museum of
Ethnology. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10502/4242
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009e. Diqing-syuu Jinshajiang ryuuiki Khams-Tibettogo (Benzilan/Nixi/
Tuoding/Xiaruo/Qizong hoogen) no hoogen tokutyoo [Dialectal characteristics of Khams Tibetan(sPomtserag/Nyishe/Thangteng/Byagzhol/Qizong dialects) spoken along Jinshajiang River of Diqing
Prefecture]. Nidaba 38: 29-38. Online: http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045550
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009f. Naxi bunkaken no Tibettogo Yongsheng-ken Daan [Daan] hoogen no hoogen syozoku[Dialectal position of Daan Tibetan spoken in the Naxi cultural area]. Bulletin of National Museum of
Ethnology 34.1: 167-189. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10502/4118
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2009g. Khams-Tibettogo Benzilan [sPomtserag] hoogen no onsei bunseki [Khams TibetansPomtserag dialect: phonetic analysis]. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 4: 219-258.
Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/61392
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2010a. Khams-Tibettogo Xianggelila-ken Langdu [Lamdo] hoogen no hoogen syozoku[Dialectal position of Lamdo [Langdu] Tibetan spoken in Shangri-La County]. Bulletin of National Museum of
Ethnology 35.1: 231-264. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10502/4484

- 149 -Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2010b. Khams-Tibettogo Weixi-Tacheng [mThachu] hoogen ni okeru sorisitaka boin — sono
onseigakuteki tokutyoo no kizyutu to bunseki [Retroflex vowels in the mThachu dialect of Melung group of
Khams Ti betan: description and analysis of their phonetic characteristics]. Kyoto University Linguistics
Research 29: 27-42. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2433/141808
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011a. Khams-Tibettogo Gagatang-Shaoluo [Zhollam] hoogen no bunpoo suketti [Grammaticalsketch of the Zhollam dialect of Khams Tibetan]. RIHN Descriptive Linguistics Series 3: 1-35. Online:
http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000837/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011b. Sisen-Unnan kyookaibu Jinshajiang-ryuuiki no Khams-Tibettogo ni okeru yuukion no
mukika gensyoo [Deaspiration of the aspirated initial in Khams Tibetan dialects spoken along JinshajiangRiver at the Sichuan-Yunnan boundary]. Nidaba 40: 75-81. Online: http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045555
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011c. Deux remarques supplémentaires à propos du développement du ra-btags en tibétain
parlé.
Revued’étudestibétaines
20:
123-133.
Online:http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_20_05.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011d. Gagatang Zangyu de yanhua yuanyin yu qi laiyuan [Pharyngealised vowels in Gagatang
Tibetanandtheir
origin].
Language
andLinguistics
12.2:
477-500.
Online:http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2011_2_06_7879.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011e. Zai yinbian guocheng zhong chansheng you xiaoshi de ruanehua yuanyin — Yunnan
Deqin Yanmenxiang Guzha Zangyu zhi li [Velarised vowels produced and disappearing in the process of thephonetic change — example of sGograg Tibetan spoken in Yanmen, Deqin, Yunnan]. Kyoto University
Linguistics Research 30: 35-49. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2433/159068
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011f. Khams-Tibettogo Xiaozhongdian-Jinianpi [Yangthang/Gyennyemphel] hoogen no onsei
bunseki [Khams Tibetan Yangthang/Gyennyemphel dialect: phonetic analysis]. Asian and African Languages
and Linguistics (AALL) 6: 137-173. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/69377
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012a. Khams-Tibettogo Yanmen-Siga [Sakar] hoogen no bunpoo suketti [Grammatical sketchof the Sakar dialect of Khams Tibetan]. RIHN Descriptive Linguistics Series 4: 123-158. Online:
http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000849/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012b. Kamutibettogo Sangdam hoogen no onsei bunseki to sono hoogen tokutyoo [Phonetic
analysis of Khams Tibetan Sangdam dialect and its dialectal characteristics]. Journal of Asian African Studies
83: 37-58. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/69336
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012c. Diqing-syuu Xianggelila-ken tyuuooiki Khams-Tibettogo (Jiantang/Xiaozhongdian/Geza) no hoogen tokutyoo [Dialectal characteristics of Khams Tibetan (rGyalthang/Yangthang/sKadgrag
dialects) spoken in the central area of Xianggelila County of Diqing Prefecture]. Nidaba 41: 61-70. Online:
http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045556
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012d. Khams-Tibettogo Xianggelila-ken Bala [mBalhag] hoogen no hoogen tokutyoo[Dialectal characteristics of mBalhag [Bala] Tibetan spoken in Shangri-La County]. Bulletin of National
Museum of Ethnology 37.1: 53-90. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10502/4929
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012e. Tibetan pigs revisited : multiple piglets with a sow in Yunnan Tibetan and beyond.
Papers from the First International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics, 79-88.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012f. Khams-Tibettogo Yunling-Chalitong [Tsharethong] hoogen no onsei bunseki [Khams
Tibetan Tsharethong dialect: phonetic analysis]. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 7:
155-194. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/73110
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2012g. Gansu-syoo Gannan-syuu Zhuoni-ken no Tibettogo hoogen ni tuite---Zoobun taioukeisiki kara mita Zhagulu [Bragkhoglung] hoogen no hoogen tokutyoo [On the Tibetic dialects in ConeCounty, Gannan Prefecture, Gansu Province---Dialectal characteristics of the Bragkhoglung dialect seen fromthe sound correspondences with Written Tibetan]. Kyoto University Linguistic Research 31: 1-23. Online:
http://hdl.handle.net/2433/182195
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013a. Kamutibettogo sDerong-nJol (Deirong Deqin) hoogengun no syohoogen ni okeru
zyakukyoogata no inritu tokutyoo to bunsetuon ni mieru sono han-eikei [Prosodic feature as an iambic patternattested in dialects of the sDerong-nJol group of Khams-Tibetan and its reflecting phonemena on thesegmental feature]. RIHN Descriptive Linguistic Journal 5: 1-15. Online: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000854/

- 150 -Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013b. The words for ‘rain’ and ‘wind’ in Tibetic languages spoken in the Ethnic Corridor.
Papers from the First Annual Meeting of the Asian Geolinguistic Society of Japan, 58-67.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013c. Yunnan Weixi Zangyu de r-jieyin yuyin yanbian — jiantan “erhua” yu “jinhou” zhijiaocha guanxi [Sound changes of r-glide in Weixi Tibetan of Yunnan: With a comment on a crossing relationof “rhotacisation” and “tense-throated”]. Dongfang Yuyanxue 13: 20-35.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013d. Khams-Tibettogo Geza-Pushang [Phuri] hoogen no hoogen tokutyoo [Dialectal
characteristics
of
Khams
TibetanPhuri
dialect].
Nidaba42:
60-69.
Online:http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045558
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013e. Extraordinary sound development of *s and *z in mBalhag Tibetan (Shangri-La,
Yunnan).
Linguistics
oftheTibeto-Burman
Area
36.1:
101-110.
Online:http://sealang.net/archives/ltba/pdf/LTBA-36.1.101.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2013f. Khams-Tibettogo Tacheng-Gedeng [sKobsteng] hoogen no onsei bunseki [Khams
Tibetan sKobsteng dialect: phonetic analysis]. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 8:
123-161. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/75672
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014a. Khams-Tibettogo Xiaozhongdian-Chuiyading [Choswateng] hoogen no bunpoo suketti[Grammatical sketch of the Choswateng dialect of Khams Tibetan]. RIHN Descriptive Linguistics Series 6:
1-40. Online: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000860/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014b. Khams-Tibettogo Xianggelila-ken Xiaozhongdian-xiang Chuiyading [Choswateng]hoogen no onsei bunseki to goi : rGyalthang kaihoogengun ni okeru hoogen sai ni kansuru koosatu wo soete[Phonetic analysis of Choswateng [Chuiyading] Tibetan spoken in Shangri-La County and its word list: withreference to dialectal variations in the rGyalthang subgroup]. Bulletin of National Museum of Ethnology 39.1:
45-122. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10502/5401
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014c. Yunnan Zanyu tuhua zhong de teshu shuci xingshi: qi dili fenbu yu lishi laiyuan [Special
forms of the numerals in the vernaculars of Yunnan Tibetan: their geographical distribution and historicalorigin]. Nankai Yuyan Xuekan 2: 68-76.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014d. Nujiang-syuu no Khams Tibetto-go Bingzhongluo [Bodgrong] hoogen no hoogen
tokutyoo [Dialectal characteristics of Bodgrong [Bingzhongluo] Tibetan spoken in Nujiang Prefecture].
Nidaba 43: 40-49. Online: http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045559
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2014e. Niru Zangyu de xiaosheyin shengmu yu qi Zangwen duiying guilü [Uvular initials in
Myigzur Tibetan and their sound correspondence with Written Tibetan]. Dongfang Yuyanxue 14: 1-12.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2015a. Malimasayu Chuanchuhua yuyin fenxi [Phonetic analysis of Malimasa Chuanchu
dialect]. Naxixue Yanjiu 1: 245-256.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2015b. Dongfang Zangqu Zhuyuyan Yanjiu [Study on Languages in the Eastern Tibetosphere].
Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016a. A geolinguistic description of terms for ‘sun’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern
Tibetosphere.
Studiesin
AsianGeolinguistics
I—Sun—,
79-85.
Online:https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag1_sun_2016.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016b. A geolinguistic description of terms for ‘rice’ in Tibetic languages of the eastern
Tibetosphere.
Studiesin
AsianGeolinguistics
II—Rice—,
52-59.
Online:https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag2_rice_2016.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016c. Zangyu fangyanxue yanjiu yu yuyan ditu: Ruhe kandai Kang fangyan [Study on Tibetan
dialectology and linguistic maps: How to deal with “Khams dialects”]. Minzu Xuekan 2: 1-13+92-94.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016d. /ɟ/ ga kataru on-henkasi—Kamutibettogo Shangri-La hoogengun ni okeru kookoogai
keiretu onso ni tuite no oboegaki— [Phonological history indicated by /ɟ/ --- Notes on the phonemes of palatal
series in the Sems-kyi-nyila group of Khams Tibetan]. Journal of Kijutsuken 8: 91-103. Online:
http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000898/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016e. Geolinguistic analysis of ‘milk’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere. Studies
in Asian Geolinguistics III —Milk—, 30-35. Online: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag3_milk_2016.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016f. In defense of prepalatal non-fricative sounds and symbols: towards the Tibetan
dialectology. Researches in Asian Languages 10: 99-125. Online: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1085/00002195/

- 151 -Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2016g. Xianggelila Zangyu Yalanghua de biyin xitong [Nasal system of the gYaglam dialect ofShangri-La Tibetan]. Dongfang Yuyanxue 16: 115-123.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017a. The vitality of Khams Tibetan varieties in Weixi County. Asian Highlands Perspectives
44: 256-284. Online: https://tibetanplateau.wikischolars.columbia.edu/VOLUME+44
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017b. Kamutibettogo Wengshang [dNgo] hoogen no ontaikei ni kansuru oboegaki [Remarkson the sound system of the dNgo dialect of Khams Tibetan]. Nidaba 46: 35-43. Online:
http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045562
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017c. The evidential system in Zhollam Tibetan. Lauren Gawne and Nathan W. Hill eds.
Evidential Systems in Tibetan Languages, 423-444. Mouton de Gruyter.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017d. On-in gensyoo no ABA bunpu wo meguru kaisyakuno hoohoo to sono zissai—Tibetto
bunkaken nantootan no Kamutibettogo wo rei ni [Method of an interpretation regarding an ABA distributionof phonological phenomena: An example of Khams Tibetan spoken in the southeastern edge of the
Tibetosphere]. Journal of Kijutsuken 9: 43-64. Online: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000911/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017e. Geolinguistic analysis of ‘wind’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern Tibetosphere. Studies
in Asian Geolinguistics IV —Wind—, 27-32. Online: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag4_wind_2017.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017f. Historical development of Bodgrong Tibetan (Gongshan, Yunnan): From a geolinguistic
perspective. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VI —Means to Count Nouns—, 43-55. Online:
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag6_count_2017.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2017g. Additional remarks on ‘sun’ in Yangthang Tibetan: gnam lha and nangs lha. Studies in
AsianGeolinguistics
VII
—Tone
and
Accent—,50-51.
