Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 44:2 (2021) ► pp.226–263

On the origin of 2nd person prefix #tV- in Trans-Himalayan languages

| University of Oregon
Two 2nd person verbal indexation forms are reconstructed back to Proto-Trans-Himalayan (PTH): a suffix #-n(a) (Bauman 1975; DeLancey 1989, 2014; H. Sun 1983, 1995; van Driem 1993; Watters 2002), and a prefix #tV- (Watters 2002; Jacques 2012; DeLancey 2011a, 2014). While #-n(a) is in paradigmatic distribution with other suffixal forms, the prefixal position of #tV-raises the question of its functional origin.
DeLancey (2011a, 2014: 23) suggests hypothetically that #tV- finds its origin either in a non-finite nominalization or in an irrealis nominalization, “ideal for an impersonal 2nd person use: ‘One might [speak]’ rather than ‘You will [speak].’”
Through the comparison of cognate tV- possessive and tV- nominalizer prefixes found in rGyalrongic, Kuki-Naga (Ao), and Sinitic, I propose that 2nd person #tV- can be traced back to a nominal possessive modifier such as one’s or someone’s: a man-type of R-impersonals (Malchukov & Siewierska 2011). Spreading to verbs, #tV- was used as a nominalizer indexing the notional S or A argument. With nouns and verbs alike, the referent of the possessor, whether 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person, was specific (Siewierska 2011: 62), accessible in discourse, anaphorically or deictically, regardless of the presence of a coreferential overt noun-phrase. The prefix #tV- started to be used in particular to address 2nd person indirectly, a development likely triggered by pragmatic motivations, i.e. politeness, before being reanalyzed as a 2nd person indexation marker.
Keywords: Proto-Trans-Himalayan, possessive, R-impersonal, nominalization, 2nd person indexation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognate tV- possessive in rGyalrongic, Mongsen Ao, and old Chinese
    • 2.1Cognate tV- possessive in rGyalrongic, Mongsen Ao, and old Chinese – in citation form
    • 2.2Possessive markers in Japhug and Mongsen Ao – in discourse
    • 2.3Cognate tV- possessive in discourse – beyond inalienability
  • 3.Cognate tV- nominalization in rGyalrongic and Mongsen Ao
    • 3.1Cognate tV- in attributive predication in rGyalrongic and Mongsen Ao
    • 3.2Cognate tV- in action nominalization in rGyalrongic and Mongsen Ao
  • 4.From specific R-impersonal possessive to 2nd person indexation via nominalization
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Sources for language data
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.20004.pon
References (116)
References
Allen, Nicholas J. 1975. Sketch of Thulung grammar. New York: Cornell University China-Japan Program.Google Scholar
Angdembe, Tej Man. 1999. Anomalous conjugation of copulas, development of tense/aspect morphemes, and loss of agreement prefixes. In Yogendra Yadava & Warren Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 498–524. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Arden, Michelle. 2010. A phonetic, phonological, and morphosyntactic analysis of the Mara language. San Diego: San Diego State University MA thesis. DOI logo
Bauman, James. 1975. Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley dissertation.
Baxter, William H. & Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Bickel, Balthasar et al. 2007. Two ways of suspending object agreement in Puma: between incorporation, antipassivization, and optional agreement. Himalayan Linguistics 71. 1–18.Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In David Bradley (ed.) Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics, Vol. 141, 1–72. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2002. The sub-grouping of Tibeto-Burman. In Christopher I. Beckwith (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages, 73–112. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2007. East and Southeast Asia. In Christopher Moseley (ed.), Encyclopedia of the world’s endangered languages, Routledge Handbooks Online.Google Scholar
Caughley, Ross. 1982. The syntax and morphology of the verb in Chepang Pacific Linguistics Series B, no. 84. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chhangte, Lalnunthangi. 1993. Mizo syntax. Eugene: Eugene: University of Oregon Ph.D. dissertation.
Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2017. Construct forms of nouns in typological perspective. Paper presented at the 50th Societas Linguistica Europaea, Zurich, Switzerland, September 10–13, 2017.
