Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 42:2 (2019) ► pp.150–221

A first look at Pyu grammar

| SOAS, University of London
Pyu, an extinct Sino-Tibetan language once spoken in what is now Upper Burma, remains barely explored beyond the level of transliterating texts and the identification of individual words. Knowledge of Pyu grammar has advanced little over the past century. This article (1) presents a methodology for discovering the syntax of Pyu, (2) identifies five word classes and their combinatorial properties, (3) lists all known grammatical morphemes with notes on usage, (4) formulates rules of word order, and (5) demonstrates how all of the above can elucidate the meaning of a previously undecipher-​ed Pyu inscription. Over 200 examples are provided.
Keywords: Pyu, Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, epigraphy, grammar, morphology, syntax, word order, historical linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Corpus
    • 2.2Variation
      • 2.2.1Chronological variation
      • 2.2.2Late Pyu (LP)
      • 2.2.3Stylistic variation: Gloss Pyu (GP)
      • 2.2.4Other Pyu (OP)
      • 2.2.5Geographic variation
      • 2.2.6Orthographic variation
    • 2.3Conventions
      • 2.3.1Transliteration
      • 2.3.2Abbreviations
    • 2.4The Pyu script
      • 2.4.1Daṇḍas
      • 2.4.2Spaces
      • 2.4.3The punctuation mark Z
      • 2.4.4The problem of subscript consonants
    • 2.5Identification
      • 2.5.1Frames
      • 2.5.2Forms of morphemes
  • 3.Nouns
    • 3.1Noun frames
    • 3.2Plurality
    • 3.3Topic marking
    • 3.4Case marking
    • 3.5Compound nouns
  • 4.Pronouns
    • 4.1Pronoun frames
    • 4.2Personal and possessive pronouns
      • 4.2.1First person pronouns
      • 4.2.2Second person pronoun
      • 4.2.3Third person pronouns
        • 4.2.3.1The third person accusative (plural?) pronoun °o diṃṁ?
        • 4.2.3.2The third person dative pronoun °o vaṁ?
        • 4.2.3.3Substitutes for third person pronouns
    • 4.3The reflexive pronoun ḅiṁḥ.ḅiṁḥ
    • 4.4Demonstrative pronouns
    • 4.5Did Pyu have relative pronouns?
  • 5.Numerals
    • 5.1Numeral frames
    • 5.2Known numerals
  • 6.Adjectives
    • 6.1The archetypal adjective frame
    • 6.2The adverbial frame
    • 6.3Markers and adjectives
  • 7.Verbs
    • 7.1The basic verb frame
    • 7.2Types of verbs
    • 7.3Zero-argument verb frame
    • 7.4One-argument verb frames
    • 7.5Two-argument verb frames
    • 7.6Three-argument verb frame
    • 7.7Person and number agreement
    • 7.8The realis-irrealis dichotomy
    • 7.9Perfective
    • 7.10Tense
    • 7.11Causative
    • 7.12Verb morphology
      • 7.12.1Derivational affixes
        • 7.12.1.1The nominalizing prefix t-
        • 7.12.1.2Prefixes of unknown function
        • 7.12.1.3Suffix of unknown function
      • 7.12.2Polysyllabic verbs
        • 7.12.2.1Reciprocal verbs
        • 7.12.2.2Polysyllabic verbs with equivalents of Sanskrit verbal prefixes
        • 7.12.2.3Synonym compound verb
        • 7.12.2.4Other polysyllabic verbs
          • 7.12.2.4.1Polysyllabic verb with iṁ /ɨ/ in the first syllable
          • 7.12.2.4.2Polysyllabic verb with identical syllables
          • 7.12.2.4.3Polysyllabic verb with similar-sounding syllables
          • 7.12.2.4.4Polysyllabic verbs with dissimilar syllables
    • 7.13Nominalization
      • 7.13.1Nominalizer frame 1: °o
      • 7.13.2Nominalizer frame 2: Paṅ·
      • 7.13.3Nominalizer frame 3: Kviṃṁ
      • 7.13.4Nominalizer frame 4: Ma
      • 7.13.5Nominalizer GP hliṁḥ ~ LP hḍiṁḥ
    • 7.14Specific verbs of interest
      • 7.14.1The LP copula si
      • 7.14.2The OP equational copula yaṁ
      • 7.14.3The LP realis copula roḥ
      • 7.14.4The irrealis copula pa
      • 7.14.5Paṁḥ ‘give’
  • 8.Markers
    • 8.1A phonological argument for markers as suffixes?