Online:https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag7_tone_2017.pdf
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2018a. Kamutibettogo Mangkang Jiangzhong [sMarling] hoogen no hoogen tokutyoo. Nidaba
47: 41-49. Online: http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00045563
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2018b. Xianggelila-si hokubu no Kamu-tibettogo syohoogen no hoogen tokutyoo to sono keisei[Dialectal variation and development of Khams Tibetan in northern Shangri-La Municipality]. Journal of
Asian and African Studies 95: 5-63. Online: http://repository.tufs.ac.jp/handle/10108/92458
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2018c. Litangxian ji qi zhoubian Zangzu yuyan xianzhuang diaocha yu fenxi [Investigation of
Tibetans’ languages in Lithang County and its surroundings: Current situation and an analysis]. Minzu Xuekan
2: 35-44+106-109.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2018d. Kamutibettogo rGyalthang kaihoogengun ni okeru si-sikeion no zenbukookoogaika
gensyoo to sono syuuhen [Prepalatalisation of denti-alveolar sounds and its relevant phenomena in therGyalthang subgroup of Khams Tibetan]. Journal of Kijutsuken 10: 1-11. Online:
http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00001999/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2018e. Kangba Zangyu Bengbogang fangyanqun ji qi yuyin tezheng [sPomborgang dialectgroup of Khams Tibetan and its phonetic features]. Sichuan Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao, in press.
Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Lozong Lhamo. 2017. Where is a negative marker? A geolinguistic approach towards agrammaticalisation process in Khams Tibetan. Paper presented at Methods in Dialectology XVI (Tachikawa)Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Lozong Lhamo. to appear. /ka-/ negative prefix in Choswateng Tibetan (Shangri-La,
Yunnan).
Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo. 2017. Language evolution and vitality of Lhagang Tibetan: a Tibetic
language as a minority in Minyag Rabgang. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 245: 63-90.
[DOI: 10.1515/ijsl-2017-0003]
Suzuki, Hiroyuki and rTa-mgrin Chos-mtsho. 2012. Deqin-ken Yunling-kyoo no Kamutibettogo ni okeru
syoometu no kiki ni hinsiteiru kamosirenai sikeihasatuon ni tuite---Hoogensa to hendaisa to kozinsa no aidade[On the alveolar affricates which may face to endangerment in the Khams Tibetan dialects spoken in YunlingTownship, Deqin County]. RIHN Descriptive Linguistic Circle Journal 4: 159-163. Online:
http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000850/
Suzuki, Hiroyuki, Satoko Shirai, Keita Kurabe, Kazue Iwasa, Shiho Ebihara, and Ikuko Matsuse. 2016a. Rice
plant: Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics II —Rice—, 12-14. Online:
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag2_rice_2016.pdf

- 152 -Suzuki, Hiroyuki, Keita Kurabe, Kazue Iwasa, Satoko Shirai, Shiho Ebihara, and Ikuko Matsuse. 2016b.
Geolinguistic analysis of ‘rice’ in Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics II —Rice—, 37-51. Online:
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag2_rice_2016.pdf
Swadesh, Morris. 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language. Ed. post mortem by Joel Sherzer. Aldine.
Thurgood, Graham. 2017. Sino-Tibetan: genetic and areal subgrouping. In Graham Thurgood and Randy J.
LaPolla eds. The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Second Edition, 3-39. Routledge.
Tokugawa, Munemasa. 1993. Gengotirigaku no tenkai [Development of geolinguistics]. Hituzi Syobo.
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2005. L’aire linguistique tibétaine et ses divers dialectes. Lalies 25: 7-56.
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith and Nathan W.
Hill eds. Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area,
105-129. Walter de Gruyter.
