DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2020-013

A Sociolinguistic Survey of Humla Tibetan inNorthwest 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.

1साराश

नपालको सदर उ�र–प��ममा बो�लन ह� ली �त�बती भाषा (hut) मा कम मातरामा श�कषक �यान पगको छ। यस पर�तवदनमा ह� ला �ज� लाको �त�बती भाषा बो�लन समदायमा सचा�लत भा�षक–सामा�जक अनस�धानबाट परा� पिरणामहर पर�तत गिरएका छन। यस अनस�धानको परमख ल�य �वशष भा�षक कषतरहरको परार��भक �थानको बारमा बयान गनर तथा �तनीहर बीचको स�ब�धहरबार खोजी गनर हो। अ�य ल�यहर जनजातीय भा�षक प�हचानको अ�वषण गन �, भा�षक सजीवता जा�न तथा समदायहरको �बकासका आकाकषाहरबार जानकारी �लन हन। सन २०१२ र २०१३ मा त�याङक सकलनका ला�ग तीनवटा �फ�ड–भरमणहर (�टरप) स�प� गिरएका �थए। यी �टरपहरका अवसरहरमा सातवटा सामा�जक—भा�षक औजारहर परयोगमा �याइएका �थए। यी औजारहर, श�दसचीहर, अनौपचािरक अ�तवारतारहर, जञानवधरक �भतरका पर�नावलीहर, टपमा भिरएका कथाका पर�नहर, पयरवकषण ता�लका तथा दइटा सहभागीमलक तिरकाका औजारहर अथारत �थान�वशषको भाषाको न�शाङकन तथा सराहनीय सोधपछहर �थए। यस अनस�धानमा य�तो पाइयो �क ह� ला �ज� लाका �त�बती भाषा बो�न गाउहरका फरक फरक बोलीहरका �क�समहरलाई एउट भाषाका �थान�वशषको बोलीको रपमा हिरनपछर । प�हचान गिरएका �थान �वशषका बोलीहर, अथारत �लमीको बोली (�तल, हा�जी र जाङग), उप� लो ह� लाको बोली (यारीद�ख यालबाङगस�म), त� लो ह� लाको बोली (कम�बाट खो�सी र ताङगगीनस�म), तथा पव� ह� लाको बोली (बराङगसबाट दोजामस�म) हन। �लमी बोली तफर को झकाव (मनोब��) सबभ�दा सकारा�मक छ। �लमी बोलीको बोधग�यताको भौगो�लक पहच सबभ�दा फरा�कलो छ अथारत यसको पहचल धर ठाउ ओगटको छ। धर पिरसचकहरल ह� लाका सब �त�बती बो�नहर बीचमा कन �क�समको स�ब�ध भएको तर �य�त ब�लयो नभएको दखाउछ। भा�षक परवीणता तथा सजीवता उ� छ र Ethnologue मा EGIDS तह ६क (भीषण) भएको करा यथाथररपमा उ� लख गिरएको छ। �यहाका मा�नसहरको आ�नो भाषामा ल�न र पढन �स�न अ�भरची भएको द�ख�छ। अ�या�धक स�याका मा�नसहरलाई दइवटा �वकास पिरयोजनाहरदवारा सवा प� याउन स�क�छ। भाषा �बकास कायरकरम �ल�खत सामगरीहर र साकषारतादवारा शर गन � परयास गनर स�क�छ। �यस अव�थास�म प�नका ला�ग समदायहरदवारा �वकासको मौ�खक रपलाई गरहण गन �छन। यी कराहरल समदायहरको �ह�ज लखन कायरको �वकास गन � आकाकषाहरलाई सश� पानर र साकषारता कायरकरम तथा बहभा�षक �शकषा परयास शर गनर 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

3परा� थन

जब म सन २००८ मा नपालमा प�हलो पटक आएको �थए, �यस बखत मल मरो आगामी यातरा क�तो ह�छ होला भनर क�पनास�म प�न गनर सकको �थइन। एउटा सा�क�तक मानवशा�तरी �वदयाथ�को रपमा मसग �वाटमाला, प��मी पपवा र इ�डोन�शयाको अनभव �थयो। नपालमा मल पणररपल फरक �क�समको अनभव पाए। मल यहा फक� र आएर ब� र काम गनर को�शष गन � �नणरय गर। अ�हल ६ बषर प�छ प��म नपालको ह� ला �त�बती समदायहरको अनस�धान सचालन गन � अवसर पाएको छ। प��म नपालको ह� ला �त�बती समदायको यस सामा�जक—भा�षक सव �कषण ड�वड गर�नङगरदवारा गिरएको भा�षक अनस�धानको द�ताबजको �नकटतम स�पकर मा रहर सचालन गिरएको �थयो। यस सव �कषणको त�याङक सकलन अश चा�ह सन २०१२ को जन र अ�टोवरमा र जन २०१३ मा नपालको ह� ला �ज� लामा सचालन गिरएको �थयो। यस सव �कषणको उदद�य ह� ला �त�बतीहरको भा�षक �वकास तथा सा�क�तक सरकषणलाई टवा �दन तथा श�कषक समदायलाई � यापक जानकारी �दनका ला�ग ह� ला �त�बती समदायहरको भा�षक तथा सामा�जक—भा�षक स�ब�धहरबार अर �ब�तत जानकारी �दन हो। मलाई �व�ास छ �क यस पर�तवदनल हामील सकलन गरको त�याङकको यथाथर पर�त�व�व गछर । ज होस, कन प�न �टका—�ट�पणी र सझावहरलाई �वागत गिर�छ। म यस भा�षक सव �कषण स�प� गनर योगदान �दनहन सम�त महानभावहरमा आभार �य� गनर चाह�छ। ड�वड ग ��नङगरको हौसला तथा �नद �शनल हामरो �फ�डको कामको तयारी गनर हामी सकषम भयौ र �फ�डवकर को समयमा ड�वडको सहभा�गता अम�य �थयो। सारा अनस�धान पदव�तको �बचार गन � �फ�डवकर को योजना �नमारण स�ब�धमा जोन ए��पली परमख परामशरदाता हनभएकोछ। दोशरो यातरामा उहा प�न सहभागी हन भयो र अ�धकतम औजारहरको परशास�नक काममा उहाल सहयोग प� याउनभयो। प�हलो यातराको ला�ग मरी सहकम� �तफनी आइकानतोफ अनभवी स�ाहकार भएर काम गिर�दनभयो र उहाल मलाई �फ�डवकर मा हदा कयौ फरक फरक पिर��थ�तहरको कसरी सामना गन � �यो दखाइ�दनभयो र मरो प�हलो श�दसची तयार पानर र मरो प�हलो अनौपचािरक अ�तवारतार तयार पानर परो�साहन प�न �दन भयो। मरा अ�य सहकम�हर हली �ह�ती र जसी �मचलल प�न मलाई मरो �फ�डवकर को तयारी गन �, पर�तवदन ल�दा स�पादन गिर�दन तथा कामको �शल�शलामा परो�साहन गिर�दएर सहयोग �दनभयो। नपर भोट जो हामरो दइवट �फ�ड यातरामा सग हनह��यो र जसको ह� लामा स�पकर र अनभव हामरो त�याङक सकलन सफलतापवरक स�प� गनर परमख �थयो, उहालाई �बशष ध�यवाद �दन चाह� छ। उहाल स�पणर गाउको उपयोगी मा�छ �चनको मातर होइन �क सहभागीमलक पदध�तको औजारहरम�य धरजसोको नत�व प�न गिर�दनभयो र आव�यक पदार उ�था र सचारको काममा प�न सहयोग गिर�दनभयो। �यस गरी �समीकोटका थान बहादर राउतल �फ�डको यातरामा हदा एकदम रामरो गाइडको काम गिर�दनभयो र उहाल कही सहभागीमलक पदध�तको औजारहरको परशास�नक कायर गिर�दनभयो साथ सचार र उ�थाको काममा प�न सहयोग गिर�दनभयो। तशरो �फ�ड यातराको समयमा पासाङ डो�कर लामाल भाषाको सहयोगीको रपमा परमख भ�मका ख�ल�दनभयो। �न�यन हामरो �वशष ध�यवाद, हामरो भरमणको बलामा हामील भटका ह� ला �त�बती मा�नसहरलाई छ। तपाईहरको आ�त�य, लामा लामा अ�तवारतारभिर र श�दस�च बनाउदा ब�स�दन इ�छा, र बा�हरबाट आएका मा�नस हामीहर जसल एकदम अनौठा पर�नहर सो�छन उनीहरपर�तको सकारा�मक मनोब��को ला�ग म ध�यबाद �दन चाह�छ। मलाई आशा छ �क यस पर�तवदनल तपाईको भाषा �वकासको परयासलाई ठलो योगदान �दनछ र तपाईलाई तपाईको आ�नो भाषा र स�क�त पर�त गौरवा��वत हन मददत गन �छ। अ�ततोग�वा, यही कारणल मल यो पर�तवदन लखको ह। माचर २०१४, �लास एच �ड �वरस काठमाडौ , नपाल *Nepali translation of preface by Krishna Rana

vi

Contents

Tables Maps 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose 1.2 Overview of the report 1.3 Terminology 1.4 Geography

1.4.1 East of Simikot 1.4.2 Tugchulungba 1.4.3 Yultsodunba 1.4.4 Limi 1.4.5 Humli Khyampa areas

1.5 People and language 1.5.1 Demographics 1.5.2 Social structure 1.5.3 Family structure and economics 1.5.4 Religion 1.5.5 Linguistic affiliation 1.5.6 Mutual intelligibility between varieties 1.5.7 Other languages

2 Goals and methodology 2.1 Goals and research questions

2.1.1 Goal 1: Language and dialect variation 2.1.2 Goal 2: Ethnolinguistic identity 2.1.3 Goal 3: Language vitality 2.1.4 Goal 4: Desires for development 2.1.5 Goal 5: Seasonal migration

2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 Tools 2.2.2 Site selection 2.2.3 Subject selection

3 Dialect variation 3.1 Dialect and language identification

3.1.1 Interview results 3.1.2 Lexical similarity results 3.1.3 Dialect Mapping results 3.1.4 Recorded Story Questions (RSQ) results 3.1.5 Summary of dialect and language identification

3.2 Dialect attitudes 3.2.1 Attitudes toward the Limi dialect 3.2.2 Attitudes toward the Upper Humla dialect 3.2.3 Attitudes toward the Lower Humla dialect 3.2.4 Attitudes toward the Eastern Humla dialect 3.2.5 Summary of dialect attitudes

3.3 Dialect intelligibility 3.3.1 Intelligibility of Limi dialect 3.3.2 Intelligibility of Upper Humla dialect 3.3.3 Intelligibility of Lower Humla dialect 3.3.4 Intelligibility of Eastern Humla dialect 3.3.5 Summary of dialect intelligibility

3.4 Summary of dialect variation

vii

4 Ethnolinguistic identity 4.1 Marriage patterns

4.1.1 Marriage patterns ascertained in literature 4.1.2 Marriage patterns ascertained through interviews 4.1.3 Marriage patterns ascertained through attitude questions

4.2 Language patterns 4.2.1 Love for the languages 4.2.2 Other languages spoken 4.2.3 Feelings when speaking one’s mother tongue

4.3 Social patterns 4.3.1 Habits and customs 4.3.2 Social structure

4.4 Other related topics 4.4.1 Attitudes regarding language in Purang County (China) 4.4.2 Migration patterns 4.4.3 Additional observations

4.5 Summary 5 Language vitality and EGIDS

5.1 Language proficiency 5.2 Domains of language use 5.3 Intergenerational transfer 5.4 Other factors 5.5 Extended Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale 5.6 Summary and conclusions

6 Desires for development 6.1 Interview results on language development desires

6.1.1 Learning to read and write 6.1.2 Use of the Tibetan or Devanagari script

6.2 Appreciative Inquiry results 6.3 Summary

7 Summary of findings and recommendations 7.1 Dialect variation

7.1.1 Summary of findings 7.1.2 Recommendations

7.2 Ethnolinguistic identity 7.2.1 Summary of findings 7.2.2 Recommendations

7.3 Language vitality and EGIDS 7.3.1 Summary of findings 7.3.2 Recommendations

7.4 Desires for development 7.4.1 Summary of findings 7.4.2 Recommendations

७ परा�कराहरतथा�सफािरशहरकोसाराश (Nepali translation of section 7) ७.१ �थानीयबोलीका�व�वधताहर

७.१.१ परा�कराहरकोसाराश ७.१.२ �सफािरशहर

७.२ जातीय–भा�षकसमानता ७.२.१ परा�कराहरकोसाराश ७.२.२ �सफािरशहर

७.३ भाषाकोसजीवतातथाEGIDS ७.३.१ परा�कराहरको�सफािरश ७.३.२ �सफािरशहर

७.४ �वकासकाआकाङकषाहर ७.४.१ परा�कराहरकासाराशहर ७.४.२ �सफािरशहर

Appendix A: Wordlists Appendix B: Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire

viii

Appendix C: Informal Interview Appendix D: Recorded Story Questions (RSQ) Appendix E: Observation Schedule Appendix F: Participatory Methods Appendix G: Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale References

ix

Tables

Table 1: Population count for Humla Tibetan Table 2: Humla Tibetan clusters Table 3: The 10-level social hierarchy of the Nyinba Table 4: Villages, tools, and time Table 5: Sample size by age and gender Table 6: Lexical similarity percentages matrix Table 7: How similar is your language to that in the Til story? Table 8: How similar is your language to that in the Yalbang story? Table 9: How similar is your language to that in the Bargaun story? Table 10: How did you like the speech in the Til story? Table 11: How did you like the speech in the Yalbang story? Table 12: How did you like the speech in the Kermi story? Table 13: How did you like the speech in the Bargaun story? Table 14: How much do you understand the Limi variety? Table 15: Which language do you love the most? Table 16: Overall language use Table 17: What language is spoken with family members? Maps

Map 1: Humla District situated in Nepal Map 2: Humla Tibetan native territory Map 3: Nyinba communities situated in Humla Map 4: Tugchulungba communities situated in Humla Map 5: Yultsodunba communities situated in Humla Map 6: Limi communities situated in Humla Map 7: Data collection sites Map 8: Wordlist collection sites Map 9: Humla dialect groupings

1

1 Introduction1

The Tibetan peoples of Humla District are Nepalese citizens, but culturally are Tibetan. They share many characteristics, both cultural and linguistic, with the nearby Tibetan populations in Nepal and the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) of China. However, the Humla Tibetans have developed their own unique cultures and linguistic varieties. Previous anthropological research has established that the Humla Tibetan community is comprised of a set of interrelated communities that are distinct from yet related to each other and to the neighboring Tibetan communities in the TAR to the west and north and in Mugu District to the south and east. It is believed that Humla Tibetan is a Central Tibetan language similar to other Tibetan languages spoken in Nepal (Lewis 2009). However, up to this point, the Humla Tibetan language has received little scholarly attention. The only available linguistic analysis of Humla Tibetan is Chris Wilde’s phonology of the Limi variety (2001). Based on interviews conducted in Kathmandu and a review of the available anthropological literature, Wilde (2001:5–7) posits five varieties of Tibetan spoken as mother-tongues by Humla Tibetans: Nyinba, La Yakba, Upper Humla, Limi, and Humli Khyampa (a nomadic group). But no studies are available which focus on the sociolinguistic situation of the Humla Tibetans.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this 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 the Humla Tibetans and provide information to the broader academic community. We hope that with this report we will contribute to the objective of the Linguistic Survey of Nepal (LinSuN) of Tribhuvan University of producing “a sociolinguistic profile for each of the languages of Nepal” (Central Department of Linguistics 2008).

1.2 Overview of the report

The remainder of section 1 reviews the available literature on Humla Tibetan varieties. Section 2 covers the goals for this research and the methodology used. Section 3 is about dialect variation. In this latter section we will look at dialect and language identification, dialect attitudes and dialect intelligibility. Section 4 is on ethnolinguistic identity. Section 5 is about language vitality and EGIDS level, and section 6 is about desires for development. The report finishes with section 7, summarizing the findings and recommendations.

1.3 Terminology

There does not seem to be a widely accepted cover term for all the Tibetan peoples and language varieties of Humla. For the Tibetan peoples of Humla, Fürer-Haimendorf (1988:269) uses the Nepali term bhotia ‘Tibetan’ in the phrases “Bhotias of Humla” and “Humla Bhotias”. Levine (1988) employs the cover term “Humla Tibetan” to refer to both the culturally Tibetan peoples of Humla and the language they speak. Van Driem (2001) says that the Tibetan people of Humla are called “Limirong Tibetans” and he calls the language “Limirong”. In addition, he states that, in the Nepali language, Limirong Tibetans are known as humli tamang (van Driem 2001:856). “Humli Tamang” is also the term that Bradley (1997:5) uses. Wilde (2001:4) comments:

Though the term Humla Bhotia is in itself derogatory, my language [assistant]... referred to her own language using this name ... Humla Bhotia could be regarded as an acceptable cover-term for the whole language in that it reflects both the location of the language area and the genetic affiliation of the language.

1 This sociolinguistic research has been done in conjunction with language documentation research on the Humla Tibetan varieties by David Greninger. His research is being done in collaboration with the Central Department of Linguistics of Tribhuvan University and is, at the time of writing, still ongoing.

2

However, a few lines later, Wilde states that the same language assistant who used Humla Bhotia also utilized the term phoke (a standard term meaning ‘Tibetan language’) because she was “unaware of any other term which would cover the language as a whole”(2001:4). In the Ethnologue, the Tibetan language spoken in Humla is simply labeled as “Humla” (Lewis 2009).

Tshewang Lama, a Humla Tibetan speaker from the Nyinba area, mentions three terms that have commonly been utilized in Humla to refer to all Humla Tibetans: jad, thapalya, and bhod. The Nepali word “Jad” is a derogatory term used to describe “people who come from the higher cold regions”. A more polite Nepali term is Thapalya, which means “those who don’t follow the caste system”. Finally, Thapalya people refer to themselves in their own language as Bhod (Lama 2012: 34–35).

Although outsiders have employed a number of different terms to refer to the Tibetan people and the language of Humla, it is unclear if there is a widely accepted insider term that covers all the Tibetan varieties of Humla. Based on the available research, it seems that mother-tongue speakers call their language ‘Tibetan’ using some variation of the Nepali term bhotia or the Tibetan term phoke.

In this report, the term Humla Tibetan will be utilized as a cover term for the Tibetan people and language of Humla. In this section, we will use the term variety rather than dialect or language, thus maintaining a neutral position on the question of whether these varieties are dialects of the same language or a cluster of closely related languages. Later we will come to some conclusions based on our research.

1.4 Geography

The Humla Tibetan varieties are spoken in the far northwest of Nepal in the Humla District of the Karnali Zone. The Karnali Zone forms the northern part of the Mid-Western Region. Map 1 presents the district of Humla situated in the Karnali Zone of the Mid-Western Region of Nepal.

Map 1. Humla District situated in Nepal

Humla District is in the far top left of map 1highlighted in red. The neighboring districts of the Karnali Zone are shaded in grey while the southern part of the Mid-Western Region is in light grey. Humla borders the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) of China to the west and north. Bajhang, Bajura, and Mugu Districts of Nepal border Humla to the south. Mugu District also borders Humla to the east.

The area of Humla District inhabited by ethnic Tibetans is shown in map 2.

3

Map 2. Humla Tibetan native territory

The main river in the region is the Humla Karnali Nadi, which crosses into Nepal at the western China-Nepal border at the town of Hilsa and flows southeast toward Simikot. From Simikot, the river runs south towards Mugu District. The Humla Tibetan communities are located to the east, north, and northwest of Simikot primarily along the trails leading to the China border.

1.4.1 East of Simikot

Two Humla Tibetan communities live in the VDCs just to the east of Simikot town. Map 3 presents these communities as they are situated in the district of Humla.

Map 3. Nyinba communities situated in Humla

4

Traveling east from Simikot, the first group is the Nyinba. The Nyinba live in Simikot VDC and Bargaun VDC. They are known as nyin yul tshan zhi ‘the four Nyin villages’ by other Humla Tibetans. The term nyin “refers both to daytime and the warm valleys on the south face of mountain slopes” (Levine 1988:21). In Nepali, the Nyinba cluster of villages is also known as bara-thapalya (Lama 2012:35) or barthapale (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270).

Nyinba inhabit villages between 9,500 feet (2,896m) and 11,000 feet (3,353m). This cluster begins about two kilometers east of Simikot and includes the villages of Trangshod (Buraungshe), Todpa (Turpa), Nyimatang (Limatang) and Barkhang (Baragaon – In this report we choose to use this spelling, in contrast to the spelling on map 3.). The hamlets of Madangkogpo, Langlo, and Wutig are also inhabited by Nyinba (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270; Levine 1988:21–23).

