DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2020-013 A Sociolinguistic Survey of Humla Tibetan in Northwest Nepal Klaas de Vries A Sociolinguistic Survey of Humla Tibetan in Northwest Nepal Klaas de Vries SIL International® 2020 SIL Electronic Survey Report 2020-013, Month 2020 © 2020 SIL International® All rights reserved Data and materials collected by researchers in an era before documentation of permission was standardized may be included in this publication. SIL makes diligent efforts to identify and acknowledge sources and to obtain appropriate permissions wherever possible, acting in good faith and on the best information available at the time of publication. Abstract The Humla Tibetan language [hut], spoken in the far northwest of Nepal, has received little scholarly attention. This report presents the results of sociolinguistic research conducted among the Tibetan- speaking communities in Humla District. The main goal of this research is to describe the primary dialect areas and investigate the relationships between them. Other goals are investigation of the ethnolinguistic identity, assessment of language vitality, and understanding of the desires for development of the communities. In 2012 and 2013, three fieldwork trips were undertaken for data collection. During these trips seven sociolinguistic tools were used. These were wordlists, informal interviews, knowledgeable insider questionnaires, Recorded Story Questions, observation schedule, and two participatory method tools, namely Dialect Mapping and Appreciative Inquiry. This research found that the different speech varieties among the Tibetan-speaking villages of Humla District should be seen as dialects of the same language. Four dialects are identified, namely: the Limi dialect (Til, Halji, and Jang), the Upper Humla dialect (from Yari to Yalbang), the Lower Humla dialect (from Kermi to Kholsi to Tanggin), and the Eastern Humla dialect (from Burangse to Dojam). Attitudes towards the Limi dialect are the most positive. The intelligibility of the Limi dialect has the widest reach geographically. Most indicators show some cohesiveness among all the Tibetan speakers in Humla, but not strong. The language proficiency and vitality is high, and the EGIDS level is correctly documented in the Ethnologue as being 6a (Vigorous). People seem interested in the possibility of learning to read and write their own language. The data suggests that it would be especially important to develop two products when creating oral materials. The two dialects that would be most helpful for this are the Limi dialect and the Eastern Humla dialect. However, it may be possible to develop one written standard that most people will be able to understand well. More research and discussion is needed. 