A DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR OF DAAI CHIN Helga So-Hartmann School of Oriental and African Studies University of London STEDT Monograph 7 University of California, Berkeley A DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR OF DAAI CHIN by Helga So-Hartmann Volume #7 in the STEDT Monograph Series 美國加州大學柏克萊分校語言學系 漢藏同源詞典研究所 Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project <http://stedt.berkeley.edu/> Department of Linguistics research unit in International and Area Studies University of California, Berkeley James A. Matisoff, Series Editor Book design by Richard S. Cook. Printing of 2009-04-19 ISBN 0-944613-46-2 ©2009 The Regents of the University of California All Rights Reserved Series Editor’s Introduction Helga So-Hartmann’s A Descriptive Grammar of Daai Chin must now be ranked as the most detailed and sophisticated grammar of a Chin language to have appeared since Eugénie J.A. Henderson's classic (1965) study of Tiddim (Northern Chin group).1 The Daai language, formerly known by rather pejorative Burmese exonyms,2 is an important member of the Southern Chin group, with about 45,000 speakers. So-Hartmann’s grammar is based on long personal experience with the Daai language, gained especially from her late husband Keng Sho, his brother Ling Sho, and a long-standing research assistant named Nääng Küüi. Her theoretical approach is eminently sensible and eclectic, incorporating insights and terminology from such typologists and theoreticians as J. Bybee, B. Comrie, S. DeLancey, T. Givón, P. Hopper, D. Peterson, S. Thompson, and R. Van Valin. Yet So-Hartmann has little interest in formalism for its own sake. She observes, e.g., that “Having two anaphors bound by the same clause mate antecedent would have serious implications for some syntactic theories”, but goes on to say that “changes to principles of binding theory are beyond the scope of this paper” (209). For this one can only be grateful! This grammar is full of clearly presented information, with the prose supplemented by a wealth of charts, diagrams, tables, and figures.3 A few of the most interesting points may be catalogued according to the particular area of structure to which they refer: (Phonology) Daai sesquisyllabicity (41-43); medial -- from *-r-, as in some Karen dialects (45); systematic length contrasts for all seven vowels (47); the implosive articulation of the voiced stops /b d/, in line with a Southeast Asian areal feature (49); the inclusion in the phonemic inventory of aspirated /s/, a sound that occurs in Modern Burmese and Shan, but which is extremely rare in the world’s languages (49). (Morphology) The discussion of derivational morphology involving the k- and m- prefixes (58-61) includes the striking fact that m- usually functions in Daai as a causativizer, transitivizer, or intensifier,4 whereas in other TB languages it often has the opposite role of signalling stativity, intransitivity, durativity, reflexivity, inner-directedness (Wolfenden 1929:139). This 1 The best available grammar of a Central Chin language remains Chhangte 1986. 2 These include Yindu (supposedly from Burmese yin (Written Burmese ra) ‘breast’ + du ‘knee’, since some of their women were traditionally wrapped in blankets that covered them from their breasts to their knees), Chinme (“black Chin”), and Chinbok (“stinking Chin”). 3 See the complete lists of them (pp. 16-18). Among the most useful are: Classification of Southern Chin languages (30);Verb stem selection patterns: Stem I vs. II (77, 112); Tests for the identification of verb classes (117); NP constituents (138); Noun classifiers (156); Case marking (166); Parameters of transitivity (231)'; Overview of arguments, relationships, and constituents (236); Markers of imperfect aspect (262); Matrix verbs and complement types (339). 4 This “outer-directedness” is typically signalled rather by the *s- prefix elsewhere in Tibeto-Burman (Wolfenden 1929:46-53; Benedict 1972:105-108; Matisoff 2003:100-104). Series Editor’s Introduction ii latter function seems to have been taken over largely by the innovative Daai - prefix, which makes transitive verbs intransitive or reflexive/reciprocal (61-64).5 Many of the compounds presented in section 3.3.3 (72 ff.) are of interest from a comparative point of view: ·The semantic structure of the compound khooi-tui ‘honey’ is “BEE + WATER” (< PTB *khway-twy), which is identical to that of, e.g. Lahu p- < PTB *bya-ry, although the etyma for “BEE” and “WATER” are completely different. ·Similarly, the Daai compound kphyu-kkha ‘small animals’ means literally RAT(S) + BIRD(S), exactly like Lahu fâ-â, although different roots for RAT and BIRD are used. ·The compound kho-mik ‘sun’ (lit. “NATURE + EYE”) is reminiscent of Indonesian mata hari ‘sun’ (lit. “EYE + DAY”). ·The Daai formation kut-nu ‘thumb’ (lit. “HAND + MOTHER”) is paralleled in many other East and Southeast Asian languages, e.g. Indonesian ibu tangan, Thai ha-m-myy, Vietnamese ngón tay cái, Chinese mzh , Japanese boshi , Lahu là-ma-p, etc.6 ·The Daai expression puk-sheet ‘be sad’ is composed of puk ‘stomach’ + sheet 'bad', constituting what I have called a “psycho-collocation” involving a body part as the locus of an emotion.7 This sort of expression is extremely widespread in Chin languages,8 and one suspects that So-Hartmann could easily find many other such examples. (Syntax) Daai has a system of demonstratives that mark four degrees of distance from the speaker:9 remote, distal (in view but not in reach), distal (in view and in reach), and proximal (162). As in all other Sino-Tibetan languages (and in Southeast Asian languages in general), negatability is the prime criterion for establishing verbhood (98). Approximately 20 percent of Daai verbs show the typical Chin characteristic of two alternate forms, called in the literature Stem I vs. Stem II, or Form I vs. Form II; So-Hartmann calls them Stem A and Stem B. Morphophonemically they may be divided into four classes (76-81). Which stem is required in particular sentences depends on a complex set of syntactic and semantic factors (102-117). The interrelated phenomena of nominalization and relativization are discussed in Chapter VI (176-191), with special emphasis on the hard-working morpheme naak which functions, inter alia, as a purposive/instrumental nominalizer10 and as a marker of relative clauses (181- 185).11 Unlike most East and Southeast Asian languages, Daai has a true passive voice which is not limited to adversative contexts, marked by the “valence-decreasing” - prefix, which also has 5 Using data from (So-)Hartmann 2002a, I cited several verb-pairs illustrating the derivational functions of the m- and - prefixes in Matisoff 2003:119. 6 See Matisoff 1991. 7 See Matisoff 1986. 8 See VanBik 1998. 9 This surpasses languages like Japanese, which only mark three degrees. 10 In this respect it greatly resembles the Lahu nominalizing verb-particle tu. 11 So-Hartmann has devoted a previous article (2002b) to this functor. Series Editor’s Introduction iii reflexive or reciprocal functions (212-215). Many (but by no means all) Tibeto-Burman languages12 display some type of verbal agreement, either suffixal and post-nuclear (as, e.g. in Kiranti languages), or prefixal (pre- nuclear), as in Chin languages. Daai requires subject and object agreement for all persons (238), with preference actually given to object/patient agreement (249), as shown by the fact that in negatives and interrogatives, which cannot be marked for subject agreement, direct or indirect object agreement is obligatory. Particularly interesting are the discussions in Chapters X and XI of such topics as epistemic and deontic modality (273-280), agent-orientation, mirativity, and evidentiality (295-301). The 2nd syllable -phi of the concessive marker lüphi means ‘also’ (349). So-Hartmann observes that in Kham (W. Nepal) the suffix for marking concession is also followed obligatorily by a particle meaning ‘also’. Actually Lahu is the same, only more so: the particles kà and th both mean ‘also’ after nouns, and ‘although’ post-verbally in non-final clauses.13 (Contributions to comparative etymologies) Many of the Daai forms that appear in the example phrases and sentences have excellent TB etymologies. To cite a few: ·Daai pu ‘father-in-law’ (50) is < PTB *pw ‘grandfather; older brother’. ·Daai lam ‘measure’ (53) is < PTB *lam ‘fathom’. ·The Daai simplex/causative verb-pair läh/lät ‘be free’ / hläh/hlät ‘release’ (197) descends from PTB *lwat/*s-lwat. ·The Daai copular verb ve, characterized as an “existential verb with a wide range of meanings – ‘is’, ‘exist’, ‘live’, ‘have’ ” (218), that has “undergone the strongest semantic bleaching of all Daai copular verbs”, clearly descends from the PTB/PST copula *way *ray, which underlies the homophonous Lahu particle ve.14 ·Among the Daai pre-verbal directional auxiliaries is juk-/jju- ‘downwards’ (288), which is a perfect cognate of the full Jingpho verb yú ‘descend’ (cf. also Mizo zuk). ·The polite imperative marker b ä (307) looks like it might be a borrowing from the polite Burmese particle pa. So-Hartmann modestly recognizes that additional research on Daai is necessary: “However there are clear hierarchical relationships [among verb particles] that require further research” (138); “The author’s deepest regret is that it was not possible to include a section on discourse analysis...as had been originally planned (362).” One may hope that her future plans include the production of a copious Daai dictionary! Nevertheless, A Descriptive Grammar of Daai Chin is an impressive work of scholarship as it stands. It is a pleasure and a privilege to add this important grammar to our STEDT Monograph Series. 12 Whether all current TB verbal agreement systems can be traced back to a single system in Proto- Tibeto-Burman is still a hotly debated topic. 13 See the references in Matisoff 1973/1982, pp. 651, 656. 14 See Matisoff 1985.