Then going east from the Nyinba area, following along to the north of the Chuwa Khola, one enters Thehe VDC. Then after passing through a few villages inhabited by non-Tibetan-speaking peoples, one arrives in the Tsang Valley, also known as Dojam. The inhabitants of Dojam are a separate group of Humla Tibetans called Tsangba or Dojami (Lama 2012:35).

1.4.2 Tugchulungba

Traveling northwest from Simikot the main trail follows the Humla Karnali Nadi (river) and passes through a number of villages inhabited by non-Tibetan-speaking peoples. The next group of Humla Tibetan villages north of Simikot is located near the Hepka Khola in Hepka VDC. Map 4 presents these villages as they are situated in the district of Humla.

Map 4. Tugchulungba communities situated in Humla

Some of the villages are also located near the Humla Karnali as it turns west into Khangalgaun VDC. This cluster of villages is called tugchulungba in Tibetan, meaning ‘the land of 60 rivers’, and sathikhole in Nepali (Lama 2012:35, 78–80). Wilde (2001:6) labels the language variety spoken in this area as La Yakpa. The Tugchulungba area includes seven main villages: Hepka (Yakpa), Tangin (Tangen), Dhinga, Chyaduk (Chyaduki), Jar Kholsi (Jadkholchi), Khangalgaon and Kermi2 (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270). The main trail from Simikot northwest to the Chinese border at Hilsa does not pass through any of the Tugchulungba villages except for Kermi. On the main trail from Kermi

2 In contrast, Wilde (2001) includes Kermi in the Upper Humla dialect area.

5

northwest to Hilsa, the villages are inhabited almost exclusively by ethnic Tibetans (Pritchard-Jones and Gibbons 2007:82‒86).

1.4.3 Yultsodunba

Following the Humli Karnali river northwest past Kermi, one reaches another group of Humla Tibetans known in Nepali as satthapale (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270) or sat thapalya and in Tibetan as yultshodunba, meaning ‘people from the cluster of seven villages’ (Lama 2012:35,80). The variety of Tibetan they speak has been named “Upper Humla” by Gurung (1979:103) and Wilde (2001:6). Map 5 presents the villages of the Yultsodunba as they are situated in the district of Humla.

Map 5. Yultsodunba communities situated in Humla

From southeast to northwest, the villages of Yalbang, Yanggar, and Muchu are situated along the Humli Karnali Khola ‘river’. After Muchu, the Humli Karnali turns north as the Yari Khola continues northwest past the villages of Tumkot (Tumo/Tumbo), Yari (East), and Yari (West). The seventh village, Chala, is located south of Yalbang along the Kwalungwa Khola. The trail to Chala climbs southeast from Muchu and crosses the Garsa and Syakup passes (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270, Wilde 2001:5–7).

The main trail from Simikot northwest to Hilsa follows the Humli Karnali until Muchu. Then it continues along the Yari Khola until just after Yari (West). At that point, the trail climbs up to the Nara Pass (4535m) and back down to the border town of Hilsa (3,600m).

1.4.4 Limi

At the border town of Hilsa, the main trail once again meets up with the Humla Karnali River. To reach the Limi-speaking villages from Hilsa, one must follow the Humla Karnali northeast until the Namka Pass (4300m). After Namka, the Humla Karnali turns southeast towards Muchu while the main trail to the Limi valley continues northeast following the Limi Khola. Map 6 presents the villages of Limi as they are situated in the district of Humla.

6

Map 6. Limi communities situated in Humla

According to Lama (2012:35), the Limi area is also known as limya or limyal. The three main Limi villages west to east are Til, Halji (Waltse), and Jang (Zang). All three villages are situated along the Limi Khola. Following the main trail from Hilsa, it takes approximately 12 to 15 hours3 to reach Halji, the largest Limi village (Limi Youth Club nd:1,4 [Nurpu Bhote, p.c. April 2011]).

The shortest route from Limi to Simikot starts at Jang and goes northeast along the Limi Khola and Tankchhe Khola until reaching the Tankchhe camp site (4,200m). From there the trail continues south and crosses a series of high passes: Nyalu (4,988m), Kui (4,790m), Sechi (4,540m) until entering the Tugchulungba area (Hepka VDC). This trail meets up with the main Humla Karnali trail at Tuling and then turns south into Simikot (Pritchard-Jones and Gibbons 2007:87–88). The short route from Jang to Simikot takes three to five days depending on the weather and the load, but it is impassable between mid-November and mid-April. In fact, all the routes from Limi to the rest of Nepal are impassable during the winter. However, there is access from Limi to the Purang region of Tibet all year round (Limi Youth Club n.d.:4–5).

1.4.5 Humli Khyampa areas

The nomadic Humli Khyampa reportedly maintain temporary winter settlements in districts south of the Karnali Zone (e.g., Surkhet and Achham). During the summer months, they take their animals to Humla and Purang to graze, at which time men engage in regional trading activities (Wilde 2001:6, Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:285). The Humli Khyampa areas were not a focus of the research. However, some questions were asked about the migration patterns and cultural practices of the Humli Khyampa when they were in Humla.

1.5 People and language

A few anthropological studies were conducted among Humla Tibetans in the 1970s and 1980s. Most of these focus on either Limi (Goldstein 1975) or Nyinba (Levine 1982 and 1988). A study of the Humli-Khyampas (called Dangali Khambas by Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:284–285) was conducted by

3 It seems that this estimate is for those not accustomed to high-altitude trekking. I have heard various shorter estimates for those who engage in high-altitude trekking on a regular basis.

7

Rauber (1980). More general cultural descriptions are found in Fürer-Haimendorf (1988:236–285), who provides a brief ethnographic survey of the Humla region with a focus on trade, and in Ross (1983), who discusses the changes in the cross-Himalayan salt trade. More recently Tshewang Lama (2012) has written about Humla Tibetans with a focus on his own ethnic group, the Nyinba. The Limi Youth Club published a non-academic magazine (Limi, the Hidden Valley) with cultural information on the Limi valley and Limi people. Although not officially dated, based on dates in the magazine and when the copy was presented, the guess is it was published around 2010. Astrid Hovden conducted her PhD research on the Limi valley. Her focus was on the relationship between the village and the monastery (2016). Martin Saxer (2013) published an article, Between China and Nepal: Trans-Himalayan Trade and the Second Life of Development in Upper Humla, which discusses the problems of benevolent development initiatives that do not produce the desired outcome. One problem he mentions is the use of Nepali instead of the local language for engaging communities. We hope this current research is a step towards figuring out in what ways development efforts can be more effective and relevant.

The only linguistic analysis of Humla Tibetan language varieties has been Chris Wilde’s phonology of the Limi variety (2001). He distinguishes five varieties, namely Limi, Upper Humla, La Yakba, Nyinba and possibly Humli Khyampa (Wilde 2001:5–7). No sociolinguistic studies are available. This section provides a brief introduction to the Humla Tibetan peoples and language varieties based on the available literature and informal interviews.

1.5.1 Demographics

Wilde (2001:5) estimates that there are approximately 4,000 to 5,000 Humla Tibetan speakers. Table 1 shows the population count according the 2011 census data (Central Bureau of Statistics 2014) plus an estimate of the Dojam population based on the interview with the leader in Dojam.

Table 1. Population count for Humla Tibetan

Geographic area/VDC Population in Census 2011

East of Simikot 738 (Bargaun VDC)

232 (Dojam – estimate based on interview with leader in Dojam – 58 houses times 4 people)

Tugchulungba 2,080 (Hepka and Khangalgaun VDCs) Yultsodunba 916 (Muchu VDC) Limi 904 (Limi VDC) Total: 4.870

Recent demographic information on Humli Khyampa is currently not available. In table 1, we might have missed some Humla Tibetans living in Simikot VDC. A rough estimate of the total Humla Tibetan population is then 5,000.

1.5.2 Social structure

Fürer-Haimendorf (1988:270) remarks that the feature that most clearly distinguished the Humla Tibetans from other Tibetan communities in Nepal is “their division into named clusters of villages of unequal status which affects the rules of intermarriage.” These clusters of villages roughly correspond to the varieties posited by Wilde (2001:8) and the sub-ethnic groups that Lama (2012:35) lists. (See section 1.4 for the names and locations of the main villages of each group). Table 2 shows the names of these clusters and their corresponding language variety and groups.

8

Table 2. Humla Tibetan clusters

Fürer-Haimendorf’s clusters Wilde’s language varieties Lama’s Groups Satthapale Upper Humla Yultsodunba

Syandephale La Yakpa Tugchulungba

Panchsati Barthapale Nyinba Bara-Thapalya

Limi Limi Limya(l)

There are two main differences between the analyses of Fürer-Haimendorf (1988) and Lama (2012): 1) Fürer-Haimendorf does not mention the Tsangba (Dojam) group and 2) the La Yakpa speaking area is divided into two groups by Fürer-Haimendorf (Syandephale and Panchsati), while Lama (2012) lists just one ethnic group for that area (Tugchulungba).

The Humli Khyampa are not part of this structure and are described as “a nomadic community of indeterminate status” (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270). In addition, Lama does not mention the Humli Khyampa as a sub-ethnic group of Humla Tibetans (2012:35).

It is possible that the Limi community, in general, is not familiar with the system of “named clusters of villages” described by Fürer-Haimendorf (1988:270). None of the Limi language assistants interviewed in Kathmandu were familiar with these “named clusters of villages”. We also asked about these cluster names in the interviews with village leaders during our field trips. We talk about this in section 4 (Ethnolinguistic Identity).

Regarding the rules of intermarriage, Fürer-Haimendorf states that there is a trend for people to marry within their own cluster. However, the Syandephale and Panchsati commonly intermarry. Another exception is that, in the Satthapale group, inhabitants of some villages intermarry but others typically do not. Also, the Satthapale villages of Muchu and Tumkot intermarry with Humli Khyampas, and the people of Limi traditionally intermarried with Purangba from just over the border in Tibet (although it seems this no longer happens) (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270).

Although Fürer-Haimendorf (1988:270) states that these are “clusters of villages of unequal status” he does not clearly state which clusters have higher status and which have lower status. But he does say that the Syandephale and the Panchsati (La Yakpa/Tugchulungba) view themselves as superior to the other groups. In contrast, Wilde (2001:9) states that Limi people consider other varieties of the Humla Tibetan language as “‘colloquial variations’, ‘slang forms’ or ‘dialects’ of Limi”.

Status distinctions not only relate to clusters of villages, they also pertain to clan or rhuba (literally ‘bone people’). While, in the Panchsati and Barthapale villages, clans are an important part of the identity of each person, in Yari (of Satthapale) and the villages of Limi which are closer to Tibet, named clans are not important. The rules of intermarriage in those northern areas are not based on clan, but rather approximate the conventions in Tibet (i.e., they are based on one’s male descent line; it is not possible to marry someone with a common male ancestor within three generations). (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:271; Levine 1988:37)

A further distinction in status can be found among Humla Tibetans in the form of a hierarchy of three classes: Takbu, Yokbu, and Gara. Most Humla Tibetans belong to the highest class, the Takbu. The Gara, who are traditionally blacksmiths, are the lowest class. Together, the Gara and Yokbu are labeled as lam-yok ‘those below the path’ while the higher class Takbu are called lam-bong, ‘those above the path’. This distinction comes from the traditional practice of the lower classes standing below the path to allow members of the Takbu to pass by above. The practical implication of this class hierarchy varies from village to village (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:271–272).

Lama (2012:40–45) describes a 10-level social hierarchy among the Nyinba. Arranged from highest rank to lowest rank the levels are shown in table 3.

9

Table 3. The 10-level social hierarchy of the Nyinba

Name of social rank English translation of social rank tsabi lama root spiritual teacher gansum senior village people drangri shaman priest dhami shaman or medium gadpo traditional political chief tso or nai ritual village chief dolga the lord of the theatre mikya commoners or lay people ama yondagmo patron mothers group rigngan or lohar blacksmiths

The majority of Nyinba people, however, are Mikya. There are two groups of Mikya: dagpo (master class) and yogpo (slave class); the latter are respectfully called khangjya (small householders).

1.5.3 Family structure and economics

The Tibetans of Humla have a strong preference for polyandrous households in which all the brothers of one family marry the same woman. This system interrelates with the economic system and division of labor between men and women. All Humla Tibetan communities depend on agriculture, animal husbandry, and trade for subsistence. While one or more men of a household travel for long periods of time to engage in long-distance trade and to move animals between summer and winter pastures, women are in charge of agricultural activities in the village (Limi Youth Club nd:13–14, 37, Levine 1988:3, Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:243–267).

1.5.4 Religion

Almost all Humla Tibetans practice Tibetan Buddhism in some form. The Limi follow the Drikung Kagyu sect of Tibetan Buddhism. The monasteries in Limi are connected to the Drikung Gongphur monastery in Purang county, Tibet (Purang is approximately a two-hour drive from the Tibetan village of Sher, located near the Nepal border) (Limi Youth Club nd:2, Pritchard-Jones and Gibbons 2007:86). In contrast, the Nyinba follow the Nyingmapa sect of Tibetan Buddhism (Levine 1988:22). During our trip to Humla in June 2012, we heard about a Nyingmapa monastery (Taglung Gompa) in Yalbang and a Sakyapa monastery in Tumkot. (Both of these villages are in Wilde’s Upper Humla language variety area or Lama’s Yultsodunba group.) This is in accordance with Lama’s (2012:84) statement: “(…) except for Tumkot Gompa and three villages of Limi of the Drikung Kagyu sect, Humla is under the influence of the Nyingmapa sect.”

1.5.5 Linguistic affiliation

Bradley (1997:5), van Driem (2001:856) and Lewis (2009) agree that Humla Tibetan is a Central Tibetan language. Denwood states:

Most of [the Tibetan dialects of Nepal] do fall within Bielmeier’s ‘southeastern transitional dialects’ and all appear to be non-cluster and at least partly tonal, though most of them also seem to be very similar to their immediate neighbours over the border in Tibet. (Denwood 1999:34)

Bradley subdivides Central Tibetan into a number of smaller groups. He puts Humla Tibetan into the Central mNgahris group of Central Tibetan along with Karmarong (Mugu District) and a number of Tibetan varieties spoken in western Tibet. The rest of the Tibetan languages of Nepal are classified as Central Tibetan, Central gTsang languages (Bradley 1997:5). It is unclear if this classification is based primarily on geography or on linguistic data.

10

1.5.6 Mutual intelligibility between varieties

According to Wilde’s (2001:7) seven language assistants, the five varieties of Humla Tibetan are mutually intelligible. However, Levine (1988:269) comments that the Nyinba variety is “...nearly unintelligible to other Humla Tibetans”. One Limi language assistant has stated that rongke (the varieties spoken between Yari and Kermi) is more similar to Limi than to the language of the Nyinba. Up to this point, no in-depth study of the degree of mutual intelligibility between Humla Tibetan varieties has been conducted. This research, however, hopes to clarify some of the questions.

1.5.7 Other languages

In addition to Humla Tibetan, a number of other languages are used in Humla. Humla Tibetans use Nepali, some form of Standard Spoken Tibetan, and Chinese for trade. Those who are literate are normally literate in Nepali or in written Tibetan (which is in a diglossic relationship with spoken Tibetan varieties in Tibet and northern Nepal). There are schools up to class five in all three major Limi villages. Oral teaching is in Limi by Limi people. Students learn to read and write in Tibetan4, Nepali, and English. Standard Nepali is being taught in all villages where we did our research (see the leader interviews). Humli Khasa (also called “village Nepali”, “the Humla dialect of Jumli”, and “Karnali”) and Byansi are also spoken in Humla (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:284 and Nurpu Bhote, p.c., Limi Youth Club n.d.:5). However, Lama states that the language and caste system of the Byansi people (also called byangpa) “is very kin to the Khasa” (Lama 2012:36).

2 Goals and methodology

In this section, we will cover the five goals and the research questions that go with them. The goal of this research project is to provide more detailed information about the Humla Tibetan situation in regard to: 1) language and dialect variation, 2) ethnolinguistic identity, 3) language vitality, 4) desires for development, and 5) seasonal migration. Then we will describe the methodology used for the research. First, we will look at the various research tools that we used: Wordlists, Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire (KIQ), Informal Interviews, Recorded Story Questions (RSQ), Observation Schedule, Dialect Mapping and Appreciative Inquiry. Finally, we describe the site selection and subject selection.

2.1 Goals and research questions

2.1.1 Goal 1: Language and dialect variation

Since there has not previously been any sociolinguistic research conducted among the Humla Tibetan communities, the first goal of this survey is to describe the primary dialect areas and investigate the relationships between them. To reach this goal, we formulated three research questions. The research questions are questions we try to have answered by using a variety of tools (described later in this section). The following research questions were used to reach this first goal (the tools used are listed in parentheses):

• What are the major varieties of Humla Tibetan? (wordlist, KIQ, informal interview, RSQ, Dialect Mapping)

• What attitudes do the Humla Tibetans have towards each language variety in their region? (KIQ, informal interview, RSQ)

• Which language variety is likely to be best understood by most Humla Tibetan speakers? (wordlist, informal interview, RSQ, Dialect Mapping)

4 One Limi language assistant has estimated that about 60 percent of Limi men can read and write Tibetan while only about 2 to 3 percent of Limi woman can read and write Tibetan.

11

2.1.2 Goal 2: Ethnolinguistic identity

In order to support the first goal, we looked at the ethnolinguistic identity of the Humla Tibetans. Ethnolinguistic identity can be a decisive force when it comes to acceptance of a certain variety as the basis for language development. This is why our second goal is to investigate whether Humla Tibetans see themselves as a cohesive language community or as being more broadly related. The following research questions supported this goal:

• Do Humla Tibetans see themselves as a cohesive language community? (KIQ, informal interview, RSQ)

• Do Humla Tibetans see themselves as a cohesive people group? (KIQ, informal interview, RSQ)

2.1.3 Goal 3: Language vitality

Another goal was to assess the language vitality of all the Humla Tibetan varieties. In relation to language vitality, we wanted to determine the EGIDS5 level of Humla Tibetan. We used the following research questions:

• What languages are used in various domains of life? (informal interview, observation schedule)

• What attitudes do Humla Tibetans have towards their own language and other languages in their region (Nepali and Tibetan)? (informal interview, observation schedule)

• To what degree is the mother tongue being passed on to the next generation? (informal interview, observation schedule)

• What are the population and group dynamics? (observation schedule) • Is there a network of social relations supportive of the targeted vernacular? (observation

schedule) • What is the relative prestige of the language within the speech community? (informal

interview) • Is there an acceptable economic base supportive of continuing use of the target language?

(observation schedule) • Is there an internal or external recognition of the language community as separate and

unique within the broader society? Is there material or non-material evidence for such a distinction? (KIQ, observation schedule)

2.1.4 Goal 4: Desires for development

The fourth goal is to understand each language community’s desires for their own language development and other types of development. For this we used these two research questions:

• What goals do the Humla Tibetan communities express for future language-based development? (KIQ, informal interview, Appreciative Inquiry)

• What goals do the Humla Tibetan communities express for other kinds of community-based development? (KIQ, informal interview, Appreciative Inquiry)

2.1.5 Goal 5: Seasonal migration

The final goal is to describe the seasonal migration patterns of people from each Humla Tibetan dialect area. We used the following research questions:

• In what seasons do Humla Tibetans leave their home areas? • Where do Humla Tibetans, from each language variety, go when they leave the area and how

long do they stay in each location?

5 See section 5 for more on EGIDS.

12

2.2 Methodology

The research for this report was conducted during three trips to Humla District. The first trip was in June 2012. The team consisted of Nurpu Bhote, David Greninger, Stephanie Eichentopf, and Klaas de Vries, all from Kathmandu. In Simikot, a local guide and language assistant joined us. The research was mostly done in Nepali. When necessary, Nurpu and our language assistant translated. Only in Til village did we use English with two men that helped with translation to and from the Til variety. In Til, we did not find many people who could speak Nepali well enough to communicate with us.

The second trip was in October 2012 with the same team, except that John Eppele joined us this time instead of Stephanie Eichentopf. The third trip was undertaken in June 2013 by David Greninger and his family, together with a couple of local guides. The bulk of this section describes the various tools we used during the first two trips. On the third trip only a couple of the tools were used to gather additional data.

2.2.1 Tools

Wordlists

• Purpose: The wordlists obtained are compared to estimate the degree of lexical similarity between the speech varieties the wordlists represent.