    • 8.2Noun markers
      • 8.2.1Plural markers
        • 8.2.1.1The plural marker vaṅ·ṃ
        • 8.2.1.2The plural marker tvo
      • 8.2.2Case markers
        • 8.2.2.1Accusative marker diṃṁ
        • 8.2.2.2Comitative marker daṅ·ṃ
        • 8.2.2.3Ablative marker pin·ṁḥ
        • 8.2.2.4Locative-temporal marker duṃ
        • 8.2.2.5Locative-temporal marker ḍoḥ
        • 8.2.2.6Locative marker tiṁ
        • 8.2.2.7Temporal marker tva
      • 8.2.3Pseudo-noun markers
        • 8.2.3.1The pseudo-case marker GP °o plaṁḥ
        • 8.2.3.2The pseudo-case marker LP °o vaṁ ‘to’
      • 8.2.4The possessive marker °o
      • 8.2.5Topic marker tiṁ mtu
      • 8.2.6The conjunctive marker la ~ ḍa
      • 8.2.7The hypothetical conjunctive ga
    • 8.3The adverbial marker na
    • 8.4Verb markers
      • 8.4.1The preverbal realis marker ḅin·ṁḥ ~ ḅiṁḥ
      • 8.4.2The postverbal irrealis marker ce ~ che
      • 8.4.3The postverbal perfective marker tha.daṅ·ṃṁ ~ ta.daṃṁ ~ daṃṁ
      • 8.4.4The postverbal marker toḥ
      • 8.4.5The postverbal causative marker kyaḥ
      • 8.4.6The postverbal reiterative marker tḅaḥ
      • 8.4.7Nominalizing markers
    • 8.5Negative markers
      • 8.5.1ḅaḥ
      • 8.5.2ḅa
    • 8.6The relative marker ma
    • 8.7The quotative marker LP cho?
    • 8.8The final exclamatory marker OP co ~ cho ~ jo ~ LP choḥ
  • 9.Other word classes?
    • 9.1Adverbs?
    • 9.2Reduplicative expressives?
      • 9.2.1Complete reduplication of one syllable
      • 9.2.2Reduplication of onset and nucleus with similar coda
      • 9.2.3Reduplication of onset and nucleus only
      • 9.2.4Reduplication of onsets only
      • 9.2.5Complete reduplication of two syllables
      • 9.2.6Reduplication of first syllable and onset of second syllable
      • 9.2.7Reduplication of first syllable only
      • 9.2.8What are these reduplicative forms?
  • 10.Word order
    • 10.1The core rule of Pyu word order
    • 10.2The exception to the core rule
    • 10.3Topics
    • 10.4Joining noun phrases
    • 10.5Juxtaposed sentences
    • 10.6Relative clauses
  • 11.Grammar as a tool for decipherment
  • 12.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.18013.miy
References (23)
References
Blagden, C. O. 1911. A preliminary study of the fourth text of the Myazedi inscriptions. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 43(2): 365–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1913–1914. The “Pyu” inscriptions. Epigraphia Indica 121: 127–132.Google Scholar
1919. The Pyu face of the Myazedi inscription at Pagan. Epigraphia Birmanica 11: 59–68.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath & Balthasar Bickel. 2015. Leipzig glossing rules. ([URL]) (Accessed 30 July 2016).
DeLancey, Scott. 2018. The inclusive-exclusive distinction in Kuki-Chin and Naga Belt languages. In Linda Konnerth, Stephen Morey & Amos Teo (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics (NEIL), 81, 75–85. Canberra: Australian National University: Asia-Pacific Linguistics Open Access.Google Scholar
Duroiselle, Charles. 1919. The Burmese face of the Myazedi inscription at Pagan. Epigraphia Birmanica 11: 1–46.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Arlo, Bob Hudson, Marc Miyake & Julian K. Wheatley. 2017. Studies in Pyu epigraphy, I: state of the field, edition and analysis of the Kan Wet Khaung mound inscription, and inventory of the corpus. Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 1031: 43–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Arlo, Marc Miyake & Julian K. Wheatley. 2018. Corpus of Pyu inscriptions. ([URL]) (Accessed 13 May 2018).
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. ([URL]) (Accessed 17 May 2018). DOI logo
Jenny, Mathias. 2015. The far west of Southeast Asia: ‘give’ and ‘get’ in the languages of Myanmar. In N. J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Languages of mainland Southeast Asia: the state of the art (Pacific Linguistics 649), 155–208. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1997. Sino-Tibetan numeral systems: prefixes, protoforms and problems. Series B, Volume 1141. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Monier-Williams, Monier. 1899. A Sanskrit-English dictionary: etymologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nishi, Yoshio. 1999. Four papers on Burmese: Toward the history of Burmese (the Myanmar language). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Nishida, Tatsuo. 1955. Myazedi hibun ni okeru chūko Birumago no kenkyū (Studies in the later ancient Burmese language through Myazedi inscriptions). Kodaigaku [Palaeologia] 1955: 17–31.Google Scholar
. 1966. Seikago no kenkyū (A study of the Hsi-hsia language), vol. 21. Tokyo: Zauhō kankōkai.Google Scholar
Okell, John, and Allott, Anna. 2001. Burmese/Myanmar dictionary of grammatical forms. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1994. Outline of Classical Chinese grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1999. The roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1943. Further analysis of the Pyu inscriptions. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 7(4): 313–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shorto, Harry L. 1971. A dictionary of the Mon inscriptions from the sixth to the sixteenth centuries: incorporating materials collected by the late C. O. Blagden. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
VanBik, Kenneth. 2009. Proto-Kuki-Chin: A reconstructed ancestor of the Kuki-Chin languages. STEDT monograph series, vol. 81. Berkeley: Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project.Google Scholar
Yabu, Shirō. 2006. Old Burmese (OB) of Myazedi inscription in OB materials. Osaka: Osaka University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar