Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:42:35.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tangut verbal agreement and the patient category in Tibeto-Burman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

George Van Driem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tangut is the dead Tibeto-Burman language of the Buddhist empire of Xīxià, which was destroyed in 1227 by the Golden Horde of the Mongol warlord Temuüjin, more commonly known as Genghis Khan (c. 1162–1227). The Tangut empire was established in 1032 and comprised the modern Chinese provinces of Gānsù, Shānxī and Níngxià, extending from the Yellow River in the east to Kökö Nōr (Chinese: Qīnghăi Hù) in the west. The northern frontier of the Xīxià empire skirted the city of Qumul (Chinese: Hāmì), the river Edzin Gol (Chinese: Ruò Shuĭ), the Hèlán hills and the Yellow River. In the south, the empire extended down into the present-day province of Sichuān. The Xīxià capital was situated in what is now the city of Yinchuān (formerly Níngxiàfŭ) on the left bank of the Yellow River.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , October 1991 , pp. 520 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauman, James John. 1975. ‘Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman’. P.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K.. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique géneralé, Vol. i. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique géneralé, Vol. II. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1989. ‘Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies LII (2), 315–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990a. ‘An exploration of Proto-Kiranti verbal morphology’, Ada Linguistica Hafniensia 22: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990b. Review of La langue hayu by Michailovsky, Boyd, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, LIII, 3, 1990, 565–71.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991a. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991b. (forthcoming.) ‘Le proto-kiranti revisité, morphologie verbale du lohorung’, Ada Linguistica Hafniensia.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991c. ‘Bahing and the Proto-Kiranti verb’, BSOAS, LIV, 2, 1991.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. (forthcoming.) ‘The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system’.Google Scholar
Driem, George van, and Borisovna, Ksenija Keping (= von Kepping). (forthcoming a.) ‘Tibetskie transkripcii tangutskix ieroglifov’, in Pis'mennye Pamjatniki i Problemy Istorii kul'tury Narodov Vostoka, xxv. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Driem, George van, and Borisovna, Ksenija Keping (= von Kepping). (forthcoming b.) ‘The Tibetan transcriptions of Tangut ideograms’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area.Google Scholar
Driem, George van, and Borisovna, Ksenija Keping (= von Kepping). (forthcoming c.) The phonology of Tangut: concordance and analysis of the Tibetan transcriptions of Tangut ideograms.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1987. ‘Grammatical marking of speech act participants in Tibeto-Burman’, Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 473–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1990. ‘More evidence for the relationship Kiranti-Rung’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13 (1), 57–78).Google Scholar
Keping (= von Kepping), Borisovna, Ksenija. 1979. Sun' Czy v tangutskom perevode. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Keping (= von Kepping), Borisovna, Ksenija. 1985. Tangutskij jazyk, morfologija. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Keping (= von Kepping), Borisovna, Ksenija, Vsevolod Sergeevič Kolokolov, Evgenij Ivanovič Kyčanov and Anatolij Pavlovič Terent'ev-Katanskij. 1969. More Pis'men, facsimile tangutskix ksilografov (Vols. I, II). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘ Nauka’.Google Scholar
Kwanten, Luc. 1982. The Timely Pearl: a 12th century Tangut Chinese glossary (Vol. I, the Chinese glosses)Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1989. ‘Verb agreement, head-marking vs. dependent-marking and the“deconstruction” of Tibeto-Burman Morpho-Syntax’, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change’, Lingua e Stile xx (3): 303–18.Google Scholar
Fànwén, Lĭ. 1986. Tóngyīn Yanjiū, Yinchuān: Ningxià Rénmín Chŭbănshè.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1978. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman: The ‘organic ’ approach to linguistic comparison. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.Google Scholar
Nevskij, Nikolaj Aleksandrovič. 1960. Tangutskaja filologija, issledovanija i slovar' v dvux knigax (tom I, II). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘ Nauka’.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. ‘Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar’, Language, 62 (1): 56–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatsuo, Nishida. 1964. Seikago no kenkyū, Seikago no Saikōsei to Seikamoji no Kaidoku (A study of the Hsi-Hsia language: reconstruction of the Hsi-Hsia language and decipherment of the Hsi-Hsia script). Vol I. Tōkyō: Zauhō Kankō Kai.Google Scholar
Tatsuo, Nishida. 1966. Seikago no kenkyū, Seikago no Saikōsei to Seikamoji no Kaidoku (A study of the Hsi-Hsia language: reconstruction of the Hsi-Hsia language and decipherment of the Hsi-Hsia script). Vol. II. Tōkyō: Zauh Tō Kank Tō Kai.Google Scholar
Sherard, Michael. 1986. ‘Morphological structure of the pronominal and verb systems in twopronominalized Himalayan languages’, in McCoy, John and Light, Timothy(ed.), Contributions to Sino-Tibetan studies. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 172–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jīnbō, Shĭ, Bīn, Bái, and Zhènhuá, Huāng. 1983. Wén Hăi Yánjiū;. Běijīng: Zhōngguó Shèhui Kēxué Chūběnshè.Google Scholar
Sofronov, Mixail Viktorovič. 1966. Grammatika tangutskogo jazyka (torn I and II). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Sofronov, Mixail Viktorovič, and Ivanovič, Evgenij Kyčanov. 1966. Issledovanija po fonetike tangutskogo jazyka (predvaritel'nye rezul'laty). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Vostocnoj Literatury.Google Scholar
Hóngkāi, Sūn. 1981. Qiāng yŭ jiăn zhì, Běijing: Minzú Chūbănshè.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. ‘Boys will be boys: “radical semantics” vs. “radical pragmatics,”’ Language 63 (1): 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiànhuá, Zhèng, Hóngyīn, Nie, and Jinbō, Shĭ. 1989. Fān Hàn Hè Shi Zhăng Zhōng Zhūng. (Xīxid) Gúlè Màocái. Yinchuān: Níngxià Rénmèn Chūbănshè.Google Scholar