Prolegomena to Reconstructing Proto-Karen

Ken Manson La Trobe University, Australia Payap University, Thailand

Abstract

Several Karen reconstructions have been proposed based on limited data or spread of language chosen. This paper reviews the previous reconstructions, and summarizes a new reconstruction along with reflexes from all the main clusters of Karen languages. Links to other families of Southeast Asia are discussed. Tonal development is presented and discussed, along with a proposed “Gedney-style” tone box for Karen languages.

Keywords: Historical linguistics, classification, reconstruction, Tibeto-Burman, Karen, tonogenesis

1. Introduction

This paper is an attempt to consolidate in one place and revise material that I have scattered through many data notebooks, slips of paper and electronic documents. It builds on previous published material on Karen languages by other authors. Reconstruction within Tibeto-Burman has generally been of the form of “micro-megalocomparison” (a neologism on the basis of Matisoff’s “megalocomparison”), where five or six reference languages have been taken and then a hypothetical reconstructed form is suggested. While this is an important first step, it is not good long-term practice for historical comparison. However, as many of the lower level branches of Tibeto-Burman have had little attention given to their reconstruction, this practice has continued. The Karen languages have had several proposed reconstructions and in this article I review those and build on the insights. Once a reconstruction of Karen is done then Proto-Karen can be compared to other branch reconstructions within the Tibeto-Burman family. This paper starts with a description of the location of Karen languages – physically and also within Tibeto-Burman. The internal relationships between Karen languages are discussed from a historical perspective based on previous published classifications. This is followed by a section outlining the Mon-Khmer links to Karen languages. Section 4 discusses lexical relationships

1 based on my own fieldwork and previously published reconstructions. Section 5 discusses tone development in Karen, reviewing previous published work on tone and the effects of the “Great Tone Split” that occurred across languages of Southeast Asia, concluding with a proposed tonal development for Karen and suggested tone pitches for each of the three proto-tones on open syllables. On the basis of this, Section 6 proposes a Karen Tone Box in a similar vein to the Gedney Tone Box for Dai languages. Finally, section 7 describes a preliminary reconstruction for Karen initial consonants (and clusters) and also for rhymes.

2. Karen Languages

Karen languages form a distinct cluster of languages (Benedict 1972, Shafer 1973, Matisoff 1991, Bradley 1997, LaPolla 2001, Thurgood 2003). This branch is unusual in that it is a clear branch of Tibeto-Burman with no peripheral/uncertain members. Karen languages have been considered part of Sino-Tibetan for some time now, but in the last 30 years the consensus is that they form a distinct branch within Tibeto-Burman rather than a sister to Tibeto-Burman. Tibeto- Burman is a well recognised language family with historical linguistic evidence to support its status. Matisoff (2003) suggests there are seven branches (note that Kamarupan and Himalayish are geographical clusters without systematic evidence for them constituting a branch at some level) but there are also a number of smaller clusters of Tibeto-Burman languages that do not easily fit into this 7-way division, as shown by Van Driem (2001), who prefers a “falling leaves” metaphor for Tibeto-Burman where low-level clusters of languages are represented geographically, as if a tree was shaken and the resulting fallen leaves form a pattern.

Figure 1. Tibeto-Burman branches (Matisoff 2003)

Figure 2. Tibeto-Burman clusters (van Driem 2001)

2.1. Distribution and Population

The actual number of Karen languages is unknown as there has never been a comprehensive survey of Karen. It would appear from the literature that there are between 20-30 Karen languages. A synthesis of the research suggests 7 clusters of Karen language varieties with the remaining varieties uncertain; this situation is depicted in Figure 3 where the Karen languages are listed in relative geographical relation to each other. Non controversial clusters of languages are circled. A higher linking would include Lahta and Geker with Kayan; and also link Bwe- Geba with Kayah. Speakers of Karen languages are located primarily in eastern Burma from southern Shan State southward to the southernmost tip of Burma; as well as in Thailand, along the western border with Burma. Some Sgaw Karen have also migrated to the Andaman Islands. Bradley (1997:46) suggests a total population of 3.9 million, but notes that this is “substantially under enumerated”. The total population of ethnic Karen is somewhere between 6 and 12 million,

3 however, not all ethnic Karen still speak Karen languages. Many now speak only Burmese, especially those living on the plains. Saw LarBaa (2001) and Myar Doo (2004) provide recent sociolinguistic information on a number of smaller Karen languages, including some phonologically unanalysed wordlists.

Figure 3. Karen low level language clusters

2.2. External Classification of Karen

While linguists have been in general agreement that the Karen languages are part of Sino- Tibetan, there has been some disagreement on the actual position of the branch. Benedict (1972) places the branch as a sister to Tibeto-Burman, while Matisoff (2003) treats it as another branch of Tibeto-Burman. The reasons for separating Karen from Tibeto-Burman summarised by Weidert (1987:330) include:

“[T]he large proportion of basic vocabulary for which cognates have not yet been discovered in TB; the large-scale word reduction especially at the coda part of the main syllable (finals stops and nasals preserved only in Taungthu); the unusualness of some phonetic developments (e.g., *ŋ- > y- in Pwo, Sgaw, and Bwe, or prefix placement and development within the main syllable); the substitution of some common TB prefixal elements by unusual prefix consonants; and, considered essential by some researchers at least, the word order SVO in contrast to the prototypical verb-final word order in TB.”

However, as Weidert comments, these features are not sufficient grounds for separating Karen from Tibeto-Burman, especially when the common vocabulary and the correspondences of sounds are considered. Both Bradley (1997) and van Driem (1997) list Karen as a sister to Lolo-Burmese. There has also been mention of a relationship with Chin (e.g. Luce 1985), especially with regard to lexical items, but these are most likely ancient loans or shared retentions. In Luce’s “Pure Karen” (1985, Charts I and J), excluding the entries that now have clear Tibeto-Burman roots, a number of the remaining entries show interesting similarities to lexical items found in Kham and the Kiranti languages. This congruence needs to be considered further. The Karen were either the first or among the first (along with the Chin and Pyu) Tibeto- Burman groups to move down into present-day Burma (Luce 1985), where they encountered Mon-Khmer speaking groups which left a significant influence on Karen vocabulary, phonology and grammar (Bauer 1992). Tai contact has been much more recent and localised. Table 1 shows some examples of the correspondences between Tibeto-Burman languages. Sgaw, Kayan and Kayah represent two Karen languages. Note that the words for ‘bone’ and ‘dog’ show a different initial consonant – a pattern that happen frequently among those words retained from Proto-Tibeto-Burman.

Name Moon Bitter Fire Leg Grandfather Bone Dog PTB 1 *miŋ *la *ka *mey *kaŋ *bəw *rus *kʷəy Wr. Tibetan miŋ zla kʰa-ba me rkaŋ-pa pʰu-bo rus-pa kʰyi Wr. Burmese maɲ la kʰa mi - pʰwi rwi kʰwi Lushai hmiŋ tʰla kʰa mey ke pu ruʔ wi Jingphaw myiŋ kʰa myi - pʰu n-rut gwi Garo miŋ - kʰa - - bu - kwi Sgaw mi la kʰa me kʰɔ pʰɤ χri tʰwi Kayan mjan la kʰa me kʰan pʰu sʰwi tʰwi Kayah mwi lɛ kʰɛ mi kʰja pʰɯə krwi tʰwi Table 1. Representative examples of Tibeto-Burman correspondences

2.3. Internal Classification of Karen

Generally linguists have skirted the issue of specific internal relationships within Karen. However, there have been some genetic diagrams for Karen published. The most common classification is based on the geographical distribution of the languages. In this classification

1 Proto-Tibeto-Burman reconstructions here and throughout the paper are taken from Matisoff (2003).

Karen has three branches – North (Pa’O), South (Sgaw and Pho), and Central (the rest). No linguistic evidence has been presented to substantiate this three-way division. The first published diagram of Karen language relationships was Jones (1961a:83), see Figure 4. He argues that Pa’O2 and Pho are more closely related to each other than Sgaw and Palaychi. This classification is based primarily on the development of proto-voiced initials to voiceless aspirated initials.

Proto-Karen

Proto Pa'O-Pwo Proto Palaychi-Sgaw

Proto-Pwo Proto-Sgaw

Bassein Pho Moulmein Pho Taungthu Palaychi Bassein Sgaw Moulmein Sgaw Figure 4. Karen language relationships (adapted from Jones 1961a:83)

Burling reanalysed the data presented in Jones (1961a) and stated that “Pho and Sgaw seem to correspond to each other more consistently and with fewer complicating discrepancies than any of these correspond to either Palaychi or Taungthu” and that the “position of Taungthu appears even more extreme” (1969:4). This results in a diagram of Karen language relationships as shown in Figure 5.

Proto-Karen

Proto-Pwo Proto-Sgaw

Taungthu Palaychi Bassein Pho Moulmein Pho Bassein Sgaw Moulmein Sgaw

Figure 5. Karen language relationships (adapted from Burling 1969:4)

Kauffman (1993) also provides a suggested classification of Karen languages, but again the “central” Karen languages are defined in geographical terms. Kauffman implicitly follows Burling in grouping Pho with Sgaw as opposed to grouping Pho with Pa’O.

2 Jones uses the term “Taungthu” to refer to what is now called Pa’O.

Proto Karen

Southern Central Northern

Unclassified West Central North Central East Central

Sgaw Pwo Manu Gheko Yintale Kayaw Yeinbaw Geba Bwe Padaung Western Kayah Eastern Kayah Pa'O Figure 6. Karen language relationships (adapted from Kauffman 1993:5)

Bradley’s overview of Tibeto-Burman (1997) includes Karen within Tibeto-Burman and provides an internal classification of Karen. While Bradley does not provide any evidence for the classification, it is based on discussions with Lehman and Solnit and is the most complete classification of Karen languages ever published. It is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Karen language relationships (Bradley 1997:47)

Manson (2002) analysed over twenty Karen wordlists using a phonostatistical approach, where a lexical comparison based on regular patterns of sound correspondences was used, concludes that there are at least seven clusters of Karen languages Figure 8, and that the “Central Karen” languages in Figure 6 and Figure 7 and do not form a unified unit within Karen. Rather Kayah and Bwe/Geba form a cluster, and Manu and Kayaw and possibly Yintale form a second cluster. However these groupings must be used with caution, as the similarity between varieties is based on both shared innovations and shared retentions.

Sgaw D Sgaw Paku Pwo T Pwo D Yintale Kayaw Manu Pa-O N Pa-O S Yeinbaw Kayan Geker Kayah W Kayah E Bwe DE Geba Bwe DW Geba2 Geba L Bwe Geba1 Bwe W Figure 8. Classification of Karen languages (adapted from Manson 2002)3

Bwe DE Bwe, east of Daylo Stream Kayaw Kayaw (Kayah State) Bwe DW Bwe, west of Daylo Stream Manu Manu (Kayah State) Bwe W Blimaw Bwe Paku Paku (Karen State) Bwe Bwe (Karen State) Pa-O N Pa’O (Shan State) Geba Geba (Karen State) Pa-O S Pa’O (Thaton) Geba1 Geba (Karen State) Pwo D Pwo (Delta) Geba2 Geba (Karen State) Pwo T Pwo (Tennessarim) Geba L Geba Sgaw Sgaw (Insein) Geker Geker Sgaw D Sgaw (Rangoon) Kayah E Eastern Kayah Li (Thailand) Yeinbaw Yinbaw (Kayah State) Kayah W Kayah Li (Kayah State) Yintale Yintale (Kayah State) Kayan Kayan (Shan State)

Evidence for the Kayah/Bwe/Geba cluster includes regular vowel raising within very specific environments, not seen in any other Karen language, namely the split is conditioned by the voice quality of the initial consonant – if the initial is voiced no vowel raising occurs and if the initial consonant is voiceless *a is raised to ɛ.

3 The vertical line is at the 75% lexical similarity mark, based on phonological developments within Karen languages.

Proto-Karen Bwe Geba Kayah, W Kayah, E Other Karen languages a a *a a ɛ a ɛ ɛ

*e i i i i e

*ɤ u u u u ɤ Table 2. Bwe-Geba-Kayah vs. other Karen vowel correspondences

Shintani (2003) provides a classification of Karen languages based on lexical similarities (Figure 9). However, this classification involves neologisms and confusing labels for languages, which limits their comparison with other published classifications. Also no data was provided to support the classification.

Figure 9. Classification of Karen languages: Lexical similarity (Shintani 2002)

Considering Shintani’s classification of Karen languages, Figure 9, and my classification, Figure 8, and assuming that I have been able to correctly determine what Karen languages Shintani is referring to, the main differences are that I interpret Shintani’s Blimaw as a sister to the Bwe-Geba complex and that Mopwa is a sister of Sgaw (along with Paku). Shintani also excludes Yinbaw, Yintale from his classification, which I assume is based on limited lexical information.

3. Mon-Khmer Links

In the literature there are often references to Dai and Mon-Khmer influences upon Karen. A review of the claims shows that Dai influence is recent and sporadic – there are very few Dai loans found throughout the family and those that do occur show irregular tone correspondences, suggesting borrowing several times in different clusters. However, the Mon-Khmer influence is at a much greater time-depth and these loans have integrated fully into the native phonology of the different Karen languages (Bauer 1992, Luce 1985). The source of these Mon-Khmer loans has usually been assigned to Mon, which is spoken in the southern region of modern-day Burma. However, a comparison of the list in Luce (1985 “Chart E”) with Shorto’s Mon-Khmer reconstruction shows a greater connection with the Palaungic branch of Mon-Khmer rather than the Mon branch. This would provide external support for Hopple’s (2005) claim that the general population of the Mon-Khmer kingdoms of northern Thailand were in fact Wa speaking and not Mon-speaking states as has traditionally been claimed. Archaeological evidence for these states being Wa and not Mon is provided in the structure of the cities. Ancient cities in northern Thailand are circular following the Wa pattern; while Mon cities are typically square (Hopple 2005).

4. Karen Lexical Relationships

4.1. Previous Reconstructions

Three previous reconstructions have been published. The earliest was by Haudricourt (1946 slightly revised in 1953) based on the orthographies of two Karen languages – Sgaw and Pwo. Haudricourt reconstructed 506 words based on analogy with the work he had done with Thai (and other Southeast Asian languages). The 1953 paper corrected some mistakes (in his 1946 paper, Haudricourt switched the phonetic values of the medial ‘y’ and ‘l’ symbols from the Sgaw and Pho orthographies) and provided more evidence supporting the reconstruction from other Karen varieties. Table 3 and Table 4 tabulate Haudricourt’s reconstruction. In 1961 Jones published his PhD thesis as Karen linguistic studies. The book is divided into four sections, with the first giving a grammatical description of Sgaw; the second describing the phonologies of six Karen varieties (two Sgaw; two Pwo; Palaychi; and Pa’O); the third providing a reconstruction of Proto-Karen; and the final section providing glossed texts from

10 several different Karen varieties. Jones adhered to the theory of linguistic bifurcation4 and so only proposed 195 Proto-Karen words out of a total list of 859. This lack of reconstructed forms is due to there being an absence of a reflex in one or more languages.

pʰ tʰ cʰ kʰ p t c k ʔ ɓ ɗ b d j g m n ɲ ŋ hm hn hɲ hŋ s x y ɣ h w l r hw hl Table 3. Haudricourt’s Proto-Karen consonants

i in œ - ù ùn - în au - ü ün e - ai - o on ê ên u un - ôn a - û ö - - ân - Un Table 4. Haudricourt’s Proto-Karen rhymes

Burling (1969) took Jones’ data and revised the reconstruction, but it still remains a complex proto-language, where initial and final features influence tonal development, but also in unnatural ways. Comparing the three published reconstructions, Haudricourt’s analysis continues to be the most natural and predictive of the three reconstructions, as the following section shows with regards to tonal development5.

4 This theory stated that all languages divided in two, and that if a cognate was not present in a sister language it could not be reconstruction for the next node up. 5 Note that in Mazaudon’s work Haudricourt’s reconstructions have been (slightly) revised and expanded.

4.2. The Current State of Affairs

No individual Karen language retains all of the features of Proto-Karen. As can be seen in Table 5, Pa’O and Pwo have changed Proto-Karen *b to pʰ (e.g. ‘tongue’), while Bwe & Geba have retained the *voiced stop, and the remaining Karen languages have changed *b to p. As the reflexes for ‘bone’ show, Bwe, Geba, Kayah, Manu and Yintale have retained the velar plus r clusters (k(h)r) while all other Karen languages have changed this to a fricative (or fricative plus r). The occurrence of aspiration is a language specific development. Further, Proto-Karen appears to have replaced many of the Proto-Tibeto-Burman “prefixes” with its own set, as can be seen with the reflexes of ‘bear’, ‘bone’, and ‘tongue’. Manson (2002) provides the largest lexical comparison of Karen varieties to date. Due to the quality of the wordlists – collected from all available sources – the initial analysis divided Karen varieties into those collected by “Researcher A” and those collected by “Researcher B” (the data collection used by each researcher was different and not open to direct comparison). Further analysis and the addition of higher quality wordlists provided a more reliable picture of intra-Karen linguistic affinity (Figure 8). This suggests seven clusters of Karen languages with a number of languages that do not clearly fall into the clusters.

