Talk:Lhasa Tibetan

message: Deleted the POV paragraph inserted by a Free Tibet liar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.51.95 (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Freetibet.org is not a valid source

message: There's really no point in creating a separate article for the written language. Why not merge? --Jiang|(Talk) 
: Most languages with distinct writing systems have them separated (Armenian alphabet, Chinese written language, Hangul, etc). Theoretically it too could be expanded to full article size. --Menchi 08:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this case differs from Armenian alphabet, even if it's not alphabetic. I'm not familiar with Tibetan to know if it's truly alphabetic or not. If it soothes you, Esperanto calls it eo:Tibeta alfabeto. But then Esperanto also calls  Hangul "Korean alphabet"-- and I know that's not the whole story. --Menchi 08:51, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: My preference would be for two separate articles ("Tibetan language", "Tibetan alphabet"). Note that "Tibetan alphabet" is more accurate than "Tibetan script" because "script" unnecessarily implies a cursive writing style.  Omniglot, the best webpage on scripts and alphabets, prefers Tibetan alphabet, even though the system may be classified as a syllabary. -- technopilgrim 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: Umrao/217.88.115.5:
Please cite your sources. The Columbia Encyclopedia says the same thing. What have you got to say about this? --Jiang 21:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: source citing

message: I will be going through and attempting to add Tibetan letters to the article where appropriate, but I don't know the language well enough to be fully confident of my accuracy. Any corrections will be most appreciated. Thanks!
:Ouch. I just noticed I forgot to sign that previous comment. It was me. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 15:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan script

message: Ethnologue lists the order of classification for the Tibetan language as Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Himalayish, Tibeto-Kanauri, Tibetic, and then the Tibetan language. Wikipedia seems to skip the group Tibetic. See this link: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90303 Any thoughts? ---User:Hottentot
: Ethnologue has a lot of weird stuff on it. The most normal classification is that given by Benedict in his Conspectus, but I and many think that the subgrouping of the Tibeto-Burman laguages is merely speculation. --Tibetologist 18:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend amending Wikipedia to reflect the Ethnologue classification. At points where serious modern scholarship suggests a subclass is grouped incorrectly in the Ethnologue, it's sensible to include links at that point in Wikipedia hierarchy to the alternative scholarship.  But we need at least a straw man hierarchy to start with, and the Ethnologue is the best candidate.  Nathan, have you read the Conspectus or do you have a copy?  From what I can find in a web search , PK Benedict did not disagree with the existence of a Tibeto-Burman language family.  You must be referring to classification choices made further out in the tree.  For our education can you give us the classification of Tibetan per Benedict to show where it differs from the Ethnologue? technopilgrim 18:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing group - Tibetic 

message: What is the transliteration of བོད་ཡིག? I did some searching on Google, and I found the following names:
* Bod-jig?
* bod.yig
* bod pa
* bod skad
* Poe-Skey
Please, can someone help me out? Thanks. --Hottentot
"bod yig", "bod pa", and "bod skad" are all words meaning "tibetan". However, "bod skad" is, in my opinion, most accurate. In this case though I think it says "bod yig".
"bod pa" = 'a Tibetan (person)', "bod skad" = 'Tibetan language', "bod yig" = 'Tibetan script'.
The form "bod-jig" is preferred by some scholars, especially in central and eastern Europe.Jakob37 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hottentot, those letters say bod.yig. Moonsell (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration of Tibetan in Tibetan 

message: i'm planning to do research on what, if any, influence the bon religion has had on the tibetan language and it's development. right now, i'm too busy doing research on the hebrew language- and trying to LEARN the hebrew language- to do much research on the tibetan language. Gringo300 11:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what will you be enjoying for dinner tonight?  Enquiring minds want to know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: bon religion and tibetan language

message: I thought that editors of this page might be interested to know that discussions are currently underway regarded naming conventions for Tibet-related articles. The main issue involved is how Tibetan words should be romanised, which means it could ultimately influence the style of every article where Tibetan names or words are used. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan). - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibetan naming conventions 

message: Acording to Lonely Planet Tibetan Language is closest to Burmese. Krause seems to think otherwise but failed to prove that. So, Mr. Krause the Tibetan specialist, what language is closest to Tibetan? Me 04:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is confusing "language" with "language family".  The closest language family to the Tibetan language family may well be the Burmese-lolo language family (though I believe some would argue).  The closest language to Tibetan would be another Tibetic language of the central Tibetic group.  See the helpful language trees in the  Tibeto-Burman languages article for a clear picture of the relationships.  An analogous mistake would be to claim that the closest language to German is Greek instead of Yiddish. Oy vey, such nonsense. -- technopilgrim 06:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with technopilgrim. A tourist guidebook such as the Lonely Planet is not the best source. Fortunately, we have a concise comparison of different proposals of the relationship of Tibetan with the other languages in that branch in the Wikipedia article on the Tibeto-Burman languages, with a list of some more authoritative sources. —Babelfisch 06:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Tangut, but most Tangut speakers were massacred by Chinghis Qan in the 13th century. --Stephen Hodge 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Burmese and Tibetan are not mutually intelligible.  That goes for the written language too.  Live for nothing or die for something.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closest language to Tibetan 

message: Is pocha a Tibetan word?  If so, can someone add the Tibetan script for this to the Butter tea article?  Badagnani 09:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the word as it is in the Tibetan language (as best as it can be represented); as far as I remember, it's pronounced [pʰø̀dza] I've also added the Tibetan words in the Tsampa article. -Yupik 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly you dare. Without a reliable source to back you up, of course, you're just speculating, especially considering that the Hindi word is "chai". Not that your discussion has anything to do with this two year old topic. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Butter tea]] 

message: "kham" appears to be misspelled in the section on tones, with "na" replacing "ma". My computer doesn't deal well with Tibetan script, so I don't know how to correct this. --Gimme danger 09:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It renders correctly for me.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tibetan script? Thanks! Chris 03:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan Scouting

message: Section Verbs says:
:Verbs do not inflect for person or number.
But the link  Tibetan language provides a grammar by Silvia Vernetto and Tenzin Norbu, that quite the contrary indicates that the verb is conjugated in person: 1st vs. 2nd/3rd (see p26 of PDF!). Is that statement in section Verbs, really quite correct? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tibetologist's comment on My discussion pages indicate that the text is correct, and that PDF gives such a simplified picture that one could erroneously conclude that there is a conjugation in person. So the article is correct. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflect for person?

message: The Standard Tibetan article has a subsection to this effect that is well-written, if a bit terse. It would seem to be an issue that has been overlooked in the Tibet article. How to address it? Moonsell (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: possible threats to the survival of Tibetan language

message: I've changed the definition in the introduction to read "...the official dialect...", not "language". Please see Talk:Khams_Tibetan_language and continue this discussion there. There is also a problem with Tibetan language redirecting to this article, as mentioned on that talk page. Moonsell (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tibetan language family is as varied as the Romance family. Linguistic works on Tibetan languages refer to them as such. This article does not need to be changed. Tibetologist (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Discussion continued at Talk:Khams_Tibetan_language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsell (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think mutually intellingibility should be used as a legit or primary criteria for judging what a language is for the case of Tibetan. See also discussion at Talk:Chinese language. It is like calling a Portuguese man o' war a colony on the top paragraph. 209.2.228.41 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I believe all of those can be simply named as "language". A language can be a language family consisting of multiple languages and Tibetic languages should be moved back to Tibetan language. The linguistic community who did the initial move should have had some basic respect on indigenous Tibetan customary usage. 209.2.228.41 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: "dialect", not "language"

message: Tibetan language currently redirects to Standard Tibetan. This is like having "English language" redirect to "BBC English". I feel we need a new page called "Tibetan language" which links here as well as to classical Tibetan, medieval Tibetan, etc, written Tibetan and the dialects of Kham, Amdo and Tö. It should also include history of the Tibetan language. This redirection prevents creating such a page. Does anyone have a problem with requesting this redirection to be taken away? Moonsell (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're looking for Tibetan languages. BBC English is not a distinct language, but is intelligible to nearly the entire English speaking world. kwami (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. The redirection should be from "Tibetan language"" to Tibetan languages. Moonsell (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Moonsell, you are probably right. Articles on most other languages do discuss dialects and linguistic history. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Pseudois (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects from "Tibetan language"

message: I have put up a new set of proposed Tibetan naming conventions. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)#New naming convention proposal. Your comments and feedback are requested.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal for Tibetan naming conventions 

message: Surely some reference to Tibetan pinyin being more commonly used for Tibetan placenames (particularly for smaller settlements, and for counties and prefectures) needs to be added to this section.  Skinsmoke (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing system 

message: On the last paragraph of the intro:  what does it mean to say that a language is "highly conservative", and is there evidence for that about Written Standard Tibetan?
:It means that it hasn't changed much over the years, and is still close to it's ancestral form. Presumably this is an effect of writing: when you learn to read and write from ancient texts, you learn the language as it was long ago. But the spoken language changes every generation. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "highly conservative" 