DeLancey, Scott. 1989. Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 521. 315–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Towards a history of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics 9(1). 1–38.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Notes on verb agreement prefixes in Tibeto-Burman. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 10(1). 1–29.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, Vol. 961, 343–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Second person verb forms in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(1). 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015a. Morphological evidence for a Central branch of Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan). Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 44(2). 122–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. The historical dynamics of morphological complexity in Trans-Himalayan languages. Linguistic Discovery 13(2). 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Classifying Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan) languages. In Paul Sidwell and Mattias Jenny (eds.), The Languages and Linguistics of Mainland Southeast Asia, 207–224. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. to appear. First person pronominals in Kuki-Naga languages. In Mark Post and Toni Huber (eds.), Ethnolinguistic prehistory of the Eastern Himalaya. Leiden: Brill.
Doornenbal, Marius A. 2009. A grammar of Bantawa. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.
van Driem, George. 1993. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies LVI(2). 292–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. A new analysis of the Limbu verb. In David Bradley (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.14 Tibeto-Burman Languages of the Himalayas, 157–173. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas, An Ethnolinguistic handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region, containing an introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of Language. Vol. 21. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2007. The diversity of the Tibeto-Burman language family and the linguistic ancestry of Chinese. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 1(2). 211–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The Naga language groups within the Tibeto-Burman language family. In Michael Oppitz, Thomas Kaiser, Alban von Stockhausen & Marion Wettstein (eds.), Naga identities: Changing local cultures in the Northeast of India, 311–321. Gent: Uitgeverij Snoeck.Google Scholar
. 2011. Tibeto-Burman subgroups and historical grammar. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 10(1). 31–39.Google Scholar
. 2014. Trans-Himalayan. In Nathan Hill & Thomas Owen-Smith (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics, 11–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2017. The morphosyntax of Himalayan languages. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Linguistic history and historical linguistics. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(1). 106–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1994. The Structure of Kiranti languages: comparative grammar and texts: Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Nr. 13. Zürich: Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
1997. A grammar of Athpare. Munich: Lincom Europa.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.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, Vol. 961, 163–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Pascal, & Selin Grollmann. 2018. What is Kiranti? A critical account. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 111. 99–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2014. The Personal agreement system of Zbu rGyalrong (Ngyaltsu variety). Transactions of the Philological Society 112(1). 44–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen A. 2008. A descriptive grammar of two Magar dialects of Nepal: Tanahu and Syangja Magar. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin dissertation.
2011. Innovation in nominalization in Magar: A Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives Vol. 961, 215–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1982. Research on Tibeto-Burman Languages. In Trends in Linguistics, State of the Art Report, 141. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 1986. Non-embedded nominalizations in Newari: the interaction of form and function. Paper presented at Conference on the Interaction of Form and Function, University of California, Davis.
Henderson, E. J. A. 1965. Tiddim Chin: A descriptive analysis of two texts. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2012. Referential markers and agreement markers in functional discourse grammar. Language Sciences 34(4). 468–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2011. An inventory of Tibetan sound laws. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland (Third Series) 21(4). 441–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2001. Les préfixes nominaux d- /g- en tibétain classique. Quinzième journée de linguistique – Asie orientale, EHESS, Paris, 08-06-2001.Google Scholar
. 2004. Phonologie et morphologie du japhug (rGyalrong). Paris: Université Paris VII Denis Diderot dissertation.
. 2010. The inverse in Japhug rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 11(1). 127–157.Google Scholar
. 2012. Agreement morphology: the case of rGyalrongic and Kiranti. Language and Linguistics 13(1). 83–116.Google Scholar
. 2014a. On Coblin’s law. In Richard VanNess Simmons & Newell Ann Van Auken (eds.), Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan linguistics, 155–166. Taipei, Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
. 2014b. Denominal affixes as sources of antipassive markers in Japhug rGyalrong. Lingua 1381. 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014c. Clause linking in Japhug rGyalrong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 263–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Complementation in Japhug rGyalrong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39(2). 222–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Grammaticalization in Japhug (unpublished – academia.edu)Google Scholar
. 2016c. From ergative to comparee marker – Multiple reanalyses and polyfunctionality. Diachronica 33(1). 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018 (2014 unpublished version – academia.edu). Generic person marking in Japhug and other rGyalrong languages. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony. Vol. 1211, 403–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Fossil nominalization prefixes in Tibetan and Chinese. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 12(1). 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. forthcoming. A grammar of Japhug.
