Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T04:25:45.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On ‘Sino-Bodic’ and other symptoms of neosubgroupitis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

James A. Matisoff
James A. Matisoff
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The higher-order subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman has been recently up for debate. The modern era of TB/Sino-Tibetan subgrouping began with Benedict 1972 (henceforth /STC), where that great comparativist refrained from offering a Stammbaum of the conventional type, leaving several individual languages and language groups unclassified, and placing Jingpho at the centre of diversity of the whole vast TB family (see Fig. 1.) Despite several peculiarities, notably the special position accorded Karenic and the lack of information on Baic (then called ‘Minjia’) or Qiangic, this scheme showed a healthily agnostic approach.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , January 2000 , pp. 356 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 2000

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. 1975. Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman.Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Baxter, Wiliam H., 1992. A handbook of old Chinese phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus (‘STC’). Contributing Editor, Matisoff, James A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodman, Nicholas C. 1969. ‘A sampling of Chinese-Tibetan correspondences.’ Paper presented at the Second Conference on Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction,Columbia University.Google Scholar
Bodman, Nicholas C. 1971. ‘Some phonological correspondences between Chinese and Tibetan.’ Paper presented at the 4th ICSTLL,Indiana University,Bloomington.Google Scholar
Bodman, Nicholas C. 1980. ‘Proto-Chinese and Sino-Tibetan: data towards establishing the nature of the relationship.’ In van Coetsem, Frans and Waugh, Linda R. (ed.), Contributions to historical linguistics: issues and materials, 34 199. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 1994. ‘The subgrouping of Proto-Tibeto-Burman.’ In Kitamura, H., Nishida, T., and Nagano, Y. (ed.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics, 59–78.Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 1995. ‘Grammaticalisation of extent in Mran-Ni.’ LTBA 18/1, 1–28.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 1983. ‘The Sal languages.’ LTBA 7/2, 1–32.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 1999. ‘On “Kamarupan”’, LTBA 22/2, 169–171.Google Scholar
Coblin, W. South. 1986. A Sinologist's handlist of Sino-Tibetan lexical correspondences. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag.Google Scholar
Courant, Maurice. 1903. ‘Note sur l'existence, pour certains caractères chinois, de deux lectures, distinguées par les finales ’, Mémoires de la sociétée linguistique de Paris 12, 67–72.Google Scholar
Driem, George (Sjors) van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George (Sjors) van. 1995. ‘Black Mountain conjugational morphology, Proto-Tibeto Burman morphosyntax, and the linguistic position of Chinese.’ In Nishi, Y., Matisoff, J. A. and Nagano, Y. (ed.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, 229–259. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Driera, George (Sjors) van. 1997. ‘Sino-Bodic’ (‘ SB’), BSOAS 60/3, 455–488.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1971. ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist's field trip’, Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 394–415.Google Scholar
SirGrierson, G. A. and Konow, Sten (ed.). 1903–1928. Linguistic survey of India, III, Parts 1–3, Tibeto-Burman Family. Reprinted 1967. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Bufan, Huang (ed.). 1992. Zang-Mian Yuzu Yuyan Cihui ‘A Tibeto-Burman Lexicon’. Beijing: Central Institute for Nationalities Press.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1923. Analytic dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese. Paris: Geuthner.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1957. Grammata Serica Recensa (‘GSR’), BMFEA 29/1, 9–120.Google Scholar
Lewis, Paul. 1989. Akha-English-Thai dictionary. Development and Agricultural Project for Akha (Chiang Rai). Bangkok: Darnsutha Press.Google Scholar
Luce, Gordon H. 1981. A comparative word-list of old Burmese, Chinese, and Tibetan. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1969. ‘Lahu and Proto-Lolo-Burmese’, Occasional papers of the Wolfenden society on Tibeto-Burman linguistics, I, 117–221. Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1972. The Loloish Tonal Split Revisited (‘TSR’). University of California, Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1976. ‘Lahu causative constructions: case hierarchies and the morphology/syntax cycle in a Tibeto-Burman perspective.’ In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), The grammar of causative constructions, 413–442. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1978. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman: the ‘organic’ approach to linguistic comparison (‘ VSTB’). Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1983. ‘Translucent insights: a look at Proto-Sino-Tibetan through Gordon H. Luce's Comparative word-list’, BSOAS 46/3, 462–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1985a. ‘God and the Sino-Tibetan copula, with some good news concerning selected Tibeto-Burman rhymes’, Journal of Asian and African Studies (Tokyo) 29, 1–81.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1985b. ‘Out on a limb: arm, hand, and wing in Sino-Tibetan.’ In Thurgood, Graham, Matisoff, James A., and Bradley, David (ed.), Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area: the state of the art, 421–450. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics C-87.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1988. The dictionary of Lahu. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1990. ‘On megalocomparison’, Language 66/1, 106–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1991a. ‘Sino-Tibetan linguistics: present state and future prospects’, Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 469–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1991b. ‘Jiburish revisited: tonal splits and heterogenesis in Burmo-Naxi-Lolo checked syllables’, Acta Orientalia 52, 91–114.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1994a. ‘Regularity and variation in Sino-Tibetan.’ In Kitamura, H., Nishida, T. and Nagano, Y. (ed.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics, 36–58. Osaka: Organizing Committee of ICSTLL, 26.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1994b. ‘Sangkong of Yunnan: secondary verb pronominalization in Southern Loloish.’ In Kitamura, H., Nishida, T., and Nagano, Y. (ed.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetian linguistics, 588–607. Osaka: Organizing Committee of ICSTLL, 26.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1994/1998. ‘How dull can you get? buttock and heel in Tibeto-Burman.’ In Pichard, Pierre and Rabine, Francois (ed.), Etudes birmanes en hommage àa Denise Bernot, 373–83. (Etudes Thématiques, 9.) Paris: Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient. [Originally appeared in LTBA 17/2,. 1994, 137–51.]Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1999a. ‘On the uselessness of glottochronology for the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman.’ Paper presented at Symposium on Time Depth in Historical Linguistics,Cambridge University,19–22 August.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1999b. ‘On the interest of Zhangzhung for comparative Tibeto-Burman.’ Paper presented at Symposium on New Horizons in Bon Studies, National Museum of Ethnology,Osaka.23–27 August.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1999c. ‘In defense of “Kamarupan”’, LTBA 22/2, 173–182.Google Scholar
Simon, Walter. 1929. ‘Tibetisch-chinesische Wortgleichungen: ein Versuch’, Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin 32/1, 157–228.Google Scholar
Starostin, S. A. 1994. ‘The reconstruction of Proto-Kiranti.’Paper presented at ICSTLL 27, Sèvres.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1985. ‘Peoples and languages of the Six River Valleys and their genetic classification’, [in Chinese] Minzu Xuebao 3, 99–274.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1990. ‘Languages of the ethnic corridor in Western Sichuan’, LTBA 13/1, 1–31.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson Tianshin. 1993. A historical-comparative study of the Tani (Mirish) branch of Tibeto-Burman. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1984. ‘The “Rung” languages: a major new Tibeto-Burman subgroup’, Proceedings of the Berkeley linguistic society 10, 338–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar