The Mahakiranti or Maha-Kiranti ('Greater Kiranti') languages are a proposed intermediate level of classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages, consisting of the Kiranti languages and neighbouring languages thought to be closely related to them. Researchers disagree on which languages belong in Mahakiranti, or even whether Mahakiranti is a valid group. The group was originally proposed by George van Driem, who retracted his proposal in 2004 after a field study in Bhutan.
van Driem (2001) posits that the Mahakiranti languages besides Kiranti proper are Newar, Baram, and Thangmi. Baram and Thangmi are clearly related, but it is not yet clear if the similarities they share with Newar demonstrate a 'Para-Kiranti' family, as van Driem suggests, or if they are borrowings. He sees Lepcha, Lhokpu, and the Magaric languages (in the narrow sense, whether or not Chepangic proves to be Magar) as the Bodic languages closest to Mahakiranti.
Matisoff's Mahakiranti includes the Newar and the Magaric languages along with Kiranti. He groups Mahakiranti with the Tibeto-Kanauri languages (in which he includes Lepcha) as Himalayish.
Bradley (1997) adds Magar and Chepang to van Driem's Mahakiranti and calls the result Himalayan. This, along with his "Bodish" (equivalent to Tibeto-Kanauri), constitutes his Bodic family.
Ethnologue (15th ed.) posits Magaric, Chepang, and Newar alongside Kiranti; Mahakiranti is in turn posited to be related to Tibeto-Kanauri in a Himalayish branch, largely equivalent to other scholars' Bodic.
Benedict (1972) included Newar and Chepangic, but not Magaric. He mistakenly classified Vayu as Chepangic and thus named the family Bahing–Vayu.
Retraction of the hypothesis by van DriemEdit
After a field visit to Bhutan, van Driem, the original proponent of this hypothesis, collected data on the Gongduk language which made him realize morphological traits common between Kiranti and Newar are not unique to either Kiranti or Newar but a shared retention of a far older trait. He retracted his proposal in 2004.[1]
ReferencesEdit
^van Driem, George (2004). "Newaric and Mahakiranti". In Saxena, Anju (ed.). Himalayan Languages. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 413–418. ISBN978-3-11-017841-8.
George van Driem (2001). Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. Brill.
Mark Turing, Newar-Thangmi lexical correspondence, Journal of Asian and African Studies,No. 68, 2004.
October 15, 2023
mahakiranti, languages, mahakiranti, maha, kiranti, greater, kiranti, languages, proposed, intermediate, level, classification, sino, tibetan, languages, consisting, kiranti, languages, neighbouring, languages, thought, closely, related, them, researchers, dis. The Mahakiranti or Maha Kiranti Greater Kiranti languages are a proposed intermediate level of classification of the Sino Tibetan languages consisting of the Kiranti languages and neighbouring languages thought to be closely related to them Researchers disagree on which languages belong in Mahakiranti or even whether Mahakiranti is a valid group The group was originally proposed by George van Driem who retracted his proposal in 2004 after a field study in Bhutan MahakirantiBahing VahuGeographicdistributionNepal and India Sikkim Darjeeling and Kalimpong Linguistic classificationSino TibetanTibeto BurmanMahakirantiSubdivisionsKiranti Newar Baram Thangmi Magaric ChepangicGlottologmaha1306Conceptions of Mahakiranti Editvan Driem 2001 posits that the Mahakiranti languages besides Kiranti proper are Newar Baram and Thangmi Baram and Thangmi are clearly related but it is not yet clear if the similarities they share with Newar demonstrate a Para Kiranti family as van Driem suggests or if they are borrowings He sees Lepcha Lhokpu and the Magaric languages in the narrow sense whether or not Chepangic proves to be Magar as the Bodic languages closest to Mahakiranti van Driem s conception of MahakirantiMahakiranti Kiranti Newaric Parakiranti Newar Baram Thangmi Matisoff s Mahakiranti includes the Newar and the Magaric languages along with Kiranti He groups Mahakiranti with the Tibeto Kanauri languages in which he includes Lepcha as Himalayish Bradley 1997 adds Magar and Chepang to van Driem s Mahakiranti and calls the result Himalayan This along with his Bodish equivalent to Tibeto Kanauri constitutes his Bodic family Ethnologue 15th ed posits Magaric Chepang and Newar alongside Kiranti Mahakiranti is in turn posited to be related to Tibeto Kanauri in a Himalayish branch largely equivalent to other scholars Bodic Benedict 1972 included Newar and Chepangic but not Magaric He mistakenly classified Vayu as Chepangic and thus named the family Bahing Vayu Retraction of the hypothesis by van Driem EditAfter a field visit to Bhutan van Driem the original proponent of this hypothesis collected data on the Gongduk language which made him realize morphological traits common between Kiranti and Newar are not unique to either Kiranti or Newar but a shared retention of a far older trait He retracted his proposal in 2004 1 References Edit van Driem George 2004 Newaric and Mahakiranti In Saxena Anju ed Himalayan Languages De Gruyter Mouton pp 413 418 ISBN 978 3 11 017841 8 George van Driem 2001 Languages of the Himalayas An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region Brill Mark Turing Newar Thangmi lexical correspondence Journal of Asian and African Studies No 68 2004 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Mahakiranti languages amp oldid 1158449407, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
