Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 22:4 (2021) ► pp.593–629

/ka-/ negative prefix of Choswateng Tibetan of Khams (Shangri-La, Yunnan)

| Fudan University
| Diqing Prefectural Tibetan High School
Choswateng Tibetan, spoken in the south-eastern corner of the Khams region, has three negative prefixes: /ȵi-/, /ma-/, and /ka-/. The first two are derived from two morphemes which are ubiquitous across Tibetic languages, whereas the third is a newly generated negative prefix found in Choswateng Tibetan as well as its surrounding dialects belonging to the rGyalthang subgroup of Khams and its neighbours. This article describes the morphological feature and use of the prefix /ka-/ in Choswateng Tibetan. Morphologically, the prefix /ka-/ can co-occur with most verbs except for the copulative verb /ˊreʔ/. Pragmatically, the prefix /ka-/ occurs and is restricted in the following ways: (1) expresses ‘definitely not’ for statements regarding the self, and ‘possibly not, judging from the speaker’s knowledge’ for statements regarding others; (2) co-occurs with egophoric and sensory evidentials; (3) is not used for a negation of accomplished aspect; and (4) does not deprive the function of the other two negative prefixes. These two analyzes are mutually related; it is suggested that the reason why /ka-/ cannot co-occur with the copulative verb /ˊreʔ/ is triggered by a contradiction of implied evidentials: /ka-/ is related to egophoric and sensory, whereas /ˊreʔ/ is statemental. Following the description of its use, we discuss the origin of /ka-/, claiming a possible grammaticalization from an interrogative word gar (‘where’ in Literary Tibetan and common throughout the rGyalthang area) in a rhetorical question to a prefix. Referring to several morphological features of /ka-/, we consider its grammaticalization as ongoing, but most advanced in Choswateng Tibetan.
Keywords: Khams Tibetan, rGyalthang subgroup, negation, prefix, egophoric evidential, sensory evidential
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Morphology
  • 3.Description of the usage of /ka-/
    • 3.1Copulative verbs
    • 3.2Existential verbs
    • 3.3Lexical verbs
      • 3.3.1Action verbs
      • 3.3.2Non-action verbs
      • 3.3.3Auxiliaries
    • 3.4Summay and remarks
  • 4.Some remarks regarding the origin of /ka-/
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 29 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00092.suz
References (72)
References
Bartee, Ellen Lynn. 2007. A grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. Santa Barbara: University of California at Santa Barbara. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Caplow, Nancy J. 2016. Reconstructing stress in Proto-Tibetan: Evidence from Balti and Rebkong Amdo. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39(2). 180–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1). 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, René. 1956. Oracles and demons of Tibet: The cult and iconography of the Tibetan protective deities. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan (London Oriental and African Language Library 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2012. Basic linguistic theory, vol. 3: Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013a. Negative morphemes. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL]) (Accessed 2017-04-20.)
2013b. Position of negative morpheme with respect to subject, object, and verb. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL]) (Accessed 2017-04-20.)
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL]) (Accessed 2020-12-23.)
Ebihara, Shiho. 2011. Amdo Tibetan. In Yamakoshi, Yasuhiro (ed.), Grammatical sketches from the field, 41–78. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. ([URL]) (Accessed 2021-02-20.)
Gawne, Lauren. 2016. A sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo (Asia-Pacific Linguistics A-PL 30). Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics (College of Asia and the Pacific, the Australian National University). ([URL]) (Accessed 2017-12-06.)
. 2017. Egophoric evidentiality in Bodish languages. In Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 61–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giraudeau, Pierre-Philippe & Goré, Françis Louis Noël. 1956. Dictionnaire français-tibétain (Tibet oriental) [French-Tibetan dictionary (Eastern Tibet)]. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Gui, Ming Chao. 2001. Yunnanese and Kunming Chinese: A study of the language communities, the phonological systems, and the phonological developments (LSASL 28). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Hackstein, Olav. 2004. Rhetorical questions and the grammaticalization of interrogative pronouns as conjunctions in Indo-European. In Hyllested, Adam & Jørgensen, Anders Richard & Larsson, Jenny Helena & Olander, Thomas (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV [From difficulty to asterisks: Indogermanic studies in honor of Jens Elmegård Rasmussen on his sixtieth birthday, the 15th of March 2004] (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft [Innsbruck’s Contribution to Linguistics] 112), 167–186. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen.Google Scholar
Haller, Felix. 2004. Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialektes aus Nord-Amdo [Dialect and folktales from Themchen: Linguistic description of a nomadic dialect from north Amdo] (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung [Contributions to Tibetan Narrative Research] 14). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard & Visconti, Jacqueline (eds.). 2014. The diachrony of negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Häsler, Katrin Louise. 1999. A grammar of the Tibetan Dege (Sde dge) dialect. München: Selbstverlag.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL]) (Accessed 2017-04-20.)