• Procedure: The wordlists were elicited in Nepali from mother-tongue speakers and were transcribed by the researchers using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). A lexical similarity analysis was carried out on each pair of wordlists. (See Appendix C for more on this procedure, the data, and the analysis regarding this tool.)

• Advantages: Data collection is relatively efficient. Wordlists can provide some broad insights into possible dialect groupings.

• Disadvantages: Above certain levels of lexical similarity, wordlists cannot give conclusive evidence of intelligibility between the speech varieties compared. If the lexical similarity is below 60 percent, this means that the varieties are probably not mutually intelligible. However, if the lexical similarity is above 60 percent, this does not automatically mean that the varieties are mutually intelligible. There are other characteristics of the language that could influence intelligibility. In the latter case, a more extensive tool for intelligibility testing is needed, such as the Recorded Text Test.

Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire (KIQ)

• Purpose: This is an interview outline specifically designed for someone the community views as the most knowledgeable regarding information about their language and community. This tool provides information from a reliable and knowledgeable source about the language. A secondary purpose for using a KIQ is to establish a relationship with an authority figure at the site. Ideally, this will lead to their assistance in finding subjects for the use of the other tools, or at least, ensure the cooperation of others.

• Procedure: It is administered to one person at a time and sometimes to a group. Questions should range from specific population estimates and locations to general information about language vitality and other languages spoken by the community. Because this tool can be used as a form of public relations, whenever possible, it should be administered the day of arrival at a new site. (See Appendix B for the questions and the data regarding this tool.)

• Advantages: The interviewee is seen by the community as most knowledgeable, therefore, providing the most accurate information the community has available. It is good for obtaining village-level facts.

• Disadvantages: Because this questionnaire is sometimes only administered to one individual, if the person best suited for the interview is unavailable, it will not be possible to administer it. Information is from only one person and therefore may be skewed to their particular view.

13

Informal Interviews

• Purpose: An interview schedule (based on the “Sociolinguistic Questionnaire A”, used by the Linguistic Survey of Nepal) will guide interaction in order to gather information regarding specific sociolinguistic issues, while allowing some freedom to wander from the schedule if it provides additional information relevant to the research questions of the survey, as long as the main questions were asked the same way, so that the answers of all respondents can be compared.

• Procedure: An example of this procedure would be asking, “What language do you usually speak with your children?” as on the interview schedule. If the interviewee responds with two or more languages, follow-up questions such as “Do you speak one of these languages more often than the other?” might be asked. This allows the interviews to place focus more on patterns of language use (and their impact on language vitality and shift) than on other topics, such as generalized trends of multilingualism. (See Appendix C for the questions and the data regarding this tool.)

• Advantages: Depending on the length of the questionnaire, the time foradministration can be minimal, allowing for a relatively large number of people to be interviewed. The somewhat informal nature of the interviews could help subjects feel comfortable and share openly, while allowing greater depth and providing context for their responses.

• Disadvantages: Informal interviews are limited in that subjects may only report what they want the researcher to hear, or what they believe the researcher would like to hear.

Recorded Story Questions (RSQ)6

• Purpose: Subjects listen to recorded stories, then answer questions about the stories. This helps in the assessment of the subject’s understanding of and attitudes toward actual samples of the language from various areas.

• Procedure: A narrative story is recorded from one place and played for subjects in other locations of the same dialect area to see if those subjects perceive it as representing their own style of speech. It is also played for people in other areas who are not told the story’s place of origin. After listening to each story, subjects answer questions about their understanding of and opinions toward the speech variety used by the story-teller. (See Appendix D for the questions and the data regarding this tool.)

• Advantages: Evaluates perceived understanding of and opinions toward actual samples of the language.

• Disadvantages: Decisions about dialect areas should not be based solely upon these responses. The responses are best used in conjunction with more complete intelligibility testing. Sometimes respondents have difficulty separating between their attitudes towards the speech variety in the story and their attitudes towards the content of the story.

Observation Schedule

• Purpose: A list of specific questions on the behavior of people and on certain man-made objects (material culture) are to be observed and the answers written in a journal at each site. These observations form the basis for a fuller description of the context of the research and could point to important sociolinguistic factors not covered by other tools.

• Procedure: Researchers intentionally observe each factor on the observation schedule, taking notes each day in each village visited. These observations are discussed and recorded in the log book for further analysis and comparison following their fieldwork. Two examples are: ‘What languages are used in various domains of life?’and ‘What evidence of communication technology is found in the village?’. (See Appendix E for the questions and the data regarding this tool.)

• Advantages: Provides a clear way to consistently record information on relevant sociolinguistic factors, to corroborate or question the findings of other methods used during the survey.

6 Information taken from “Bantawa: A Sociolinguistic Survey.” (Eppele 3003).

14

• Disadvantages: Observations may be limited by the researchers’ level of language proficiency and degree of cultural understanding. Other limitations are the relatively short time at each site and the time of year we visit.

Participatory Methods (PM)

We used two different PM tools: Dialect Mapping and Appreciative Inquiry (see Appendix F for the steps and the data regarding these tools). The purpose of using PM tools is to facilitate an interactive discovery process among community members so that insiders and outsiders will gain a better understanding of what the community’s views are about their language situation. It attempts to look at the emic (insiders’) view of the community, to use their language and categories to form a more complete picture. The PM tools in this survey were administered by two trained language assistants (Nurpu Bhote and another local guide). Instead of having bideshi (foreign) researchers do all the facilitating, these language assistants are better equipped to overcome language and cultural barriers. David Greninger also administered the tools. When paired with more traditional tools, PM tools can give valuable information for triangulation of data.

Dialect Mapping

• Purpose: This tool creates space for discussion of existing dialects, their geographic location, and the perceived levels of comprehension between varieties.

• Procedure: Participants are invited to describe their linguistic landscape by identifying other locations where their language is spoken. They then identify how great they perceive the differences to be between their variety and other varieties as well as their perceived level of understanding between speakers of their variety and speakers of other varieties, which variety they use in conversation with people from other areas, and which variety they believe to be the standard or most broadly understood.

• Advantages: Provides a visual representation of other communities; the participants interact with how well they understand them, how their own language may or may not be altered in these circumstances, and their attitudes toward other varieties.

• Disadvantages: May seem complicated or redundant.

Appreciative Inquiry

• Purpose: This tool helps community members dream of and discuss the possibilities for their language and other development issues for their village. It shows what the community sees as most important for their language and village.

• Procedure: Participants discuss aspects of their language situation, culture, or village that have made them happy or proud. They are then invited to think about how they might build upon these good things they have identified or identify dreams they have for their language or village. Next they discuss what dreams might be accomplished relatively soon and which ones will take longer. Then, they identify which dreams are most important to them.

• Advantages: Creates space and opportunity for community discussion of good things that are currently taking place, their goals, and dreams. It is very adaptable.

• Disadvantages: As with all participatory methods, this tool may be difficult to implement in contexts where there is formal and/or informal consolidation of power and authority within a community. It requires facilitators to have a strong command of the language and culture to provide effective group facilitation.

2.2.2 Site selection

Throughout the course of the three field trips, data was collected in eight Tibetan villages in Humla. These villages are each clearly denoted on map 7.

15

Map 7. Data collection sites

The informal interview and Appreciative Inquiry were done in six villages and the rest of the tools in seven villages. In the eighth village, Jang, only Appreciative Inquiry and the RSQ were administered. The eight villages were chosen on the basis of two villages for each probable dialect area. On the first trip, our main focus was on the Limi valley, because of its isolated location. Arriving in the first village, Til, from the west, we found out that there were two local men that spoke English very well and were willing to translate for us over a span of three full days. On our way to the Limi valley and back the same way, we conducted research in the villages of Kermi, Yalbang and Muchu. Kermi is part of the Lower Humla variety (see section 3 for details on dialect identification), and Yalbang and Muchu are part of the Upper Humla variety. In all of these villages except Til, Nurpu Bhote had already established good relationships with people.

On the second trip, our main focus was on the area east of Simikot. We conducted research in Bargaun, because it is a major village belonging to the Nyinba or Eastern Humla variety. We then stayed in Dojam, the most eastern Tibetan-speaking village in Humla District, to be able to conclude if all the Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla belong to the same language. After this, we again went west from Simikot to Hepka VDC. There we conducted research in Hepka village (also known as Yakpa). This is the main village for this area and from here a trail goes northwest to Limi. After Hepka, our team split into two groups. John Eppele, Klaas de Vries, and a local guide continued to Kermi village, to finish our research there from the first trip. Nurpu Bhote and David Greninger went back to Simikot, after completing the remaining research tools in Hepka.

The third trip again focused on the Limi valley, but this time coming from the east side. Because of snowfall, the team was not able to go to the middle village, Halji, but stayed in Jang where they conducted research. On their way back, they also visited Yalbang village again to collect additional data for the research. Through these three trips, we acquired a large body of data which we then analyzed.

In table 4, we have listed the villages, the different tools we used in each village and the date of the trip(s) we used them.

16

Table 4. Villages, tools, and time

Village Tools Used June 2012 October 2012 June 2013

Til Wordlist, informal interview, KIQ, RSQ (elicitation only), Observation Schedule, Dialect Mapping

X

Jang RSQ, Appreciative Inquiry X

Muchu Wordlist, informal interview, KIQ, RSQ, Observation Schedule, Dialect Mapping

X

Yalbang Wordlist, KIQ, RSQ, Observation Schedule, Dialect Mapping, Appreciative Inquiry

X

X

Kermi Wordlist, informal interview, KIQ, RSQ, Observation Schedule, Dialect Mapping, Appreciative Inquiry

X

X

Hepka Wordlist, informal interview, KIQ, RSQ, Observation Schedule, Dialect Mapping, Appreciative Inquiry

X

Bargaun Wordlist, informal interview, KIQ, RSQ, Observation Schedule, Dialect Mapping, Appreciative Inquiry

X

Dojam Wordlist, informal interview, KIQ, RSQ, Observation Schedule, Dialect Mapping, Appreciative Inquiry

X

2.2.3 Subject selection

Subject sampling for this survey was based on a convenience sample with quotas for different demographic groups. Our sampling focused on two demographic factors (gender and age) in each village, as these factors are known to influence language use and attitudes. People in these demographic groups often have varying levels of exposure to other languages. We also tried to have a quota of about six people who are educated and six who are not (class 5 and up being educated). Table 5 displays the quotas for each demographic factor.

