Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics
VI

ILCAA 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 VI“Means to count nouns” in Asian Languages
Report of ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015–2017“Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
First published 2017
Edited by Keita Kurabe & Mitsuaki Endo
Copyright © 2017 Individual Contributors

ISBN 987-4-86337-266-5
This is an electronic publication in PDF format.
This publication is offered under Creative Commons International License
Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Published by
Research Institute for
Languages and Cultures ofAsia and Africa (ILCAA)
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
3-11-1, Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi,
183-8534, Tokyo, JAPANhttps://publication.aa-ken.jp/

Table of Contents“Means to count nouns” in Asian Languages
Ryo MATSUMOTO, Classifiers in Tungusic and Uralic ……………………………………………… 1
Hidetoshi SHIRAISHI, Classifiers in Nivkh ……………………………………………………… 3
Mika FUKAZAWA, Means to count nouns in Ainu ……………………………………………… 5
Rei FUKUI, Means to count nouns in Korean …………………………………………………… 7
Yoshihisa TAGUCHI, Classifiers in Hmong-Mien ……………………………………………… 9
Keita KURABE, Hiroyuki SUZUKI, Satoko SHIRAI, Kazue IWASA, Shiho EBIHARA, and Ikuko
MATSUSE, Means to count nouns in Tibeto-Burman ………………………………………… 11
Mitsuaki ENDO, Means to count nouns in Tai-Kadai …………………………………………… 15
Makoto MINEGISHI, Means to count nouns in Austroasiatic languages ……………………… 17
Noboru YOSHIOKA, Means to count nouns in South Asia ……………………………………… 19
Yoichi NAGATO, Means to count nouns: Arabic languages …………………………………… 21
References ……………………………………………………………………………………… 23
ArticlesGerald ROCHE and Hiroyuki SUZUKI, Mapping the Minority Languages of the Eastern
Tibetosphere …………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Hiroyuki SUZUKI, Historical Development of Bodgrong [Bingzhongluo] Tibetan (Gongshan,
Yunnan): From a Geolinguistic Perspective ………………………………………………… 43
Hiroyuki SUZUKI and Sonam Wangmo, Additional Remarks on Counting ‘One’ Noun in Lhagang
Tibetan …………………………………………………………………………………… 56

Cover photo:
The giant Marionette Watch at Melbourne Central, Melbourne, Australia; taken by Keita Kurabe on July 19,2017.

Classifiers in Tungusic and Uralicexample ilalla can be expressed also by the analytic
form as ilan anŋani “3 days”, and are used as nouns
or adverbs.

1. General feature
There are no classifiers in Tungusic and Uraliclanguages. Numerals function as both nouns andadjectives. Numerals decline the same as nouns, inwhich case the case endings are attached to them.
They modify nouns by preceding them. In suchmodifying constructions, there are no particular
grammatical words between the numeral and thefollowing noun.

(Ryo Matsumoto)

2. Grammatical feature
Numerals precede nouns, as adjectives do. In
Balto-Finnic numerals above “2” appear with thenouns in partitive case and the numerals are in
nominative:
Finn.

Finn.

yksi

pieni

tyttö

one_NOM little_NOM“one little girl (Nom.)”

girl_NOM

kaksi
pientä
two_NOM little_PART“two little girls (Nom.)”

tyttöä
girl_PARTSuch grammatical constructions also exist in some
Baltic and Slavic languages of the Indo-European
family,which
geographicallyneighbor
theBalto-Finnic languages. Some research suggests that
this construction results from linguistic contact withthese Slavic languages.
. Special derivational forms in Evenki and Ewen
Tungusic languages have abundant affixes, which
include a few affixes that stand for collective nouns
similar to classifiers.
Here are the Evenki derivational forms of thenumeral ilan (ila-) “3”:ilalla“3 days”
ilannu “3 yurts (= a tent for nomad people)”
ilanmusa “3 places”
ilaragda “3 pieces”
ilaŋna“3 animals”
ilani“3 people”
ilači“3-year-old”
These forms are not necessarily in use, forMap1. Non-classifier languages in Tungusic and UralicClassifiers in Nivkh

engaged in this inter-ethnic than the Sakhalin
Nivkhs (see Shiraishi and Tangiku forthcoming on
the languages used in Santan trading).

1. General description
Nivkh is known for its rich inventory ofclassifiers. Kreinovich (1934: 202-203) counts
twenty four classes and Panfilov twenty six(1962: 181-183). As these authors list different
kinds of classes, the number of classes
proliferates to at least thirty, as Mattisen (2003:15) points out. These classes cover animacy(human being, dogs), shape (small round, thin flat,
long objects, etc.), salient everyday objects (boats,
sleds, nets, fishing equipment, poles, ropes,
boards, etc.) or sets (pairs, portions of food,family, etc.). In addition, there are classifiers
referring to abstract notions such as counting (ingeneral) or multiplicity (once, twice…)(Kreinovich 1934).
Morphologically, a classifier forms a freemorpheme with a preceding numeral element,
which is itself a bound morpheme. For instance,ɲim ‘one boat’ consists of a numeral element ɲiand a classifier element -m, the latter associable toa free morpheme mu, meaning ‘boat’. This
numeral-classifier complex is a free morpheme
entering into a syntactic constellation with a headnoun. The order of morphemes within thisconstellation differs per number: from one to five,the order is [head noun]-[numeral-classifier], as inʧʰχa nik ‘one rouble’. This contrasts with the caseof numbers above five, in which the order isreversed: ŋaχ kumusk ‘six roubles’ (Kreinovich
1934: 204). According to Kreinovich, the latter isan innovation, which developed under the
influence of Russian or Chinese, from the periodthat the Nivkh were engaged in the inter-ethnic
trading (known as Santan trading in Japanese
literature, see Sasaki 1996 for an overview). As asupport for this hypothesis, Krenovich points tothe fact that the word for ‘money’ above five
kumusk, which is a loan from the Russianbumazhka ‘bank note’, is absent in the Sakhalin
dialect where ʧʰχa is the only word for money. In
general, the Amur Nivkhs were more intensively

2. Geographical distribution
The map illustrates the distribution of ‘one
person’. Like any other class, this morpheme
consists of a numeral element (coronal nasal
stop+V) and a classifier element (coronal nasal).
The latter is associable to ɲivx ‘human being’.
There are seven forms reported in literature. We
classify them into two types according to the typeof vowel ([i] or [e]).
Type APlace

1. ɲiɲ

Khuzi, Kol-Nikol’sk

2. ɲinTyk

3. ninKal’maType BPlace

4. ɲeɲ

Machula5. ɲenTen’gi, Kuegda, Baidukov

6. ɲenŋ

Trambaus, Chir-Unvd, Nyjvo, Chaivo,
Tygmuch7. ɲɨɲ

Menshinikova

The geographic distribution of Type A and B
follows the classic taxonomy of Nivkh dialects
which dates back to Shternberg (1900) andKreinovich (1934): the Amur dialect, spoken in
the lower reaches of the Amur River and the
Sakhalin dialect spoken on Sakhalin. Comparing
the vowels, the Sakhalin dialect forms have [e]while the Amur dialect forms have [i], although
there are some places which do not conform tothis pattern, such as ɲen in Machula (Amur).
The final –ŋ in the Sakhalin forms and its absencein Amur is a widely-observed inter-dialectal
variation, e.g. qanŋ (Sakhalin) vs. qan (Amur)‘dog’.
Keywords: Nivkh, classifier, numeral(Hidetoshi Shiraishi)‘one person’ in NivkhMeans to count nouns in Ainu
1. Classification of word forms
Ainu has two numeral classifiers (CLFs) thatprovide a two-way division of nouns (Ns) into HUMAN
and NON-HUMAN (Aikhenvald 2003: 286). For humannouns, the CLF -n after vowels or -iw after the
consonant /n/ attaches to a numeral (NUM) as a suffix;
for non-human nouns, the CLF -p after vowels or -pe
after consonants is used (Tamura 2000: 255-257). The
forms of CLFs are divided into three subtypes asfollows:
A. N [NUM-CLF] type:‘eleven things’b) siné-p ikásma wán sike
one-CLF exceed ten bag‘eleven bags’c) siné suma ikásma wán suma
one stone exceed ten stone‘eleven stones’
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
The subtypes of A-1 to A-3 follow thephonological correspondences among the Ainu
dialects. In Bihoro, the eastern-most Hokkaido dialect,/-uy/ of A-2 corresponding to /-iw/ of A-1, c.f., theword for ‘yellow’ is suynin in Bihoro, but siwnin inother Hokkaido dialects. Furthermore, /-h/ of A-3 in
Sakhalin was phonetically changed from /-p. -t, -k, -r/in Hokkaido. One speaker of the Raichishka dialect in
Sakhalin often used the noun aynu ‘human’ instead of
the human CLF -n/-iw (Hattori 1964, Murasaki 1979);
however, in some materials of the other Sakhalin
dialects, the human CLF seems to be used.
The non-human CLF, -p/-pe, means ‘thing,’ and thiscan be also used for a nominalizer. Tamura (2000: 256)
mentions “it is sometimes also be used for people whoare held in contempt.” Moreover, in Hokkaido,
demonstrative and indefinite/interrogative pronouns
are also suffixed with the same classifiers: tan-pe‘this,’ ne-p ‘what, some-/any-thing,’ ne-n ‘who, some/any-one.’
With respect to the word for units, see Table 1 and
2 (c.f. Tamura 1996, 2000, Murasaki 1979). Note that,regarding the units of Time on Table 1, to was used
only for ‘one day’ around the 1960s and 1970s, e.g.,siné to ‘one day,’ tútko ‘two days,’ rérko ‘three days,’and íne rerko ‘four days.’ However, recently, to has
been used to count days: e.g., siné to ‘one day,’ tu tó‘two days,’ re tó ‘three days,’ and íne to ‘four days.’(Tamura 2000: 258). Originally, tutko and rerko could
be composed of tu-tu-ko ‘two-two-(day?)’ and re-re-ko‘three-three-(day?)’ respectively, so that -ko may bealso defined as an old CLF.

A-1. -p/-pe; -n/-iw
A-2. -p/-pe; -n/-uy
A-3. -h/-pe (; -n/-iw)

Ending with the consonant /-n/ are the NUMs of six
to ten, since they are thought to be made by counting
distance from wan ‘ten’ (c.f. Tamura 2000: 254).
NUM-CLFsa) siné-p ikásma wán-pe
one-CLF exceed ten-CLF

Origins(< si-ne ‘truly-COP’)

1: siné-p/-n
2: tú-p/-n
3: ré-p/-n
4: íne-p/-n(< i-ne ‘four-COP’)
5: asíkne-p/-n(< asik-ne ‘hand-COP’)
6: iwán-pe/-iw(< i-wan ‘four-ten’)7: árwan-pe/-iw (< ar-wan ‘three-ten’)
8: tupésan-pe/-iw (<tu-pes-(w)an ‘two-piece-ten’)
9: sinépesan-pe/-iw (< sine-pes-(w)an ‘one-piece-ten’)10: wán-pe/-iw
20: hótne-p/-n(< hot-ne ‘twenty-COP’)
The boundary “six” is a special numeral that “isoften used to express the idea ‘much’ or ‘many,’” since
it is “greater than the number of fingers of one hand”(Tamura 2000: 260): iwán kotan ‘many villages (lit.
six village).’ Ainu uses the vigesimal and decimal
numeral system, and then “numbers such as eleven are
made using ikásma” (Tamura 2000: 257).
The NUMs in Ainu are adnominally used, so that in
the NUM plus N construction, the occurrence of CLFs is
optional (Gil 2013) and depends on the word order: N[NUM-CLF] or NUM-N: a) double marked type, b) mixed
type, c) none (NUM N type).

Keywords: numeral classifier, humanness(Mika Fukazawa)



Word

Unit (Counting things) < Source
Distance (ri 㔛)
icíri< J. iciri ୍㔛 ‘1 ri = approx. 2.5
miles, 4km’
Time (hour)
icícikan< J. icizikan ୍᫬㛫 ‘1 hour’Time (hour)tokii< J. toki ᫬ ‘time’
Volume (hyô ಥ)tará/tapara< J. tawara ಥ ‘straw bag’; 1 hyô =60 kg for rice.
Volume (shô ༖)< J. cyôba ᖒሙ ‘counting house’;cónpa/conpay
The accountant in cyôba used masu
༖ for measure; ‘1 shô = 1.8 litres’
Money (sen 㖹)
icén< J. issen ୍㖹 ‘1 sen = 0.01 yen’
Money (ryô ୧)
icíryo< J. iciryô ୍୧ ‘1 ryô (old Japaneseunit) = 1 yen ෇’
Table 2. Loanwords for units from Japanese (J)Word

Unit (Counting things) < Source
Length (about 3 cm)ík< ‘knot; node; joint’
Length (about 15 cm)
wó/woo < ‘the distance between the spreadthumb and index finger’
Length (about 5 feet)< ‘arm; the span or distance between
tém
the tips of fists when the arms are
stretched out’rérkoTime (day) < ‘3 days’
tó/too Time (day) < ‘1 day’
Times (repetition of action)-suy< ‘again; once more’
Table 1. Examples of the Unit in Ainu

Map 1. Means to count nouns in Ainu
A. N [NUM-CLF] type:

A-1. -p/-pe; -n/-iw
A-2. -p/-pe; -n/-uy
A-3. -h/-pe (; -n/-iw)Means to count nouns in Koreanclassifiers is not obligatory in this language.
However, sentences without a classifier havevarious restrictions. For example, the type in (1a)seems to allow only human nouns:

1. Syntactic construction of numeric expressions
Korean is a language with extensive use of classifiers.
Before discussing what kind of classifiers there are
and how they are used in this language, we would first
briefly summarize numeric expressions in general inthis language.
In Korean, there are four types of numericexpressions as shown in (1) (taken from Lee andRamsey (2000: 97–98)):(2)
a. ?Kay seys-i wassta.
dog 3-Nom. came (Three dogs came.)b. ?Chayk twul-i issta.
book 2-Nom. be (There are two books.)Also, the type shown in (1c) has the following
restrictions. For example, expressions in (3a) are usedbut (3b) are difficult or not used. (all taken from Lee
and Ramsey (2000: 99))

(1)
a. Noun—Numeral
Haksayng seys-i chac.a wassta.
student
3-Nom. visit-came(Three students came to visit.)b. Noun—Numeral—Classifier
Haksayng sey myeng-i chac.a wassta.
student
3 Cls.-Nom. visit-camec. Numeral—Noun
Sey haksayng-i chac.a wassta.
3 student-Nom. visit-camed. Numeral—Classifier—Genitive—Noun
Sey myeng-uy haksayng-i chac.a wassta.
3 Cls.-Gen. student-Nom. visit-came(3)a. twu nala (two countries)
sey hakkyo (three schools)
ney haksayng (four students)
twu thokki (two rabbits), etc.
b. ?tases thokki (five rabbits)?selhun haksayng (30 students)*sey sonamu (three pine trees)*tases yenphil (five pencils)
The difference between (3a) and (3b) is difficult
to explain.
Lastly, the type in (1d) is mainly used in written
language and not used in colloquial speech. Therefore,
the type in (1b) is the most frequent and productive
among the four possibilities.

In sentences in (1), the numeric expression
appears in the nominative case but it can be used inany other cases as well as in (1b’).
(1b’)
a. Haksayng sey myeng-ul ttaylyessta. (Acc.)((I) hit three students.)
b. Haksayng sey myeng-ekey cwuessta. (Dat.)((I) gave (something) to tree students.)
c. Haksayng sey myeng-ulo kwuseng toyessta.
(Inst.) ((it is) made of three students.)
d. Haksayng sey myeng-kwa kachi wassta. (Com.)((I) came with three students.)