Tournadre, Nicolas and Randy J. LaPolla. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 37.2: 240-263. [DOI: 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou]
Tournadre, Nicolas and Hiroyuki Suzuki. forthcoming. The Tibetic Languages: An Introduction to the Family of
Languages Derived from Old Tibetan (with the collaboration of Xavier Becker and Alain Brucelles for the
cartography)
Wang, Feng. 2008. Baiyu fangyan cihui [Lexicon of Bai dialects]. In Lin Xu ed. Dali Congshu: Baiyu pian,1437-2490. Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
Wang, Hengjie. 1995. Diqing Zangzu Shehuishi [History of the Diqing Tibetan Society]. Zhongguo Zangxue
Chubanshe.
Wang, Lan. 2017. Yunnan Deqin Zangyu Yanjiu [Study on Yunnan Dechen Tibetan]. Doctoral dissertation,
Shanghai Shifan Daxue.
Wang, Xiaosong. 1996. Prolegomenon to Rgyalthang Tibetan phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
19.2: 55-67. Online: http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf4/wang1996prolegomenon.pdf
Wang, Xiaosong. 2008. Dui Zhongdian Zangyu fangyan de cuqian renshi — Cong yuyin shang kan Zhongdian
fangyan de tedian he guilü [Brief introduction to the Tibetan dialect of rGyalthang — Characteristics and rulesof the rGyalthang dialect from the viewpoint of sounds]. Wang Xiaosong Zangxue Lunwenji, 368-378. Yunnan
Minzu Chubanshe.
Wenker, Georg und Ferdinand Wrede. 1895. Der Sprachatlas des deutschen Reichs. Dichtung und Wahrheit. N. G.
Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Wu, Guangfan. 2009. Diqing Xianggelila Lüyou Fengwuzhi — Yanzhe Diming de Xiansuo [Annals on the
Tourism Scenery in Diqing Xianggelila with an Annotation of Local Names]. Yunnan Renmin Chubanshe.
Wylie, Turrel Verl. 1962. The geography of Tibet according to the ’Dzam-gling-rgyas-bshad: Text and English
translation. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
Xue, Caide. 2006. Annan Shuimofang Hanyu yufa de jiechu bianyi [Changes of the Chinese grammar of Annan
Shuimofang due to language contact]. Yunnan Minzu Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue Shehuikexue ban) 5: 224-228.
Yunnan Shengzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui. 1989. Yunnan Shengzhi 58 Hanyu Fangyan Zhi [Annals of Yunnan
Province 58 On Chinese Dialects]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
Yunnan Shengzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui. 1998. Yunnan Shengzhi 59 Shaoshuminzu Yuyan Wenzi Zhi [Annals of
Yunnan Province 59 Languages and Scripts of the Ethnic Minority Groups]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu
Chubanshe.
Yunnansheng Zhongdian Difangzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui ed. 1997. Zhongdian Xianzhi [Annals of Shangri-La
County]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
Zhang, Jichuan. 1993. Zangyu fangyan fenlei guanjian [Overview of the classification of Tibetan dialects]. In
Qingxia Dai et al. eds. Minzu Yuwen Lunwenji — Qingzhu Ma Xueliang Xiansheng Bashi Shouchen Wenji,
297-309. Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe.
Zhang, Jichuan. 1996. A sketch of Tibetan dialectology in China : classifications of Tibetan dialects. Cahiers de
Linguistique - Asie Orientale 25.1: 115-133.

- 153 -Zhang, Jichuan. 2009. Zangyu Cizu Yanjiu — Gudai Zangzu Ruhe Fengfu Fazhan Tamen de Cihui [Study on the
Word Family of Tibetan — How the ancient Tibetans Enriched Their Vocabulary]. Shehuikexue Wenxian
Chubanshe.
Zhao, Jincan and Yupeng Li. 2014. Jiantang Zangyu shengdiao shiyan [Experiment of the tone in rGyalthang
Tibetan]. Sichuan Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao 1: 64-68.
Zhou, Yang. 2018. Yunnan Shuimofanghua de gebiaoji ji qi laiyuan [Case markers and their origin in the
Shuimofang dialect in Yunnan]. Fangyan 3: 357-369.
Zhou, Yang. forthcoming. Shuimofanghua panduanju de hunhe tezheng [The hybridity of copula constructions in
the Shuimofang dialect]. Yuyan Yanjiu.
Zhu, Xiaonong. 2010. Yuyinxue [Phonetics]. Shangwu Yinshuguan.