Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 40:2 (2017) ► pp.243–284

The (pro)nominalizer -la(ŋ) in Tamangic

Its link to genetives, complementizers, and finite verb suffixes

| Nagoya College
As is well known, it is not uncommon in TB that nominalized clauses are used in various types of constructions, such as relative clauses, purpose clauses, verb complements, and free-standing independent clauses. Noonan (1997), for instance, shows the multi-functionality of the nominalized clause with a nominalizer -wa in Chantyal (Tamangic). The current article discusses another nominalizer -la(ŋ) in Tamangic. In many Tamangic languages/dialects the suffix la(ŋ) may be used to form possessive pronominal expressions (e.g. ‘someone’s/something’s one’). It can thus be more specifically described as a pronominalizer. There is evidence that in many Tamangic dialects the suffix has developed into a genitive marker. This paper further suggests a possibility that la(ŋ) is historically related to a number of verb suffixes, such as complementizers and finite verb suffixes used in free-standing independent clauses.
Keywords: Tamangic, nominalizer, pronominalizer, genitive, complementizer, Tibeto-Burman
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The (pro)nominalizer -la(ŋ) in Tamangic
  • 3.The development of a new genitive
  • 4.Other usages of the modern reflexes of *-la
  • 5.Verb suffixes
    • 5.1Complementizers or infinitive suffixes
    • 5.2Finite morphology
      • 5.2.1 -pala
      • 5.2.2 -la and -la(ŋ)
  • 6.Beyond Tamangic
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.17006.hon
References (67)
References
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beyer, Stephan V. 1992. The Classical Tibetan language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1999. Nominalization and focus in some Kiranti languages. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 271–296. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Chalise, Krishna Prasad. 1999. Tense-aspect system in Tamang (Western dialect). Gipan 1(2): 203–218.Google Scholar
. 2000. Clause combining in Tamang. Nepalese Linguistics 171: 77–90.Google Scholar
. 2005. Nominalized verb forms in Tamang. In Yogendra Yadava, Govinda Bhattarai, Ram Raj Lohani, Balaram Prasain & Krishna Parajuli (eds), Contemporary issues in Nepalese linguistics, 479–483. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Canbridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1999. Relativization in Tibetan. In Yogendra Yadava & Warren Glover (eds), Studies in Nepalese linguistics, 231–249. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
. 2005. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 28S1 (2002). 55–72.Google Scholar
. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspective, 343–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius A. 2008. Nominalization in Bantawa. LTBA 31(2): 67–95.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Een eerste grammaticale verkenning van het Bumthang, een taal van Midden-Bhutan – met een overzicht van de talen en volkeren van Bhutan. Leiden: Centrum voor Niet-Westerse Studiën.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 2015. Synoptic grammar of the Bumthang language: A language of the central Bhutan highlands. Himalayan Linguistics 0(1), Archive 61: 1–77.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1994. The structure of Kiranti languages: Comparative grammar and texts [Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 13]. Zürich: Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
1997. A grammar of Athpare. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2011. Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: A typological perspective. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 163–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol, Alexander R. Coupe, Ellen Bartee, Kristine Hildebrandt & You-Jin Lin. 2008. Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area. LTBA 31(2): 97–144.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol, Ayla Applebaum, Uldis Balodis, Christy Bird, Kunlay, Daisy Rosenblum, Ryoko Suzuki, Dema Tshering & Alex Walker. 2009. An introduction to Dzala: An East Bodish language of eastern Bhutan. Keynote address presented at the 15th Himalayan Languages Symposium, University of Oregon, Eugene, July 31.Google Scholar
Georg, Stefan. 1996. Marphatan Thakali. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Glover, Warren W. 1970. Gurung texts. In Frederic Kris Lehman (ed.), Tone systems of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal, part III: Texts I [Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics III], 1–131. Urbana, IL: Department of Linguistics, The University of Illinois.Google Scholar
1974. Sememic and grammatical structures in Gurung (Nepal). Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Glover, Warren. W., Jessie R. Glover & Deu Bahadur Gurung. 1977. Gurung-Nepali-English dictionary with English-Gurung and Nepali-Gurung indexes [Pacific linguistics C-51]. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Göksel, Ash & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2011. Innovation in nominalization in Magar: A Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 215–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Austin (ed.). 1973. Clause, sentence, and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal, PART IV: Word lists. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin & Kedar P. Shrestha. 2006. Newār (Nepal Bhasa) [Languages of the World/Materials 256]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Hari, Annemarie & Anita Maibaum. 1970. Thakali texts. In Frederic Kris Lehman (ed.), Tone systems of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal, Part III: Texts I [Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics III], 165–306. Urbana, IL: Department of Linguistics, The University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa [Pacific Linguistics 557], 1–189. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Honda, Isao. 2002. Seke phonology: A comparative study of three Seke dialects. LTBA 25(1): 191–210.Google Scholar
. 2003. A sketch of Tangbe. In Tej Ratna Kansakar and Mark Turin (eds.), Themes in Himalayan languages and linguistics, 49–64. Kirtipur, Nepal: Tribhuvan University and South Asia Institute at Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 1998. On the polyfunctionality of the Japanese particle no: From the perspectives of ontology and grammaticalization. In Toshi Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 169–192. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Hoshi, Michiyo. 1986. An outline of the Prakaa grammar – A dialect of the Manang language. Monumenta Serindica 151: 187–317. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2011. A grammar of Kurtöp. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon at Eugene.Google Scholar
Jäschke, Heinrich August. 1995[1881]. A Tibetan-English dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Kölver, Ulrike. 1977. Nominalization and lexicalization in Modern Newari. Albeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 301.Google Scholar
Kretschmar, Monika. 1995. Erzählungen und Dialekt aus Südmustang: Untersuchung zur Grammatik des Südmustang-Dialekts. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimée. 2003. Nominalization and its various uses in Thulung Rai. LTBA 26(1): 33–57.Google Scholar
. 2005. Nominalization, relativization, genitivization in Thulung Rai. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 28S1 (2002): 87–98.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James. 1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In John Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 11, 237–258. New York, NY: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Mazaudon, Martine. 1973. Phonologie Tamang. Paris: Société dʼÉtudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
. 2003a. Tamang. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 291–314. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2003b. From discourse to grammar in Tamang: Topic, focus, intensifiers and subordination. In David Bradley, Randy LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff [Pacific Linguistics 555], 145–157. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2012. The influence of tone and affrication on manner: Some irregular manner correspondences in the Tamang group. LTBA 35(2): 97–112.Google Scholar
Nishi, Yumiko. 2006. The emergence of the complimentizer no in Japanese revisited. In Timothy J. Vance & Kimberly Jones (eds), Japanese/Korean linguistics 141, 127–137. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds), Essays on language function and language type. In honor of T. Givón , 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Chantyal. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 315–335. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2007. Nominalizers in Tamangic languages. Invited paper presented at the International Workshop on Nominalizers and Copulas in East Asian and Neighboring Languages, January 9.
. 2008. Nominalization in Bodic languages. In María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives for the twenty-first century [Typological Studies in Language 76], 219–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Aspects of the historical development of nominalizers in the Tamangic languages. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 195–214.Google Scholar
Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2004. A grammar of Wambule: Grammar, lexicon, texts and Cultural survey of a Kiranti tribe of eastern Nepal [Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5/2]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Owen-Smith, Thomas. 2013a. Genitive and aspect in a northern dialect of Tamang. Paper presented at the 45th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Singapore.
. 2013b. Personal and environmental deictic categories in a northern dialect of Tamang. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 161: 215–233.Google Scholar
Poudel, Kedar Prasad. 2006. Dhankute Tamang grammar. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Rutgers, Roland. 1998. Yamphu: Grammar, texts & lexicon [Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 2]. Leiden: Research School CNWS.Google Scholar
Taylor, Doreen. 1970. Tamang texts. In Frederic Kris Lehman (ed.), Tone systems of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal, Part III: Texts I [Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics II], 132–164. Urbana, IL: Department of Linguistics, The University of Illinois.Google Scholar
. 1973. Clause patterns in Tamang. In Austin Hale & David Watters (eds), Clause, sentence, and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal, Part II: Clause, 81–174. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1978. Topicalisation in Tamang narrative. In Joseph E. Grimes (ed.), Papers on discourse, 149–157. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Varenkamp, Bryan. 1996. Tamang tam: A sociolinguistic study of eastern Tamang dialects (in Nepal). Kirtipur, Nepal: CNAS.Google Scholar
. 2003. A look at -ba in Central Eastern Tamang. In Tej Ratna Kansakar & Mark Turin (eds), Themes in Himalayan languages and linguistics, 219–232. Kirtipur, Nepal: Tribhuvan University and South Asia Institute at Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
Vinding, Michael. 1998. The Thakali: A Himalayan ethnography. London: Serindia.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2008. Nominalization in the Kiranti and Central Himalayish languages of Nepal. LTBA 31(2): 1–43.Google Scholar
Wrona, Janick. 2011. A case of non-derived stand-alone nominalization. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 163–193.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds). 2011. Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 96]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Stephen Matthews & Kaoru Horie. 2004. From pronominalizers to pragmatic marker: Implications for unidirectionality from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], 137–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Stephen Matthews. 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives for the twenty-first century [Typological Studies in Language 76], 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar