fbpx
Wikipedia

Sal languages

January 01, 1970

The Sal languages, also known as the Brahmaputran languages, are a branch of Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in northeast India, as well as parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), and China.

Sal
Brahmaputran
Bodo-Konyak-Jinghpaw
Geographic
distribution		India, Bangladesh, and Burma
Linguistic classificationSino-Tibetan
Subdivisions
Glottologbrah1260

Alternative names edit

Ethnologue calls the group "Jingpho–Konyak-Garo–Bodo", while Scott DeLancey (2015)[1] refers to it as "Bodo-Konyak-Garo-Jinghpaw" (BKJ). Glottolog lists this branch as “Brahmaputran (brah1260)”, as the languages occur around the Brahmaputra Valley.

Classification within Sino-Tibetan edit

Scott DeLancey (2015)[1] considers the Sal languages, which he refers to as Garo-Bodo-Konyak-Jinghpaw (BKJ), to be part of a wider Central Tibeto-Burman group.

Internal classification edit

Benedict (1972:7) noted that the Bodo–Garo, Konyak, and Jingpho (Kachin) languages, as well as the extinct Chairel language, shared distinctive roots for "sun" and "fire".

Burling (1983) proposed a grouping of the Bodo–Garo, Konyak (Northern Naga), and Jingpho languages, characterized by several shared lexical innovations, including:

  • *sal "sun"[2]
  • *war "fire"[3]
  • *s-raŋ "sky"[4]
  • *wa "father"[5]
  • *nu "mother"[6]

Burling (1983) called the proposed group Sal, after the words sal, san and jan for "sun" in various of these languages. Coupe (2012:201–204) argues that some of Burling's proposed innovations are either not attested across the Sal languages, or have cognates in other Sino-Tibetan languages. Nevertheless, Matisoff (2013)[7] accepts Burling's Sal group, and considers *s-raŋ 'sky/rain' and *nu 'mother' to be the most convincing Sal innovations.

The family is generally presented with three branches (Burling 2003:175, Thurgood 2003:11):

Shafer had grouped the first two as his Baric division, and Bradley (1997:20) also combines them as a subbranch.

Bradley (1997) tentatively considers Pyu and Kuki-Chin to be possibly related to Sal, but is uncertain about this.

Peterson (2009)[8] considers Mru-Hkongso to be a separate Tibeto-Burman branch, but notes that Mru-Hkongso shares similarities with Bodo–Garo that could be due to the early split of Mruic from a Tibeto-Burman branch that included Bodo–Garo.

van Driem (2011) edit

The Brahmaputran branch of van Driem (2011) has three variants:

The smallest is his most recent, and the one van Driem considers a well-established low-level group of Sino-Tibetan.[11] However, Dhimalish is not accepted as a Sal language by Glottolog.[12] Sotrug (2015)[13] and Gerber, et al. (2016)[14] consider Dhimalish to be particularly closely related to the Kiranti languages rather than to the Sal languages.

Matisoff (2012, 2013) edit

James Matisoff (2012)[15] makes the following observations about the Sal grouping.

  • Although Bodo–Garo and Northeastern Naga (Konyak) are indeed closely related, Jingpho and Northeastern Naga (Konyak) seem to be even more closely related to each other than Jingpho and Bodo-Garo are to each other.
  • Luish is the Tibeto-Burman branch most closely related to Jingpho, for which further evidence is provided in Matisoff (2013).[7]
  • Similarities between Jingpho and Nungish are due to contact. Thus, Nungish is not particularly closely related to Jingpho, and is not a Sal language. On the other hand, Lolo-Burmese appears to be more closely related to Nungish than to Jingpho.

Matisoff (2012) notes that these Tibeto-Burman branches did not split off neatly in a tree-like fashion, but rather form a linkage. Nevertheless, Matisoff (2013:30)[7] still provides the following Stammbaum for the Sal branch.

The unclassified extinct Taman language of northern Myanmar displays some similarities with Luish languages, Jingpho, and Bodo-Garo, but it is undetermined whether Taman is a Sal language or not.[16]

References edit

  1. ^ a b DeLancey, Scott. 2015. "Morphological Evidence for a Central Branch of Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan)." Cahiers de linguistique - Asie oriental 44(2):122-149. December 2015. doi:10.1163/19606028-00442p02
  2. ^ "STEDT Etymon #2753". stedt.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 3 April 2024.
  3. ^ "STEDT Etymon #2152". stedt.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 3 April 2024.
  4. ^ "STEDT Etymon #3571". stedt.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 3 April 2024.
  5. ^ "STEDT Etymon #5484". stedt.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 3 April 2024.
  6. ^ "STEDT Etymon #1621". stedt.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 3 April 2024.
  7. ^ a b c Matisoff, James A. 2013. Re-examining the genetic position of Jingpho: putting flesh on the bones of the Jingpho/Luish relationship. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 36(2). 1–106.
  8. ^ Peterson, David A. 2009. Paper presented at The 42nd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (ICSTLL 42), November 2009, Payap University, Chiangmai, Thailand.
  9. ^ van Driem (2014)
  10. ^ a b van Driem (2001:397–398, 403)
  11. ^ van Driem, George L. (2011), "Tibeto-Burman subgroups and historical grammar", Himalayan Linguistics Journal, 10 (1).
  12. ^ Hammarstrom, et al. http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/dhim1245
  13. ^ Sotrug, Yeshy T. (2015). Linguistic evidence for madeskā kirãntī. The phylogenetic position of Dhimalish. Bern: University of Bern Master’s Thesis, 22 June 2015.
  14. ^ Gerber, Pascal, Tanja Gerber, Selin Grollmann. 2016. Links between Lhokpu and Kiranti: some observations. Kiranti Workshop. CNRS Université Paris Diderot, 1-2 Dec 2016.
  15. ^ Matisoff, James. 2012. Re-examining the genetic position of Jingpho: can the Sal hypothesis be reconciled with the Jingpho/Nungish/Luish grouping?. Paper presented at the Mainland Southeast Asian Languages: The State of the Art in 2012 workshop, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, 29 November - 1 December 2012.
  16. ^ Huziwara, Keisuke. 2016. タマン語の系統再考 / On the genetic position of Taman reconsidered. In Kyoto University Linguistic Research 35, p.1-34. doi:10.14989/219018 (PDF)

Bibliography edit

  • Benedict, Paul K. (1972), Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus (PDF), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-08175-7.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Bradley, David (1997), "Tibeto-Burman languages and classification" (PDF), in Bradley, David (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, Papers in South East Asian linguistics, vol. 14, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 1–71, ISBN 978-0-85883-456-9.
  • Burling, Robbins (1983), "The Sal Languages" (PDF), Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7 (2): 1–32.
  • —— (2003), "The Tibeto-Burman languages of northeast India", in Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), Sino-Tibetan Languages, London: Routledge, pp. 169–191, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
  • Coupe, Alexander R. (2012), "Overcounting numeral systems and their relevance to sub-grouping in the Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland" (PDF), Language and Linguistics, 13 (1): 193–220.
  • van Driem, George (2001), Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-12062-4.
  • —— (2014), "Trans-Himalayan" (PDF), in Owen-Smith, Thomas; Hill, Nathan W. (eds.), Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11–40, ISBN 978-3-11-031083-2.
  • Thurgood, Graham (2003), "A subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages", in Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), Sino-Tibetan Languages, London: Routledge, pp. 3–21, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.

January 01, 1970
languages, also, known, brahmaputran, languages, branch, tibeto, burman, languages, spoken, northeast, india, well, parts, bangladesh, myanmar, burma, china, salbrahmaputranbodo, konyak, jinghpawgeographicdistributionindia, bangladesh, burmalinguistic, classif. The Sal languages also known as the Brahmaputran languages are a branch of Tibeto Burman languages spoken in northeast India as well as parts of Bangladesh Myanmar Burma and China SalBrahmaputranBodo Konyak JinghpawGeographicdistributionIndia Bangladesh and BurmaLinguistic classificationSino TibetanTibeto BurmanCentral Tibeto Burman languages SalSubdivisionsBoro Garo Konyak Jingpho Luish Chairel Glottologbrah1260 Contents 1 Alternative names 2 Classification within Sino Tibetan 3 Internal classification 3 1 van Driem 2011 3 2 Matisoff 2012 2013 4 References 5 BibliographyAlternative names editEthnologue calls the group Jingpho Konyak Garo Bodo while Scott DeLancey 2015 1 refers to it as Bodo Konyak Garo Jinghpaw BKJ Glottolog lists this branch as Brahmaputran brah1260 as the languages occur around the Brahmaputra Valley Classification within Sino Tibetan editScott DeLancey 2015 1 considers the Sal languages which he refers to as Garo Bodo Konyak Jinghpaw BKJ to be part of a wider Central Tibeto Burman group Internal classification editBenedict 1972 7 noted that the Bodo Garo Konyak and Jingpho Kachin languages as well as the extinct Chairel language shared distinctive roots for sun and fire Burling 1983 proposed a grouping of the Bodo Garo Konyak Northern Naga and Jingpho languages characterized by several shared lexical innovations including sal sun 2 war fire 3 s raŋ sky 4 wa father 5 nu mother 6 Burling 1983 called the proposed group Sal after the words sal san and jan for sun in various of these languages Coupe 2012 201 204 argues that some of Burling s proposed innovations are either not attested across the Sal languages or have cognates in other Sino Tibetan languages Nevertheless Matisoff 2013 7 accepts Burling s Sal group and considers s raŋ sky rain and nu mother to be the most convincing Sal innovations The family is generally presented with three branches Burling 2003 175 Thurgood 2003 11 The Bodo Garo languages including the Bodo and Koch languages are spoken in the northeast Indian states of Assam Meghalaya and Tripura The Konyak languages are spoken by the Naga people in southeastern Arunachal Pradesh and northeastern Nagaland both in northeastern India This group is called Eastern Naga by Burling 1983 and Northern Naga by other authors The remaining languages of Nagaland belong to the separate Kuki Chin Naga group The Kachinic or Jingpho Luish languages include Jingpho Jinghpaw Singhpo or Kachin spoken in northern Burma and adjacent regions and the Luish or Sak languages spoken in western Burma Shafer had grouped the first two as his Baric division and Bradley 1997 20 also combines them as a subbranch Bradley 1997 tentatively considers Pyu and Kuki Chin to be possibly related to Sal but is uncertain about this Peterson 2009 8 considers Mru Hkongso to be a separate Tibeto Burman branch but notes that Mru Hkongso shares similarities with Bodo Garo that could be due to the early split of Mruic from a Tibeto Burman branch that included Bodo Garo van Driem 2011 edit The Brahmaputran branch of van Driem 2011 has three variants Bodo Garo and Konyak 9 Bodo Garo Konyak and Dhimalish 10 Bodo Garo Konyak Dhimalish and Kachin Luic 10 The smallest is his most recent and the one van Driem considers a well established low level group of Sino Tibetan 11 However Dhimalish is not accepted as a Sal language by Glottolog 12 Sotrug 2015 13 and Gerber et al 2016 14 consider Dhimalish to be particularly closely related to the Kiranti languages rather than to the Sal languages Matisoff 2012 2013 edit James Matisoff 2012 15 makes the following observations about the Sal grouping Although Bodo Garo and Northeastern Naga Konyak are indeed closely related Jingpho and Northeastern Naga Konyak seem to be even more closely related to each other than Jingpho and Bodo Garo are to each other Luish is the Tibeto Burman branch most closely related to Jingpho for which further evidence is provided in Matisoff 2013 7 Similarities between Jingpho and Nungish are due to contact Thus Nungish is not particularly closely related to Jingpho and is not a Sal language On the other hand Lolo Burmese appears to be more closely related to Nungish than to Jingpho Matisoff 2012 notes that these Tibeto Burman branches did not split off neatly in a tree like fashion but rather form a linkage Nevertheless Matisoff 2013 30 7 still provides the following Stammbaum for the Sal branch Sal Bodo Garo Jingpho Konyak Konyakian Northern Naga Jingpho Asakian Jingphoic Asakian The unclassified extinct Taman language of northern Myanmar displays some similarities with Luish languages Jingpho and Bodo Garo but it is undetermined whether Taman is a Sal language or not 16 References edit a b DeLancey Scott 2015 Morphological Evidence for a Central Branch of Trans Himalayan Sino Tibetan Cahiers de linguistique Asie oriental 44 2 122 149 December 2015 doi 10 1163 19606028 00442p02 STEDT Etymon 2753 stedt berkeley edu Retrieved 3 April 2024 STEDT Etymon 2152 stedt berkeley edu Retrieved 3 April 2024 STEDT Etymon 3571 stedt berkeley edu Retrieved 3 April 2024 STEDT Etymon 5484 stedt berkeley edu Retrieved 3 April 2024 STEDT Etymon 1621 stedt berkeley edu Retrieved 3 April 2024 a b c Matisoff James A 2013 Re examining the genetic position of Jingpho putting flesh on the bones of the Jingpho Luish relationship Linguistics of the Tibeto Burman Area 36 2 1 106 Peterson David A 2009 Where does Mru fit into Tibeto Burman Paper presented at The 42nd International Conference on Sino Tibetan Languages and Linguistics ICSTLL 42 November 2009 Payap University Chiangmai Thailand van Driem 2014 a b van Driem 2001 397 398 403 van Driem George L 2011 Tibeto Burman subgroups and historical grammar Himalayan Linguistics Journal 10 1 Hammarstrom et al http glottolog org resource languoid id dhim1245 Sotrug Yeshy T 2015 Linguistic evidence for madeska kiranti The phylogenetic position of Dhimalish Bern University of Bern Master s Thesis 22 June 2015 Gerber Pascal Tanja Gerber Selin Grollmann 2016 Links between Lhokpu and Kiranti some observations Kiranti Workshop CNRS Universite Paris Diderot 1 2 Dec 2016 Matisoff James 2012 Re examining the genetic position of Jingpho can the Sal hypothesis be reconciled with the Jingpho Nungish Luish grouping Paper presented at the Mainland Southeast Asian Languages The State of the Art in 2012 workshop Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig Germany 29 November 1 December 2012 Huziwara Keisuke 2016 タマン語の系統再考 On the genetic position of Taman reconsidered In Kyoto University Linguistic Research 35 p 1 34 doi 10 14989 219018 PDF Bibliography editBenedict Paul K 1972 Sino Tibetan A Conspectus PDF Cambridge Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 08175 7 a href Template Citation html title Template Citation citation a CS1 maint location missing publisher link Bradley David 1997 Tibeto Burman languages and classification PDF in Bradley David ed Tibeto Burman languages of the Himalayas Papers in South East Asian linguistics vol 14 Canberra Pacific Linguistics pp 1 71 ISBN 978 0 85883 456 9 Burling Robbins 1983 The Sal Languages PDF Linguistics of the Tibeto Burman Area 7 2 1 32 2003 The Tibeto Burman languages of northeast India in Thurgood Graham LaPolla Randy J eds Sino Tibetan Languages London Routledge pp 169 191 ISBN 978 0 7007 1129 1 Coupe Alexander R 2012 Overcounting numeral systems and their relevance to sub grouping in the Tibeto Burman languages of Nagaland PDF Language and Linguistics 13 1 193 220 van Driem George 2001 Languages of the Himalayas An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region BRILL ISBN 978 90 04 12062 4 2014 Trans Himalayan PDF in Owen Smith Thomas Hill Nathan W eds Trans Himalayan Linguistics Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area Berlin Mouton de Gruyter pp 11 40 ISBN 978 3 11 031083 2 Thurgood Graham 2003 A subgrouping of the Sino Tibetan languages in Thurgood Graham LaPolla Randy J eds Sino Tibetan Languages London Routledge pp 3 21 ISBN 978 0 7007 1129 1 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Sal languages amp oldid 1216975704, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.