1सारांश नेपालको सदु ूर उ�र–प��ममा बो�लने ह�ु ली �त�बती भाषा (hut) मा कमै मात्रामाशै�क्षक �यानगेको पु छ। यस प्र�तवेदनमा ह �ु ल ा �ज� लाको �त�बती भाषा बो�लने समदायमाु संचा�लत भा�षक–सामा�जक अनस�धानु बाट प्रा� पिरणामह셂 प्र�ततु गिरएका छन्। यस अनस�धानकोु प्रमखु ल�य �वशेष भा�षक क्षेत्रह셂को प्रार��भक �थानको बारेमा बयान셍 गनु तथा �तनीह셂 बीचको स�ब�धह셂बारे खोजी गन셍 ु हो। अ�य ल�यह셂 जनजातीय भा�षक प�हचानको अ�वेषण गन�, भा�षक सजीवता जा�नेँ तथा समदायह셂कोु �बकासका आकांक्षाह셂बारे जानकारी �लनेन हु ्। सन् २०१२ र २०१३ मा त�याङ्कंकलनका स ला�ग तीनवटा �फ�蕍–भ्रमणह셂 (�ट्रप) स�प� गिरएका �थए। यी �ट्रपह셂का अवसरह셂मा सातवटामा�जक सा —भा�षक औजारह셂 प्रयोगमा �याइएका �थए। यी औजारह셂, श�दसूचीह셂, अनौपचािरक अ�तवा셍ता셍ह셂, ज्ञानवध셍क �भत्रका प्र�नावलीह셂, टेपमा भिरएका कथाका प्र�नह셂, पय셍वेक्षण ता�लका तथा दइटाु सहभागीमूलक तिरकाका औजारह셂 अथा셍त �थान�वशेषको भाषाको न�शाङ्कन तथा सराहनीय सोधपछह셂ु �थए। यस अनस�धानमाु य�तो पाइयो �क ह�ु ला �ज� लाका �त�बती भाषा बो�ने गाउँह셂का फरक फरक बोलीह셂का �क�समह셂लाई एउटै भाषाका �थान�वशेषको बोलीको 셁पमा हेिरनपछ셍।ु प�हचान गिरएका �थान �वशेषका बोलीह셂, अथा셍त �लमीको बोली (�तल्, हा�जी र जाङ्ग), उ प � ल ो ह �ु ल ा को बोली (यारीदे�ख यालबाङ्गस�म), त � ल ो ह �ु ल ा को बोली (केम�बाट खो�सी र ताङ्गगीनस�म), तथा पूव� ह�ु लाको बोली (बराङ्गसेबाटु दोजामस�म) हनु ्। �लमी बोली तफ셍को झु काव (मनोब��)ृ सबभ�दा सकारा�मक छ। �लमी बोलीको बोधग�यताको भौगो�लक पहचुँ सबभ�दा फरा�कलो छ अथा셍त यसको पहचलेुँ धेरै ठाउँ ओगटेको छ। धेरै पिरसूचकह셂ले ह�ु लाका सबै �त�बती बो�नेह셂 बीचमा कु नै �क�समको स�ब�ध भएको तर �य�त ब�लयो नभएको देखाउँछ। भा�षक प्रवीणता तथा सजीवता उ� छ र Ethnologue मा EGIDS तह ६क (भीषण) भएको कु रा यथाथ셍셁पमा उ � लख े गिरएको छ। �यहाकाँ मा�नसह셂को आ�नो भाषामा ले�न र प襍न �स�ने अ�भ셁ची भएको दे�ख�छ। अ�या�धक सं�याका मा�नसह셂लाई दइवटाु �वकास पिरयोजनाह셂द्वारासेवा � पु याउन ु स�क�छ। भाषा �बकास काय셍क्रम �ल�खत सामग्रीह셂 र साक्षारताद्वारा셁 शु गन� प्रयास गन셍 स�क�छ। �यस अव�थास�म प�नकाु ला�ग समदायह셂द्वाराु �वकासको मौ�खक 셁पलाई ग्रहण गन�छन्। यी कु राह셂ले समदायह셂कोु �ह�जे लेखन काय셍को �वकास गन� आकांक्षाह셂लाई सश� पान셍 र साक्षारता काय셍क्रम भा�षकतथा बहु �शक्षा प्रयास셁 शु गन셍 स�छ। *Nepali translation of abstract by Krishna Rana Preface When I arrived in Nepal for the first time in March 2008, I could not have imagined the journey that was ahead of me. As a cultural anthropology student, I had experience in rural Guatemala and rainforest West-Papua, Indonesia. Nepal offered a totally different experience again. I decided to try to come back to live and work here. Now, six years later, I have had the opportunity to conduct research among the Humla Tibetan communities in western Nepal. This sociolinguistic survey of the Humla Tibetan varieties of western Nepal was conducted in close partnership with the language documentation research that is being done by David Greninger. The data collection portion of this survey was carried out in June and October of 2012 and in June 2013 in Humla District of Nepal. The purpose of the survey is to provide more detailed information regarding the linguistic and sociolinguistic relationships among the Humla Tibetan communities, in order to support the language development and cultural preservation efforts of Humla Tibetans and provide information to the broader academic community. I trust that this report accurately reflects the data we collected. However, any comments and suggestions are welcomed. I greatly appreciate the many people who contributed to the completion of this language survey. With encouragement and direction from David Greninger, we were able to prepare well for fieldwork, and during fieldwork, David’s participation was invaluable. John Eppele has been the key consultant in thinking through the research methodology and planning for the fieldwork. He also joined the team on the second trip and helped out with administering most of the tools. My colleague Stephanie Eichentopf was a great mentor during our first trip, showing me how to handle the many different situations encountered during fieldwork and encouraging me through eliciting my first wordlist and doing my first informal interview. My other colleagues, Holly Hilty and Jessica Mitchell, also helped in preparing me for fieldwork, editing my report writing and cheering me on along the way. Special thanks goes to Nurpu Bhote, who was with us during two field trips and whose contacts and experience in Humla were key to successful completion of our data collection. He not only knew the right persons to contact in all the villages, he also led most of the Participatory Methods tools and helped out with translation and communication when that was needed. Similarly, Than Bahadur Rawat from Simikot has been an amazing guide during the field trips; he administered some Participatory Methods tools and also helped out with translation and communication. Pasang Dolker Lama played a key role as language assistant during the third field trip. Of course, the most thanks go to the Humla Tibetan people whom we met during our visits. I thank you for your hospitality, your willingness to sit through long interviews or wordlists, and your positive attitude towards us people from the outside, who asked strange questions. I hope this report will contribute greatly to your efforts for language development and that it may help you to be even more proud of your language and culture. Ultimately, that is why I wrote this report. March 2014 Klaas H. de Vries Kathmandu, Nepal 3प्रा� थ न जब म सन् २००८ मा नेपालमा प�हलो पटक आएको �थए,ँ �यस बखत मैले मेरो आगामी यात्रा क�तो�छ हु होला भनेर क�पनास�म प�न गन셍 सकेको �थइन। एउटा सां�कृ �तक मानवशा�त्री �वद्याथ�को 셁पमाग मसँ �वाटेमाला, प��मी पपवाु र इ�डोने�शयाको अनभवु �थयो। नेपालमा मैले पूण셍셁पले फरक �क�समको अनभवु पाए।ँ मैले यहा ँ फक�र आएर ब�े र काम गन셍 को�शष गन� �नण셍य गरे।ं अ�हले ६ बष셍 प�छ प��म नेपालको ह�ु ला �त�बती समदायु ह셂को अनस�धानु संचालन गन� अवसर पाएको छु। प��म नेपालको ह�ु ला �त�बती समदायकोु यस सामा�जक—भा�षक सव�क्षण डे�वडग्रे�नङ्गरद्वारा गिरएको भा�षक अनस�धानकोु द�ताबेजको �नकटतम स�पक셍मा रहेर संचालन गिरएको �थयो। यस सव�क्षणको त�याङ्कंकलन स अंश चा�हं सन् २०१२ को जून र अ�टोवरमा र जून २०१३ मा नेपालको ह�ु ला �ज� लामा संचालन गिरएको �थयो। यस सव�क्षणको उद्दे�य ह �ु ल ा �त�बतीह셂को भा�षक �वकास तथा सां�कृ �तक संरक्षणलाई टेवा �दन तथाशै�क्षक समदायलाईु � य ा पक जानकारी �दनका ला�ग ह�ु ला �त�बती समदायह셂कोु भा�षक तथा सामा�जक—भा�षक स�ब�धह셂बारे अ셁 �ब�ततृ जानकारी �दन ु हो। मलाई �व�ास छ �क यस प्र�तवेदनले हामीलेंकलन स गरेको त�याङ्कको यथाथ셍 प्र�त�व�वगछ셍 । जे होस्, कु नै प�न �टका— �ट�पणी र सझावह셂लाईु �वागत गिर�छ। म यस भा�षक सव�क्षण स�प� गन셍 योगदान �दनहु नेु सम�त महानभावह셂माु आभार �य� गन셍 चाह�छु। डे�वड ग ��नङ्गरको हौसला तथा �नद�शनले हाम्रो �फ�डको कामको तयारी गन셍 हामी सक्षम भयौं र �फ�डवक셍को समयमा डे�वडको सहभा�गता अमू�य �थयो। सारा अनस�धानु पद्व�तको �बचार गन� �फ�डवक셍को योजना �नमा셍ण स�ब�धमा जोन ए��पली प्रमखु परामश셍दाता हनु भएकोछ।ु दोश्रो यात्रामा उहाँ प�न सहभागी हनु ु भयो र अ�धकतम औजारह셂को