Table 5. Sample size by age and gender

Age

Total 15–34 35–up

Gender Female 3 3 6 Male 3 3 6

Total: 6 6 12

This sampling method was used for the informal interviews and RSQ data collection7. Even so, there were no relevant differences in answers in relation to age and gender. In some sites, the ideal sampling was not reached. Therefore, in the data analysis we do not mention either age or gender. The sampling methods for wordlists, knowledgeable insider questionnaires, and participatory methods were different and will be described below.

7 The ideal sampling was not reached in some sites. In Muchu and Yalbang, the size and distribution were both a bit off. In Til, there was only one educated respondent, and we had two younger women instead of three, but the size was 13 instead of 12. In Hepka, we had 11 instead of 12 respondents. In Dojam, we had only three educated respondents, but the sample size was correct. In Jang, the distribution was a bit off.

17

Wordlists and RSQ Elicitation Subject Selection

There are four requirements for subjects chosen for the wordlists and the recorded story testing. These criteria are as follows:

1. The subject has grown up in the village under study8, lives there now, and, if he/she has lived elsewhere, it was not for a significant amount of recent time.9

2. The subject has at least one parent from the target mother tongue (L1). 3. The subject has at least one parent from the village under study and that parent spoke L1

with them. 4. The subject speaks L1 first and best.

The sampling for the wordlists was conducted as follows: We elicited a wordlist from one person or a group of people who met these four criteria and were also a good representation of the village or community.

If the subjects did not meet these criteria, we thanked them and looked for another person or group who fitted the criteria as well as our demographic factors for sampling.

Informal Interview Subject Selection

The informal interview schedule (or sociolinguistic questionnaire) requires that only criteria numbers one and two (above) need to be met in order for a subject to be eligible for responding to the questionnaire. See Appendix C for the questions on the informal interview that evaluate these criteria. In each village, we used convenience sampling and the two screening criteria to interview at least 12 people.

RSQ Subject Selection

The subjects chosen for listening to and responding to the RSQ should meet the first three criteria. In each site, we administered the RSQ to at least 12 people.

KIQ Subject Selection

For each site, a knowledgeable insider was chosen for this questionnaire. This person was viewed by the community as the group leader or person of importance. The community was best equipped to direct us to the correct person for this questionnaire. In all cases, this person was male, elderly, and more educated in comparison to others in the village.

Participatory Method Subject Selection

Appreciative Inquiry and Dialect Mapping are participatory methods tools which provide data from an emic perspective within a community. The tools are administered to community groups; there was no limit on how many people could be involved. A mixture of the same three demographic groups (gender, age, and education) provides the best results. There is no screening process for those involved in Participatory Methods; however, notes were taken regarding who was present in order to account for possible biases. In many places it was not possible to reach an ideal group with all the demographic groups represented in a somewhat even way. See Appendix F for the notes taken during the facilitations.

8 The person for the Yalbang story did not officially grow up in Yalbang, but in Yari, a two-hour walk from Yalbang. But for the last 40 years he lived in Yalbang, and the Home Town Testing went perfectly. 9 It is difficult to define a time period (e.g., for more than the last five years). Therefore, this criterion is intentionally subjective as it depends on how long the subject lived elsewhere and how long they have been back in the village relative to their age.

18

3 Dialect variation

In this section, we will focus on dialect variation, attitudes toward other dialects, and the identification of a possible central dialect. The section is presented going from the broad perspective to the more specific. First we will look at the language and dialect situation as we find it through the different methods mentioned in section 2. (We have not used the observation schedule and the Appreciative Inquiry tool for this section, because they are not intended, or that useful, for the research questions we try to answer in this section.) We then look at what kind of dialect groupings emerge out of the analysis (answering Research Question 1). Following this, we will analyze the attitudes people in the different villages have toward the proposed dialect groups we identified in the first section (answering Research Question 2). Section 3 concludes with discussing dialect intelligibility. This will help in decision-making for future language development (answering Research Question 3).

3.1 Dialect and language identification

3.1.1 Interview results

During the informal interviews and the interviews done with the leaders of the villages, we asked the name of their language. We also asked the leaders about the names of the languages spoken in other villages. The respondents were clear about the language spoken in the three villages in the Limi valley: Til, Jang, and Halji. They call it ‘Limi’ or limi khalu or limi lap ‘Limi language’. Four out of six leaders call the language spoken in Bargaun ‘Nyinba’. For the rest of the villages, the name of the language spoken in those villages, according to the respondents, is mostly one of the following broader terms: Phot, Phoka, Phoket, Bhote, Lama, Kham, Orde lap, or Tibetan. For Muchu we also find these terms: Sakyako bhasa and Tukchu bhasa. The leader of Dojam also mentioned Tsangkat as a name for their language variety. The Kermi leader called his own language Sarak Khalu. The varieties spoken by Tibetan villagers in Humla do not have one distinctive name that comprises all varieties. In this section, I will refer to the different varieties spoken in Humla as follows: ‘the X variety’ or ‘the variety spoken in X’ with X being a village name. Later on the dialect names, as stated in section 3.1.3 (Dialect Mapping Results), will also be used.

We asked the leaders if they think the language spoken in other villages is the same as theirs. A general tendency in the answers is that the farther villages are removed geographically from each other, the less similar the varieties are said to be. Another conclusion from the answers given by the people through informal interviews was that people mostly say they speak the same language as the other Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla. They call it the same language, but they say it is spoken a bit differently in every village. The exception to this was the village of Til. In Til, people saw their variety as much more distinct. Also, their perceived linguistic connection with the variety spoken across the border in Purang County, China is quite strong. For example, the majority of the respondents in Til would not change their language to accommodate talking with people from Purang and would understand the language spoken in Purang, even when two people of Purang spoke quickly with each other.

In general, the respondents use their own variety in talking to people from other villages, though sometimes they will change it a bit. This shows that subjects perceive that there is a fairly high degree of comprehension between the different Tibetan varieties within Humla. This again underlines the statement that the varieties could be seen as one language, even though it is spoken a bit differently in every village.

We asked the leaders if the cluster names10, described by Fürer-Haimendorf (1988:270), are still in use. In Bargaun, they seem to be familiar with the names, though they said the cluster names are not in use anymore. In Kermi, they mentioned the cluster name for the villages in their own area that sounded like what Lama (2012) uses, namely Tugchulungba (Kholsi) and they had heard of other cluster names such as Barthapale and Satthapale. Now the clustering is described more often through VDC (Village Development Committee) names. For example, people would say Muchu cluster (Muchu being both a village name and a VDC name) instead of ‘Satthapale’.

10 See section 1.5.2 Social Structure for a description of cluster names.

19

3.1.2 Lexical similarity results

Wordlists can be analyzed to measure lexical similarity. Lexical similarity is a measure of the relative similarity of a sample of words from two speech varieties. Similarity percentages are determined by calculating the percentage of words in one speech variety that are pronounced the same way or in a very similar way to the words in another speech variety. This survey used the comparison method outlined in Blair (1990:31–32). It is generally accepted that lexical similarity percentages below 60 percent indicate that the compared lists represent different languages (Blair 1990:23). Lexical similarity above 60 percent requires intelligibility testing to confirm if the varieties are dialects of the same language or if they are different languages. This survey compares seven 212-item wordlists (see Appendix A).

Map 8 presents the seven villages where wordlists were collected. Sites are denoted with a square.

Map 8. Wordlist collection sites

The lexical similarity percentages among the seven Humla wordlists are displayed in table 6.

Table 6. Lexical similarity percentages matrix

Til 79% Muchu 79% 87% Yalbang 82% 83% 85% Kermi 82% 82% 79% 88% Hepka 77% 75% 77% 79% 82% Bargaun 74% 75% 73% 76% 77% 79% Dojam

Table 6 shows that lexical similarity percentages vary from the most similar (88%) between Kermi and Hepka to the least similar (73%) between Yalbang and Dojam. No comparison falls below the cutoff of 60 percent where they would be considered separate languages. Kermi has the highest average lexical similarity with all varieties, and Dojam the lowest.

The lexical similarity percentages between the wordlists from Til, Muchu, Yalbang, Kermi, and Hepka range from 79 to 88 percent similar. The differences in similarity between the wordlists from these sites are slight. We can note that the similarity between both Til and Muchu and Til and Yalbang is 79 percent. The similarity between both Til and Kermi and Til and Hepka is 82 percent.

20

Travel patterns may play some part in the slight variation in lexical similarity between these geographic areas. People from the Limi valley travel either to Purang directly, without travelling through other Humla villages, or to Simikot, going the shortest route, that is, going east and south from Jang, crossing the Nyalu pass, and thereby travelling through Hepka or Kermi to Simikot. Also, we have met people from Kermi and Hepka who let their animals graze higher up towards the Limi valley. This could indicate that they have more contact with people from Limi.

The lower lexical similarity percentages between Dojam and all other villages, and to a slightly lesser degree Bargaun and all other villages, mean that the speech varieties in Dojam and Bargaun are the most lexically variant. This could have something to do with the history of migration and the stronger influence of neighboring villages where some sort of Nepali is spoken. Also, geographically Dojam is at the far eastern side of the Humla Tibetan-speaking area. This form of isolation could be a major reason for the variance in percentages. With 79 percent lexical similarity, the Dojam variety is most similar with the Bargaun variety.

3.1.3 Dialect-Mapping results

Dialect Mapping was conducted in seven villages throughout the Humla Tibetan-speaking area. Only in Til did people not name the Eastern Humla area as part of the same language Tibetan people speak in Humla District. In all the other villages, people usually identify the same areas, VDCs and villages as comprising the Tibetan-speaking areas of Humla (see Appendix F). Geographically this makes sense. People from Til live a long distance from the Eastern Humla area. Additionally, the seasonal migration patterns of people from Til shed light on their views. Their business is mostly with Tibetan people on the other side of the border with China and when they do come east, they just go to Simikot to catch a plane to Kathmandu. For this reason, they rarely interact with people from the Eastern Humla dialect area.

In studying all the information obtained using the Dialect-Mapping tool that we used in seven villages, we can identify roughly four dialect areas within the Humla Tibetan-speaking area. See Appendix F for the summary of the data that we collected through using this tool. In map 9, the dialect groups have been indicated.

Map 9. Humla dialect groupings

The names of the dialect groups are printed red. Dialect Mapping research sites are Til, Muchu, Kermi, Yakpa (Hepka), Bargaun (Barkhang), and Dojam. The following are the four dialect groups:

• Limi dialect (to the north, including Til, Halji, and Jang) • Upper Humla dialect (from Yari to Yalbang)

21

• Lower Humla dialect (from Kermi to Kholsi to Tanggin) • Eastern Humla dialect (from Burangse to Dojam).