2. Kinds of classifiersClassifiers in Korean can be grouped based on various
criteria such as attributes of an entity, kinds of words(native or borrowed) and so on.
Things in general: (concrete objects) kay, (abstract
things, kinds) kaci, (issues) ken.
Animate things: (people) myeng, salam, (animals,
birds, fish, insects) mali, (trees) kulwu.
Shape: (sheets) cang, (long objects (with a handle))
calwu, (small round things) al, etc.
Specific things: (books) kwen, (buildings) chay,(vehicles) tay, etc.
Sets: (cloths) pel, (books) pel, etc.
Thing in pairs: (shoes and socks) khyelley, etc.
Units: (volume) toi, mal, sek, (money) wen, (length)

Samuel Martin (1992) lists as many as nine typesof possible syntactic constructions but they include
varieties that are differentiated by the presence orabsence of case markers so that they can be grouped
into the above four main types.
As can be seen from the above examples,
sentences in (1b) and (1d) are constructed with aclassifier, but (1a) and (1c) are not, so that the use ofca , (distance) li, (time) tal (month) si (hour), etc.
The number of classifiers is difficult to tellbecause there are so many Sino-Korean morphemesthat can be used as classifiers, and common nouns andeven recent borrowings from English can be turned
into classifiers (e.g., khep (cup), paksu (box), etc.).
3. Dialectal variation
Specific forms of classifiers may differ among dialects
reflecting the phonetic characteristics of each dialect,
but there seem to be no available data on dialectal
variation so far.
(Rei Fukui)Classifiers in Hmong-Mien

terms of phylogeny, Type B exhibits wider distribution,
thus, it appears to be the ancestral one. However, if wetake a closer look at the map, we notice that three of theType A lects, You-nuo, Kiong-nai, and Pa-na, aredistributed inside the Type B area (circlef points in Map
1 below). Thus, it suggests that these lects might
constitute relic areas, which means that Type A is morearchaic, and Type B represents an innovation. Since
Type B is also the feature of Sinitic languages, it seems
reasonable to assume that this innovation has occurredunder Chinese influence.

1. Classification of word forms
Classifiers in the Hmong-Mien language family,
especially those of White Hmong (one of the Hmongic
languages) have attracted attention in classifier studies.
Based on the classification proposed by Grinevald(2000), the category of classifiers in these languages
belongs to that of numeral classifier. It indicates thedefining feature of numeral classifier: obligatory
occurrence in nominal constructions containing
numerals. The constituent order of numerals (NUM),
classifiers (CLF) and nouns is NUM-CLF-NOUN.
Among the four features that are to be described in“linguistic map of classifiers”, thus, the first, second,
and third feature exhibit a uniform distribution as
follows:(a) Sortal numeral classifiers are obligatory(b) Unmarked order of CLF and NUM is NUM-CLF(c) Unmarked order of NUM-CLF and the semantic
head noun (N) is NUM-CLF-N
As to the fourth feature, whether a classifier is usedwith demonstratives without numerals, Hmong-Mien’s
behavior is also uniform, as far as we know:

Map 1(Yoshihisa Taguchi)
(d) Classifiers can constitute a syntactic unit withdemonstratives (DEM) without numerals
In the unmarked order of CLF and DEM, however, wefind two patterns: CLF-DEM and DEM-CLF. If we add
other possible constituents, NUM and N, we have thefollowing two types:
A: NUM-CLF-N-DEM
B: DEM-NUM-CLF-N
This is the feature that we use in drawing the linguistic
map of classifiers for Hmong-Mien.
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Type A lects are distributed in the northwest part of
the Hmong-Mien area, and Type B lects in thesoutheast part of the area. Which type is the ancestral
one? Type B is mainly observed in Mienic languages,
but also seen in two Hmongic languages, Pa-hng andHo-ne (aka She). Type A is restricted to Hmongic. In
A: NUM-CLF-N-DEM

B: DEM-NUM-CLF-NMeans to count nouns in Tibeto-Burman

only when small numbers are involved. For example,
classifiers usually occur only with numerals ‘one’ and‘two’ in sTau, as in (2), and ‘one’ to ‘nine’ in Mizo.
These languages are also treated as classifier
languages in the present paper.

1. Classification
Our data on 491 Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages anddialects, including primary data on many Tibetic
languages and dialects, show that there are TB
languages both with and without numeral classifiers.

(2) Daofu sTau (Huang 2009: 120)a. tɕi a-lu (hat-1-CLF)
b. tɕi xsu (hat-3)

1. Non-classifier TB languages
Tibetic: Lhasa Tibetan, lCangdzong Tibetan
Kuki-Chin-Naga: Ao, Meithei
Qiangic: Situ
TGTM: Tamang, Nar-Phu, Chantyal, Prakaa

In classifier TB languages, as provided below, four
word orders are attested, where Type A is especiallywidespread in contrast to Types C and D, which are
marginal in TB, although Type C is quite common in
adjacent Sinitic, Hmong-Mien, and Tai languages (seeSinitic, Hmong-Mien, and Tai-Kadai in this volume.)

2. Classifier TB languages
Lolo-Burmese: Burmese, Zaiwa, Lahu, Hani, Lisu
Karenic: Geba, Kayah, Pwo, Sgaw
Qiangic: Qiang, Munya, nDrapa, sTau
Nungic: Trung, Anong, Rawang, Dulong
Kuki-Chin: Asho, Daai, Lai, Mizo, Tedim
Jinghpaw-Luish: Jinghpaw, Cak, Kadu, Ganan
Bodo-Garo: Boro, Garo, Kokborok, Usoi, Deori
Tani: Apatani, Bengni, Galo
Kiranti: Athpare, Belhare, Kham,
C. Himalayan: Kathmandu Newar
Bai: Bai

A. N-NUM-CLF
B. N-CLF-NUM
C. NUM-CLF-N
D. CLF-NUM-N
Examples of each type include:(3) a. Burmese (our field notes)
lù t̪ ó un yauʔ (person-3-CLF)

Some TB languages have small inventories ofclassifiers, where most nouns are directly quantified
by numerals without classifiers. Jinghpaw, forexample, is not a classifier-rich language unlike otherneighboring languages, having a small set ofclassifiers such as məray ‘CLF for human beings’ andkhù m ‘CLF for animals and fruits,’ which are optional(see below) but genuine sortal classifiers. We treat
given cases as classifier languages when they have atleast one example of a sortal numeral classifier.
In some TB languages, such as Jinghpaw and Tedim
Chin, the occurrence of classifiers is optional, as
shown in (1). In this paper, we do not distinguishclassifier languages with optional classifier systems
from those with obligatory systems because it is notalways apparent from secondary sources.

b. Garo (Burling 2003: 247)
a-chak mang-sa (dog-CLF-one)c. Camling (Ebert 2003: 536)
sim-ra pyupa (3-CLF-cow)
d. Deori (Brown1895: 14)
mu-ja lipedru (CLF-1-goat)
The following list shows languages representing thefour types divided in terms of genetic affiliation.
A. N-NUM-CLF
Lolo-Burmese: Arakanese, Zaiwa, Lahu, Hani, Lisu
Qiangic: Qiang, rGyalrong, Munya, nDrapa, sTau
Nungic: Trung, Anong, Rawang, Dulong
Karenic: Geba, Kayah, Pwo, Sgaw
Luish: Cak, Kadu, Ganan
Bai: Bai(1) Tedim Chin (Kose Otsuka, p.c., 2017)a. vok thum (pig-3)
b. vok gual thum (pig-CLF-3)
Some classifier TB languages employ classifiersB. N-CLF-NUM
Jinghpaw: Jinghpaw, Jingpo, Turung
Kuki-Chin: Asho, Daai, Lai, Mizo, Tedim
Tani: Apatani, Bengni, Galo
Bodo-Garo: Boro, Garo, Kokborok, Usoi

sufficient data from secondary sources, examples like(7) can be found at least in Lhaovo, Zaiwa, Bai, Nusu,
Anong, Sadu, Yadu Northern Qiang, Mawo Northern
Qiang, Southern Qiang, Daofu sTau, Munya, Luzu,
Newar, Hani, and Northern, Southern, Southeasternand Eastern Yi. Note that languages belonging to asingle genetic group do not always uniformly show
this feature. Jino, for example, does not have thisconstruction although it belongs to the Loloish branch
like the Hani and Yi languages.

C. NUM-CLF-N
Kiranti: Athpare, Belhare, Kham,
C. Himalayan: Kathmandu Newar
D. CLF-NUM-N
Bodo-Garo: Meche, Deori

2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Map 1 shows the distribution of classifier andnon-classifier languages among TB. Languages tend to
be non-classifier languages in the northern region,
many of which are represented by Tibetic languages
and dialects, while they tend to be classifier languages
in the southern region.
Map 2 shows the distribution of classifier languages
divided in terms of the relative order of N, NUM, and
CLF. TB languages tend to be Type A (N-NUM-CLF)
in eastern areas, Type B (N-CLF-NUM) in central
areas, and Type C (NUM-CLF-N) in western areas. A
notable exception is Pema, which exhibits Type B
among neighboring languages belonging to Type A.
The geographical boundary between noun-initialgroups (Types A and B) and noun-final groups (Types
C and D) generally correlates with that of languages
exhibiting the noun-adjective and adjective-noun word
orders (see Dryer 2008: 26-34). This distribution
makes sense, as suggested by Dryer, in the context ofneighboring non-TB languages. TB languages toward
the east show similarity to Tai-Kadai and Mon-Khmer
languages in contrast to TB languages toward the westthat show similarity to Indic languages (see also
Tai-Kadai and South Asia in this volume).

It should be noted that word orders are not always
consistent, even within a single language. For example,
Kadu, where the unmarked order is NUM-CLF, shows
the CLF-NUM order when the numeral ‘one’ isinvolved, which appears to be Tai influence, as in (4).
A similar situation, as shown in (5), holds for Pwo
Karen and Burmese when the numeral ‘ten’ andmultiples of it are involved. We classify theselanguages in terms of unmarked word orders that show
wider distribution.
(4) Kadu (Sangdong 2012: 280)
a. ká m hú k-à (plate-CLF-one)b. ká m kalı̀ ng hú k (plate-two-CLF)(5) Pwo Karen (Kato 2004: 115)a. lə-ɣà (1-CLF)
b. ʔəɣà ləchi (CLF-10)
As with other languages of East and Southeast Asia,
the functional range of classifiers may go beyond
counting in some TB languages, with classifiers
occurring without numerals. In nDrapa, for example,
classifier can occur with adjectives, as in (6).

Keywords: Tibeto-Burman, classifiers(6) nDrapa (Shirai 2016: 29)
ŋoro1 khɛmbo3 tɕitɕi=ji1 (that-bag-big.RED-CLF)(Keita Kurabe, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Satoko Shirai, Kazue
Iwasa, Shiho Ebihara, Ikuko Matsuse)

A more frequent pattern is that of classifiers
occurring with demonstratives, as in (7).
(7) Lhaovo (Sawada 2012)
pyuF chĕ L-yaukF (person-this-CLF)
Although it is not always easy to tell whether agiven language has such examples due to the lack ofMap 1: Classifier and no-classifier languages in Tibeto-Burman
Classifier languages
Non-classifier languages

Map 2: Order of N, NUM, and CL in Tibeto-Burman
Type A

N-NUM-CL

Type B

N-CL-NUM

Type CNUM-CL-N

Type D

CL-NUM-NMeans to count nouns in Tai-Kadai

near Guilin or in the Lingao language in Hainan. It isnoteworthy that the older generation over 70 years oldused Type B, whereas the younger generation under 40
used Type A in Mashan Zhuang located near Nanning(Qin 1988, 2014:224). That means a replacement
into the Chinese type word order occurred in thesecond half of the 20th century.
Many scholars infer that Type A is older than TypeB, and this word order change came about under the
influence of the Chinese model, which experienced thesame direction of change in the course of its history(Qin 1988 among others). The above mentioned
peripheral distribution supports this theory.
As for Type A1 (symbol /), the etymology of thenumber "one" nɯŋ, diau etc. goes back to the meaningof "sole", so the word order follows the ordinary
structure of adjectives which are located after the head.
In Siamese or Lao and others, type A1 is an alternative
form, in that both Type A and A1 are accepted.
The geographical distribution of Type A1 basically

1. Classification of word order types
In Tai-Kadai, a classifier is obligatory for counting
nouns. There are two types regarding the word orderof numeral (Num), classifier (Cl), and noun (N):A. N + Num + Cl typema4 sa:m1 to1 (Jinping Dai, Luo 2008:129)
horse three Cl, "three horses"
B. Num + Cl + N type
(Jinping Dai, Luo 2008:44)
si5 to1 ma4
four Cl horse, "four horses"
In case of the number "one", there are two minor
types:
A1. N + Cl + "one" type
(Jinping Dai, Luo 2008:129)
mu1 to1 nɯŋ6
pig Cl one, "a pig"
C. Cl + N + "one" typetu42 kai35 ʔde:u24 (Wuming Yanqi Zhuang, Wei et
Cl chicken one, "a chicken"
al. 2011:78)
Further, there is a classifier construction without
numeral, especially with demonstratives:
D. Cl + N (+ Dem) typepou31 vun42 ni42 (Wuming Yanqi Zhuang, Wei et
Cl man this, "this man/woman"al. 2011:78)
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Type A (symbol̀in the map) is mainly distributedin Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, and the dialects ofDehong and Xishuangbanna of the Dai language
which are next to Southeast Asian countries. Type B(symbol࣭) is dominant among the other Tai-Kadai
languages in China as well as Vietnam. There aresporadic appearances of Type A as a doublet in theType B area, for example, in the Chadong language

coincides with Type A, but is wider than it. While in
Zhuang, Type C (symbol ۵) is widely distributed, inwhich the classifier precedes the noun and followed by
the numeral "one".
In Type D (symbol‫)ۼ‬, no numeral occurs; hence its
function is no more counting, but serves as an"definite article" so to speak, denoting individual
things. The geographical distribution of this type isnarrower than Type C, so it should be due to the later
innovation. In this area, the classifier is obligatorywhen a demonstrative modifies a noun.
Keywords: classifier, definite article, age difference,
doublet, expansion of grammatical structure(Mitsuaki Endo)Word order of numeral, classifier, noun, and demonstrative in Tai-Kadai languages
A. (̀) N + Num + Cl typema4 sa:m1 to1,
horse+three+Cl, "three horses"
B. (࣭) Num + Cl + N typesi5 to1 ma4,
four+Cl+horse, "four horses"
A1. (/) N + Cl + "one" type
mu1 to1 nɯŋ6,
pig+Cl+one, "a pig"
C. (۵) Cl + N + "one" typetu42 kai35 ʔde:u24,
Cl+chicken+one, "a chicken"
D. (‫ )ۼ‬Cl + N (+ Dem) typepou31 vun42 ni42,
Cl+man+this, "this man/woman"Means to count nouns in Austroasiatic
languages

Type A languages with ‘Head+Modifier’ are in theinland areas of mainland Southeast Asia, that is, in
Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos. It is also in
Yunnan province of China. It may be plausible thatType A represents the whole Austroasiatic language
family. It should be noted, however, that not only two
major languages, modern Khmer and modern Mon ofAustroasiatic languages, but also adjacent Thai and
Laotian of Tai-Kadai languages shares the same word
order.
Distribution of Type B is divided; one is
Meghalaya, and the other, Vietnam and its Cambodian
border areas. Khasi and Pnar inhabit in the former, andVietnamese and some other minority languages, in thelatter. Although the Type B order of a noun phrase, anumeral preceding a head noun, such as in Khasi andin Pnar in Northeast India conforms to the common
order in languages in Indian subcontinent, the use ofclassifiers is exceptional in India. Notice that theselanguages are surrounded with minority languages of
the Tibeto-Burman language family, and use ofclassifiers among them is very common.
The other Type B languages with ‘Modifier+Head’order are in Vietnam and its Cambodian border areas
which are adjacent to East Asia where‘Modifier+Head’ order is dominant. Although
Vietnamese had been heavily influenced by Chinese,
its extensive use of classifier is unique to the language.
Type C can be found only in Jharkhand and Bihar
states in East India, and Malay Peninsula. Use ofclassifiers in Santali and Mundari is rather exceptional.
Osada (2008) gives only three native ‘classifiers’ for‘human’, ‘house’, and ‘head’, together with ‘jan/jon’for ‘human’ of Indo-Iranian origin, all of which arecommon nouns. Type C is regarded as one of the areal
features in Indian subcontinent, but the use ofclassifiers is not obligatory as is the case of mostIndian languages.
Type D languages have unstable word order in thatboth N+Num+CL and Num+CL+N can be found insuch languages. Jenny et al (2015) notes that bothword orders are possible inold Khmer and old Mon.
Num+CL+N order, however, needs to be further
examined considering the characteristics of the data.
Since old Khmer inscriptions contain inventories ofdonations and their quantity, they may havecharacteristics different from ordinary texts.
Keywords: quantifier, classifier(Makoto Minegishi)

1.

Classification of quantifying expressions
Austroasiatic languages are grouped into four types,
Type A to Type D, based on the noun phrase structure
containing quantifying expressions. In the followingclassification, N denotes ‘noun, Num, ‘numeral’, andCL, classifier, respectively.
Type A: N+Num+CL
Type B: Num+CL+N
Type C: Num+N
Type D: unstable
Most of the data examined here are extracted from
Jenny and Sidwell (eds) (2015). The data of Indian
languages are supplemented from Bodding (1929-36)
for Santali, and from Osada (2008) for Mundari.
It should be noted that distinction between Type B
and Type C is not clear-cut since to what extent theuse of classifiers is obligatory is not always clearlygiven in most of the descriptions.
The names of languages in each type are given
below with the subgroup names in parenthesis, and the
spoken places.
Type A languages: modern Mon (Monic) andDaraang (Palaungic) in Myanmar, Kui Ntua (Katuic)
and Kammu (Khmuic) in Laos, Mlabri (Khmuic) in
Laos and Thailand, modern Khmer (Khmeric) in
Cambodia, and Bugan (Mangic) in Yunnan, China.
Type B languages: Khasi (Khasian) and Pnar
(Khasian) in Meghalaya state of northeast India,
Bunong (South Bahnaric) in Cambodia and Vietnam,
Koho-Sre (South Bahnaric), Sedang (North Bahnaric),
Pacoh (Katuic), and Vietnamese (Vietic) in Vietnam.
Type C languages: Santali (Munda) and Mundari(Munda) in Eastern India, Cheq Wong (Northern
Aslian) and Semaq Beri (Northern Aslian) in
Malaysia.
Type D languages: old Mon (Monic) in Myanmar,
old Khmer (Khmeric) in Cambodia, and Chong(Pearic) in Thailand and Cambodia.
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Distribution of Austroasiatic languages is mainly
divided into two regions. One is mainland Southeast
Asia where the dominant word order is‘Head+Modifier’, and the other, Indian subcontinent
where the order is ‘Modifier+Head’. Many languages
given in the map reflect the areal features respectively
except in northeast India.

Map: Numeral Expressions in Austroasiatic Languages
Type A
Type B
Type CType D

N+Num+CL
Num+CL+N
Num+N
unstable

URL providing the data
http://sealang.net/monkhmer/dictionary/
http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/austroasiatic/Means to count nouns in South Asia (Aryan,

Type A2 languages are Kannada and Kolami, both ofwhich are Dravidian languages. They are located incentral and slightly south India. These languages andthe Kota language (A1) show a line at southern central
India. They can influence some features includingclassifier each other, and their classifier system looks to
be developed mainly around the distinction between
human and non-human.
Type B1, of languages with substantive classsensitive numeral, is Burushaski (all dialects) innortheast Pakistan. The language has four nominal
classes according to the physical features of references:human-male, human-female, concrete object, andabstract object. About this language, see also the next
chapter.
Type B2 consists of Domaaki, Shina, Konkani(Aryan), Gondi (Dravidian), and Nihali (isolate). They
are shown with square symbols in Map 1. The former
two Aryan languages are spoken in northeast Pakistan,and the latter three languages, belonging to different
language families, are located around Type A languages
in south India, as you can see. These five languages
have distinctive numeral forms based on gender, while
there are many languages with gender systems (andshowing no distinction in numerals).
The other 19 language belonging to Type C are thosefor which I could check the grammar and confirmed theabsence of classifiers or something like them.

Iranian, Nuristani, Dravidian, Andamanese,
Nihali, and Burushaski)
1. Classification
Before arguing on whether the languages in South
Asia have classifiers or not, I have stumbled with thequestion ‘What is classifier?’ In other words, ‘Must aclassifier be a word?’ If yes, it must be that lesslanguages having classifiers in SA. But if no, there aresurely more languages with classifiers. Here, I classify
them on the latter, wider viewpoint for now.
A. Language with classifiers
A1. With classifiers for all kinds of noun (A2. With classifiers only for some nouns ())

B. Language with class-sensitive numeral
B1. For substantive classes ()
B2. For grammatical genders ()
C. Language with neither classifiers nor class-sensitive
numerals ()
All languages categorised into either A or B show theorder Numeral + Classifier (or some classifying
marker).
While there are two major types of ordering fornumerals (with classifier) and noun. A few languages
have flexibility in order.
α. Numeral + Noun ()β. Noun + Numeral ()

3. Relation between classifier and demonstrative
To discuss classifier languages, we must mention therelationship between classifiers and demonstratives ofeach language. There are 15 classifier languages in SA(including three Burushaski dialects) in conformity
with my wider definition of classifier. Among them,
however, only five languages, including the three
Burushaskis, can use classifiers with demonstratives:
Bengali (Aryan, A1) in Bangladesh, Kota (Dravidian,
A1) in south India, Hunza Burushaski, Nager
Burushaski, and Yasin Burushaski (isolate, B1) in northPakistan, see Map 2.
For example, see the following Hunza Burushaski
numerals (1) and demonstrative pronouns (2), note thathuman-male and female nominal classes are neutralised
for these word classes:

γ. Language which allow both orders α and β(Overlapped symbols
and ; the horizontal line
means the default order)
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
Type A1 consists of the following 5 languages:
Bengali, Nepali (Aryan), Pashto, Persian (Iranian), andKota (Dravidian). This type is shown in Map 1 withlarge circle symbols at Bangladesh, Nepal, south India,
northwest Pakistan, and Iran. I think the northeastern
two languages, that is, Bengali and Nepali, are largely
affected by the close distribution of Tibeto-Burmese
classifier languages. As for Iranian languages, both
sample languages have classifier systems, and so it
seems share genealogical characteristics. But I could
not reference any other grammar of Iranian languages,
so I refrain from concluding this now. About the lastone, Kota, see A2.

(1) Numerals‘1’: hin (human class) vs. hik (for count)‘2’: altán (human class) vs. altó (for count)‘3’: iskén (human class) vs. iskí (for count)languages, including Bengali and Kota in SA, useclassifiers not only with numerals but also withdemonstratives, why should morphemes functioning inthe same way, such as the -in of Burushaski, be treatedas grammatical elements of a different category?
Thinking so, I employ the wider definition of classifierin this paper.
(YOSHIOKA Noboru)(2) Demonstrative pronouns‘this’: khin (human class) vs. khos (concrete class)‘that’: in (human class) vs. es (concrete class)‘who/what’: men (h. class) vs. bes (c. class)
Every form for human class seems to have the classsensitive morpheme -in, like a classifier. While some

Map 1. Means to count nouns in South Asia

Map 2. Classifier with demonstrative in South Asia (Legend:



yes,

no)

Means to count nouns: Arabic languages

combination is applied to “two” as in ʒuːʒ d-lə-ktub(2 of the books) “2 books” while in the most of the

1. Classification of word forms
The word forms of “iron” are classified as follows.

other dialects the dual form of nouns are used.
(Youichi Nagato)

A. Numeral-Noun type
B. Noun-Numeral type
C. Numeral-Noun / Noun-Numeral type
D. Numeral-of-the-Noun type
2. Geographical distribution and interpretation
A. Numeral-Noun typeThis type is widely distributed. The nouns take theplural form when the numeral is 3 to 10, and take thesingular form when the numeral is 11 or more. In
Caireen arbaʕ kutub (4 books) “4 books”, Syrian χams
sniːn (5 years) “5 years”, Palestinian talat sajjaṛaːt (3cars) “3 cars”, Bedouin dialect in the North of Israelθaman iʃwaːl (8 sacks) “eight sacks”.
And also in peripheral dialects: Bukhari in
Uzbekistan χams ajjaːm (5 days) “5 days”, Anatolianʕaʃṛa w sᵊləs ṛᵊdʒeːl (10 and 3 men) “13 men”,
Maltese tliːt idjaːr (3 houses) “3 houses”, Cypriotárpaʕa várak (4 books [collective]) “4 books”.
In these sequences the numerals are in the constructforms without -a ending arbaʕ “4” instead of theabsolute form with -a ending arbaʕa.
In the definite state, the word order changes toNoun-NumeralinḤassānīya:lə-mnǟt

əθ-θlǟθä(the-girls the-three) “the three girls” (Cohen 1963:
168). While in the other dialects the order does notchange: it-talat kutub hadoːl (the 3 books these) in
Jerusalem (౫⏣ 2012: 133), il-talat kutub doːl in
Cairene “the 3 books”.
B. Noun-Numeral typeThis type is found in the Nubi of Kibera: yalá taáta(children three) “3 children”.
C. Numeral-Noun / Noun-Numeral typeThis type is found in Chad Arabic: both ridʒaːltalaːta (men 3) and talaːta ridʒaːl (men 3) “3 men”
are available.
D. Numeral-of-the-Noun typeThis type is found in Moroccan only: tlaːtadə-l-kiːsaːn (3 of the cups) “3 cups”. In Moroccan this





References
Nivkh
Kreinovich, Eruhim (1934) Nivkhskii (giliackii) iazyk (The Nivkh (Gilyak) language). In: Ia Al’kor(ed.) Iazyki i pis’mennost’ narodov severa, Vol. III, 181–222. Leningrad: Instituta narodov severa.
Mattissen, Johanna (2003) Dependent-head synthesis in Nivkh. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Panfilov, Vladimir (1962) Grammatika nivkhskogo iazyka I (Nivkh grammar). Moscow/Leningrad:
Nauka.
Sasaki, Shirō (1996) Hoppō kara kita kōekimin: Kinu to kegawa to Santanjin. Tokyo: Nippon hōsō
shuppan kyōkai.
Shiraishi, Hidetoshi and Itsuji Tangiku (forthcoming) Language contact between Ainu and Northernlanguages. In: Anna Bugaeva (ed.) The handbook of Ainu languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shternberg, Lev (1900) Obrazcy materialov po izucheniiu giliiackogo iazyka i fol'klora, sobrannykh
na ostrove Sakhalin i v nizov'iakh Amura. Izvestiia imperatorskoi akademii nauk V. 13 (4): 387–
434. Sankt-Peterburg.
Ainu
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2003) Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Gil, David (2013) Numeral classifiers. In: Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.) The
world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/55 [accessed February 2017].
Hattori, Shiroo and Mashiho Chiri (1960) A lexicostatistic study on the Ainu dialects. The Japanese
Journal of Ethnology 24(4): 31–66.
Hattori, Shiroo (ed.) (1964) Ainu dialect dictionary (アイヌ語方言辞典). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Nakagawa, Hiroshi (1995) The Ainu-Japanese dictionary: Chitose dialect (アイヌ語千歳方言辞典).
Tokyo: Sofukan.
Nakagawa, Hiroshi (ed.) (2014) The Japanese-Ainu dictionary: Mukawa dialect (アイヌ語鵡川方言日本語・アイヌ語辞典). Chiba: Chiba University. http://cas-chiba.net/Ainu-archives/
Okuda, Osami (1999) Ainu Shizunai dialect lexicon in context (アイヌ語静内方言文脈つき語彙集). Ebetsu: Sapporo Gakuin University.
Sawai, Harumi (2006) Tomeno Sawai’s basic vocabulary of the Tokachi dialect of Ainu (アイヌ語十勝方言の基礎語彙集：本別町・沢井トメノのアイヌ語). Sapporo: The Hokkaido Ainu Culture
Research Center. Unpublished manuscript.
Tamura, Suzuko (1996) The Ainu-Japanese dictionary: Saru dialect (アイヌ語沙流方言辞典).

23

Tokyo: Sofukan.
Tamura, Suzuko (2000) The Ainu language. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Torii, Ryuzoo (1903) Kuril Ainu (千島アイヌ). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Korean
Lee, Iksop and S. R. Ramsey (2000) The Korean language. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Martin, Samuel E. (1992) A reference grammar of Korean. Tokyo: Tuttle.
Hmong-Mien
Grinevald, Colette (2000) A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In: Gunter Senft (ed.) Systems
of nominal classification, 50–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tibeto-Burman
Brown, William B. (1895) An outline grammar of the Deori Chutiya language spoken in upper
Assam. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Printing Office.
Burling, Robbins (2003) The language of the Modhupur Mandi (Garo), Volume 1. Ann Arbor, MI:
Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library.
Dryer, Matthew S. (2008) Word order in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman
Area 31: 1–88.
Ebert, Karen H. (2003) Camling. In: Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla (eds.) The
Sino-Tibetan Languages, 533–545. London: Routledge.
Huang, Bufan (2009) Chuanxi Zangqu de yuyan (Languages of West Sichuan Tibetosphere). Beijing:
Zhongguo Zangxue Chubanshe.
Kato, Atsuhiko (2004) A Pwo Karen grammar. PhD dissertation, The University of Tokyo.
Sangdong, David (2012) A grammar of the Kadu (Asak) language. PhD dissertation, La Trobe
University.
Sawada, Hideo (2012) On the composition of noun phrases in Lhaovo. Paper presented at the 45th
International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, 20 October 2012.
Shirai, Satoko (2016) nDrapago no meishiku to shūshokukōzō (Noun phrases and adnominal
constructions in nDrapa). Takumi Ikeda (ed.) Grammatical phenomena in Sino-Tibetan languages
1: Noun phrase structures, 27–35. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.
Tai-Kadai
Enfield, N. J. (2004) Nominal classification in Lao: A sketch. Sprachtypologie und24

Universalienforschung 57(2/3): 117–143.
Jones, R. B. (1970) Classifier constructions in Southeast Asia. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 90(1):1–12.
Morey, Stephen (2005) The Tai languages of Assam: A grammar and texts. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics, The Australian National University.
康忠德 (2011)《居都仡佬语参考语法》，北京：中国社会科学出版社.
李如龙、侯小英、林天送、秦恺 (2012)《茶洞语研究》，北京：民族出版社.
罗美珍 (2008)《傣语方言研究（语法）》，北京：民族出版社.
莫海文 (2016)《荣屯布央语参考语法》，北京：中国社会科学出版社.
覃国生 (1988) 平乐县壮语调查报告，《广西民族研究》1988: 4, 102–116.
覃国生 (2013)《柳江壮语调查研究》，南宁：广西民族出版社.
覃晓航 (1998) 从汉语量词的发展看壮侗语“数、量、名结构”的词序变化，《广西民族大学学报》1998（1）；《覃晓航文存》223–229，北京：中央民族大学出版社，2014.
覃晓航 (2009)《侗台语语源探索》，北京：民族出版社.
韦景云、何霜、罗永现 (2011)《燕齐壮语参考语法》，北京：中国社会科学出版社.
邢公畹 (1985)《三江侗语》，天津：南开大学出版社.
张元生、马加林、文明英、韦星朗 (1985)《海南临高话》，南宁：广西民族出版社.
郑贻青 (1996)《靖西壮语研究》，北京：中国社会科学院民族研究所.
中国科学院少数民族语言研究所主编 (1959)《布依语调查报告》，北京：科学出版社.
中国少数民族语言简志编委会、修订本编委会 (2009)《中国少数民族语言简志丛书》修订本・
卷三，北京：民族出版社.
Austroasiatic
Bodding, P. O. (1929-36) A Santal dictionary. Oslo: Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad.
Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell (eds.) (2015) The handbook of Austroasiatic languages. Leiden,
Boston: Brill.
Jenny, Mathias, Tobias Weber, and Rachel Weymuth (2015) The Austroasiatic languages: A
typological overview. In: Mathias Jenny and Paul Sidwell (eds.) The handbook of Austroasiatic
languages, 13–143. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Osada, Toshiki (2008) Mundari. In: Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.) The Munda languages, 99–164.
Oxford: Routledge. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315822433.chThreeSouth Asia
Abbi, Anvita (2013) A garammar of the great Andamanese language: An ethnolinguistic study.
Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Bhatia, Tej K. (1993) Punjabi. London, New York: Routledge.

25

Brigel, Rev. J. (1982 [1872]) A grammar of the Tulu language. New Delhi: Asian Educational
Services.
Brown, Charles Philip (1981) A grammar of the Telugu language. Second edition. New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services.
Emeneau, M. B. (1961) Kolami: A Dravidian language. Second edition. Annamalainagar:
Annamalai University.
Emeneau, Murray B. (1984) Toda grammar and texts. Philadelphia: Americal Philosophical Society.
藤元優子（1999）『エクスプレス ペルシア語』東京：白水社．
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. (2017) Dhivehi: The language of the Maldives. Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Jhā, Subhadra (1985 [1958]) The formation of the Maithilī language. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers.
Kuiper, F. B. J. (1962) Nahali: A comparative study. Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers
Maatschappij.
Maffei, Angelus Francis Xavier (1986 [1882]) A Konkani grammar. New Delhi: Asian Educational
Services.
Matthews, David (1984) A course in Nepali. London: SOAS.
宮本城（2012）『ニューエクスプレス タミル語』東京：白水社．
縄田鉄男（1985）『パシュトー語文法入門』東京：大学書林．
野口忠司（2016）『ニューエクスプレス シンハラ語』東京：白水社．
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. (1997) Marathi. London, New York: Routledge.
De Silva, M. W. Sugathapala (1972) Vedda language of Ceylon: Texts and lexicon. München:
Kitzinger.
Spencer, Harold (1985) A Kannada grammar with graduated exercises. New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services.
Subbiah, G. (1985) Grammar of Kota. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University.
Subrahmanyam, P. S. (1968) A descriptive grammar of Gondi. Annamalainagar: Annamalai
University.
Taylor, Geo P. (1985 [1908]) The student’s Gujarati grammar: With exercises and vocabulary. New
Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
Thompson, Hanne-Ruth (2010) Bengali: A comprehensive grammar. London, New York: Routledge.
Trumpp, Ernest (1986 [1872]) Grammar of the Sindhi language: Compared with the
Sanskrit-Prakrit and the cognate Indian verbaculars. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
Wali, Kashi and Omkar N. Koul (2007) Kashmiri: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London, New
York: Routledge.

26

Arabic
Borg, Alexander (1985) Cypriot Arabic. Stuttgart: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner Wiesbaden
GMBH.
Cohen, David (1963) Le dialecte arabe Ḥassānīya de Mauritanie. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Heine, Bernd (1982) The Nubi language of Kibera: An Arabic creole. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer
Verlag.
Jastrow,

Otto(1973)

Daragözü:Eine

arabische

MundartderKozluk-Sason-Gruppe(Südostanatolien). Verlag Hans Carl Nürnberg.
Qafisheh, Hamdi A. (2000) NTC’s Yemeni Arabic-English dictionary. θalaːθat riɟaːl: NTC PublishingGroup.
Rosenhouse, Judith (1984) The Bedouin Arabic dialects. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Винников, И.Н. (1962) Словарь диалекта бухарских арабов (Палестинский сборник
10). Москва: Издательство академии наук.
Zeltner, Jean-Claude (1985) L’arabe dans le bassin du Tchad.Karthala.

27

Mapping the Minority Languages of the Eastern Tibetosphere
Gerald Rochea

Hiroyuki SuzukibaAsia Institute, University of Melbourne
IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of EthnologybAbstract
This article presents a map of the minority languages of the eastern Tibetosphere and provides
background on how the map was researched, designed, and created. We define the Tibetosphereas the region that is demographically dominated by, and culturally and linguistically influenced
by, Tibetic languages. The minority languages of this region are the non-Tibetic languages ofthis otherwise Tibetan-dominated area. The map shows the location for 48 minority languages
spoken in the eastern Tibetosphere, within China. Our map is intended to serve as a‘counter-map’ to other representations of the area that portray it as monolingual or otherwise
limit the linguistic diversity of the region. In focusing on the region’s minority languages, we
aim to bring visibility to these languages and reveal the area’s ‘hidden multilingualism.’
Keywords: Tibet, China, linguistic diversity, minority language, counter-mapping

1

Introduction: Counter-Mapping the Linguistic Diversity of the Tibetosphere

The Tibetosphere refers to a large linguistic and cultural region, stretching over six countries in Asia
(China, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Burma), which is demographically dominated by, andculturally and linguistically influenced by, speakers of Tibetic languages. The term eastern Tibetosphere
here includes Tibetan cultural areas in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan; the eastern part of the
Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is, however, excluded.1
The minority languages of the Tibetosphere are the region’s non-Tibetic languages (Roche 2017;
Roche and Suzuki 2017). These languages may be divided into two groups according to their speakers:
linguistic minorities and ethnolinguistic minorities. The ethnolinguistic minorities are not formally
identified as Tibetans, nor do they speak a Tibetic language, but they do live within the Tibetosphere.
The linguistic minorities, on the other hand, are identified as Tibetans, but do not speak a Tibetic
language.
Furthermore, we can also divide the minority languages (as opposed to their speakers) into threesociolinguistic groups, based on language management practices in China (Spolsky 2014):
unrecognized languages, extra-territorial languages, and enclaved languages (Roche 2017; Roche andSuzuki 2017, Roche 2017). Enclaved and extra-territorial languages are spoken only by ethnolinguistic
minorities; they differ from each other in that enclaved languages are spoken by populations that have adesignated, recognized ethnic autonomous territory inside the Tibetosphere, whereas extra-territorial
languages do not. Both types of languages, however, are recognized by the state as the legitimate
language of a formally recognized ethnic group. Unrecognized languages, on the other hand, aretypically considered ‘dialects,’ and thus not legitimate languages, by the state, which usually operates
under the assumption of a one-to-one relationship between language and ethnicity so that, for example,
the ‘Tibetan’ language is recognized as the language of Tibetan people. Unrecognized languages are
therefore not embedded in or reproduced by any state institutions, such as education.2
1 The region here defined therefore denotes a broader area than that defined in Suzuki (2015b).
2 Appendix 3 provides a table that classifies all the minority languages of the Eastern Tibetosphere according tocategories of speaker (linguistic and ethnolinguistic minorities) and language (unrecognized, enclave, andThe Chinese state’s categories of recognition, and administration of these categories through thesystem of territorial autonomy, are the main factors determining the vitality of these languages. We
suggest that within the Tibetosphere, recognized (enclave and extraterritorial) languages are less likely
to be endangered than unrecognized languages, but that all minority languages are more likely to beendangered than ‘Tibetan’.3 Studies on the vitality of individual languages in the region have thus farborne out this general pattern (van Way and Bkrashis Bzangpo 2015; Tunzhi 2017; Balogh 2017; Rocheand Yudru Tsomu forthcoming), though much research remains to be done.
Despite its complex language ecology, the Tibetosphere is typically viewed as either monolingually
Tibetan, or, when the minority languages of the region are acknowledged, they are assumed to beirrelevant to the predominantly Tibetan nature of the region, and insignificant to its social and political
dynamics. Therefore, both in state policy and academic discourses, minority languages of this region,
are individually ‘invisible’ (Sellwood and Angelo 2013; Roche and Yudru Tsomu forthcoming), andcollectively constitute the region’s ‘hidden multilingualism’ (Tamburelli 2014). The aim of our map isto uncover this hidden multilingualism and bring visibility to the region’s invisible languages.
This cartographic exercise was inspired by practices of ‘counter-mapping’ – cartography that aims
to render visible that which powerful actors have erased (Peluso 1995; Hodgson and Schroeder 2002;
Culcasi 2012). However, whilst other counter-maps are typically created with extensive participation ofsubaltern populations, ours, for the most part (see below), was not. Nonetheless, we still feel that ourmap is a ‘counter map’ in the sense that it attempts to counter hegemonic visions of the region as
monolingual.
In addition to general practices of counter-mapping, we were also inspired by linguistic maps ofother regions that have attempted to highlight diversity that has been erased (both in representations and,sometimes, in reality). One example is Tindale and Jones’s (1974) map of Australia, which ‘counters’
both the ‘Great Australian Silence’ concerning the place of Aboriginal peoples in national history(Stanner 1969), and what came to be known as the Australian ‘monolingual mind-set’ (Clyne 2005), byshowing the diversity of the country’s Indigenous languages. Another example can be seen in the
linguistic maps of France which included ‘invisible’ languages such as Breton, Occitan, and Basque,created by linguistic activists and designed to “challenge … contemporary incarnations of national unityand centralist power” (McDonald 1989:7) which associated the French nation-state with a single Frenchlanguage. As with these maps, we hope that our map will lead to conversations that positively impact thevitality of the region’s minority languages.
Below, we introduce the map by discussing the decisions we made whilst designing the map, andhow these influenced the appearance of the version presented here. Following this, we discuss thesources we drew on to create the map, and the processes we employed. In the final sections, we outline
broad patterns of diversity rendered visible by this map, and explore how these patterns suggest avenues
for further research into the minority languages of the Tibetosphere.

2

Designing the Map

Our original aim in creating this map was to show all of the Tibetan regions in China, but, for reasons weshall see shortly, we were not able to publish such a map. We thus began by delimiting the Tibetan areas
according to a definition we have used in our previous work (Roche and Suzuki 2017). We first included
all areas that are officially designated as Tibetan autonomous units (the Tibet Autonomous Region, plus
the Tibetan autonomous prefectures and counties in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces).
To this area, we added any counties where a significant number of Tibetans live as long-term inhabitants(though we did not define specifically what ‘significant numbers’ or ‘long-term’ habitation entailed).
We define this area as the Chinese Tibetosphere, or the Tibetan-inhabited regions of China, but, forbrevity’s sake, refer to it as ‘Tibet’.

extra-territorial languages).
3 This does not suggest that ‘Tibetan’ is not endangered, but that its vitality is relatively higher than the region’s
minority languages.

During our collaboration (outlined below in the section ‘Creating the Map’) we originally mapped
all languages spoken in the area, both Tibetic and non-Tibetic. And although we originally mapped all
the languages of this area according to the available literature, we decided against publishing a complete
map of this region for three main reasons. The first was that we felt we did not have sufficiently detailed
or reliable data that would enable us to map certain languages outside the eastern Tibetosphere. For
example, although we were able to obtain information about the counties where Oirat varieties are
spoken in western Qinghai Province, we were not able to obtain a more detailed picture beyond this. A
second reason why we chose to publish only a map of the eastern Tibetosphere, rather than the whole ofTibet, relates to the on-going nature of research on some newly recorded languages of the region, andcontinuing consultation with communities in the area about whether they wish the location of theirlanguage to be known.
A final issue that prevented us from publishing a full map showing all the minority languages ofTibet relates to the disputed territory that China refers to as Zangnan (‘South Tibet’), and India as
Arunachal Pradesh. The political sensitivities of this dispute are such that a map showing the region as
Indian territory would be censored in China, whereas a map showing it as Chinese territory would makeit illegal in India. Furthermore, such maps can be used by states to support territorial claims, and by local
actors to intervene in localized power struggles. Given the contested nature of the territory and thevoaltile, sometimes violent nature of instability in the area, we decided not to create a map that could be
used either by states or local actors in the region for political purposes that might involve violence,
marginalization, and so on.
The final product of our collaboration, then, is a map of the eastern Tibetosphere, rather than theentire Tibetosphere or the Chinese Tibetosphere, which shows only the minority languages of the region
rather than the minority languages with the dominant Tibetic languages.
We had two aims in creating this map. The first was to highlight the linguistic diversity of the region.
In order to do this, it was necessary to draw on the most-up-to-date linguistic research available, rather
than on standard reference works such as the Ethnologue (Lewis et al 2015). This is due to the fact that
linguistic research in the region is on-going, and previously un-described languages continue to berecorded. Roche and Suzuki (2017) give an idea of how this recent literature expands on information
communicated via references works: whereas Ethnologue lists 43 minority languages in Tibet, theauthors’ survey of the broader literature, including monographs, journal articles, and MA and doctoral
theses, identified 60 documented varieties. Since we aimed to create a map that highlighted the region’s
diversity, we drew on this literature in deciding which languages to include. This map therefore includes
languages that have not previously been mapped.
Our general principle of ‘erring on the side of diversity’ can be seen in our mapping of the
Rgyalrongic languages. In Tibetan folk linguistics, these languages are considered dialects of Tibetan.
The Ethnologue, and Chinese reference literature, meanwhile, list ‘Jiarong’ as a single independent
language (rather than a dialect). Guillaume Jacques (2017:583), meanwhile, in an entry under‘Rgyalrong Language’ in the Encyclopaedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, states that
“Rgyalrong is a group of four languages”: Situ, Japhug, Tshobdun, and Zbu. Gates (2012), meanwhile,argues that ‘Rgyalrong’ should include five, not four, languages. In addition to the four recognized by
Jacques, he adds Southern Rgyalrong. Our map therefore reflects the most detailed classification of
Rgyalrongic languages, i.e., that proposed by Gates.
Related to this aim of depicting the diversity of minority languages in the region is the decision toshow languages as polygons rather than points. 4 First, it is important to distinguish between two
methods that use points to locate languages. One method, such as that used by Glottologue, uses single
points to locate individual languages. We considered this method as insufficiently detailed for our
purposes. A second method is to use points to identify individual communities where a language isspoken. We rejected this method because, on the one hand, we could not be sure that we had sufficient
data for all the languages we wished to include on the map, particularly in the case of larger languages.
Secondly, we felt that it would reduce the visibility of languages at a regional scale, whereas polygons,
4 See Gawne and Ring (2016) for a discussion of this and other cartographic issues in the context of endangered

languages.

which included not only villages where people lived but also the surrounding territory where they
undertake subsistence activities, made the languages visible at a larger scale, and thus enabled us tocreate a map that represented the full diversity of the entire region.
A second aim in creating this map was to depict the complexity and fragility of this diversity.
Previous maps often inflate the area where a language is spoken, because they rely on administrative
boundaries to draw linguistic boundaries. Therefore, the distribution of small languages tends to be
exaggerated. One example of this is the Mangghuer language, spoken in Minhe Hui and Tu Autonomous
County in Qinghai Province. Previous maps have shown the language as being spoken throughout thecounty. However, it is confined to a few townships in the county’s south, making up about a third of thecounty’s territory, in an area traditionally known to Mangghuer-speakers as Sanchuan – the three valleys.
In order to overcome the tendency of previous maps to inflate language distributions by using
administrative boundaries, we used geographical features, such as mountain ridges, rivers, and valley
basins, to more accurately define the areas where speakers of a language live.
The outcome of these two aims is a map that is strikingly different from previous efforts. It shows far
more languages than any other similar map, and also shows languages as having much more restricteddistributions. The resulting pattern is a complex, discontinuous mosaic made up of ribbons and specks
rather continuous blobs.
Another design feature of the map that we wish to highlight here is the choice of languages namesthat are displayed (Haspelmath 2017). Unlike previous maps and other reference works, we have tried to
avoid using names for the languages that are exonyms, usually derived from Chinese sources and thus
representing a Pinyin rendering of terms from Tibetan or other languages. In many cases, we were able
to find such names in the extant literature, such as the case for Rgyalrong varieties: Zbu, Japhug,
Tshobdun, etc. In other cases, it was necessary to consult with members of the community. This is thecase, for example, for Ngandehua, which in the literature, has been referred to as Wutun (Janhunen et al2008). The name Wutun is unknown to community members, whereas Ngandehua, a term meaning ‘ourlanguage’ is regularly used within the community (Tshe ring skyid 2015). Another example is thelanguage name Khroskyabs, which replaces the former Lavrung; the new term is advocated by Lai
Yunfan and G.yu lha (a Khroskyabs speaker and linguist) (Lai and Yina 2016). In other cases, it wasnecessary to innovate new names, mostly based on place-names. This was the case, for example, with
Lhagang Choyu (Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo 2016). Although such name changes are controversial,and further revisions may be necessary in the future, we agree with Tunzhi (2017) that the choice ofname for a language has implications for community attitudes towards that language, and thus on its
vitality. We have endeavoured to choose names that will make positive contributions to communal
attitudes and linguistic vitality.
As a final note on the design of the map, it is important to note what has been excluded. Namely, we
have not included regional varieties of Tibetan or Chinese – more accurately referred to as the Tibetic
and Sinitic languages. These languages would occupy the vast majority of white space on the map(though there are also uninhabited areas on the map). There were two main reasons for excluding theselanguages. The first is that the distribution of these varieties is actually less well understood than theminority languages; the Tibetic varieties of the Gansu-Sichuan border region, for example, are still
being actively researched (Suzuki 2015a). A second reason for excluding these languages from the map
is that it would have drawn attention from the minority languages of the region. Although the Tibetic
and Sinitic languages of the region tend to have much larger distributions that the minority languages,
showing them on the map would have nonetheless involved adding several more colors to the map, thus
diffusing the diversity throughout the region, and perhaps effacing or diminishing the currently obvious
patterning of diversity amongst the minority languages.
A second element that was necessarily excluded from the map was the bi- and multilingualism ofindividuals and communities (Roche 2017). This took place, for example, in areas that are mosaics ofcommunities speaking two minority languages. An example of this was in Li County, where the
distribution of South-Central Rgyalrong and Southern Rmaic overlapped; we chose to represent this bydividing the overlap between the two languages. A far more common phenomenon, and significant issue,
however, is showing bi- and multilingualism in dominant languages – Tibetan and Chinese. The map
cannot show the extent to which these languages are used in various communities, and how this varies

spatially. It was impossible to show this not only due to the difficulties of representing such patterns
cartographically, but also because of a lack of data.
With these design choices and their underlying rationale in mind, we now turn to a description of thesources used to create the map.

3

Sources

As stated above, we relied on a variety of linguistics publications to decide which languages to include
in the map. Most of these sources contained a description of where the language was spoken according
to administrative divisions; most did not contain a map. In addition to the descriptive linguistic
publications, we relied on a number of other sources. These sources included reference works such as
the Language Atlas of China (Wurm et al 1987; ZGYYDTJ-II 2012) and Ethnologue (Lewis et al 2015).
We also drew on materials presented on the website rGyalrongic Languages Database,5 which maps
varieties in the region. We also compared our maps to those available on the ‘Sichuan Ethnic Corridor’
website.6 When we could not find reliable information in these published sources, we consulted withexperts who have worked on specific languages. Several people, cited in Appendix 2, generously shared
their insights, including unpublished maps. A final source of information for the maps was our own
fieldwork experience. Roche has primarily worked in Amdo (in Qinghai Province), whereas Suzuki has
worked extensively throughout Khams (in Sichuan and Yunnan). A full list of sources is provided inAppendix 2.

4Creating the Map

This map was created during a one-week visit by Suzuki to the University of Melbourne in November
2016. Prior to this, we had collated a series of maps that we could refer to for guidance, as well assources in Chinese and English we could refer to. Roche and Suzuki were aided during theircollaboration by Libu Lhaki and Sonam Lhundrop, speakers of Namuyi and Rta’u, respectively, whoeach joined the mapping effort for a day to offer their feedback based on their personal experience as
speakers of languages that we were mapping, and also as linguists.
Our methods for creating the map were somewhat crude. We were unable to obtain access to GIS
databases for the region, and even if we had been able to, we were not confident that we had sufficiently
abundant and detailed data to undertake our mapping exercise using GIS. We therefore used Adobe
Photoshop to create the map. We relied on a base map we had created for an earlier article (Roche andSuzuki 2017) that consisted of all the Tibetan-inhabited counties of China. This map, in turn, was basedon a map of all Chinese counties, available on Wikipedia under a Creative Commons Attribution Share
Alike 3.0 Unported License.7
We then created two separate layers for each language we included on the map. One layer was thebase layer for that language. This was typically created by tracing a polygon on GoogleEarth, or byusing screen captures from the Tibetan and Himalayan Library Interactive Map.8 As outlined above, we
traced distribution polygons with reference to natural features such as rivers, mountain ridges, andvalley edges, in accordance with our own knowledge of the languages and the region, and in
consultation with a range of previously published maps. Using these base maps, we then traced thelanguage distribution onto a transparent layer, and positioned it on the regional map in reference tocounty boundaries.
After creating and positioning layers in this way for all 48 languages, we delivered a PSD file toprofessional cartographer Chandra Jayasuriya, who created the final version of the map. We then placeda draft of the map online, at Academia.edu, and collected feedback from experts in the field regarding
the distribution of languages which they had knowledge of, and modified the map accordingly. The final
5 http://htq.minpaku.ac.jp/databases/rGyalrong/lang/index.php?langindex=eng
6 www.sichuanzoulang.com
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#/media/File:China_County-level.png
8 http://www.thlib.org/places/maps/interactive/version of the map was produced in time for International Mother Language Day, the 21st of February
2017, when it was circulated via social media platforms: Twitter, Facebook, and WeChat.

5

Patterns of Diversity in the Eastern Tibetosphere

In viewing the map, it is immediately clear that the linguistic diversity is found primarily in the easternpart of the eastern Tibetosphere. For example, there seem to be no minority languages spoken in thewestern counties of Dkar mdzes (Ganzi) Prefecture: Ser shul (Shiqu), Sde dge (Dege), Dpal yul(Baiyu), ’Ba’ thang (Batang), ’Dab pa (Daocheng), Sde rong (Deirong), or Phyag phreng (Xiangcheng)(though future research may still reveal minority languages in this area).
It is important that the ‘peripheral’ nature of this diversity not be taken metaphorically, as indicativeof social or historical marginality. To do so would be equivalent to, for example, assuming that Beijing
or New York are of marginal significance because of their locations on the periphery of China or theUSA. Despite the obvious fallacy of conflating peripherality with marginality, there continues to be atendency, both within Sinology and Tibetology, to treat this region as purely a bi-product of two
dynamic centres of political power and cultural prestige: Tibet and China (Roche 2016). The linguistic
diversity of the region suggests that this area needs to be understood in terms that, while taking into
account broader regional contexts, are local rooted. What political conditions prevailed that enabled thisdiversity to emerge and be maintained? What language ideologies and practices were employed by local
populations and how did they differ from areas where linguistic diversity was significantly lower?
Furthermore, any attempt to understand this region on its own terms must also take into account thesubstantial diversity that existed within the eastern Tibetosphere. We might start by recognizing that theregion can be roughly divided into three sub-regions from north to south: a northern, central, andsouthern region. Each of these regions has been subject to different historical experiences, has different
demographic profiles, and is subject to different regimes of ethnic identification and language
management.
The northern region falls firmly within the Tibetan cultural region of Amdo, within the area known
by linguists as the Amdo Sprachbund or language area (Rona-Tas 1966; Dede 2003; Slater 2003;
Janhunen et al. 2007; Sandman 2012; Dwyer 2013; Simon 2015; Sandman and Simon 2016). The
minority languages of this region are all long-term immigrant languages. They arrived on the northern
Tibetan Plateau between the 13th and 17th centuries, are all Turkic or Mongolic, and arrived from thenorth, east, and west. Most of the speakers of these languages do not identify as Tibetans (the exception
being the speakers of Manegacha and Ngandehua, and, perhaps, Henan Oirat); this is particularly thecase of the Muslim populations. Despite their distinct identities, these populations have interacted
intensively with Amdo Tibetans, leading to many shared linguistic and cultural features among the
populations of the region. However, the contemporary regime of ethnic politics is now leading todivergence amongst these populations, both linguistically and culturally. The previous role of Amdo
Tibetan as a lingua franca, and as a model language within the sprachbund, is now being replaced by
Putonghua (Modern Standard Chinese).
The central area encompasses southern Rnga ba (Aba) and northern Dkar mdzes. It includes the
Tibetan populations who speak a variety of Rgyalrongic languages, as well as the Rmaic speaking Qiang
peoples in the east of this region and the Baima-speaking Tibetans of the same area (languages 10-19). It
also includes portions of northern Dkar mdzes, and speakers of Rta’u, Geshitsa, Daohua, nDrapa, Choyu,
Nyagrong Minyag, Lhagang Choyu, Gochang, and Darmdo Minyag (languages 20-28). Within thisregion, all the minority languages (with exception of Daohua) are indigenous, in the sense that they
likely predate the arrival of Tibetan-speakers in the region. Nonetheless, unlike in the Amdo
Sprachbund, speakers of most minority languages profess a Tibetan identity. And also unlike the Amdo
Sprachbund, there appears to have been no single dominant language in the region. This is likely due tothe fact that the region was at the interface of the larger Amdo and Kham regions, but also because it washome to such extensive linguistic diversity (18 languages). Nonetheless, literary Tibetan was a prestige
language used in the oral tradition of all populations. We provisionally refer to this area as the
Rgyalrong-Minyag region.

Except for the northern parts of Yunnan, the southern area has never been politically or
demographically dominated by Tibetans. Instead, the majority populations in this area are Yi/ Nosu in
the east, and Naxi in the west. Most linguistic minorities in this area were likely to have venerated
Tibetan texts as objects, but had oral traditions that were not based on literary Tibetan. As with thecentral area just described, there appears to have been no single dominant language in this area, although
Nosu prevailed in the east, and (various forms of) Naxi in the west. The contours of identity appear more
complex here than in the Amdo Sprachbund and Rgyalrong-Minyag area. Whilst the first has adominant Tibetan identity acting as a matrix for smaller minorities, and the second a dominanttrans-language Tibetan identity, Tibetan identity here competes with other dominant ethnic groups –Nosu and Naxi – resulting in a complex mosaic of ascribed and professed identities. We provisionallyrefer to this region as the Nosu-Naxi region.
What this preliminary analysis of the spatial distribution of Tibet’s minority languages suggests, isthat although these languages share common features – they are typically not used ingovernment-sponsored institutions, are not recognized officially or socially as ‘real’ languages, they
exist as demographic minorities – there are also significant historical, social, and historical differences
between the sub-regional areas. These differences must be taken into consideration if we want tounderstand the unique predicaments faced by each language, and the conditions leading to thewidespread endangerment and shift taking place across the region. So, although thinking about Tibet’s
minority languages as a group is helpful and draws our attention to certain salient features, it also covers
up regional differences that also play significant roles.

6

Conclusion: Directions for Future ResearchThis map should be regarded as a provisional representation of the diversity of minority languages of theeastern Tibetosphere. It is one possible representation of a range of specific linguistic hypotheses,
designed to demonstrate the extent and fragility of the region’s linguistic diversity, in ways that
deliberately counter dominant representations of the region as monolingual. It does not, on the one hand,tell us anything about the views of speakers of these documented varieties regarding how they interpretthe relationship between their practices of speaking and their ascribed and professed identities.
Furthermore, it does not tell us about the relationships between these spoken varieties, linguistically orsocially.
We nonetheless hope that this article helps advance an emerging conversation about the fate of
linguistic diversity in Tibet beyond a simple discussion of the survival of a single ‘Tibetan’ language inthe context of an intrusive and equally monolithic ‘Chinese’ language. In particular, we hope it draws
attention to the ways in which this binary view of Tibet’s language ecology may have submerged theperspectives and voices of the most vulnerable populations in the region, i.e., those whose linguistic
interests are not represented by either the Chinese state or the Tibetan nation. What do these populations
want and hope for? What do they expect from the state and from the broader Tibetan community and its
supporters? How are these expectations and hopes structured by current political and economic
conditions?
Beyond raising these questions, we also wish to propose further avenues for research on theselanguages.
The first avenue for research would be to further explore the sub-regional breakdown proposed inthis article. In addition to the features described above for the sub-regions, what other features mightminority languages share in terms of a common sociolinguistic context? To what extent do the different
sub-regional profiles correspond to differing patterns of endangerment and shift? What further nuancingof the sub-regions might be possible – for example, dividing the southern sub-region into a western andeastern sub-region, dominated by Nosu and Naxi respectively.
Furthermore, having a map showing the complexity and fragility of linguistic diversity in the region
raises for the first time the possibility of exploring the relationship between linguistic diversity andenvironmental correlates. These might include, for example, biodiversity, topography, or climate, all ofwhich have been demonstrated to bear on ethno-linguistic diversity. Another potential avenue forresearch that this map raises is to look at the relationship between pre-modern political units, such asprincipalities and other minor domains, and linguistic diversity, an avenue of research already explored
by Gates (2012) and Roche (2016). Understanding the ways in which linguistic diversity correlated withenvironmental and political factors in the past might provide useful insights that will aid in maintaining
these languages into the future.
Following our present study, the linguistic diversity in the eastern Tibetosphere is more complicatedthan what the Studies in Asian Geolinguistics Project reflects. The density of plots of the Tibeto-Burman
group is one of the highest language groups in the project; however, the present project does not cover
all the Tibeto-Burman languages that we give in the map. Geolinguistics highly respects humangeographical features to analyse a historical development of languages. In order to produce betterinterpretations of language change in the eastern Tibetosphere, it is indispensable to take a precise
situation of the linguistic diversity in this region into consideration, by focusing on linguistic minorities.

Appendix 1: MapAppendix 2: Sources9
Language

No. on Map

Map Source

Bai, Lama

44

Ethnologue 2017

Baima

10

SCZL

Choyu

23

SCZL

Daohua27

SCZL

Darmdo Minyag

28

Dawa Drolma & Suzuki 2015; SCZL

Doxu

32

Katia Chirkova (p.c.); SCZL

Eastern Yugur

2

Xueqing Zhong (p.c.)

Ersu

30

Katia Chirkova (p.c.); Zhang 2013; SCZL

Geshitsa

20

Sonam Lhundrop (p.c.); SCZL

Gochang

26

Roche (f.w.); SCZL

Japhug

13

Jacques 2004

Kangjia4

Roche (f.w.)

Khroskyabs

17

G.yu lha (p.c.); SCZL

Laze

37

Huang 2009

Lhagang Choyu

25

Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo 2016

Lipo

47

Ethnologue 2017

Lisu

43

Wurm et al. 1987; ZGYYDTJ-II

Lizu

34

Katia Chirkova (p.c.); SCZL

Malimasa

40

Suzuki 2017

Manegacha

7

Roche (f.w.)

Mangghuer

6

Roche (f.w.); Roche 2011

Mongghul

3

Roche and Stuart 2015

Namuyi33

Libu Lakhi (p.c.); SCZLNa

38

Lidz 2010; Michaud et al. 2017

Naxi

39

Michaud et al. 20179 p.c. = personal communication; f.w. = fieldwork

nDrapa

24

Shirai 2008; SCZL

Ngandehua

8

Roche (f.w.); Janhunen et al. 2007; Tshe ringskyid 2015.

Northern Rmaic

11

SCZL

Nung

41

Qin and Suzuki 2015

Nosu

31

Wurm et al. 1987; ZGYYDTJ-II

Nyagrong Minyag

22

Bkra shis Bzang po 2012; Suzuki 2012

Henan Oirat

9

Roche (f.w.); Roche 2016; Balogh 2017

Prinmi35

Gerong Pincuo and Henriëtte Daudey (p.c.)

Rta’u

21

Sonam Lhundrop (p.c.)

Salar

5

Camille Simon (p.c.)

Shimian Minyag

29

SCZL

Shuhing

36

Chirkova and Chen 2013; SCZL

Situ (-rGyalrong)

12

Gates 2012

Southern rGyalrong

19

Gates 2012

Southern Prinmi

45

Wurm et al. 1987; ZGYYDTJ-II

Southern Rmaic

18

SCZL

sTodsde16

Gates 2012

Talu

48

Zhou 2004

Tanglang

46

Gai and Wang 2009

Tshobdun

14

Gates 2012

T’rung42

Qin and Suzuki 2015; Gros 2010

Western Yugur

1

Xueqing Zhong (p.c.)