message: I wrote up a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions in late April, which met with predominantly favorable responses on the proposal's talk page. On the Naming conventions talk page, I have raised the question of how we can move toward making this a policy.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan)]] 

message: as for " Bod skad, IPA: [pʰø̀ʔ kɛ]; ", why is there a "ʔ" after the first syllable but not after the second? Jakob37 (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Tournadre and Sangda Dorje, I would have written [pʰø̀kɛʔ], since, as I understand it, the glottal stop (if it a residue of [d] or [s]) drops out word medially. I will update it to that for the time being.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I forgot to mention that word medially the "dropping out" of d, s, or g usually, as in this case, leaves a LONG vowel. I don't know how Tournadre would transcribe that....Jakob37 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistency 

message: "But Tibetologist Elliot Sperling has noted that "within certain limits in the PRC does make efforts to accommodate Tibetan cultural expression" and "the cultural activity taking place all over the Tibetan plateau cannot be ignored.""
within certain limits in the PRC does make efforts — is this quoted correctly? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No; there is no "in" there. I have corrected the quote. Quigley (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  misquoted? 

message: I do not speak Tibetan or know anyone who does, but the learntibetan.net website states that their recordings are made by native speakers. If you follow this link http://www.learntibetan.net/grammar/subscribed.htm you may find a peculiar sound which is written as the "n" letter with a subscribed "r". There's an audio file and it's quite clearly a retroflex nasal. As i said, i do not know Tibetan so i cannot confirm if the difference is phonemic or whether the sound is present anywhere in the language apart from perhaps borrowings from Sanskrit, but this poor little phoneme deserves some attention in the article, i think.
:Good point. The pronunciation of nr does sound different from the pronunciation of n for that speaker, although the website transcribes both of the as "n". I think the relevant question here is what is and isn't standard. All sorts of pronunciations are to be heard from Tibetans, but which of them counts as "Standard Tibetan"? This is very difficult to answer, especially in the case of languages that aren't intensively documented. Personally, I speak basically standard General American, but there are definitely some non-standard elements to my pronunciation at times. This may be the case with this speaker's Standard Tibetan.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroflex nasal 

message: An IP changed the pronunciation of Dbus from [y] to [wy], but also the alt. transcription from Ü to Wü, which I reverted. Should we keep the change in IPA? — kwami (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that, for rounded vowels with low tones, initial [w] is in free variation with no initial sound. So, for example, 'od-zer is [ø̀seː] ~ [wø̀seː]. The latter is probably the more typical pronunciation so it could be a more precise transcription, but the former is arguably a cleaner representation of the underlying phonemes. Systematic romanisations like Tournadre, THDL, and Tibetan Pinyin seem to leave out this /w/.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, although db is frequently dropped, shouldn't it have a historical [w] sound resulting from the softening of [b]? The [w] of 'od comes out from an interaction between rounded vowel and voiced zero initial, but the [w] of db may come entirely from the initial. Dbang is pronounced mostly as Wang, not as Ang. I doubt if dropping db-induced [w] specifically before rounded vowels is more "systematic" than keeping it. 209.2.228.41 (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I'm extremely concerned with the factual accuracy of Tibetan language information given in this article. 
; Pögä and Standard Tibetan
The Tibetan term Pögä (བོད་སྐད།) and Pöyig (བོད་ཡིག།) refer to the whole Tibetan languages and Tibetan text (comparable with Chinese term "中文", text here indicate a certain language written in a certain script, i.e., Chinese language written in Chinese script and Tibetan language written in Tibetan script. In this sense, Dungan is (a dialect of/a) Chinese language 汉语 but not Chinese text 中文, Balti is (a dialect of/a) Tibetan language བོད་སྐད། but not Tibetan text བོད་ཡིག།). These two term have nothing to do with the Standard Tibetan, as the term "汉语"/"中文" have nothing to do with the Standard Chinese. 
; Wügä and Standard Tibetan
It's even not good to call Standard Tibetan "dbus". Instead, it should be called "Standard dbus" (comparably, "Standard Mandarin", etc.)
;Tibetic?
The term "Tibetic languages" is of linguistic use and should not be put into a high importance. Some French-school of scholars does not respect the traditional usage, and this has made considerably confusion among natives. To clarify this, below is a comparable counterpart of the current arrangement of the article Tibetan language:
----
French language may refers to:
* Vulgar Latin
* Old French
* Standard French
* Any of the langues d'oïl, particularly:
----
Interesting? That’s exactly what a native feel when reading Tibetan language. Consequently, when a native chat with a European scholar they find they are using one term to refer totally different things. 
;Pronunciation
The correct pronunciation in Standard Tibetan should be /wy/. This is important because pronounce it as /y/ may made it confused with yul /ɥy/=/jʷy/ (/ɥ/ or /jʷ/ is the semi-vowel of /y/ so it may be freely added). --202.108.128.82 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Changed. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information on Tibetan language and interwiki link 

