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.