DOCSLIB.ORG

Prolegomena to Reconstructing Proto-Karen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prolegomena to Reconstructing Proto-Karen 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) 2 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.” 4 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). 5 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • De Sousa Sinitic MSEA
    THE FAR SOUTHERN SINITIC LANGUAGES AS PART OF MAINLAND SOUTHEAST ASIA (DRAFT: for MPI MSEA workshop. 21st November 2012 version.) Hilário de Sousa ERC project SINOTYPE — École des hautes études en sciences sociales [email protected]; [email protected] Within the Mainland Southeast Asian (MSEA) linguistic area (e.g. Matisoff 2003; Bisang 2006; Enfield 2005, 2011), some languages are said to be in the core of the language area, while others are said to be periphery. In the core are Mon-Khmer languages like Vietnamese and Khmer, and Kra-Dai languages like Lao and Thai. The core languages generally have: – Lexical tonal and/or phonational contrasts (except that most Khmer dialects lost their phonational contrasts; languages which are primarily tonal often have five or more tonemes); – Analytic morphological profile with many sesquisyllabic or monosyllabic words; – Strong left-headedness, including prepositions and SVO word order. The Sino-Tibetan languages, like Burmese and Mandarin, are said to be periphery to the MSEA linguistic area. The periphery languages have fewer traits that are typical to MSEA. For instance, Burmese is SOV and right-headed in general, but it has some left-headed traits like post-nominal adjectives (‘stative verbs’) and numerals. Mandarin is SVO and has prepositions, but it is otherwise strongly right-headed. These two languages also have fewer lexical tones. This paper aims at discussing some of the phonological and word order typological traits amongst the Sinitic languages, and comparing them with the MSEA typological canon. While none of the Sinitic languages could be considered to be in the core of the MSEA language area, the Far Southern Sinitic languages, namely Yuè, Pínghuà, the Sinitic dialects of Hǎinán and Léizhōu, and perhaps also Hakka in Guǎngdōng (largely corresponding to Chappell (2012, in press)’s ‘Southern Zone’) are less ‘fringe’ than the other Sinitic languages from the point of view of the MSEA linguistic area.
    [Show full text]
  • World Directory of Minorities
    World Directory of Minorities Asia and Oceania MRG Directory –> Myanmar/Burma –> Karen Print Page Close Window Karen Profile The term ‘Karen’ actually refers to a number of ethnic groups with Tibetan-Central Asian origins who speak 12 related but mutually unintelligible languages (‘Karenic languages’) that are part of the Tibeto- Burman group of the Sino-Tibetan family. Around 85 per cent of Karen belong either to the S’ghaw language branch, and are mostly Christian and animist living in the hills, or the Pwo section and are mostly Buddhists. The vast majority of Karen are Buddhists (probably over two-thirds), although large numbers converted to Christianity during British rule and are thought to constitute about 30 per cent among the Karen. The group encompasses a great variety of ethnic groups, such as the Karenni, Padaung (also known by some as ‘long-necks’ because of the brass coils worn by women that appear to result in the elongation of their necks), Bghai, Brek, etc. There are no reliable population figures available regarding their total numbers in Burma: a US State Department estimate for 2007 suggests there may be over 3.2 million living in the eastern border region of the country, especially in Karen State, Tenasserim Division, eastern Pegu Division, Mon State and the Irrawaddy Division. Historical context While there is some uncertainty as to the origins of the various Karen peoples, it is thought that their migration may have occurred after the arrival of the Mon – who are thought to have established themselves in the region before the start of the first millennium BCE – but before that of the Burmans sometime before the ninth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Sumi Tone: a Phonological and Phonetic Description of a Tibeto-Burman Language of Nagaland
    Sumi tone: a phonological and phonetic description of a Tibeto-Burman language of Nagaland Amos Benjamin Teo Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Masters by Research (by Thesis Only) December 2009 School of Languages and Linguistics The University of Melbourne Abstract Previous research on Sumi, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in the extreme northeast of India, has found it to have three lexical tones. However, the few phonological studies of Sumi have focused mainly on its segmental phonology and have failed to provide any substantial account of the tone system. This thesis addresses the issue by providing the first comprehensive description of tone in this language. In addition to confirming three contrastive tones, this study also presents the first acoustic phonetic analysis of Sumi, looking at the phonetic realisation of these tones and the effects of segmental perturbations on tone realisation. The first autosegmental representation of Sumi tone is offered, allowing us to account for tonal phenomena such as the assignment of surface tones to prefixes that appear to be lexically unspecified for tone. Finally, this investigation presents the first account of morphologically conditioned tone variation in Sumi, finding regular paradigmatic shifts in the tone on verb roots that undergo nominalisation. The thesis also offers a cross-linguistic comparison of the tone system of Sumi with that of other closely related Kuki-Chin-Naga languages and some preliminary observations of the historical origin and development of tone in these languages are made. This is accompanied by a typological comparison of these languages with other Tibeto-Burman languages, which shows that although these languages are spoken in what has been termed the ‘Indosphere’, their tone systems are similar to those of languages spoken further to the east in the ‘Sinosphere’.
    [Show full text]
  • Sino-Tibetan Numeral Systems: Prefixes, Protoforms and Problems
    Sino-Tibetan numeral systems: prefixes, protoforms and problems Matisoff, J.A. Sino-Tibetan Numeral Systems: Prefixes, Protoforms and Problems. B-114, xii + 147 pages. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1997. DOI:10.15144/PL-B114.cover ©1997 Pacific Linguistics and/or the author(s). Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative. PACIFIC LINGUISTICS FOUNDING EDITOR: Stephen A. Wunn EDITORIAL BOARD: Malcolm D. Ross and Darrell T. Tryon (Managing Editors), Thomas E. Dutton, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Andrew K. Pawley Pacific Linguistics is a publisher specialising in linguistic descriptions, dictionaries, atlases and other material on languages of the Pacific, the Philippines, Indonesia and southeast Asia. The authors and editors of Pacific Linguistics publications are drawn from a wide range of institutions around the world. Pacific Linguistics is associated with the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University. Pacific Linguistics was established in 1963 through an initial grant from the Hunter Douglas Fund. It is a non-profit-making body financed largely from the sales of its books to libraries and individuals throughout the world, with some assistance from the School. The Editorial Board of Pacific Linguistics is made up of the academic staff of the School's Department of Linguistics. The Board also appoints a body of editorial advisors drawn from the international community of linguists. Publications in Series A, B and C and textbooks in Series D are refereed by scholars with re levant expertise who are normally not members of the editorial board.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonetics of Sgaw Karen in Thailand
    PHONETICS OF SGAW KAREN IN THAILAND: AN ACOUSTIC DESCRIPTION PONGPRAPUNT RATTANAPORN MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH THE GRADUATE SCHOOL CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 2012 PHONETICS OF SGAW KAREN IN THAILAND: AN ACOUSTIC DESCRIPTION PONGPRAPUNT RATTANAPORN AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH THE GRADUATE SCHOOL CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 2012 PHONETICS OF SGAW KAREN IN THAILAND: AN ACOUSTIC DESCRIPTION PONGPRAPUNT RATTANAPORN THIS INDEPENDENT STUDY HAS BEEN APPROVED TO BE A PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH 26 September 2012 © Copyright by Chiang Mai University iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my gratitude to everybody who contributed to this research. Firstly, my deepest thanks go to both of my supervisors, Dr. Preeya Nokaew (Chiang Mai University) and Dr. Paul Sidwell (Australian National University), for their excellent support from when I first started until I finished this research. Secondly, my thanks go to the examining committee, Dr. Peter Freeouf and Dr. Sudarat Hatfield, for their useful comments. Thirdly, I would like to express my thanks to Assoc. Prof. Suphanee Jancamai and Asst. Prof. Panit Boonyavatana and all the teachers in the graduate program. Also a special thanks to Dr. Phinnarat Akharawatthanakun (Payap University) for her valuable advice. This research would not have been successful without the assistance of the Dujeto’s, Mr. Thaworn Kamponkun and all the informants and my friends Ey, Sprite, Mike, Chris, Darwin, Oh, Jay, Rose and Yrrah. Last but not least, I appreciate everybody in my family for their love, encouragement and financial support.
    [Show full text]
  • Refugees from Burma Acknowledgments
    Culture Profile No. 21 June 2007 Their Backgrounds and Refugee Experiences Writers: Sandy Barron, John Okell, Saw Myat Yin, Kenneth VanBik, Arthur Swain, Emma Larkin, Anna J. Allott, and Kirsten Ewers RefugeesEditors: Donald A. Ranard and Sandy Barron From Burma Published by the Center for Applied Linguistics Cultural Orientation Resource Center Center for Applied Linguistics 4646 40th Street, NW Washington, DC 20016-1859 Tel. (202) 362-0700 Fax (202) 363-7204 http://www.culturalorientation.net http://www.cal.org The contents of this profile were developed with funding from the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, United States Department of State, but do not necessarily rep- resent the policy of that agency and the reader should not assume endorsement by the federal government. This profile was published by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), but the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of CAL. Production supervision: Sanja Bebic Editing: Donald A. Ranard Copyediting: Jeannie Rennie Cover: Burmese Pagoda. Oil painting. Private collection, Bangkok. Design, illustration, production: SAGARTdesign, 2007 ©2007 by the Center for Applied Linguistics The U.S. Department of State reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for Government purposes. All other rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. All inquiries should be addressed to the Cultural Orientation Resource Center, Center for Applied Linguistics, 4646 40th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016.
    [Show full text]
  • Languages of Myanmar
    Ethnologue report for Myanmar Page 1 of 20 Languages of Myanmar [See also SIL publications on the languages of Myanmar.] Union of Myanmar, Pyeidaungzu Myanma Naingngandaw. Formerly Burma. 42,720,196. Speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages: 28,877,000 or 78% of the population, Daic languages 2,778,900 or 9.6%, Austro- Asiatic languages 1,934,900 or 6.7%, Hmong-Mien languages 6,000 (1991 J. Matisoff). National or official language: Burmese. Literacy rate: 66% to 78%; 78.5% over 15 years old (1991). Also includes Eastern Tamang, Geman Deng, Iu Mien, Malay (21,000), Sylheti, Chinese (1,015,000), people from Bangladesh and India (500,000). Information mainly from F. Lebar, G. Hickey, J. Musgrave 1964; A. Hale 1982; B. Comrie 1987; R. B. Jones 1988; J. Matisoff et al. 1996; D. Bradley 1997; R. Burling ms. (1998). Blind population: 214,440. Deaf population: 2,684,514. Deaf institutions: 1. The number of languages listed for Myanmar is 109. Of those, 108 are living languages and 1 is extinct. Living languages Achang [acn] 1,700 in Myanmar (1983). West of the Irrawaddy River in Katha District, near Banmauk, scattered among the Lashi. Along the China border. Alternate names: Anchan, Chung, Atsang, Acang, Ngac'ang, Ngachang, Ngochang, Mönghsa, Tai Sa'. Dialects: Maingtha. Classification: Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto- Burman, Lolo-Burmese, Burmish, Northern More information. Akha [ahk] 200,000 in Myanmar (1991 UBS). Population total all countries: 449,261. Eastern part of Kengtung Shan State. Also spoken in China, Laos, Thailand, Viet Nam. Alternate names: Kaw, Ekaw, Ko, Aka, Ikaw, Ak'a, Ahka, Khako, Kha Ko, Khao Kha Ko, Ikor, Aini, Yani.
    [Show full text]
  • A Basic Vocabulary of Htoklibang Pwo Karen with Hpa-An, Kyonbyaw, and Proto-Pwo Karen Forms
    Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.4, 2009 A Basic Vocabulary of Htoklibang Pwo Karen with Hpa-an, Kyonbyaw, and Proto-Pwo Karen Forms Kato, Atsuhiko （Osaka University） Htoklibang Pwo Karen is one of the dialects of Pwo Karen. In this dialect, the two Proto- Pwo tones that come from Tone1 of Proto-Karen have merged. Such a dialect has not been reported so far. This paper presents the phonemic system and a basic vocabulary of this dialect. For each vocabulary item, its corresponding forms in the Hpa-an dialect, Kyonbyaw dialect, and Proto-Pwo Karen are also shown. Keywords: Pwo Karen, Karenic languages, Tibeto-Burman 1. Introduction 2. Htoklibang Pwo Karen 3. Notes to the basic vocabulary 4. Basic vocabulary of Htoklibang Pwo Karen 5. Summary 1. Introduction I read the following from Man Lin Myat Kyaw (1970:22-23) and developed an inter- est in the language spoken by the people called the Htoklibang: There are people who speak mixing Pwo Karen and Sgaw Karen in the villages of Thahton prefecture such as Winpa, Kyaikkaw, Danu, Kawyin and in the villages of Bilin township such as Wabyugon, Kyibin, Inh- palaung, Alugyi, Alule, Nyaungthaya, Shin-in, Shatthwa, Winbyan, Phowathein, Thaybyugyaun. They are called Htoklibang by the other eastern Karens. [Man Lin Myat Kyaw 1970:22-23; in Burmese] (underlined by Kato) In December 2007, I visited the village of Alule (/Pa˘l´ul´e/ in Burmese), located in the Bilin Township, Mon State, Myanmar (Burma), and researched the language used there. The exact location of the Alule village is 17◦15’N, 97◦09’E (see Map 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Myanmar ­ Languages | Ethnologue
    7/24/2016 Myanmar ­ Languages | Ethnologue Myanmar LANGUAGES Akeu [aeu] Shan State, Kengtung and Mongla townships. 1,000 in Myanmar (2004 E. Johnson). Status: 5 (Developing). Alternate Names: Akheu, Aki, Akui. Classi囕cation: Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Ngwi-Burmese, Ngwi, Southern. Comments: Non-indigenous. More Information Akha [ahk] Shan State, east Kengtung district. 200,000 in Myanmar (Bradley 2007a). Total users in all countries: 563,960. Status: 3 (Wider communication). Alternate Names: Ahka, Aini, Aka, Ak’a, Ekaw, Ikaw, Ikor, Kaw, Kha Ko, Khako, Khao Kha Ko, Ko, Yani. Dialects: Much dialectal variation; some do not understand each other. Classi囕cation: Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Ngwi-Burmese, Ngwi, Southern. More Information Anal [anm] Sagaing: Tamu town, 10 households. 50 in Myanmar (2010). Status: 6b (Threatened). Alternate Names: Namfau. Classi囕cation: Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Sal, Kuki-Chin-Naga, Kuki-Chin, Northern. Comments: Non- indigenous. Christian. More Information Anong [nun] Northern Kachin State, mainly Kawnglangphu township. 400 in Myanmar (2000 D. Bradley), decreasing. Ethnic population: 10,000 (Bradley 2007b). Total users in all countries: 450. Status: 7 (Shifting). Alternate Names: Anoong, Anu, Anung, Fuchve, Fuch’ye, Khingpang, Kwingsang, Kwinp’ang, Naw, Nawpha, Nu. Dialects: Slightly di㨽erent dialects of Anong spoken in China and Myanmar, although no reported diഡculty communicating with each other. Low inherent intelligibility with the Matwang variety of Rawang [raw]. Lexical similarity: 87%–89% with Anong in Myanmar and Anong in China, 73%–76% with T’rung [duu], 77%–83% with Matwang variety of Rawang [raw]. Classi囕cation: Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Central Tibeto-Burman, Nungish. Comments: Di㨽erent from Nung (Tai family) of Viet Nam, Laos, and China, and from Chinese Nung (Cantonese) of Viet Nam.
    [Show full text]
  • West-Central Thailand Pwo Karen Phonology1
    Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society JSEALS Vol. 11.1 (2018): 47-62 ISSN: 1836-6821, DOI: http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52420 University of Hawaiʼi Press WEST-CENTRAL THAILAND PWO KAREN PHONOLOGY1 Audra Phillips Payap University [email protected] Abstract West-Central Thailand Pwo Karen (Karenic, Tibeto-Burman) is one of several mutually unintelligible varieties of Pwo Karen found in Myanmar and Thailand. This paper represents an updated version of a phonological description (Phillips 2000). The study includes a comparison of the phonologies of Burmese Eastern Pwo Karen (Hpa-an and Tavoy) and the Thailand Pwo Karen varieties, West-Central Thailand Pwo Karen and Northern Pwo Karen. While the consonant inventories are similar, the vowel inventories exhibit diphthongization of some nasalized vowels. Also, some former nasalized vowels have lost their nasalization. This denasalization is most pronounced in the Burmese Eastern Pwo Karen varieties. Moreover, these varieties have either lost the two glottalized tones, or are in the process of losing them, while this process has only begun in West-Central Thailand Pwo Karen. In contrast, all six tones are present in Northern Pwo Karen. Keywords: Karenic, Pwo Karen, phonology, nasalization, diphthongization, denasalization ISO 639-3 codes: kjp, pww, pwo 1 Introduction The Pwo Karen branch of the Karenic subgroup of the Tibeto-Burman language family is comprised of several mutually unintelligible language varieties. These varieties include Western, Eastern, and Htoklibang Pwo Karen in Myanmar (Kato 2009) and West-Central Thailand Pwo Karen (WCT Pwo) and Northern Pwo Karen (N. Pwo) in Thailand (Dawkins & Phillips 2009a).2 In addition, the intelligibility status of other Pwo Karen varieties of northern Thailand, which are found in northern Tak, Lamphun, Lampang, Phrae, and Chiang Rai provinces, are not as certain (Dawkins & Phillips 2009b).
    [Show full text]
  • LCSH Section K
    K., Rupert (Fictitious character) K-TEA (Achievement test) Kʻa-la-kʻun-lun kung lu (China and Pakistan) USE Rupert (Fictitious character : Laporte) USE Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement USE Karakoram Highway (China and Pakistan) K-4 PRR 1361 (Steam locomotive) K-theory Ka Lae o Kilauea (Hawaii) USE 1361 K4 (Steam locomotive) [QA612.33] USE Kilauea Point (Hawaii) K-9 (Fictitious character) (Not Subd Geog) BT Algebraic topology Ka Lang (Vietnamese people) UF K-Nine (Fictitious character) Homology theory USE Giẻ Triêng (Vietnamese people) K9 (Fictitious character) NT Whitehead groups Ka nanʻʺ (Burmese people) (May Subd Geog) K 37 (Military aircraft) K. Tzetnik Award in Holocaust Literature [DS528.2.K2] USE Junkers K 37 (Military aircraft) UF Ka-Tzetnik Award UF Ka tūʺ (Burmese people) K 98 k (Rifle) Peras Ḳ. Tseṭniḳ BT Ethnology—Burma USE Mauser K98k rifle Peras Ḳatseṭniḳ ʾKa nao dialect (May Subd Geog) K.A.L. Flight 007 Incident, 1983 BT Literary prizes—Israel BT China—Languages USE Korean Air Lines Incident, 1983 K2 (Pakistan : Mountain) Hmong language K.A. Lind Honorary Award UF Dapsang (Pakistan) Ka nō (Burmese people) USE Moderna museets vänners skulpturpris Godwin Austen, Mount (Pakistan) USE Tha noʹ (Burmese people) K.A. Linds hederspris Gogir Feng (Pakistan) Ka Rang (Southeast Asian people) USE Moderna museets vänners skulpturpris Mount Godwin Austen (Pakistan) USE Sedang (Southeast Asian people) K-ABC (Intelligence test) BT Mountains—Pakistan Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere (N.Z.) USE Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Karakoram Range USE Franz Josef Glacier/Kā Roimata o Hine K-B Bridge (Palau) K2 (Drug) Hukatere (N.Z.) USE Koro-Babeldaod Bridge (Palau) USE Synthetic marijuana Ka-taw K-BIT (Intelligence test) K3 (Pakistan and China : Mountain) USE Takraw USE Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test USE Broad Peak (Pakistan and China) Ka Tawng Luang (Southeast Asian people) K.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Word Prosody And
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Word Prosody and Intonation of Sgaw Karen A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Linguistics by Luke Alexander West 2017 © Copyright by Luke Alexander West 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS Word Prosody and Intonation of Sgaw Karen by Luke Alexander West Master of Arts in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Sun-Ah Jun, Chair The prosodic, and specifically intonation, systems of Tibeto-Burman languages have received less attention in research than those of other families. This study investigates the word prosody and intonation of Sgaw Karen, a tonal Tibeto-Burman language of eastern Burma, and finds similarities to both closely related Tibeto-Burman languages and the more distant Sinitic languages like Mandarin. Sentences of varying lengths with controlled tonal environments were elicited from a total of 12 participants (5 male). In terms of word prosody, Sgaw Karen does not exhibit word stress cues, but does maintain a prosodic distinction between the more prominent major syllable and the phonologically reduced minor syllable. In terms of intonation, Sgaw Karen patterns like related Pwo Karen in its limited use of post-lexical tone, which is only present at Intonation Phrase (IP) boundaries. Unlike the intonation systems of Pwo Karen and Mandarin, however, Sgaw Karen exhibits downstep across its Accentual Phrases (AP), similarly to phenomena identified in Tibetan and Burmese. ii The thesis of Luke West is approved. Kie R. Zuraw Robert T. Daland Sun-Ah Jun, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2017 iii Dedication With gratitude to my committee chair Dr.
    [Show full text]