message: Regarding pronunciation, Tournadre (Manual of Standard Tibetan, pg. 444) says, "Finally, it should be noted that at the beginning of low-tone words, round vowels are often "labialized" and preceded by the sound [w]. Thus འོད་ /öʼ/ 'light' is pronounced wöʼ." So, judging by the "often" I gather that the transcription /y/ for དབུས་ is less typical than /wy/ but not totally wrong. I agree with 202 that /wy/ would be better.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Changed. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: The difference between French and Tibetan is that French is much more standardized than Tibetan is (langues d'oïl are much more socially marginal than Tibetan dialects are), and Tibetan writing is even more conservative than French writing is. Consequently, French speech and writing are easily treated as one topic and related dialects are ignored, so "French language" can be treated as a single topic. The same circumstances do not apply to Tibetan.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan language disambiguation page

message: I noticed that Tournadre and Sangda Dorje's book is called, in Tibetan, bod-kyi spyi-skad slob-deb. The first part, bod-kyi spyi-skad means Standard Tibetan. This would be written Bhökyi Chikä in Tournadre's transliteration (I would prefer a couple extra marks for clarity: Bhökyi Ĉhikä̀; but that is idiosyncratic), Bökyi Chiké in the THDL system, or roughly [pʰỳci t͡ɕíkɪ̂ː] in IPA. Now, this term is probably not used among Tibetans very widely, but then what term that means precisely "Standard Tibetan" is in wide usage? It could be useful to add as one of the Tibetan words for this linguistic phenomenon.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibetan name for "Standard Tibetan" 

message: Tibetic languages#Historical phonology has had a "dubious" tag for quite a while now. What is 'baps actually pronounced like in Standard Tibetan, then? I haven't been able to find a description of how to convert written Tibetan into spoken Standard Tibetan syllables on English WP, but there is one on German WP, and it implies the pronunciation [(m)pàp]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem with providing a practical spelling-to-pronunciation guide is that the experts don’t seem to agree amongst themselves on some notable fine points of how Tibean is pronounced.  Based on Tournadre and Sangda Dorje, 'babs would be pronounced /pɑp/, with a tone that starts out fairly low, rises to medium, and then falls to very low. Neither /p/ is aspirated. The initial /p/ might be lighted voiced. The final /p/ would probably be lightly articulated. I think the /ɑ/ would be centralised to /ɐ/ or /ʌ/. An /m/ or other nasal sound might become audible in some words if 'babs is not the first syllable.& ndash; Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming we're speaking of a Lhasa accent, how much do they actually disagree about pronunciation, and how much is just transcriptional differences?  — kwami (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are real disagreements and in part it has to do with insecurity about what is meant by 'Lhasa dialect' and also to do with preferences in phonemics. For example, Tournadre prefers a two tone analysis by assuming that there is a phonemic glottal stop final, even after nasals when its presence is only detectable by its affect on tone realization. In contrast, Chinese authors prefer a four tone analysis where the glottal stop final is a tonal feature. You might be interested to consult this bibliography, much of which I have access to if it would be helpful to you. Tibetologist (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's just the sort of thing I had in mind. It's not that descriptions of standard or Central Tibetan phonology are sharply at odds with each other, but there are more than a handful of issues like the one Tibetologist describes that are controversial. Another would be how exactly to expect the vowel in ʼbabs to be realised (and whether or in what environments there can be minimal pairs between /ɑ/ vs. /ɐ~ʌ/). Tournadre and Sangda Dorje have nothing (as far as I can recall) to say about vowel harmony, but other researchers have stated that is pervasive in Standard or Central. I'd like to further emphasise the point that it is not always easy to notice precisely which dialect or register scholars are describing. i.e., does Central necessarily = Standard = Lhasa dialect? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So it sounds like the debates over English.  That's the kind of thing we should expect for any well-described language.  — kwami (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. To the extent that Tibetan is different than English in this regard, it's clearly a matter of degree rather than kind. I'd hope researchers writing about English would at least be clearer about which dialect they're describing.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation question 

message: Some of the material here is not in the "Scholarship" section.
A grammar of the Tibetan language, literary and colloquial
https://archive.org/details/grammaroftibetan00hannrich
Bell's colloquial Tibetan English dictionaries and grammars
https://archive.org/details/englishtibetanco00bellrich
https://archive.org/details/grammarofcolloqu00bellrich
Sandberg colloquial central Tibetan handbook
https://archive.org/details/handbookcolloqu00sandgoog
Jaschke english tibetan dictionary with special reference towards the prevailing dialects.
https://archive.org/details/tibetanenglishdi00jsuoft
Jaschke Tibetan Grammar
https://archive.org/details/tibetangrammar00wenzgoog
https://archive.org/details/tibetangrammar00goog
https://archive.org/details/cu31924026914188
https://archive.org/details/TibetanGrammarByH.A.Jschke
English Tibetan dictionary
https://archive.org/details/englishtibetandi00zlabuoft
https://archive.org/details/englishtibetandi00zlabrich
Tibetan Grammar
https://archive.org/details/grammaroftibetan00dass
Das Tibetan English dictionary
https://archive.org/details/tibetanenglishdi00dassuoft
https://archive.org/details/tibetanenglishdi00dassuoft
Tibetan texts
https://archive.org/details/minortibetantext01maneuoft
Tibetan Buddhism
https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofl00hodg
https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofl00hodg_0
Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia
https://archive.org/details/geschichtedesbu00kuthgoog
Tibetan Bible
https://archive.org/details/genesisexodusfir00schr
Grammatik der tibetischen Sprache
https://archive.org/details/grammatikdertib00sssrgoog
Essay Towards a Dictionary, Tibetan and English (1834)
https://archive.org/details/essaytowardsadi00tshgoog
https://archive.org/details/essaytowardsadi01tshgoog
Rajmaan (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western study of Tibetan 

message: The table of tenses states that standard Tibetan has a past, present, future, and perfect ending. This is not true, from the grammar page: "Verbs in modern spoken Tibetan have between one and three stems. These are the present-future stem, the past stem and the imperative stem. Many verbs, however, only have one stem when spoken, remaining distinct only in writing, meaning that inflection is based mainly on the use of verbal auxiliaries. The verb is inflected by means of attaching suffixes to the verb stem in a similar way to nouns and pronouns."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.126.24 (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Tenses

message: Xun Gong has very convincingly argued there are 12 distinct vowel phonemes. The article should be amended, or at least acknowledge the existence of a controversy.
@article{jbp:/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.19004.gon,
   author = "Gong, Xun",
   title = "How many vowels are there in Lhasa Tibetan?", 
   journal= "Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area",
   year = "2020",
   volume = "43",
   number = "2",
   pages = "225-254",
   doi = "https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.19004.gon",
   url = "https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.19004.gon",
   publisher = "John Benjamins",
   issn = "0731-3500",
   type = "Journal Article",
   keywords = "vowels",
   keywords = "Lhasa Tibetan",
   keywords = "phonemicity",
   keywords = "transcription convention",
   abstract = "Abstract
Lhasa Tibetan is described in a number of independent research traditions which give different accounts of its phonology.
          To what extent do these discrepancies reflect real dialectal or idiolectal differences? To what extent do they reflect different analyses of
          the same system?
In this paper, we examine one aspect of Lhasa Tibetan phonology on which different descriptions show substantial
          discrepancies: vowels. Different descriptions of Lhasa Tibetan transcribe from 8 to more than 16 vowel qualities, ascribing to them
          different degrees of phonemicity. A detailed comparison of the transcription systems shows that all reflect the same underlying system of 12
          vowel sounds, which agrees with the transcription conventions of the Seattle Tibetanists. The discrepancies among the systems mostly concern
          four vowels, namely ɔ, ə, ɪ and ʊ. These vowels, which started as allophonic variants of other vowels, later appear in a set of words which
          cannot be explained as allophony, and hence are unambiguous phonemes in contemporary Lhasa Tibetan.",
  }
 --Tibetologist (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis of vowels

message: According to some sources, Lhasa Tibetan can feature prenasalized stops associated with a low tone.  However, there are conflicting reports regarding their distribution: per , this is a third phonemic series corresponding (mostly) to written mD-, 'D- that contrasts with plain unaspirated stops (generally deriving from other (C)CD- onsets). Meanwhile,  claims to detect prenasalization in སྦ sba, ད da (unstressed) and སྒ sga, i.e. as a free variant of unaspirated /p/, /t/, /k/ in low-tone words.  mentions two ‘variations’ of the unaspirated series in low-tone words, without making it clear whether they are lexically conditioned. All authors agree that the prenasalization is variable, optional and perhaps disappearing.  109.184.74.252 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Tournadre’s chart clearly shows that prenasalization corresponds to written N-, meaning it’s phonemic also.  109.184.74.252 (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prenasalized stops