Kansakar, Tej Ratna. 1993. The Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal, a general survey. Contributions to Nepalese studies 20(2). 165–173. Kathmandu.Google Scholar
Khadka, Bir B. 2006. A sketch grammar of Boto Boli. Kirtipur: Tribhuvan University MA thesis.
Khatri, Ramesh & Krishna K. Sah. 2009. Pronominalization in Raji. Nepalese Linguistics 241. 311–316.Google Scholar
Khatri, Ramesh. 2009. Causativization in Raji. Nepalese Linguistics 241. 101–112.Google Scholar
. 2010. The Raji verbs. Paper presented at the 31st Linguistic Society of Nepal at Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, November 26–27, 2010.
Konnerth, Linda A. 2014. A grammar of Karbi. Eugene: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.
Konnerth, Linda & Koninglee Wanglar. 2019. Person indexation in Monsang from a diachronic perspective. Himalayan Linguistics 18(1). 53–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kongkham, Hemabati. 2010. A Descriptive Grammar of Moyon. Imphal: Department of Linguistics, Manipur University Ph.D. dissertation.
Lahaussois, Aimée. 2002. Aspects of the grammar of Thulung Rai, an endangered Himalayan language. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley dissertation.
. 2003. Nominalization and its various uses in Thulung Rai. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 26(1). 33–57.Google Scholar
Lai, Yunfan. 2017. Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle dissertation.
Laufer, Berthold. 1915. The prefix a- in the Indo-Chinese languages. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 161. 757–780. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1933. Certain phonetic influences of the Tibetan prefixes upon the root initials. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica 6(2). 135–157.Google Scholar
Liangrong, Huang (黃良榮) & Sun, Hongkai (孙宏开). 2002. 漢嘉戎詞典 北京: 民族出版社.Google Scholar
Lin, Youjing. 2000. Tense, aspect and modality inflection in the Zhuokeji rGyalrong verb. Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University MA thesis.
. 2003. Tense and aspect morphology in the Zhuokeji rGyalrong verb. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie orientale 32(2). 245–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska. 2011. Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Akio Ogawa. 2011. Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. A semantic map approach. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 19–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In J. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics I1, 237–58. New York & London, Seminar Press.Google Scholar
. 1985. God and the Sino-Tibetan copula, with some good news concerning selected Tibeto-Burman rhymes. Journal of Asian and African Studies (Tokyo Foreign Languages University) 291: 1–81.Google Scholar
1995. Sino-Tibetan numerals and the play of prefixes. Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 20(1). 105–252.Google Scholar
2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. University of California publications in linguistics, Vol. 135. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
2018. Morphosemantics of Proto-Tibeto-Burman *a- prefix: glottal and nasal complications. Paper presented at the 51st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. Kyoto University, September 25–28, 2018.
Nagano, Yasuhiko. 1984. A Historical Study of the rGyalrong Verb System. Tokyo: Seishido.Google Scholar
. 2003. Cogtse rGyalrong. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 469–489. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2008. Nominalizations in Bodic languages. In María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives [Typological Studies in Linguistics 76], 219–37. 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.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, Vol. 961, 195–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pons, Marie-Caroline. 2013. Description du Magar de Syangja, langue tibéto-birmane du Népal. Paris: Université Paris IV Sorbonne MA thesis.
. 2017. Morphological evidence for “Raji-Raute” and its genetic position within Trans-Himalayan. Paper presented at the Berner Zirkel für Sprachwissen-schaft, University of Bern, December 13, 2017.
Post, Mark W. 2011. Nominalization-based constructions in Tibeto-Burman languages: Typology and evolution. Paper presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology 9. Biennial Conference, University of Hong Kong, July 22, 2011.