Zbu

15

Gates 2012Appendix 3: Minority Languages of the Eastern Tibetosphere Classified According toSpeaker Status and Sociolinguistic Status of Language

Ethnolinguistic
Minorities

SPEAKERS

Linguistic Minorities

Unrecognized
Eastern Yugur
Henan Oirat
Kangjia
Lama (Bai)
Laze
Lipo
Malimasa
Manegacha
Mangghuer
Na
Nung
Ngandehua
Southern Rmaic
Talu
Tanglang
Baima
Choyu
DaohuaDarmdo Minyag
Doxu
Ersu
Geshitsa
Gochang
JaphugKhroskyabs
Lhagang Choyu
Lizu
NamuyinDrapaNyagrong Minyag
Prinmi
Rta’u
Shimian Minyag
Shuhing
Situ
Southern Rgyalrong
StodsdeTshobdun
Zbu



LANGUAGE
Extraterritorial
Lisu
Nosu
Southern Prinmi

Enclaved
Mongghul
Naxi
Northern Rmaic
Salar
T’rungWestern Yugur

Acknowledgements
This collaboration project was funded by a Visiting Scholar grant from the Faculty of Arts at the
University of Melbourne.
Gerald Roche’s research was funded by the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Early
Career Research Award (DE150100388).
Hiroyuki Suzuki’s field research was funded by five Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from theJapan Society for the Promotion of Science [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 the present author), “International Field Survey ofthe 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), and “International Field Survey of Tibeto-Burman Link
Languages” (headed by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 16H02722), as well as and a private financial support ofTibetan Studies Committee of Yunnan Ethnology Association headed by Xu Jianhua.
References
Balogh, M. 2017. Henan Oirat: a shrinking pool of unique linguistic features. The International Journal of theSociology of Language. 245: 37-62.
Bkra shis bzang po. 2012. May all good things gather here: life, religion, and marriage in a Minyag Tibetan village.
Asian Highlands Perspectives 14: 1-369.
Chirkova K., and Y. Chen. 2013. Xumi, Part 1. Lower Xumi, the variety of the lower and middle reaches of theShuiluo River. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 43.3: 363-379.
Clyne, M. 2005. Australia’s Language Potential. University of New South Wales Press.
Culcasi, K. 2012. Mapping the Middle East from Within: (counter-)cartographies of an imperialist construction.
Antipode. 44.4: 1099-1118.
Dawa Drolma & H. Suzuki. 2015 [2016]. Preliminary report on the Darmdo Minyag linguistic area, with ageolinguistic description of terms for ‘sun’. In M. Endo (ed.) Studies in Asian Geolinguistics I —Sun—, 72-78.
Online: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag1_sun_2016.pdf.
Dede, K. 2003. The Chinese language in Qinghai. Studia orientalia 95: 321-346.
Dwyer, A. 2013. Tibetan as a dominant sprachbund language: Its interactions with neighboring languages. In G.
Tuttle, Kunsang Gya, Karma Dare, and J. Wilber (eds) The third international conference on Tibetan
language (volume 1): Proceedings of the panels on domains of use and linguistic interaction, 259-302. New
York: Trace Foundation.
Gai, X. and Y. Wang. 2013. Tanglangyu yuyin qianshuo. Cahiers de linguistique Asie orientale 42(2): 163-177.
Gates, J. 2012. Situ in situ: Towards a dialectology of Jiāróng (rGyalrong). Lincom Europa.
Gawne, L. and H. Ring. 2016. Mapmaking for Language Documentation and Description. Language
Documentation and Description 10: 188-242.
Gros, S. 2010. A sense of place: the spatial referent in the definition of identities and territories in the Dulong
Valley (north-west China – Yunnan). In C. Culas and F. Robine (eds) Inter-Ethnic Dynamics in Asia:
Considering the Other through Ethnonyms, Territories, and Rituals. London: Rotuledge, 103-121.
Haspelmath, M. 2017. Some principles for language names. Language Documentation and Conservation 11:
81-93.
Hodgson, D. and R. Schroeder. 2002. Dilemmas of counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania.
Development and Change 33: 79-100.
Huang, B. 2009. Muli shuitianhua yanjiu. Hanzangyu Xuebao 3: 30-55.
Jacques, G. 2004. Phonologie et morphologie historique de japhug (langue rGyalrong). Thèse de doctorat, Écoledes hautes études en sciences sociales.

Jacques, G. 2017. Rgyalrong Language. In R. Sybesma (ed.) Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics
583-589. Brill.
Janhunen, J., L. Ha Mingzong and J. Tshe dpag rnam rgyal. 2007. On the language of the Shaowa Tuzu in thecontext of the ethnic taxonomy of Amdo Qinghai. Central Asiatic journal 51(2): 177-195.
Janhunen, J., M. Peltomaa, E. Sandman, and Xiawu Dongzhou. 2008. Wutun. Lincom Europa.
Lai, Y. and Yina (G.yu lha). 2016. Inverse marking in Khroskyabs. Paper presented at Fourth Workshop on
Sino-Tibetan Languages of Southwest China (Seattle).
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds). 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 18th
edition. SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.
Lidz, L.A. 2010. A descriptive grammar of Yongning Na (Mosuo), PhD thesis, University of Texas
McDonlad, M. 1989. “We are not French!” Language, Culture and Identity in Brittany. Routledge.
Michaud, A., L. He and Y. Zhong. 2017. Naxi (Naish). In R. Sybesma (ed.) Encyclopedia of Chinese Language
and Linguistics 144-157. Leiden: Brill.
Peluso, N. 1995. Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode27.4: 383-406.
Qin, L. and H. Suzuki. 2015. Chasing a cat from the Mekong to the Salween: A geolinguistic description of ‘cat’ inTrung and Khams Tibetan in North-western Yunnan. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics I —Sun—, 61-71.
Online: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag1_sun_2016.pdf.
Roche, G. 2011. Nadun: Ritual and the Dynamics of Diversity in Northwest China's Hehuang Region. PhD
Dissertation: Griffith University.
Roche, G. 2016. The Tibetanization of Henan’s Mongols: ethnicity and assimilation on the Sino-Tibetan frontier.
Asian Ethnicity. 17.1:128-149
Roche, G. 2017. The transformation of Tibet’s language ecology in the 21 st century. The International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 245: 1-36.
Roche, G. and K. Stuart. 2015. Mapping the Monguor: Asian Highlands Perspectives 36.
Roche, G. and H. Suzuki. 2017. Tibet’s minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern Asian Studies
51.5, in press.
Roche, G. and Yudru Tsomu. Forthcoming. Tibet’s Invisible Languages and China’s Language Endangerment
Crisis. China Quarterly.
Rona-Tas, A. 1996. Tibeto-Mongolica: The Tibetan loanwords of Monguor and the development of the archaic
Tibetan dialects. Mouton.
Sandman, E. 2012. Bonan grammatical features in Wutun. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 264:
375–387.
Sandman, E. and C. Simon. 2016. Tibetan as a “model language” in the Amdo Sprachbund: evidence from Salarand Wutun. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 3(1): 85-122.
SCZL=Sichuan Zoulang website. www.sichuanzoulang.com.
Sellwood, J. and D. Angelo. 2013. Everywhere and nowhere: invisibility of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
contact languages in education and indigenous language contexts. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
36.3: 250-266.
Shirai, S. 2008. Effects of animacy on existential sentences in nDrapa. Gengo kenkyu 134: 1-22.
Simon, C. 2015. Linguistic evidence of Salar-Tibetan contacts in Amdo. In M.P. Hille, B. Horlemann, and P.
Nietupski (eds) Muslims in Amdo Tibetan Society: Multidisciplinary Approaches, 87-107. Lexington Books.
Slater, K. 2003. Mangghuer: A Mongolic language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu sprachbund. Routledge.
Spolsky, B. 2014. Language management in the People’s Republic of China. Language 90.4: e165-e179.
Stanner, W.E.H. 1969. The Boyer Lecture: After the Dreaming. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Suzuki, H. 2012. Ergative marking in Nyagrong-Minyag (Xinlong, Sichuan). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman
Area 35.1: 35-48.
Suzuki, H. 2015a. Gannan-syuu Zhuoni, Diebu, Zhouqu 3-ken no Tibettokei syogengo to sono kaibunrui. Nidaba
44: 1-9.

Suzuki, H. 2015b [2016]. A geolinguistic description of terms for ‘sun’ in Tibetic languages in the eastern
Tibetosphere. In M. Endo (ed.) Studies in Asian Geolinguistics I ---SUN---, 79-85. Online:
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag1_sun_2016.pdf.
Suzuki, H. 2017. The vitality of Khams Tibetan varieties in Weixi County. Asian Highland Perspectives 44:
256-284. Online: https://tibetanplateau.wikischolars.columbia.edu/VOLUME+44.
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2016. Lhagang Choyu: A first look at its sociolinguistic status. In M. Endo (ed.)
Studies in Asian Geolinguistics II— Rice—, 60-69. Online: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag2_rice_2016.pdf.
Tamburelli, M. 2014. Uncovering the ‘hidden’ multilingualism of Europe: an Italian case study. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development 35.3: 252-270.
Tindale, N. & R. Jones. 1974. Aboriginal tribes of Australia: their terrain, environmental controls, distribution,
limits, and proper names. University of California Press.
Tshe ring skyid. 2015. An introduction to Rgya tshang ma, a Monguor (Tu) village in Reb gong (Tongren). Asian
Highlands Perspectives 37: 276-300.
Tunzhi (Sonam Lhundrop). 2017. Language vitality and glottonyms in the ethnic corridor: the Rta’u language. The
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 245: 147-168.
van Way, J. and Bkrashis bzangpo. 2015. Nyagrong Minyag: Prestige and maintenance of a traditional language on
the Tibetan periphery. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 38.2: 245-255.
Wurm, S., B. Theo, D. Bradley, R. Li, Z. Xiong, & Z. Zhang (eds). 1987. Language Atlas of China. Hong Kong:
Longman.
Zhang, S. 2013. A reference grammar of Ersu: a Tibeto-Burman language of China, PhD thesis, James Cook
University. Online: http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/31252/.
Zhou, D. 2004 Taliuhua Yanjiu. Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.
ZGYYDTJ-II. 2012. Zhongguo Yuyan Dituji. Shaoshu Minzu Yuyan Juan. Shangwu Yinshuguan.

Historical Development of Bodgrong [Bingzhongluo] Tibetan(Gongshan, Yunnan): From a Geolinguistic Perspective
Hiroyuki Suzukiaa

IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology

Abstract
There are Tibetans and Nu Nationality people living together in Bingzhongluo and Bangdang
townships in the north of Gongshan County, Nujiang Prefecture, Yunnan Province. Several ofthem are speakers of Khams Tibetan, divided into two dialects called Bodgrong and Dimalo.
This article primarily discusses linguistic characteristics and historical development of the
Bodgrong dialect (vernacular of Rithang Hamlet). According to oral histories transmitted by
Tibetan-speakers of Bingzhongluo, their ancestors came from Deqin County, the neighbouring
county, especially from two villages Yongzhi (gYanggril) of Yunling Township and Cizhong(Tshodrug) of Yanmen Township. A comparative analysis among Bodgrong, gYanggril, andTshodrug reveals that the Bodgrong dialect is closer to the Tshodrug dialect even though there
have already been not a few differences.

1

Introduction

This article will discuss a development of Bodgrong Tibetan spoken in Bingzhongluo щ ѝ ⍋[Bod-grong] Township, Gongshan Trung and Nu Autonomous County, Nujiang [rGyal-mo rNgul-chu]
Lisu Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan Province, based on the oral story of the speakers’ migration
history, using other dialectal materials of the dialects spoken in Diqing [bDe-chen] Prefecture.
Bodgrong Tibetan may have several vernaculars, of which I deal with the vernacular of Rithang[Ri-thang].

Fig.1: Bingzhongluo Village (2013)Bodgrong Tibetan is spoken by Tibetans and Nu-nationality people living in the central area ofBingzhongluo щѝ⍋ Township, Gongshan 䍑ኡ County, Nujiang ᙂ⊏ Prefecture, Yunnan Ӂই.
Bingzhongluo Township contacts Cawalong ሏ⬖嗉 Township of Tibet Autonomous Region andYunling Ӂዝ and Yanmen ⠅䰘 villages of Deqin ᗧ䫖 County, Diqing 䘚ᒶ Prefecture, both of which
belong to the Tibetan cultural area. In Nujiang, Tibetan dialects merely distribute in Bingzhongluo and
Bangdang ἂᖃ townships, and they are a minority language in this area, where Lisu, Nung (a.k.a. Anu,
regarded as a dialect of Dulong; see Qin & Suzuki 2016), and Chinese are spoken. There is to someextent dialectal divergence inside of the two townships, and there are at least three varieties: Bodgrong(Bingzhongluo [Bod-grong]; ‘luo’ is a Lisu word which designates ‘place’), Chunagthang (Qiunatong[Chu-nag-thang] ⿻䛓Ầ), and Dimalo (Dimaluo 䘚哫⍋).
It is said that the Tibetans living in Nujiang are people who migrated from gYanggril (Yongzhi[Glang-sgril] ≨᭟, Yunling) and Tshodrug (Cizhong [Tsho-drug] 㥘ѝ, Yanmen) villages in thepresent Deqin County before several generations, around 200 years ago. On the other hand, no specificrelationship between Bodgrong and Tshawarong (Cawalong [Tsha-ba-rong]) has not been attested.

Fig.2: Location of Bingzhongluo

Fig.3: Location of related dialects

According to Suzuki (2013, 2014a), the dialectal position of Bodgong Tibetan is an independent
subgroup of the sDerong-nJol group of Khams Tibetan. The dialects of the sDerong-nJol group spoken
are Yunnan are classified into five subgroups: West Yunling Mountain, mBalhag, sPomtserag, gYagrwa,
and Bodgrong. Of the dialects spoken in the area mentioned above, almost all dialects belong to theWest Yunling Mountain group. The Tshawarong dialect is, however, of another dialectal group, whichis still unclear and temporarily classified into the rDzayul dialect group including the sGola (Gula[sGo-la] ਔ᣹) dialect spoken to the north of Tshawarong.
The dialects belonging to the West Yunling Mountain subgroup possess various characteristics on
the sound development; hence they do not seem to be able to form ‘one’ group (Suzuki forthcoming-b).
The difference within this group is to be discussed in Section 3. Additionally, other dialects spoken in
Gongshan County, Chunagthang and Dimalo, also belong to West Yunling Mountain subgroup. Their
ancestors, same as the speakers of Bodgrong Tibetan, came from Yunling and Yanmen villages, Deqin
County, Diqing Prefecture; however, all of them have already to some extent differed from each other.

This article consists of two parts: a brief phonological description of Bodgrong Tibetan, and a
discussion on its historical development. Firstly, an overview of the phonological system of Bodgrong
Tibetan and a brief description of sound correspondences with Written Tibetan (henceforth WrT), whichis regarded as a historical development pattern of its phonological status, are presented. This is the basic
material of Bodgrong Tibetan. Secondly, two kinds of comparison with the cases of the gYanggril andTshedrug dialects are provided. The one is regarding sound correspondences with WrT, and the other isregarding dialectal lexical forms. The discussion includes linguistic maps, which display differencesattested within the dialects spoken along the Lancangjiang River (the West Yunling Mountain
subgroup). These maps clarify typological differences of the gYanggril and Tshedrug dialects.
The data used to create the linguistics maps within the article (Figures 4 - 10) only includes
first-hand materials collected by the author. The linguistic maps reflect so-called ‘regiolects’, i.e.
dialects with regional differences. Sociolects, which certainly exist in the given area, are not dealt within this article. All the maps were designed with ArcGIS online except for Figures 2 and 3, which were
produced by another online geocoding method provided in http://ktgis.net/gcode/lonlatmapping.html.

2

Bodgrong Tibetan: phonology and basic sound correspondence with WrT

2.1 Phonological system
The phonological inventory of Bodgrong Tibetan (vernacular of Rithang) is as follows:
Table 1: Consonantism
plosiveaffricatefricativenasal
liquidsemi-vowel

aspirated
non-aspirated
voicedaspirated
non-aspirated
voicedaspirated
non-aspirated
voicedvoicedvoicelessvoicedvoicelessvoiced

A: bilabial B: denti-alveolar
F: velar G: glottal

$
SK
S
E






P
Pલ


Z

C: retroflex

%
WK
W
G
WVK
WV
G]
VK
V
]
Q
Qલ
O
Oલ


&
ߺK
ߺ
˅








U
Uલ


D: prepalatal

'



WɪK
Wɪ
Gॼ
ɪK
ɪ
ॼ
‫ن‬
‫ن‬ળ 




(



FoK
Fo
թբ







M

)
NK
N
J



[K
[

‫غ‬
‫غ‬ળ




*


প





K
ѓ






E: palatal

Table 2: VocalismL   ࡗ     ؉X
 H    ̸   R    ͑     ɬ      D   ľ    Tones
A four-way distinction in word tone. The following phonemic signs will be used at the beginning ofa word:Ú: high level [55/44]  : rising [24/35] C : falling [53/31] A: rising-falling [132]For details of the sound structure of Bodgrong Tibetan, see Suzuki (2014b).

2.2 Sound correspondence with WrT
For the sake of simplicity and explicitness, I just display several peculiar sound correspondences ofBodgrong Tibetan with WrT as follows:
2.2.1 WrT voiced obstruentsThe sound correspondence of Bodgrong Tibetan with WrT voiced obstruent simplexes is voicelessnon-aspirated simplex in low-tone (rising or rising-falling), as:/pa/ ‘cow’ ba/tɬ੻/ ‘bear’ dom/ɪҩ/ ‘field’ zhing/si৸ ba/ ‘dew’ zil ba
When any of the initials of this category appears on the second syllable, it will be voiced, as:/Foa/ ‘tea’ ja/me৸ թբa/ ‘butter tea’ mar ja/VH੻/ ‘meal’ zan/ɪo৸ zH੻/ ‘breakfast’ zhogs zan

When WrT voiced obstruents have a glide, they correspond to voiceless non-aspirated simplex in
low-tone as well:/ɪa/ ‘chicken’ bya/ߺɑপ/ ‘cliff’ brag/tɪɬ੻/ ‘wall’ gyang/ߺH੻/ ‘think’ dranThere are some exceptional examples; however, they are common to the dialects of thesDerong-nJol group:(a denti-alveolar affricate appears)/CtsK̸/ ‘dog’ khyi/Cߺɬপ/ ‘six’ drug(a falling pitch appears)

2.2.2 WrT including a glide y, r, or c/ch/j/sh/zh
These series are systematically analysed, for it is more comprehensive to understand the merger anddivergence of their sound correspondence. The summary of the sound correspondence is as follows:
Table 3: Principal sound correspondence of Bodgrong Tibetan with WrT
WrT
Basic corresponding sound (articulation)
c/ch/jpalatal affricates
Ky-series
prepalatal affricates
Py-series, sh/zh
prepalatal fricatives
r-glide included
retroflex plosives
Examples of c/ch/j/CFoKu/ ‘water’ chu/CKFou/ ‘ten’ bcu/C‫ص‬թբ̸hte੻/ ‘world’ ’jig rten
Examples of Ky-series/CѓGॼa/ ‘hundred’ brgya/Útɪheপ/ ‘you’ khyod/ChtɪࡗѓH/ ‘sour’ skyur po
Examples of Py-series/ɪa/ ‘chicken’ bya/Úɪhɔ৸EX/ ‘rich’ phyug po/Chɪɬ੻Nh̸/ ‘wolf’ spyang khu
Examples of sh/zh-series/Cɪha/ ‘meat’ sha/ѓॼ̸/ ‘four’ bzhi
/ɪR৸OH/ ‘morning’ zhogs legs
Examples of r-glide (Kr-, Pr-, and dr-series)/ߺ̸ShH৸/ ‘knife’ gri ?
/ChߺD/ ‘hair’ skra/‫˅ل‬u/ ‘go’’gro/ߺ̸/ ‘write’ bri/Cѓ˅L৸/ ‘snake’ sbrul/Chߺҩ / ‘cloud’ sprin/Úxa ‫̸˅ل‬/ ‘evil’ sngags ’dre/ߺ̸/ ‘ask’ dri
Other than them, WrT sr corresponds to an aspirated fricative /sh/ as follows:/CVhRপ/ ‘life’ srog
/CVhRZপ/ ‘thin’ srab
/CVhDhWRপ/ ‘solid’sra ?
2.2.3 WrT l and y
These series are systematically analysed, for it is more comprehensive to understand the merger anddivergence of their sound correspondence. The summary of the sound correspondence is as follows:
Examples of l/lľ੻/ ‘road’ lam/CѓOɔ੻/ ‘bull’ glang/CѓODJ͑৸/ ‘moon’ zla dkar
Examples of y/ji৸/ ‘rabbit year’ yos/Ajeপ/ ‘have’ yod/CѓMľপ/ ‘yak’ g.yag
2.2.4 WrT w-glide included
The WrT w-glide does not have a corresponding sound in dialect forms, as follows:/r̸ hcouপ/ ‘horn’ rwa cog/ॼa mo/ ‘hat’ zhwa mo/CWVhD/ ‘salt’ tshwa
2.2.5 List of sound correspondence with WrT rhymes
The summary list of the sound correspondence with WrT rhyme is as follows:
Table 4: Principal sound correspondence of Bodgrong Tibetan rhyme with WrT
#/-’
b
d
g
m
n
ng
r
l
a a
ɔwপ/̸wপ
eপ
ľপ
ľ੻
੻/͑੻
ɔ੻
͑৸
i৸

s
e৸/i৸

i

̸

iপ

i৸

u

u/؉

e

i/e

o

u

iপ

iপ

؉੻ প

iপ

uপ

ejপ/̸wপ

eপ

iপ

eপ

oপ

ҩ/e੻
؉੻
੻
ɔ੻

ҩ

੻

੻

̸৸

i৸

i৸

ҩ

ҩ

e৸/̸৸

wi৸

e৸

੻

੻/u੻

؉/؉৸

e৸

i৸

From a typological viewpoint of Khams Tibetan, sound correspondences of WrT -u in open syllable,-or, -os, etc. are noteworthy, for example:/CKFou/ ‘ten’ bcu/Aѓg؉ ѓg؉/ ‘round’ sgor sgor/Aѓgi৸/ ‘need’ dgos

3

Comparison of Bodgrong with gYanggril and Tshodrug dialects of Khams

Based on the description of 2.2, I will discuss the similarity and difference between Bodgong and othertwo dialects spoken in bDechen County: gYanggril and Tshodrug. Sound correspondences with WrT
and lexical forms are compared.
3.1 Overview of the dialects of the West Yunling Mountain subgroup: a geolinguistic description
I am responsible for making a dialectal classification provided in Suzuki (2013); however, the subgroupnamed West Yunling Mountain (WYM) includes so various dialects that it seems that a more detailed
classification is possible. Indeed, this group can be divided into two major groups with one
continuum-like transitional group, which can be displayed in Figure 6, drawn based on two following
criteria provided in Figures 4 and 5, i.e., X: sound correspondence of WrT l as in lag-pa ‘hand’, and Y:
pronunciation of the word ‘go’ (WrT ’gro). This analysis is also provided in Suzuki (2016/7).

Fig. 4: WrT l as in lag‘hand’
A
/j/
B

(=X)

Fig. 5: Word ‘go’ (WrT ’gro) (=Y)
A/‫˅ل‬//l/B/‫غ‬g/

Fig. 6: WYM subclassification
A X: /j/ and Y: /‫˅ل‬/
B X: /j/ and Y: /‫غ‬g/
C X: /l/ and Y: /‫غ‬g/
There are several descriptive studies on these dialects, for example, Suzuki (2008, 2011, 2012),
Suzuki & rTa-mgrin Chos-mtsho (2012), Chos-mo (2013), Ikeda & Pad-ma mTsho-mo (2014), etc. In
the 1950s, the China’s survey on the ethnic minority languages has recorded a variety belonging to theWest Yunling Mountain subgroup according to Zhang (1996). A part of the description of Les
Missionnaires Cathoriques du Thibet (1899) and Giraudeau & Goré (1956) includes data of thissubgroup. However, the dialectal varieties are so complex as in Figure 4; previous works are insufficient
to provide comprehensive understandings on the WYM group.
The two dialects to be compared with Bodgrong Tibetan, gYanggril, and Tshodrug, belong to 1. and3. respectively, in the next subsection.
3.2 Comparison
Based on the description provided in 2.2, the three dialects Bodgrong, gYanggril, and Tshodrug arecompared from the viewpoint of sound correspondences with WrT in Table 5, and of dialectal lexical
forms in Table 6.

Table 5: Dialectal comparison regarding the sound correspondence with WrT
no. WrT item
Bodgrong [B] gYanggril [Y] Tshodrug [T] Similarity of B
1 ba ‘cow’/pa//pa৸//pa/
quasi-common to Y/T2bya ‘chicken’/ɪa//ߋa৸//ɪa/common to T3ja ‘tea’/Foa//tɪa//tɪa/

different from Y/T4zan ‘meal’/VH੻/

5
6/VH੻//VH੻/

common to Y/Tѓ

brgyad ‘eight’ /C Gॼeপ/ѓ/Ú Gॼiপ//Ú Gॼiপ/similar to Y/Tbzhi ‘four’ѓ/ ॼ̸/

ѓ/A ॷ̸// ॷ̸/

different from Y/T7

skra ‘hair’h/C ߺD/h/Ú ߺD/h/Ú ߺ̸ pɯ/similar to Y

8bri ‘write’

/ߺ̸/

/ߺ̸/

/ߺ̸/

common to Y/Tsrog ‘life’h/CV Rপ/h/C Vuপ/h/C Vuপ/different from Y/T/lľ੻//jľ੻//lľ੻/

common to Tn

9

10 lam ‘road’

ѓ

ѓ

h

11 zla dkar ‘moon’ /C ODJ͑৸//je ga৸//Ú lDJ͑৸/

similar to T

12 yod ‘have’/Ajeপ//Aॼࡗ৸//jࡗপ/

similar to T

13 g.yag ‘yak’/C Mľপ//C ॼľপ//C Mľপ/common to T

14 zhwa ‘hat’/ॼa mo//ߋ̸ wa//ߋ̸ wa/

different from Y/T

ѓ

ѓ

ѓ

ѓ

ѓ

Table 6: Dialectal comparison on dialectal lexical forms
No. WrT item
Bodgrong [B] gYanggril [Y] Tshodrug [T]15 ’ja’ ‘rainbow’ /Cѓza//Úѓza//Cѓza ѓॼR੻/

Similarity of B
similar to Y/T

16 a myes ‘grandfather’/Aপa kh̸੻/

totally different/পa mi৸//পa mi৸/

17 phag phrug ‘piglet’ /p ľ৸ le/h/p ľ lľ/h/p ľ৸ lje/

similar to T

18 bya de ‘cock’/ da gu৸//ko t͑৸//ko te/totally different

19 byi la ‘cat’/‫ن‬a me//li la//‫ن‬a me/

identical to T

20 nas ‘qingke barley’ /Úk̸r̸//Úk̸r̸//k̸r̸/similar to Y/T

ѓ

h

‫غ‬

h

h

21 rtswa ‘grass’/p̸ॼa//Ú s̸ wa/

/Ú ts̸ wa/

totally different

22 gnyis ‘two’/C ‫ن‬i৸//Cm̸//Ú‫ن‬i৸/similar to TѓI will make an interpretation of the data of Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5 shows that:(A) Bodgrong Tibetan is completely different from gYanggril Tibetan on the sound correspondenceof WrT l and y (10, 11, 12, 13);(B) there are no examples which merely correspond to those of gYanggril;(C) on the contrary, there are several examples which merely correspond to those of Tshodrug (2, 10,
11, 12, 13); and(D) some examples do not correspond to both of two (3, 6, 9, 14).
The results (A, B, C) imply that Bodgrong Tibetan is typologically close to Tshodrug Tibetan.
Regarding the result (D), more investigations are needed.
Table 6 shows a more complex situation than Table 5: there are a number of dialectal words which
do not clearly correspond to WrT; however, the difference among the dialects belonging to the WYM
group of the sDerong-nJol group is small. We can find some examples which have different word forms
in gYanggril and Tshodrug such as (18, 19, 20), but the word forms in Bodgrong correspond either tothose of gYanggril (20) or those of Tshodrug (19), or do not correspond to both (18, 22). Such examples
as (16, 21) must be loanwords obtained in the Nujiang region. However, the existence of the word formssuch as (15, 17) as well as (19, 20) implies that Bodgrong Tibetan is related to dialects of the WYM
subgroup.
To summarise the discussion, Bodgrong Tibetan is close to dialects of the WYM subgroup.
However, as shown in Figure 6, the “WYM subgroup” originally has various types of dialects.We
should evaluate how Bodgrong shares word forms in phonetic and morphological aspects with various
dialects spoken along the Lancangjiang River.
3.3 Geolinguistic analysis
Among the words in Table 6, I will display linguistic maps regarding ‘piglet’, ‘cat’, ‘highland barley’,and ‘two’ as Figures 7 to 10 below. These are also discussed in Suzuki (forthcoming-b); however, thepresent version includes more data. Figure 7 displays a vowel variation of the second syllable of the ford
for ‘piglet’ (see also Suzuki 2012a). Figure 8 presents the first initial of the word for ‘cat’ (see also
Suzuki 2014b, Qin & Suzuki 2016). Figure 9 deals with the difference of the word form for ‘highlandbarley’. Figure 10 notes a difference of the initial of the word form for ‘two’ (see also Suzuki 2009a,
2014d).

Fig. 7: Word ‘piglet’
A /ɯ - ə/ (2nd syl.)
B /a/ (2nd syl.)
C /i/ (2nd syl.)
D /e/ (2nd syl.)Fig. 8: Word ‘cat’Alateral initialB
nasal initialFig. 9: Word ‘highland barley’
A /ka ra/, /k̸ r̸/
B /ka/C /sho wa/

Fig. 10: Word ‘two’A
prepalatal nasal initialBbilabial nasal initial

These maps reflect a difficulty in dividing a group into gYanggril and Tshodrug with a bundle ofisoglosses. More data might be helpful to find out a clearer classification with isoglosses.
3.4 Another view and remaining questions
We will see another source of data, 100 words of the Swadesh list (Swadesh 1971:283), to check the
proportion of the lexical similarity. The data and interpretation themselves are provided in Suzuki(forthcoming-a); thus, I briefly recapitulate here simple statistic points as follows:
Of the 100 word forms of the List:- 50 are common or quasi-common to the three dialects;- 4 are only similar to gYanggril;- 16 are only similar to Tshodrug;- 25 in Bodgrong are independent of the other two; and- 5 data non-available.
The data suggest that Bodgrong Tibetan is relatively different from the two dialects compared here;
however, it shares more basic words with Tshodrug than gYanggril.
To sum up, we can conclude that Bodgrong Tibetan is relatively closer to Tshodrug Tibetan thangYanggril Tibetan based on two aspects: (1) it does not undergo the innovation regarding WrT l and yattested in gYanggril; and (2) it has more shared word forms shared only with Tshodrug Tibetan.
However, questions still remain. For instance, does this conclusion accurately reflect a historicaldevelopment of Bodgrong? It is not guaranteed that the present phonological system of the two dialects
Tshodrug and gYanggril is the same as what it was at the time of the beginning of the migration of theancestors of the Bodgrong-Tibetan speaker. A possibility is that gYanggril Tibetan has experienced agreat sound development after their immigration. However, even though it has multiple peculiar features,
it is not so peculiar as a dialect, because it shares multiple similar features with the dialects spoken from
Yungling to nJol (quite equivalent to Yunling Village and Shengping Town of Deqin County).
Therefore, it is difficult to say that only gYanggril Tibetan changed much.
Another possibility is that Tibetan immigrants from Deqin to Bingzhongluo selected the type of
Tshodrug Tibetan as their communication language in spite of the variegation of languages when theancestors came to the place. This hypothesis is also possible, but at present stage, it is still difficult to
describe a concrete history of Bodgrong Tibetan. Using multiple linguistic maps as Figure 4 may
advance discussions more in detail. A basic wordlist of Bodgrong Tibetan is published in Suzuki(2014c), which may be useful for a next investigation.

4

Conclusion

This article presented an overview of phonological characteristics of Bodgrong Tibetan, a Khams
Tibetan dialect spoken in Nujiang Prefecture, Yunnan, and discussed its historical position through a
dialect comparison with the gYanggril and Tshodrug dialects spoken along Lancangjiang River, which
are regarded as those that have the strongest relation to Bodgrong Tibetan.
The result shows that Bodgrong Tibetan is more similar to Tshodrug Tibetan than gYanggril Tibetan.
It may imply that the people from southern Yanmen area were dominant among the ancestors of
speakers of Bodgrong Tibetan. The description of Bodgrong Tibetan is an indispensable step tounderstanding the dialectal development of Khams Tibetan spoken in Yunnan.

Acknowledgements
An earlier version was presented at the 47th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and
Linguistics, held at Yunnan Normal University, Kunming (17.-19. October 2014). I should like toexpress my gratitude to my Tibetan friends who helped me and taught me their mother tongue. Field
research was funded by four Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science [JSPS]: “Linguistic Substratum in Tibet” (headed by Yasuhiko Nagano, No.
16102001), “Dialectological Study of the Tibetan Minority Languages in the Tibetan Cultural Area inWest Sichuan” (headed by the present author), “International Field Survey of the rGyalrongic
Languages” (headed by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 21251007), “Study on the Dialectal Development ofTibetan Spoken in Yunnan, China, through a Description of the Linguistic Diversity” (headed by thepresent author, No. 25770167), and “International Field Survey of Tibeto-Burman Link Languages”(headed by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 16H02722), as well as and a private financial support of Tibetan
Studies Committee of Yunnan Ethnology Association headed by Xu Jianhua. The article is also a part of
the results of a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from JSPS “Investigation of Undocumented
Languages in the Eastern Tibetosphere and their Geolinguistic Research” (headed by the present author,
No. 17H04774).
References
Chos-mo. 2013. Deqinxian Adongcun Zangyu gaikuang. Graduate article, Yunnan Minzu University.
Giraudeau, P.-Ph. & F. L. N. Goré. 1956. Dictionnaire français-tibétain (Tibet oriental). Adrien-Maisonneuve.
Ikeda, T. & Pad-ma mTsho-mo. 2014. Diqing Zangyu Mingyong hua yanjiu. Paper presented at 47th International
Conference of Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (Kunming)
Les Missionnaires Cathoriques du Thibet. 1899. Dictionnaire thibétain-latin-français. Imprimerie de la Sociétédes Missions Étrangères.

Qin, L. & H. Suzuki. 2016. Chasing a cat from the Mekong to the Salween: A geolinguistic description of ‘cat’ inTrung and Khams Tibetan in North-western Yunnan. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics I —Sun—, 61-71.
Online: https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag1_sun_2016.pdf, accessed 6 July 2017.
Suzuki, H. 2009a. Preliminary report on the linguistic geography for multicoloured Tibetan dialects of Yunnan. In
M. Minegishi, K. Thepkanjana, W. Aroonmanakun & M. Endo (eds.) Proceedings of theChulalongkorn-Japan Linguistics Symposium, 267-279, Global COE Program ‘Corpus-based Linguistics andLanguage Education,’ Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Suzuki, H. 2009b. Diqing-syuu Lancangjiang ryuuiki no Kamu-tibettogo (Deqin/Yunling/Yanmen/Badi hoogen)no hoogen tokutyoo. Nidaba 37:115-124.
Suzuki, H. 2009c. 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. National Museum of
Ethnology.
Suzuki, H. 2011. Zai yinbian guocheng zhong chansheng you xiaoshi de yuanehua yuanyin --- Yunnan Deqin
Yanmenxiang Guzha Zangyu zhi li. Kyoto University Linguistic Research 30:35-49.
Suzuki, H. 2012a. Tibetan pigs revisited : multiple piglets with a sow in Yunnan Tibetan and beyond. Papers fromthe First International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics, 79-88.
Suzuki, H. 2012b. Kamu-tibettogo Chalitong [Tsharethong] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and African
Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 7:155-194. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/73110, accessed 6 July2017.
Suzuki, H. 2013. Overview of the dialects spoken in rGyalthang from the historical perspective. Paper presented at
13th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (Ulaanbaatar)
Suzuki, H. 2014a. Nujiang-syuu no Kamu-tibettogo Bingzhongluo [Bodgrong] hoogen no hoogen tokutyoo.
Nidaba 43:40-49.
Suzuki, H. 2014b. Issues in the lexical complexity in Eastern Tibetic languages : from a cat’s eye. Papers from theSecond International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics, 116-125.
Suzuki, H. 2014c. Kamu-tibettogo Bingzhongluo [Bodgrong] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and African
Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 9:153-193. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10108/80349, accessed 6 July2017.
Suzuki, H. 2014d. Yunnan Zangyu tuhua zhong de teshu shuci xingshi: qi dili fenbu yu lishi laiyuan. Nankai Yuyan
Xuekan 2:68-76.
Suzuki, H. 2015 [2016]. 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, accessed 6 July 2017.
Suzuki, H. forthcoming-a. 100 linguistic maps of the Swadesh list of Tibetic languages from Yunnan. ResearchInstitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Suzuki, H. forthcoming-b. Deqin Lancaanjing liuyu Zangyu tuhua zhong de yuyin ji cihui yitong gaikuang. In J.
Xu ed. Yunnan Zangxue Yanjiu 3.
Suzuki, H. & rTa-mgrin Chos-mtsho. 2012. Deqin-xian Yunling-xiang no Kamu-tibettogo ni okeru syoometu nokiki ni hinsiteiru kamosirenai sikei hasatuon ni tuite --- hoogensa to nendaisa to kozinsa no aida de. RIHN
Desctiptive Linguistics Journal 5:159-163. Online: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1422/00000850/, accessed 6 July 2017.
Swadesh, M. 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language. Ed. post mortem by J. Sherzer. Aldine.
Zhang, J. 1996. A sketch of Tibetan dialectology in China : classifications of Tibetan dialects. Cahiers de
Linguistique - Asie Orientale 25.1:115-133.

Additional Remarks on Counting ‘One’ Noun in Lhagang Tibetan
Hiroyuki SuzukiaSonam Wangmoba

IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnologyb
IKOS, University of Oslo

Abstract
This short essay describes how to express ‘one NOUN’ in the Lhagang dialect of Minyag
Rabgang Khams. It presents the existence of various forms for ‘one,’ and a classifier-likesyllable which denotes ‘single’ for an emphasis. This description clarifies that Lhagang Tibetan
has no functional sortal classifiers, as in other Tibetic languages presented in ‘Means to countnouns in Tibeto-Burman’ in this volume.

1

Forms of ‘one’ in noun phrases in Lhagang Tibetan

Kurabe et al. (this volume) describe the use of classifiers when counting nouns in Tibeto-Burman
languages, and mention that Tibetic languages do not have a grammatical system of classifiers.
However, one can find that some specific Tibetic languages sometimes use classifier-like morphemes
when counting nouns. It is a question whether they have a classifier system in their grammar or not. This
article supplementarily describes a case of Lhagang Tibetan and claim the classifier-like morpheme
attested in this language is not a classifier.
Lhagang Tibetan1 is a dialect of Minyag Rabgang Khams spoken in the easternmost area of the
Tibetosphere, and it has a word /ˉhtɕiʔ/ for ‘one’ as a cardinal numeral form. However, it has following
forms for ‘one’ when it is combined with a noun. Let’s count, for instance, a pig:2(1a)´phɑ ɦgɛ-{tɕiʔ / htɕiʔ}
pig-INDEF‘a pig’(1b)´phɑ ɦgɛ
pig‘one pig’´htɕiʔone(1c)´phɑ ɦgɛ
pig‘one pig’ˉhtɕiʔ
one(1d)´phɑ ɦgɛ^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ
pigsingle‘one single pig’

In these sentences of (1), the sense of ‘one’ gradually gets strong from (1a) to (1d). The gloss INDEF
is not equivalent to indefinite article as in English, but a simple marking of uncertainty. The article as a
1 The variety which we describe in the article is a language called Lhagang-B in Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2015)

and its grammar sketch is provided in Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2016).
2 [Abbreviations for glossing] CONJ: conjunction; EXV: existential verb; INDEF: indefinite marker; LOC: locative;

PFT.NSEN: perfect non-sensory.

grammatical category does not simply express uncertainty.3 Hence, (1a) does not include a meaning of‘one.’ Sentences (1b) and (1c) express an intention of counting the number of pigs in an utterance.
Finally, (1d) is an example which needs a detailed explanation of the construction. A simple descriptionof the word /^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ/ is that the form is inseparable, which means ‘single’; the part /ɦdoʔ/ is not a kindof sortal classifiers, which are absent or appear in an extremely marginal way (cf. Tournadre 2014,
Hoshi 2016:65). Additionally, /^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ/ does not function as a numeral, and it is not used when one
counts the number of objects (pigs in the context of Example 1). If one counts pigs, for example, whenlooking at Figure 1 in which we can find two pigs, one cannot use the form /^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ/, but simply uses/ˉhtɕiʔ/. The disyllabic form cannot replace /ˉhtɕiʔ/ when one lists numbers as “one, two.”

Photo: Tshewang nGyurméFig. 1: Morning scenery of the main street of Lhagang Village (2016)2

Describing the word for ‘single’

The word /^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ/ ‘single’ is a fixed expression. Even though the second syllable seems to beequivalent to the form for a cardinal number ‘one’ /ˉhtɕiʔ/, one cannot divide or analyse the form /^ɦdoʔ
htɕiʔ/ to derive other words. Thus, Lhagang Tibetan does not allow us to derive other forms, e.g.,*/^ɦdoʔ ɦȵiː/ (intended meaning: ‘two, dual’).4 The first syllable is of an unclear origin; however, thisdissyllabic word is widely used to describe ‘one.’As presented in the sentence (1d), the position of /^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ/ in a noun phrase is just after the headnoun, which is the same as ordinary adjectives. Since this word is counted as a quantifier, it cannot
co-occur with other numerals.
3 See Sekiguchi (1960-62) for article of European languages, especially that of German.
4 Cf. Example (6).



(2a)

´tɕhə ɦgɛ^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ
dogsingle‘one single dog’(2b)*´tɕhə ɦgɛ^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ
ˉhtɕiʔ
dog
singleone(intended meaning: ‘one single dog’)/^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ/ is merely used for countable nouns regardless of animacy. Countability is up to thenature of nouns, some of which do not correspond to that in other languages. Additionally, both originalwords and loans are permitted as a head noun:
(3a)

ˉmə
^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ
personsingle‘one single person’(3b)´mõ ziʔ^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ
catsingle‘one single cat’(3c)´pej pej^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ
glasssingle‘one single glass’(3d)*ˉtɕhɯ
^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ
watersingle(intended meaning: ‘one single glass of water’)(3e)*ˉtɕhə̃ tshɔ̃^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔfamilysingle(intended meaning: ‘one single family’)

Each English translation uses ‘single’; however, this is a too emphasised form as an English
expression, and ‘one’ is sufficient as a translation in many cases. It is easy to understand that (3d) is
unacceptable; however, we should note that (3e) is also unacceptable due to the concept of the word/ˉtɕhə̃ tshɔ̃/ ‘family’, which is not considered as a countable object. Nevertheless, the nature of
unacceptability of (3d) and (3e) is different: the head noun ‘water’ of (3d) cannot occur with a simple/ˉhtɕiʔ/ as in (1b) and (1c), whereas the head noun ‘family’ of (3e) can do. Let’s cite an opening sentenceof a narrative story:(4)ˊȵi ma ˉɦnaː ɦna-laˊɦdʑaː poˉtɕhə̃ tshɔ̃ˊhtɕiʔ ^joʔ-kheː
old time-LOC
king
familyone
EXV-PFT.NSEN‘Once upon a time, there was a king’s family.’ (from Prince’s wife become a lark)

In the case of (4), ‘family’ is a countable noun followed by a numeral. However, this numeral ‘one’cannot alter with /^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ/.
When one uses a classifier-like morpheme, /^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔ/ cannot appear, as in:
(5a)

´xaj
^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔshoe single‘one single shoe’



(5b)

´xaj
ˉtɕha ˉhtɕiʔshoe pairone‘one pair of shoes’(5c)*´xaj ˉtɕha ^ɦdoʔ htɕiʔshoe pairsingle(intended meaning: ‘one single pair of shoes’)

Even though Example (5c) suggests that the element /ɦdoʔ/ is a kind of classifier, the expression/^ doʔ htɕiʔ/ in Lhagang Tibetan has been already fixed as it is. However, there is a way to describe morethan one by using the syllable /ɦdoʔ/. We will cite an example from a narrative story:ɦ(6)`ɦdoʔ ɦdoʔ
ˊɦdoʔ ma`hsɯ̃`khɯ-nə
ˉɕhoː
clump
piece
three bring-CONJ
come (imperative)‘Come and bring three (pieces of) clumps!’ (from Sheep and the wolf)

Example (6) has a word /ˊɦdoʔ ma/ ‘piece,’ which functions as a measurement unit for an
uncountable noun /`ɦdoʔ ɦdoʔ/ ‘clump.’5 Hence, this case is not an example with a sortal classifier. When
one uses /ˊɦdoʔ ma/, any cardinal numerals can follow it in principle.
Based on the data presented above, we conclude that it is unnecessary to count /ɦdoʔ/ as a classifierin the grammar of Lhagang. There are measurement units which seem to behave as classifiers; however,a classifier as a grammatical category is not needed.

Acknowledgements
The present study is funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science [JSPS]: “International Field Survey of Tibeto-Burman Link Languages” (headed
by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 16H02722). The article is also a part of the results of a Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research from JSPS “Investigation of Undocumented Languages in the Eastern Tibetosphereand their Geolinguistic Research” (headed by the present author, No. 17H04774).
References
Hoshi, I. 2016. Koten tibettogo bunpoo: Ootoomeikyoosi (14 seiki) ni motoduite. Research Institute for Languages
and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Kurabe, K., H. Suzuki, K. Iwasa, S. Shirai, S. Ebihara, and I. Matsuse. this volume. Means to count nouns:
Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VI —Means to count nouns—.
Sekiguchi, T. 1960-62. Der Artikel (Kansi: Imikeitaiteki haikei yori mitaru doitugo kansi no kenkyuu), I-III.
Sansyuusya.
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2015. Lhagang Tibetan of Minyag Rabgang Khams: Vocabulary of two
sociolinguistic varieties. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 10, 245-286.
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2016. Kamutibettogo Lhagang hoogen no bunpoo suketti. Gengo Kijutsu
Ronsyuu 8:21-90.
Tournadre, N. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Th. Owen-Smith & N. W. Hill (eds.)
Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, 105-129. Walterde Gruyter.

5 The English word clump is a countable noun. Hence, we cannot exactly explain this phenomenon with an English

translation.

C o nt ri b ut o rs
R y o M A T S U M O T O, K y ot o U ni v ersit y of F or ei g n St u di es
Hi d et os hi S HI R AI S HI, S a p p or o G a k ui n U ni v ersit y
Mi k a F U K A Z A W A, T h e F o u n d ati o n f or

R es e ar c h a n d Pr o m oti o n of Ai nu C ult ur e

R ei F U K UI, T h e U ni v ersit y of T o k y o
Y os hi his a T A G U C HI, C hi b a U ni v ersit y
K eit a K U R A B E, T o k y o U ni v e rsit y of F or ei g n St u di es
Hir o y u ki S U Z U KI, U ni v ersit y of

Osl o / N ati o n al M us e u m of Et h n olo g y

S at o k o S HI R AI, J S P S / U ni v ersit y of Ts u k u b a
K a z u e I W A S A, J S P S / K y ot o U ni v ersit y
S hi h o E BI H A R A, T o k y o U ni v ersit y of F or ei g n St u di es
I k u k o M A T S U S E, C e nt er f or N e w ar St u di es
Mits u a ki E N D O, A o y a m a G a k ui n U ni v ersit y
M a k ot o MI N E GI S HI, I L C A A, T o k y o U ni v ersit y of F or ei g n St u di es
N o b or u Y O S HI O K A, N ati o n al M us e u m of Et h n ol o g y
Y oi c hi N A G A T O, T o k y o U ni v ersit y of F or ei g n St u di es
G er al d R O C H E, U ni v ersit y of M el b o ur n e
S o n a m W a n g m o, U ni v ersit y of Osl o

A c k n o wl e d g e m e nts
T his v ol u m e is a p art of t h e r es ults of t h e pr oj e ct o n St u di es i n Asi a n G e oli n g uisti cs
2 0 1 7 at t h e I L C A A, T U F S. T h e arti cl es w er e p arti all y s u p p ort e d b y J S P S Gr a nts-i n- Ai d f or
S ci e ntifi c R es e ar c h ( K A K E N HI) 1 5 K 0 2 5 2 5, 1 7J 4 0 0 8 7, r es p e cti v el y.

2015 -