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexcion of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 1996. Rgyalthang Tibetan of Yunnan: A preliminary report. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 19(2). 69–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Rgyalthang Tibetan lexicon and an appraisal of a Southeast Asian wordlist. Mon-Khmer Studies 301. 83–94.Google Scholar
. 2007a. Grammatical peculiarities of two dialects of southern Kham Tibetan. In Bielmeier, Roland & Haller, Felix (eds.), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond, 119–152. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. Evidentiality in Rgyalthang Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30(2). 17–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoshi, Izumi. 2016. Koten Tibettogo bunpoo: Ootoo meikyoosi (14 seiki) ni motoduite [A grammar of classical Tibetan based on The clear mirror of royal genealogies (the 14th century)]. Tokyo: Research Institute of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 1994. What else can I tell you?: A pragmatic study of English rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Jäschke, Heinrich August. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary: With special reference to the prevailing dialects; to which is added an English-Tibetan vocabulary. London: Secretary of State for India in Council.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Hajime. 1977. Tibetan (Lhasa dialect). Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Koshal, Sanyukta. 1979. Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Les missionnaires Cathoriques du Thibet. 1899. Dictionnaire thibétain-latin-français [Tibetan-Latin-French dictionary]. Hong Kong: Imprimerie de la Société des Missions Étrangères.Google Scholar
Lu, Shaozun. 1990. Zangyu Zhongdianhua de yuyin tedian [Phonetic characteristics of rGyalthang Tibetan]. Yuyan Yanjiu [Studies in Language and Linguistics] 1990(2). 147–159.Google Scholar
. 1992. Yunnan Zangyu yuyin he cihui jianjie [Introduction to the phonetics and lexicon in Yunnan Tibetan]. Zangxue yanjiu luncong [Papers on Tibetology], vol. 41, 120–131. Lhasa: Tibet People’s Publishing House.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2007. Negation – An overview of typological research. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5). 552–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric standard negation. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL]) (Accessed 2017-04-20.)
Nagano, Yasuhiko. 2005. Gyarong-go no hiteizi [Negation particles of Gyarong language]. Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 29(3). 357–374. ([URL]) (Accessed 2017-04-04.)
. 2018. Gyarongo bunpoo kenkyuu [A reference grammar of the rGyalrong language: Bhola dialect]. Tokyo: Kyuuko Syoin.Google Scholar
Oisel, Guillaume. 2017. Re-evaluation of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan Linguistics 16(2). 90–128. DOI logo
Rig-’dzin dBang-mo. 2013. Diebu Zangyu yanjiu [Study on Thewo Tibetan]. Beijing: Minzu University of China Press.Google Scholar
Roche, Gerald & Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2018. Tibet’s minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern Asian Studies 52(4). 1227–1278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprigg, Richard Keith. 2002. Balti-English English-Balti dictionary. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011a. Kamutibettogo Gagatang Shaoluo [Zhollam] hoogen no bunpoo suketti [Sketch grammar of the Zhollam dialect of Khams Tibetan]. Tikyuuken Gengo Kizyutu Ronsyuu [Journal of RIHN Descriptive Linguistics Circle] 31. 1–35. ([URL]) (Accessed 2018-01-14.)
. 2011b. Kamutibettogo Xiaozhongdian Jinianpi [Yangthang/Gyennyemphel] hoogen no onsei bunseki [Khams Tibetan Yangthang/Gyennyemphel [Xiaozhongdian] dialect: Phonetic analysis]. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 61. 137–173. ([URL]) (Accessed 2018-01-04.)
. 2013a. Kamutibettogo Suopo [Sogpho] hoogen (Danba-ken) ni okeru bun no kai bunrui [Subclassification of sentences in the Sogpho dialect of Khams Tibetan (Rongbrag County)]. In Sawada, Hideo (ed.), Grammatical phenomena of Tibeto-Burman languages 2: Subclassification of sentences with respect to the types of predicates and speech acts, 139–150. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
. 2013b. Kamutibettogo sDerong-nJol hoogengun no syohoogen ni okeru zyakukyoogata no inritu koozoo to bunsetuon ni mieru sono han’eikei [Iambic prosodic feature in dialects of the sDerong-nJol group of Khams Tibetan and its reflection in segmental features]. Tikyuuken Gengo Kijutsu Ronshuu [Journal of RIHN Descriptive Linguistics Circle] 51. 1–15. ([URL]) (Accessed 2018-01-14.)
. 2014. Kamutibettogo Xianggelila-ken Xiaozhongdian-xiang Chuiyading [Choswateng] hoogen no onsei bunseki to goi: rGyalthang kaihoogengun ni okeru hoogen sai ni kansuru koosatu wo soete [A phonetic analysis of Choswateng [Chuiyading] Tibetan spoken in Shangri-La County and a wordlist: With reference to dialectal variations in the rGyalthang subgroup]. Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 39(1). 45–122. DOI logo
. 2016. In defense of prepalatal non-fricative sounds and symbols: Towards the Tibetan dialectology. Researches in Asian Languages 101. 99–125. ([URL]) (Accessed 2018-12-24.)
. 2017a. The vitality of Khams Tibetan varieties in Weixi County. Asian Highland Perspectives 441. 256–284. ([URL]) (Accessed 2019-02-22.)
. 2017b. On-in gensyoo no ABA bunpu wo meguru kaisyaku no hoohoo to sono zissai – Tibetto bunkaken nantootan no Tibetto kei syogengo wo rei ni [How to interpret an ABA-distribution of phonological phenomena and its practice – A case study on Khams Tibetan at the south-eastern corner of the Tibetosphere]. Journal of Kijutsuken 91. 43–64. ([URL]) (Accessed 2019-02-22.)
. 2018a. Xianggelila-si hokubu no Kamutibettogo syohoogen no hoogen tokutyoo to sono keisei [Dialectal variation and development of Khams Tibetan in Northern Shangri-La Municipality]. Journal of Asian and African Studies 951. 5–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. 100 linguistic maps of the Swadesh word list of Tibetic languages from Yunnan. Fuchu: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. ([URL]) (Accessed 2021-01-18.)
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Lozong Lhamo. 2020. ‘Where’ as a negative prefix in Khams Tibetan: A geolinguistic approach towards a grammaticalisation process. In Asahi, Yoshiyuki (ed.), Proceedings of Methods XVI: Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 2017 (Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics 59), 289–296. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Sonam Wangmo. 2016. Kamutibettogo Tagong [Lhagang] hoogen no bunpoo suketti [A sketch grammar of Lhagang Tibetan, a dialect of Minyag Rabgang Khams]. Journal of Kijutsuken 81. 21–90. ([URL]) (Accessed 2018-01-18.)
. 2018. Kamutibettogo Tagong [Lhagang] hoogen ni okeru zyutubu ni hyoozi sareru syookosei [Evidential system of verb predicates in Lhagang Tibetan]. Journal of Kijutsuken 101. 13–42. ([URL]) (Accessed 2018-12-08.)
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of “conjunct”/“disjunct” in Tibetan. In Huber, Brigitte & Volkart, Marianne & Widmer, Paul & Schwieger, Peter (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65 Geburtstag [Qomolangma, Demawend and Kasbek: Commemorative volume for the 65th birthday of Roland Bielmeier], vol. 11, 281–308. Halle (Saale): International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH.Google Scholar
. 2010. The Classical Tibetan cases and their transcategoriality: From sacred grammar to modern linguistics. Himalayan Linguistics 9(2). 87–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Owen-Smith, Thomas & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 266), 105–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. A typological sketch of evidential/epistemic categories in the Tibetic languages. In Gawne, Lauren & Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 302), 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Karma Rigzin. 2015. Outlines of Chocha-ngachakha: An undocumented language of Bhutan related to Dzongkha. Himalayan Linguistics 14(2). 49–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy J. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 240–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa & Chodrak Gyurme & Oisel, Guillaume. 2009. Sherpa-English and English-Sherpa dictionary: With literary Tibetan and Nepali equivalents. Kathmandu: Vajra Publications.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda Dorje. 2010. Manuel de tibétain standard: Langue et civilization [Manual of standard Tibetan: Language and civilization]. 3rd edn. Paris: L’Asiathèque.Google Scholar
Tsering Samdrup & Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2019. Humilifics in Mabzhi pastoralist speech of Amdo Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 42(2). 222–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vokurková, Zuzana. 2008. Epistemic modalities in spoken Standard Tibetan. Prague and Paris: Karel University and the University of Paris 8. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Wang, Li. 2014. Hanyu yufashi [History of the Chinese grammar]. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
Wu, Guangfan. 2009. Diqing Xianggelila lüyou fengwuzhi: Yanzhe diming de xiansuo [Gazetteer of Shangri-La travel scenery spots: Along the clue of toponyms]. Kunming: Yunnan People’s Publishing House.Google Scholar
Yang, Hui-Ling. 2012. The grammaticalization of Hakka, Mandarin and Southern Min: The interaction of negatives with modality, aspect, and interrogatives. Tempe: Arizona State University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha. 2016. Attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39(1). 105–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yunnan shengzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui. 1998. Yunnan shengzhi 59 shaoshuminzu yuyan wenzi zhi [Annals of Yunnan Province 59 on the languages and scripts of the ethnic minority groups]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2004. Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative study (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 150). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Yisun (ed.). 1985. Bod-rgya tshig-mdzod chen-mo [Tibetan-Chinese big dictionary]. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.Google Scholar
Zhao, Jincan & Li, Yupeng. 2014. Jiantang Zangyu shengdiao shiyan [Experiment of the tone in rGyalthang Tibetan]. Sichuan Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Sichuan University for Nationalities] 2014(1). 64–68.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Drolma, Dawa & Hiroyuki Suzuki
2024. The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 723 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Hiroyuki
2023. Geolinguistic approach to migration history in the south-eastern edge of the Tibetosphere. Asian Languages and Linguistics 4:2 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Hiroyuki
2024. Functional transition from hear to nonvisual sensory and hearsay evidential categories. Functions of Language 31:1 ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.