PTB *la *ti *wam *gra:y *rus *niŋ *mey *lay *rul *mak PK *hla *tʰi *tʰan *sʰa *krut *neŋ *hme *ble *ru *mak Meaning moon water bear star bone year fire tongue snake son-in-law Pa’O la tʰi tʰam cʰa cʰut neŋ me pʰre ru maʔ Pwo la tʰi tʰa ̃ ʃa χwi nẽ me pʰle ʀu maʔ Kayan la sʰɨ tʰan sʰa sʰwi nen me ple̤ ro̤ ma̤ Yinbaw la ʃʰɯ tʰaũ sʰa ʃʰwe nei mi ple̤ rʊ̤ ma̤ Latha la sʰə tʰan sʰa sʰwi nei mi plɪ - - Geker la sʰɣɯ tʰɛ sʰa tʃwei nei mei ple rɯ ma Kayaw la tʰi tʰa ʃʰa ʃʰɯ de mi plei ro̤u mɔ̤ Yintale la tʰai tʰaŋ sʰa kʰrwai nai mi pli̤ rṳ ma Manu la ʃʰi tʰa sʰa kʰwi ne mi ple̤ βo̤ mɔ̤ Kayah la tʰie tʰe sʰɛ krwi na mi pli̤ rṳ mɛ̤ Geba hlɛ tʰi tʰɛ sʰɛ kʰwi de hmi bli wu ma Bwe lɛ cʰi tʰɛ ʃɛ kʰwi ɗe mɪ blɪ ʀu ma Palaychi la tʰi tʰɔ sʰa xi nɛ mi ple̤ rṳ ma̤ Sgaw la tʰi tʰɔ sʰa hwi ni me ple ʀɤ maʔ Paku la tʰi - sʰa χʀi ni me ble ʀɤ ma Table 5. Examples of lexical correspondences within Karen (tone not shown)

5. Tonal Development

5.1. Review of previous work

Haudricourt (1946) reconstructed Proto-Karen on the basis of the orthographies of two Karen languages (Sgaw and Pwo). The proto-tonal system consisted of three proto-tones (labelled 1, 2, & 3). The proto-consonant system had three series of stops – High = aspirated; Mid = voiceless & implosive; and Low = voiced. While not providing details of a reconstruction, Luce (1959; 1985) does give an outline of what he thinks Proto-Karen would have looked like.6 This outline very much follows Haudricourt’s proposal, varying in detail rather than substance. Luce provides eight sets of correspondences based on tonal patterns within modern-day languages, however, three of these correspondence sets should be split in two based on conditioning of the initial consonant (aspirated versus non-aspirated). Jones (1961a) published a major reconstruction based on six varieties of Karen (two Sgaw dialects, two Pwo dialects, Palaychi and Taungthu (Pa-O)). Jones did not suggest protoforms for any entry that did not have a cognate in all six of the daughter languages. Even so, his reconstruction is overly complex and not obviously motivated. For example, Jones (1961a:102) states that Proto-Karen is reconstructed with

“two tones and four laryngeals, symbolized as /’, h, q, ʔ/. In addition each category of tone plus one of the first three laryngeals, /’, h, q/, is subdivided according to the class membership of the initial consonant of the morpheme. There are three such classes: (1) aspirated stops and /x/, (2) nonaspirated stops (including voiceless unaspirated stops and voiced stops) and /r/, (3) continuants (all other initial consonants).”

Consider the following distribution of Moulamein Sgaw initials and tones:

́ ́ʔ ̄ ̄ʔ ̀ ̀ʔ [+aspirated] + + + + + + [-aspirated] + + - + - - [+voiced] + + + + + + Table 6. Sgaw tone-initial consonant distribution

6 Note that Haudricourt and Luce were in communication.

Jones claims that there are eleven sets of correspondences in present day Karen languages, a claim that is also backed up by Luce (1985), Weidert (1987) and myself. However, the difference is in how these 11 sets are motivated. Jones’ reconstructions are unmotivated – why would [-aspirated] initials not occur with mid, falling and checked falling. These three tones do not form a natural class. Burling (1969) reanalysed Jones’ data as he felt that “Jones slavishly followed ‘The Theory of Linguistic Bifurcation’”. Burling’s reanalysis suggests that there were six proto-tones which could occur with any initial consonant type. Four of the proto-tones occurred on open syllables and the other two only occurred on closed syllables. He also reconstructs three manners of articulation for initial consonants. Weidert (1987) suggests an alternative analysis on the development of tones: that the differences are due to prefixes (as in other branches of Tibeto-Burman, e.g. Loloish) but does not follow this through in his discussion. The initial work of Haudricourt and Luce provides a strong foundation for the discussion and expansion of their initial proposals.

5.2. The Great Tone Split

It is a well known fact that voiced initial consonants cause the syllable to be pronounced at a lower pitch than a voiceless initial. Most languages of Southeast Asia are sesquisyllabic (i.e. they have iambic stress), and where there have been phonological changes in the initial consonants, often pitch and/or phonation differences remain. From about the 10th-17thC there was a “Great Tone Split” that affected all the languages of the area (Weidert 1987). This split is preserved in the orthographies of the major languages of Southeast Asia (Thai, Mon, and Khmer). Karlgren (1915) was the first to deduce that the split in tones was conditioned by the initial consonant. Haudricourt (1961), see Court (1972) for an English translation, expanded on Karlgren’s work and showed that for all the language families of South-east Asia there was a split in the tones of the language. Usually there was a 2-way split, but in some languages there was a 3-way split, based on the manner of articulation of the initial consonant. For Karen languages, the hypothesis is that most underwent a 2-way split, but there are several languages that underwent a 3-way split. The 2-way split was between “Low” versus “Mid+High”. High can be equated with proto-aspirated; Mid with proto-voiceless and Low with proto-voiced. The change in manner of articulation of the initial consonants caused a series of changes in the phonologies of Karen languages. The split affected both stops and sonorants. In this paper, I

14 will look at only stops, as my analysis of sonorants is still incomplete. There were at least six steps in the development of modern-day tonal systems in Karen. Note that not all Karen languages have undergone all the steps. 1. Initial proto-voiced consonants caused the following vowel to be pronounced with breathy phonation 2. This breathiness caused a lowering of the pitch (Thurgood 2002, 2006) 3. Proto-voiced stops became voiceless unaspirated 4. Proto-voiceless became voiced/voiceless 5. (Breathy phonation caused the initial consonant to be pronounced aspirated) 6. Breathy phonation lost, leaving only a tonal difference

*pʰa³ pʰa³ *pa³ ba³/pa³ *ba³ ba̤³ ba̤¹ pa̤¹ pa¹ pʰa̤¹ pʰa¹ Figure 10. The development of tone for different syllable types In Figure 11 we see the abstract development of tone using labial stops, and in Table 7 we see evidence of this, based on labial initials as an abstraction of what happened for Proto-Karen stops. Tone Box 7 Gloss Pwo Sgaw Paku W. Bwe Geba Pa-O 8 1 III flower pʰɔ²¹ pʰɔ⁵⁵ pʰɔ⁵⁵ pʰɔ⁵⁵ pʰɔ⁵⁵ ---²¹ 4 VI spherical pʰlõ⁵⁵ pʰlə⁴¹ pʰlœ³⁵ pʰlo⁵³ pʰlo⁵³ pʰroŋ⁵⁵ 7 Va child pʰo⁵⁵ pʰo⁵⁵ pʰʷʊ⁵⁵ pʰo⁵³ pʰo⁵³ po²¹ 10 VIII skin pʰaiʔ³⁵ pʰiʔ⁵³ pʰi⁵⁵ pʰe⁵³ pʰe⁵³ ăpʰeʔ³⁵ 2 II spear pʰã¹¹ ɓa⁵⁵ ɓɔ⁵⁵ θa⁵⁵ɓa⁵⁵ θa⁵³ɓa⁵⁵ baŋ²¹ 8 V paddy rice ɓɤ⁵⁵ ɓɤ⁵⁵ ɓɤ⁵⁵ ɓu⁵³ bu⁵³ bɯ²¹ 5 VIa fat ɓɔ̃⁵⁵ ɓɔ⁴¹ ɓɔ³⁵ ɓʊ⁵³ bʊ⁵³ pleŋ⁵⁵ 11 VIIIa hang up ɓlaʔ³⁵ ɓlaʔ⁵³ ɓla⁵⁵ ɓla⁵³ plɛ⁵³ ---ʔ³⁵ 3 I tongue pʰle¹¹ ple³⁵ ble⁵³ blɪ³⁵ bli⁵³ pʰre¹¹ 6 IV arrow pʰla⁴¹ pla²¹ pla³⁵ blɛ⁵³ ble⁵³ pla⁵⁵ 12 VII extinguish pʰaiʔ⁵³ piʔ¹¹ pi⁵³ bɪ³⁵ bi³⁵ pʰeʔ⁴¹ Table 7. Tone comparisons (data from Luce 1985)9

7 The Roman numerals are the Luce/Jones tonal categories, and the Arabic numerals are those proposed in §5.3. 8 Examples with only tone are based on other cognates from the same cell. 9 Tone number have been changed from Luce’s numbers to a more transparent system where 1 = low tone and 5 = high tone.

Table 7 shows that the Proto-High (1, 4, 7, 10) are aspirated in all 6 languages; Proto-Mid shows preglottalised/voiced in 5 languages and aspirated for Pwo Tone Box 2; Proto-Low shows aspirated initials in Pwo and Pa’O, while the remaining languages have either voiceless or voiced reflexes depending on the language.

5.3. The Development of Tone in Karen

The following 7 charts show the reconstructed tones for each of the seven clusters of Karen languages. Highlighted are the B′ High and Mid cells (Box 7 and 8 respectively) as well as any other cell with the same tone:

Proto-Sgaw-Paku Proto-Pho Proto-Kayan Proto-Kayaw 5 2 5 ʔ3 2 5 5 ʔ3 5 1 3 3 5 1 3 3 5 2 5 ʔ3 1 5 5 ʔ3 5 1 3 3 5 1 3 3

3 1 ʔ1 1 3 ʔ4 2 ̤ 3 ̤ 5̤ 4 ̤ 1̤ 2̤

Proto-Pa’O Proto-Bwe-Geba Proto-Kayah 2 4 2 ʔ3 5 3 3 3 3 1 5 5 2 4 2 ʔ3 5 3 3 3 3 1 5 5 3 1 5 ʔ1 3 3 1 1̤ 4 ̤ 3̤

Table 8. Proto-tones for the main Karen clusters

On the basis of the charts in Table 8, we can suggest what the tones *A, *B, *Bʹ and *C were before the tone split (see the following figure). This analysis expands Kauffman’s (1993:45) reconstruction of proto-tones to be the following: *A 5 (high); *B 1 (low); *B′ and *C 3 (unmarked/mid). *C only occurs with stop final syllables.

Figure 11. The development of tone in Karen languages

6. Karen Tone Box

The development of tone in Karen can be traced back to a three-way distinction in open syllables (*A, *B, *B´) plus closed syllables (*C). The precise cause of this distinction is not yet known. The *A, *B, and *B′ columns involve syllables which are either vowel or nasal final, without any significant variation in distribution. Table 9 provides a comparison of the eight tonal patterns that Luce observed (and Jones expanded on) and their proto voicing contrasts.

Plosives Sonorants *A *B *B´ *C *aspirated *voiceless 1 III 4 VI 7 Va 10 VIII *voiceless -- 2 II 5 VIa 8 V 11 VIIIa *voiced *voiced 3 I 6 IV 12 VII Table 9. A comparison of Tone box numbers & Luce tone categories

Considering Haudricourt’s reconstruction, Table 10 provides, in a similar vein to Gedney, a “Karen tone box” for the analysis of Karen tones. The lexical items chosen for each box are those that have been consistently retained across Karen languages making the determination of tone more assessable for the field linguist. Note that this is the most recent version and published/distributed versions are superseded by this version. The phonological elements in brackets in Table 10 are the protoform for the lexical item; however there will be some variation in manner of articulation depending on the Karen dialect under investigation, yet the position of articulation should not change. Initial consonant clusters tend to be reduced to fricatives in most Karen languages (with the exception of Kayah) and alveolar stops plus a high front vowel become fricatives in Kayan varieties, otherwise the reflexes are transparent for the chosen lexical items.

A B B′ C

1 (III) 4 (VI) 7 (Va) 10 (VIII) d e

t Water [*tʰi] Star [*sʰa] Bone [*kʰri] Sky [*m̥oʔ] a r i Branch [*pʰaŋ] Leaf [*l̥a] Child [*pʰo] Iron [*tʰaʔ] p s

a Flower [*pʰɔ] Fingernail [*m̥i] Right [*tʰwe] Pig [*tʰɔʔ] - o t Chicken [*sʰan] Fire [*m̥e] Spicy [*hɛ] Skin/bark [*pʰeʔ] o r

P Sleep [*m̥i] Give [*pʰe] Take [*pʰi] Shoot [v] [*kʰaʔ] Die [*tʰi] Bitter [*kʰa] Pus [*pʰi/mi] Dark [*kʰeʔ/kʰuʔ]

2 (II) 5 (VIa) 8 (V) 11 (VIIIa) s s

e Silver [*rɔn] Egg [*ti] Paddy [*pɨ] Alcohol [*siʔ] l e

c Ginger [*ʔeŋ] Cheek [*pu] Blow/howl [*ʔu] Wing [*teʔ] i o

v Rabbit [*tɛ] Liver [*sɨn] Head [*klo] Heart [*saʔ] - o t Navel [*te] Eat [*ʔam] Hand [*su] Call/shout [*kaʔ] o r

P Spear [*pan] Left [*se] Breathe [*sa] Near [*pɔʔ] White [*pwa] Be at, exist [*ʔɔ] Many [*ʔa]

3 (I) 6 (IV) 12 (VII)

d Nest [*bwe] Sun [*mɤ] Monkey [*zoʔ] e c i

o Tongue [*ble] Stone [*loŋ] Eye/face [*meʔ] v - Person [*bra] Snake [*ru] Brain [*nɔʔ] o t o

r Name [*min] Arrow [*bla] Intestines [*breʔ] P Drunk [*mun] Old [humans] [*bra] Rib [*rɤʔ] Red [*le] Hot [*go] Deep [*jɔʔ] Table 10. Karen tone-box

These 11 cells, however, do not imply that there are/were eleven proto-tones at some stage between Proto-Karen and the modern varieties. Each Karen language cluster has neutralised the distinctions – the most common one being that the tonal reflexes of each of the columns reflects a two-way contrast between voiced and non-voiced initial consonants. This “merger” in regular patterns makes assignment of a particular Karen variety to a cluster a relatively simple task (see Manson 2005a for details).

7. Preliminary Reconstruction

This section is based on a comparison of Luce (1985), Jones (1961a) and all available wordlists for initial consonants and Luce (1985) plus Kayan and Kayah for rhyme reconstruction. Manson (in prep) will document the evidence for each of the reflexes proposed in this section. A rough ranking of strength for each reflex is given. If the reflex occurs in all six Karen varieties from

Luce (1985) then it is counted as “one”. Reflexes with a “Luce strength” of one are only included if reflexes in other languages that are not listed here are also in accordance with the proposed reconstruction.

7.1. Proto-Initials

Proto-Karen can be reconstructed with a three-way distinction in its plosive initials and a two- way distinction in its sonorants. The following table summarises the proto-initial inventory:

Tone Box *pʰ *tʰ *cʰ *kʰ 1, 4, 7, 10 Plosives *p *t *c *k *ʔ 2, 5, 8, 11 *b *d *ɟ (*g) 3, 6, 12 *hm *hn *hŋ 1, 4, 7, 10 Nasals *m *n *ŋ 3, 6, 12 Fricatives *s *h 1, 4, 7, 10 *hw *hl *hj *hr 1, 4, 7, 10 Approximants *ʔw *ʔl 2, 5, 8, 11 *w *l *j *r 3, 6, 12 Table 11. Proto-Karen initial consonants

Evidence for a proto voiced velar is weak, although Kayan appears to have retained the voiced velar for syllables with back vowels.

7.2. Proto Rhymes

Vowels and rhymes in general have been difficult to determine, especially as many of the wordlists presently available are of poor quality, both in transcription and extent. Many wordlists have been collected, but then they have not been analysed and re-checked with native speakers. However, by using Luce’s material and supplementing it with data from Kayah (Kauffman 1993) and my study of Kayan, a tentative proto-Karen rhyme phonology can be given. This will be expanded as more data from Kayah, Kayan and Pa’O is added. Pa’O is key for the reconstruction of Karen as it has retained final consonants, but must be used with

20 caution as Pa’O dialects sometimes have the syllable-final consonant with differing places of articulation, and this does not seem to be a result of assimilation to the following sound.

i u am ɛm

e ə o an ɛn ɔn ɤn

ɛ a ɔ aŋ ɛŋ eŋ iŋ oŋ ɤŋ

aʔ ɛʔ eʔ uʔ Table 12. Proto-Karen rhymes

7.3. Reflexes of Proto-Karen

7.3.1. Initial consonants and consonant clusters

The following table summarises the results so far. The first seven columns are based on wordlists in Luce (1985) and the final three columns are from Kauffman (1993) and Kayan is from my own fieldwork. Additional proto consonants and clusters exist, but are not represented in Luce’s material and so are not listed here. For a full account see Manson (in prep).

Proto Pwo Pwo Sgaw Paku W. Geba N. Kayan W. E. E. t g

(T) (D) Bwe Pa’O Kayah Kayah Pho n e r t

*pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ pʰ 9

*p ɓ ɓ ɓ ɓ ɓ b b b b b pʰ 11

*b pʰ pʰ p p p p pʰ p p p b 6

*pʰl pʰl pʰl pʰl pʰl pʰl pʰl pʰr pʰl pl pl - 3

*pl ɓl ɓl bl ɓl/bl ɓl bl pʰr pl - - - 1

*bl pʰl pʰl pl pl bl bl pʰr/pl pl pl pl pʰl 7

*br χw hw pʀ bʀ bw bw pʰr pr pr pʰr xw 4

*tʰ th th th th th th th th th th th 7

*t ɗ ɗ ɗ ɗ ɗ ɗ/d d d d d d 7

*d ɗ ɗ ɗ ɗ ɗ ɗ tʰ d d d d 3 Table 13. Reflexes of Proto-Karen initial consonants

Proto Pwo Pwo Sgaw Paku W. Geba N. Kayan W. E. E. t g

(T) (D) Bwe Pa’O Kayah Kayah Pho n e r t

*tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw tʰw 2

*c s s s s tc s tj s c c c 3

*cʰ sʰ sʰ sʰ sʰ ʃ sʰ/ʃ cʰ sʰ sʰ tɕʰ cʰ 15

*kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ kʰ 10

*k k k k k g g k k k k k 1

*kʰl kʰl kʰl kʰl kʰl kʰl kʰl kʰr kʰl kl kl kʰl 3

*kʰw kʰw kʰw kʰw kʰw kʰw kʰw - kʰw - - - 1

*m m m m m m m m m m m m 11

*hm m m m m m m m m m m m 11

*n n n n n n n n n n n n 6

*hn n n n n n n n n n n n 2

*ŋ j j j j j j j ŋ ŋ ŋ j 3

*s θ θ θ θ θ θ sʰ θ ɕ s θ 10

*sw θw θw θw θw θw θw sʰw θw ɕw tɕw - 1

*h ʀ ʀ h h h h h h h h ɣ 4

*l l l l l l l l l l l l 7

*hl l l l l l l l l l l l 1

*r r r r r r r r r r r r 4

*w w w w w w w w w w w w 1

*hw w w w w w w w w w w w 1

*j j j j j j j j j z - j 5 Table 13 (cont). Reflexes of Proto-Karen initial consonants

7.3.2. Vowels and Rhymes

The rhymes of Proto-Karen are relatively straightforward when only considering a small number of varieties. However the addition of more languages makes the analysis less regular.

The proto-rhymes suggested here are based on Luce’s material. His data is exceptionally consistent, especially when compared to data collected in recent years.

Proto Pwo Pwo Sgaw Paku W. Geba N. Kayan W. E. E. t g n

(T) (D) Bwe Pa’O Kayah Kayah Pho e r t S

*i i i i i i i i ie i 26

*e e e e e i e e i i i 11

*ɛ ɛ ai ɛ ɛ ɛ ɛ ɛ/ai1 ai a a ɛ 8

*a a a a a a/ɛ2 a/ɛ2 a a e e a 31

*ɤ ɤ ɤ ɤ ɤ u u u ə ɯ o 6

*u u u ɤ ɤ u u u u 10

*o o o o ʊ o o o o u u 6

*ɔ ɔ au ɔ o ɔ ɔ au au 4

*am ã ã ɔ ɔ e/a3 e/a3 am aN4 ja/e3 ɛ/e3 4

*an ã ã ɔ ɔ ɛ ɛ an aN 1

*aŋ ã ã ɔ ɔ a a aŋ aN ja ɛ 11

*ɛm ãi ãi i i ɪ ɪ ɛm jaN 1

*ɛn ãi ãi i i ɪ ɪ ɛn 2

*ɛŋ ai ãi e e e e ɛŋ eN 3

*iŋ ẽ ẽ e e e e iŋ i 1

*eŋ ẽ ẽ e e e e eŋ eN 4

*oŋ õ õ ə œ o o oŋ oN 7

*ɔn ɔ̃ ɔ̃ u u ʊ ʊ ɔn waN 4

*ɤn ɔ̃ ɔ̃ o ʊ ɔ ɔ ɯn 3

*aʔ aʔ aʔ aʔ a a a aʔ a ɛ e a 13

*eʔ aiʔ eʔ iʔ i i i eʔ e/i5 i i ai 13

*ɛʔ ɪʔ ɪʔ ɛʔ ɛ e e ɛʔ e/ai6 e 5 Table 14. Reflexes of Proto-Karen rhymes

1 /ɛ/ Proto tone box 2; /ai/ elsewhere 2 /ɛ/ C[-Vd]____ ; /a/ C[+Vd]____ 3 /a/ C[-Vd]____ ; /e/ C[+Vd]____ 4 N = /ŋ/ but shows place assimilation to following sound 5 /i/ C[-Vd]____ ; /e/ C[+Vd]____ 6 /ai/ C[-Vd]____ ; /e/ C[+Vd]____

8. Summary The most motivated reconstruction still remains the first, by Haudricourt. This needs to be expanded and (slightly) revised on the basis of more data from other Karen languages especially Pa’O. The combination of tonal development and manner of articulation of the syllable-initial consonant make assignment of Karen language varieties to a cluster provides a strong and motivated means of classification. The clusters represented in Figure 3 are definite low level groupings of languages. However higher level connections are still not possible until more work is done on the reconstruction of Proto-Karen rhymes, see Manson (in prep). The proposed Karen tone box will make determining the number of tones in a Karen language much quicker and also will assist in assigning the new variety to its appropriate cluster.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauer, C. 1992. Mon-Karen Contacts. 27th ICSTLL, Paris.

Benedict, P. K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, D. 1997. Tibeto-Burman Languages and Classification. In D. Bradley (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics 14: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas (pp. 1-72). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Burling, R. 1969. Proto-Karen: A reanalysis. Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics vol. 1. Culy, M. M. 1993. A Preliminary Investigation of the Pwo Karen Dialects of Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai: Payap University. Dai, Q., Huang, B., Fu, A., Renzengwangmu and Liu, J. 1991. ZangMianyu Shiwu Zhong [Fifteen Tibeto-Burman languages]. Beijing: Yanshan Chubanshe.

Forrest, R. A. D. 1965. The Chinese Language. London: Faber and Faber. Gedney, W. J. 1985. Confronting the unknown: Tonal splits and the genealogy of Tai-Kadai. In G. Thurgood, J. A. Matisoff and D. Bradley (eds.). Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan Area: The State of the Art (pp. 116-124). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Haudricourt, A. G. 1946. Restitution du Karen commun. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 42(1), 103-111. Haudricourt, A. G. 1953. A propos de la restitution du Karen commun. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 49(1), 129-132. Haudricourt, A. G. 1961. Bipartition et tripartition des systemes de tons dans quelques langues d'Extreme-Orient. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 56(1), 163-180. Haudricourt, A. G. 1972. Two-way and three-way splitting of tonal systems in some Far- eastern languages [Christopher Court trans.]. In J. Harris and R. Noss (eds.). Tai Phonetics and Phonology (pp. 58-86). Bangkok: Central Institute of English Language [trans of Haudricourt 1961]. Haudricourt, A. G. 1975. Le systeme des tons du Karen commun. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 70, 339-343. Henderson, E. J. A. 1997. Bwe Karen Dictionary with Texts and English-Karen Word List. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Hopple, P. 2005. Wa. Payap University Colloquium. Jones, R. B. 1961a. Karen Linguistic Studies: Description, Comparison and Texts. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jones, R. B. 1961b. Laryngeals and the development of tones in Karen. In Burma Research Society (ed.) Fiftieth Anniversary Publication (pp. 101-106). Rangoon: Burma Research Society. Jones, R. B. 1971. Some problems in reconstructing Proto-Karen tones. 4th ICSTLL, Indiana. Jones, R. B. 1985. Pitch register languages. In J. McCoy and T. Light (eds). Contributions to Sino-Tibetan studies (pp. 135-143). Leiden: Brill. Karlgren, B. 1915-1926. Études sur la phonologie chinoise. Archives d’Études Orientales, vol. 15. Leiden: Brill. Kauffman, W. G. 1993. The great tone split and Central Karen. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of North Dakota. Luce, G. H. 1959. Introduction to the comparative study of Karen languages. Journal of the Burma Research Society 42(1), 1-18. Luce, G. H. 1985. Phases of Pre-Pagan Burma: Languages and History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Manson, K. 2002. Karenic Language Relationships: A lexical and Phonological Analysis. Chiang Mai: Dept. Linguistics, Payap University Manson, K. 2003. A Preliminary Phonology of Pekon Kayan: Han Bon Dialect. Chiang Mai: Dept. Linguistics, Payap University. Manson, K. 2005a. The Development of Tone in Karen Languages. Chiang Mai: Dept. Linguistics, Payap University. Manson, K. 2005b. Tone Patterns of Karen Languages. Chiang Mai: Dept. Linguistics, Payap University. Manson, K. (in prep) Proto-Karen. Matisoff, J. A. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In L. Hyman (ed.). Consonant Types and Tone (pp. 73-95). Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Matisoff, J. A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino- Tibetan Reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press Mazaudon, M. 1977. Tibeto-Burman tonogenetics. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 3(2), 1-123. Myar, D. M. R. 2004. A phonological comparison of selected Karenic language varieties of Kayah State. Unpublished MA Thesis. Payap University. Saw, L. B. 2001. The phonological basis of a Northwest Karenic orthography. Unpublished MA Thesis. Payap University. Shintani, T. 2002. Classification of Brakaloungic (Karenic) languages, in relation to their tonal evolution. Presented at International Symposium on Cross-Linguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena. Solnit, D. B. 1989. Contrastive phonation in Central Karen. 22nd ICSTLL, Hawaii. Solnit, D. B. 1991. Kayah Li dialects. 24th ICSTLL, Bangkok. Thurgood, G. 2007. Tonogenesis revisited: revising the model and the analysis. In J.G. Harris, S. Burusphat, and J. E. Harris (eds.). Studies in Tai and Southeast Asian Linguistics (pp. 263-291). Bangkok: Ek Phim Thai Co. van Driem, G. 1997. Sino-Bodic. BSAOS 60(3), 455-488. van Driem, G. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region, Containing an Introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of Language. Leiden: Brill. Weidert, A. K. 1987. Tibeto-Burman Tonology: A Comparative Account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.