Prins, Marielle M-C. 2011. A web of relations: A Grammar of rGyalrong Jiăomùzú (Kyom-kyo) dialects. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.
Rastogi, Kavita. 2012. A descriptive grammar of Raji (Rawat). Aviram Prakashan, Delhi.Google Scholar
Regmi, Pratigya. 2013. Tense, aspect and modality in the Magar Dhut. Kirtipur: Tribhuvan University MA Thesis.
Schorer, Nicolas. 2017. The Dura language: Grammar and phylogeny. Leiden: Koninklijke, Brill.Google Scholar
Sharma, Narayan Prasad. 2014. Morphosyntax of Puma, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. London: SOAS. University of London Ph.D. Thesis.
Shree, Krishan. 2001. A sketch of Raji grammar. In Randy J. LaPolla (ed.), A Linguistic approach to Zhangzhung and related languages in the Indian Himalayas: The Tibeto-Burman languages of Uttar Pradesh, Vol. 21, 449–501. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2011. Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals. Man-constructions vs. third person plural–impersonals in the languages of Europe. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 57–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singh, Chungkham Yashawanta. 2010. Koireng grammar. New Delhi: Akansha.Google Scholar
Stern, Theodore. 1963. A provisional sketch of Sizang (Siyin) Chin. Asia Major 101. 222–278. London: Percy Lund, Humphries.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai (孙宏开). 1983. Woguo Zang-Mianyu dongci de rencheng fanchou (我国藏缅语动词的人称范畴) (The personal category of verbs in Tibeto-Burman languages of China). Minzu Yuwen (民族语文) 21. 17–29.Google Scholar
. 1984. Woguo bufen Zang-Mianyu zhong mingci de rencheng lingshu fanchou (我国部分藏缅语中名词的人称领书范畴) (The category of the nouns in some Tibetan-Burman languages in China). Zhongyang Minzu Xuebao (中央民族学 院学报) 11. 78–84.Google Scholar
. 1995. A further discussion on verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman languages. In Yoshio Nishi, James Matisoff & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, Vol. 411, 17–29. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
. 2001. 論藏緬語族中的羌語支語言, 語言暨語言學，第21 期 157–182.Google Scholar
. 2016. Zang-Mian yu zu Qiang yu zhi yanjiu 藏缅语族羌语支研究 (Study of the Qiang branch of Tibeto-Burman languages). Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1998. Nominal morphology in Caodeng rGyalrong. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 69(1). 103–149.Google Scholar
2000. Parallelisms in the verb morphology of Sidaba rGyalrong and Guanyinqiao in rGyalrongic. Language and Linguistics 1(1). 161–190.Google Scholar
2003. Caodeng rGyalrong. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 490–502. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2007. The irrealis category in rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 8.3. 797–819.Google Scholar
2014. Typology of generic-person marking in Tshobdun rGyalrong. In Richard Van Ness Simmons & Newell A. van Auken (eds), Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan linguistics: Dialect, phonology, transcription and text, 225–248. Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Thapa, Urika. 2017. Nominalization in Magar Dhut, as spoken in Tanahun district. Kirtipur: Tribhuvan University MA thesis.
Turin, Mark. 2004. Newar-Thangmi lexical correspondences and the linguistic classification of Thangmi. Journal of Asian and African Studies 681. 97–120.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Some preliminary observations on the relationship between Kham, Magar (and Chepang). SIL international (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
2008. Nominalization in the Kiranti and Central Himalayish languages of Nepal. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2). 1–44.Google Scholar
Witter, W. E. 1888. An outline grammar of the Lhōtā Nāgā Language. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, Stuart N. 1929. Outlines of Tibeto-Burman linguistic morphology. Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Zhang, Shuya. 2016. La Phonologie et La Morphologie du dialecte de Brag-dbar du rGyalrong Situ. Paris: Inalco MA thesis.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

DeLancey, Scott
2021. Differential innovation in 2nd person pronouns and agreement indexation in Trans-Himalayan languages. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.