We use the name ‘Upper Humla’ as used by Gurung (1979:103) and Wilde (2001:6). Instead of using ‘La Yakpa dialect’, I have chosen ‘Lower Humla dialect’, because there are slight differences in what people mean when they use the term Yakpa and that influences their attitudes significantly. Although other people have chosen ‘Nyinba’ as the dialect name for the most Eastern dialect (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270; Levine 1988:21–23; Wilde 2001:6), I chose ‘Eastern Humla dialect’ as the name. I did this because the ethnic Tibetan village of Dojam doesn’t fit into the ‘Nyinba’ group and neither does the partially ethnic Tibetan village of Baji Bada. Both villages are referred to as Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla by people in Bargaun and Dojam. According to the leader of Dojam, only the variety spoken in Bargaun is the same as theirs and only when talking to people from Bargaun would they use their own variety, instead of trying to change to the other variety.

We chose these dialect names purely for sociolinguistic purposes. The communities may not necessarily agree with the names we have chosen. But these names provide a way to talk about the language relationships among Tibetan varieties in Humla.

3.1.4 Recorded Story Questions (RSQ) results

In using the RSQ (see Appendix D for the questions), we found out what people think about certain speech varieties. While listening to the stories, they are not told which variety they are listening to. After listening to a story, we asked whether the language spoken in the story is ‘the same’ as their variety, ‘a little different’ or ‘very different’. This primarily measures perceived comprehension. We used stories from the following villages:

• Til (representing the Limi dialect) • Yalbang (representing the Upper Humla dialect) • Bargaun (representing the Eastern Humla dialect) • (On an extra trip that was done in 2013, a story from Kermi was used, representing Lower

Humla dialect. We let people in Jang [Limi dialect] listen to it.)

Looking at the answers to the RSQ, we can conclude that the more geographically distant the villages are from each other, the more different they find each other’s varieties to be. The responses, however, were never completely ‘very different’ or ‘the same’. So, although there is considerable variety in the ways of speaking, they don’t seem different enough to call them separate languages.

Table 7 shows the responses after listening to the story from Til on question 5 on the RSQ: Is the language in this story the same, a little different, or very different from the language spoken here?

Table 7. How similar is your language to that in the Til story?

N= Same A little different Very different Dojam 12 8% 42% 50% Bargaun 12 - 58% 42% Hepka 12 8% 92% - Kermi 22 14% 82% 4% Yalbang 10 20% 80% - Muchu 10 10% 90% - Jang 12 100% - -

Listening to the story from Til, half of the respondents in Dojam (the farthest from Til) say it is ‘very different’ and 42 percent in Bargaun said the same thing. The majority of respondents say it is ‘a little different’. Twenty percent of respondents in Hepka say the language spoken in the Til story is ‘the same’ language as theirs. The conclusion is that the nearer the village, the greater the perceived comprehension.

22

Table 8 shows the responses after the story from Yalbang to the same question.

Table 8. How similar is your language to that in the Yalbang story?

N= Same A little different Very different Kermi 22 23% 77% - Hepka 12 8% 92% -

Jang 12 - 92% (one respondent did not answer) -

Bargaun 12 - 83% 17% Dojam 10 - 50% 50%

Listening to the story from Yalbang, the same picture appears; the farther away, the lower the perceived comprehension. In Kermi, the nearest village to Yalbang, 25 percent of the people say the language of the Yalbang story is ‘the same’. People from Kermi, Hepka and Jang never answered ‘very different’. A couple of people in Bargaun said the language was ‘very different’ (17%), but Dojam (the village farthest away), stands out with half of the people answering ‘very different’.

Table 9 shows the responses after the story from Bargaun on the same question.

Table 9. How similar is your language to that in the Bargaun story?

N= Same A little different Very different Jang 12 - 83% 17% Hepka 12 - 100% - Dojam 12 33% 42% 25% Kermi 12 25% 42% 33%

Listening to the story from Bargaun, two respondents in Jang answered ‘very different’ and the rest answered ‘a little different’. All the respondents in Hepka answered ‘a little different’, while people in Dojam and Kermi answered almost the same; five said ‘a little different’. This adds support to the conclusion that the varieties are different, but still partly comprehensible throughout all Tibetan villages in Humla.

On the third trip to Humla, in 2013, a story from Kermi was played for people in Jang, Limi District. Most respondents (75%) answered that the language used in the story was ‘a little different’. Additionally, 17 percent answered ‘very different’, while only 8 percent said ‘the same’. This data also supports the overall image of slight differences between the varieties, but still comprehensible.

We also asked what the difference might be between the language they speak and the language of the story. The most common answer was ‘style’, with ‘words’ not far behind.

3.1.5 Summary of dialect and language identification

To summarize this section on dialect and language identification, it seems there are enough reasons and supporting data to say that the different speech varieties among the Tibetan-speaking villages of Humla District could be seen as dialects of the same language. People call the speech varieties the same language, spoken a bit differently in each village.

Through Dialect Mapping, we can conclude that there are roughly four dialect groupings that can be distinguished. From northwest to southeast: 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). The Humla Tibetan varieties form a dialect chain, with the villages farthest apart (Dojam and Til)having more trouble understanding each other.

Using the RSQ data, the same picture emerges: the more geographically distant the villages are from each other, the more different they find each other’s varieties. The varieties seem to be different but are still partly comprehensible throughout all the Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla.

The dialect groupings that were identified through Dialect Mapping are in agreement with the lexical similarity data. The two highest similarity percentages are between villages that also come up in the Dialect Mapping as the same dialect groupings: 87 percent between Yalbang and Muchu(Upper Humla dialect) and 88 percent between Hepka and Kermi (Lower Humla dialect). Additionally,

23

Dojam had the highest similarity percentage with Bargaun, representing the Eastern Humla dialect. Til stands on its own representing the Limi dialect. The lexical similarity results underline the fact that there is considerable variance between speech varieties in Humla, but the lexical similarity is close enough to consider the varieties the same language. On its own, the lexical similarity data do not make a real strong case for these specific dialect groupings, but together with the other data collected, the lexical similarity data supports the dialect groupings identified.

We distinguished different dialects among the Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla District and concluded that they should be seen as part of the same language. Section 3.2 will focus on the attitudes people have toward the different dialects.

3.2 Dialect attitudes

In this section, we will look at the attitudes people have toward their own and other dialects. We use the data from interviews and RSQs to arrive at our conclusions. We will start with some general conclusions on a district level. After that, we will focus on the attitudes people have toward the different dialects we described in the section above.

We asked several questions in the informal interviews that show something about the attitude people have toward people who do not speak the same variety. One of these questions related to how they would feel if their son or daughter married someone that did not speak their variety. With more than half of the respondents answering that it would be bad, and only 21 percent saying that it would be good, there seems to be an overall negative attitude toward marrying someone who does not speak the same variety.

We asked what people think about the varieties spoken in these seven villages: Til (Limi dialect), Muchu (Upper Humla dialect), Khangalgaun (Lower Humla dialect), Hepka (Lower Humla dialect), Bargaun(Eastern Humla dialect), and Dojam (Eastern Humla dialect). In general, the varieties spoken in Muchu and Khangalgaun are most liked by others. And the variety spoken in Hepka is least liked (with almost a third of the people saying it is ‘not good’). The other questions in the interview that looked at attitudes were: ‘Where is your mother tongue spoken best and most badly?’ and ‘In the whole of Humla, in your opinion, where do people speak the best and most badly?’ Most respondents named their own village as where their mother tongue is spoken best. When they didn’t name their own village, they named a village not far away. Most often they named a village higher up, closer to the border with China. Looking at the whole of Tibetan-speaking Humla, they most frequently named their own village as where people speak the best.

In Bargaun, the respondents named the language spoken in Dojam as the most badly spoken variety. People from Dojam and Hepka named different villages all over Humla as where the language is spoken worst. The respondents in the other four villages named the language spoken in Hepka as the worst. If they did not mention Hepka, they named a village farther to the east.

In summary, generally people’s attitudes toward their own language variety are most positive, while their attitudes toward other varieties are more negative when the distance is greater and the villages are more to the east. One exception to this is the overall negative attitude toward Hepka.

3.2.1 Attitudes toward the Limi dialect

Now we will look specifically at the attitudes shown toward the Limi dialect. In general, attitudes toward the Limi dialect are very positive. The people from Bargaun and Dojam show some negative attitudes. People from other villages seem to marry people from Limi. People from Kermi marry people from Limi but do not marry their neighbors from Hepka and Muchu. This shows a positive attitude toward Limi only.

24

Table 10 shows the responses after the story from Til on question 2 on the RSQ: How did you like his/her speech?

Table 10. How did you like the speech in the Til story?

N= Good Fine Bad Dojam 12 25% 67% 8% Bargaun 12 42% 42% 16% Hepka 12 92% 8% - Kermi 22 64% 36% - Yalbang 10 70% 30% - Muchu 10 80% 20% - Jang 12 92% - 8% Total/Average 90 65% 30% 5%

Listening to the story from Til, only 5 percent of the respondents answered negatively. Only people from Bargaun, Dojam, and Jang answered negatively. Among people tested in Kermi, 64 percent were positive, in Yalbang 70 percent were positive, in Muchu 80% were positive and both in Hepka and Jang 92 percent were positive.

When asked how they would like it if their son or daughter married someone that spoke like the person spoke in the story from Til, people from Yalbang, Muchu, and Hepka answered very positively. Half the people in Kermi answered negatively. In Dojam, 38 percent responded negatively, and in Bargaun the majority (75%) expressed negative attitudes.

3.2.2 Attitudes toward the Upper Humla dialect

We turn now to examining the attitudes toward the Upper Humla dialect. Overall, the attitudes toward the Upper Humla variety are mixed. The attitudes of people from the Limi and Eastern Humla dialects are generally more negative, while attitudes from Lower Humla are mixed, leaning more toward positive attitudes. Leaders from Limi and Bargaun responded negatively toward marrying people outside their VDC, and also toward marrying people from the Upper Humla dialect. People from Kermi do not marry people from Muchu. People from Dojam do not hold positive attitudes toward the Upper Humla variety while people from Hepka do.

Table 11 shows the responses after the story from Yalbang on the same question (#2 on the RSQ).

Table 11. How did you like the speech in the Yalbang story?

N= Good Fine Bad Kermi 22 86% 14% - Hepka 12 83% 17% - Jang 12 67% 25% 8% Bargaun 12 42% 42% 16% Dojam 12 17% 83% - Total/Average 70 63% 33% 4%

When listening to the Yalbang story, people from Kermi (86% of respondents) and Hepka (83% of respondents) answered very positively, people from Jang (67% of respondents) relatively positively, while people from Bargaun (42% of respondents) and Dojam (17% of respondents) answered considerably less positively. When asked how they would like it if their son or daughter married someone that spoke like the person in the Yalbang story, a majority of people in Kermi (over 80%) and Hepka (67%) were positive. In Jang, 42 percent responded negatively. In Bargaun, 66 percent responded negatively, while 17 percent of the respondents in Dojam were negative.

25

3.2.3 Attitudes toward the Lower Humla dialect

The attitudes toward Lower Humla seem positive overall. However, including the specific attitudes shown toward Hepka (a village of the Lower Humla dialect) attitudes seem mixed at best. Leaders from Limi and Bargaun responded negatively toward marrying people outside their VDC, and also toward marrying people from the Lower Humla dialect. People we interviewed from Muchu and Yalbang have positive attitudes toward the Lower Humla dialect. People we interviewed in Dojam were positive toward the Hepka variety. Looking at the answers given to the question ‘How do you like the way people from Khangalgaun speak?’, over half of the respondents (52%) were positive, and the rest were indifferent. One sentiment (from Kermi) is that Tibetans call their language Rongba Bhasa, which means ‘lowlander language’. This label has a negative connotation.

Table 12 shows the responses after the story from Kermi on the same question (#2 on the RSQ).

Table 12. How did you like the speech in the Kermi story?

N= Good Fine Bad Jang 12 83% 17% -

When listening to the Kermi story, 83 percent of the respondents in Jang said they think the language is ‘good’.

When asked how they would like it if their son or daughter married someone that spoke like the person in the Kermi story, half of the people responded negatively. Looking at the answers to both questions, this negative attitude seems to have to do more with marriage rules than with accepting the dialect. Further research into the attitudes towards the Lower Humla dialect (through, for example, the story from Kermi) would be helpful to give a more complete picture.

3.2.4 Attitudes toward the Eastern Humla dialect

Lastly we look at attitudes toward the Eastern Humla dialect. Although the data is less extensive, the attitudes toward the Eastern Humla dialect seem to be mixed. The closer the respondents are to the dialect geographically, the more positive their attitudes were. People from other villages seem to marry people from Bargaun. People in Dojam are positive toward the Bargaun variety. However, people from Hepka had negative attitudes toward the Bargaun variety, but positive attitudes toward all the others.

Table 13 shows the responses after the story from Bargaun on the same question (#2 on the RSQ).

Table 13. How did you like the speech in the Bargaun story?

N= Good Fine Bad Jang 12 75% 25% - Hepka 12 92% 8% - Dojam 12 83% 17% - Kermi 12 42% 58% - Total/Average 48 73% 27% -

People from four other villages listened to the story from Bargaun. People from Hepka (92% of respondents) and Dojam (83% of respondents) answered very positively, and the majority (75% of respondents) from Jang also answered positively. In Kermi the majority of respondents (58%) answered neutrally.

When asked how they would like it if their son or daughter married someone that spoke like the person in the story from Bargaun, respondents in Dojam were the most positive (83%), and the majority (66%) in Hepka were also positive. In Kermi, 33 percent of the respondents reacted negatively and 42 percent reacted positively.

26

3.2.5 Summary of dialect attitudes

To summarize this section on dialect attitudes, we see that attitudes vary toward the different dialects. Attitudes toward the Limi dialect are mostly positive, while attitudes toward the variety spoken in Hepka (part of the Lower Humla dialect) are mostly negative. The attitudes toward the Upper Humla and Lower Humla dialects, as well as toward the Eastern Humla dialect are very mixed. When we looked only at Kermi and not Hepka for the attitudes toward the Lower Humla dialect, a much more positive image appears.

The last section on intelligibility completes the picture of dialect variation and gives input into which dialect or dialects would most widely serve future language development.

3.3 Dialect intelligibility

This section discusses dialect intelligibility. The data presented here will provide insight into which dialects could be used as central dialects on which to base future language development. We have used the Recorded Story Question11 (RSQ) method which measures perceived intelligibility. To have a more precise and detailed picture of intelligibility among the Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla District, RTT (Recorded Text Test) testing is needed. However, the RSQs, interview questions and Dialect Mapping, are sufficient methods for the goals of this survey.

In the interviews, we asked people if they had met people from the other villages in Humla. The majority of people have met people from all other villages, except for a majority in Til, who have not met people from Khangalgaun and Bargaun. To respondents who did meet people from other villages, we asked how much they understand when people from a particular village speak to each other using fast speech. We also asked people, after listening to one of the three stories from Til, Yalbang, and Bargaun, how much they understood of the story. And, during Dialect Mapping, we asked two questions that measure intelligibility: ‘If books were written in your village variety, which villages would be able to use those books?’ and ‘Out of all these you have grouped together, which variety should be used as the one for writing so that all the others will understand it well? If that one could not be used, then which one?’ The data gathered from using these tools will be presented below by dialect.

3.3.1 Intelligibility of Limi dialect

The perceived intelligibility of the Limi dialect is relatively high. For some people from the other villages, the Limi dialect is one of the best options to use for writing books. Even when people from Kermi named the Limi dialect as the least best option for writing books, they seemed to understand the Limi dialect very well. This means that the Limi dialect seems to have the potential to be used and accepted by a relatively large portion of the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla.

Table 14 shows the answers given to question 43 on the informal interview: When people from Limi speak with each other fast how much do you understand?

Table 14. How much do you understand the Limi variety?

N= All Most Half Only a little

None

Dojam 9 22% - 44% 22% 11% Bargaun 8 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% 25% Hepka 12 67% - 33% - - Kermi 11 18% 36% 9% 27% 9% Muchu 8 87.5% 12.5% - - - Total/Average 48 42% 16.5% 21% 12.5% 8%

11 The RSQ is a derivative of the post-RTT questions. Post-RTT questions are part of the RTT method. See Carla F. Radloff (1993) ‘Post-RTT questions for interpreting RTT scores’ for more details. The RSQ has been used in sociolinguistic research in India (Eppele, Maggard and Waugh 2000) and Nepal (Eppele 2003).

27

The majority of respondents from the interviews (58.5%) said they understand ‘all’ or ‘most’ of the Limi variety of speech.

After listening to the story from Til, 77 percent or higher of respondents said they understood the entire story. The exceptions to this were people from Bargaun and Dojam. In those two locations, less than half of the respondents understood all (42% in Bargaun and 33% in Dojam). According to the people from Til, all villages that were mentioned (not including the Eastern Humla dialect area) could profit from books written in their dialect.

People from Muchu mention the Limi dialect as the third best option (after the Upper and Lower Humla dialects) for use in writing books for Humla. In Kermi, the Limi dialect is seen as the least good option. In Bargaun, they choose the Limi dialect as the best dialect to base book-writing on. In Dojam, they put the Limi dialect as the last option, and in Hepka, people chose the Limi dialect after their first choice of Upper Humla.

3.3.2 Intelligibility of Upper Humla dialect

The perceived intelligibility of the Upper Humla dialect is, generally speaking, somewhat low. The trend seems to be that the closer geographically, the higher the intelligibility. This makes using the Upper Humla dialect for language development only desirable for a smaller segment of the Tibetan-speaking villages of Humla.

When asked how much they understand people from Muchu talking quickly with each other, the majority said they understand half’ or ‘less than half’, except for people from Hepka and Dojam, who said they would understand much more. Listening to the story from Yalbang, the majority understand all or most of the story. In general, the more distance between the villages, the less people understand each other. According to the people from Muchu, all Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla would understand books written in their dialect.

People from Kermi chose the Upper Humla dialect as the second best option for writing books, after their own dialect. In Til, they named the Upper Humla dialect after Purang (on the other side of the Chinese border) and Limi dialect. In Bargaun, the Upper Humla dialect was mentioned as the least good option. In Dojam, people named the Upper Humla dialect after their own dialect and the Lower Humla dialect. And, in Hepka, the Upper Humla dialect was only mentioned as the last option.

3.3.3 Intelligibility of Lower Humla dialect

The perceived intelligibility of the Lower Humla dialect is mixed. One village (Kermi) in this dialect area got the highest percentage of perceived intelligibility by all the others, while the other (Hepka) got the lowest percentage. This is probably caused by strong negative attitudes toward the Hepka village in particular. When the percentage for that village is not considered, the intelligibility of the Lower Humla dialect seems to be rather high, almost as high as the Limi dialect. This suggests that language development based on the Kermi, or Khangalgaun, variety could possibly have the most widely spread reach among the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla.

The variety spoken in the village of Khangalgaun got the highest percentage on the question of whether or not people would understand two people speaking quickly with each other. The general outcome was that 80 percent of the people said they understand all or most. This data is a bit skewed, because we asked relatively more people in Kermi this question than in other places, and Kermi is close to Khangalgaun. At the same time, the village of Hepka generally got the lowest percentage, with only 56 percent of people saying they understand all or most. Added to this, listening to the story from Kermi, only half of the respondents in Jang said they understood ‘all’. According to people from Kermi and Hepka, all Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla would understand books written in their variety.

People in Muchu named the Lower Humla dialect as the best option after their own dialect for writing books. For people in Til, the Lower Humla dialect is their worst option. In Bargaun, people chose the Lower Humla dialect only after the Limi dialect and their own dialect. People from Dojam named the Lower Humla dialect after their own dialect. People from Hepka named villages close to them as the first option, next the Limi dialect and only then other villages that seem to be part of their own dialect.

28

3.3.4 Intelligibility of Eastern Humla dialect

The perceived intelligibility of the Eastern Humla dialect is mixed. It seems only some of the Humla villages would be able to use books written in this dialect.

When asked, the majority of people say they understand all or most of the speech variety in Bargaun. Only people from three villages listened to the story from Bargaun. Almost all people from Dojam and Hepka said they understood the entire story. Among respondents in Kermi, 33 percent understand only half or less. According to people from Bargaun, all Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla would understand books written in their variety.

People from Muchu did not mention the Eastern Humla dialect at all when asked to name the varieties that could be used for writing books. In Kermi, the Eastern Humla dialect was mentioned last. In Til, the Eastern Humla dialect was not even on the dialect map they created. In Bargaun, they named the Limi dialect first before they named their own. In Dojam, they named the Eastern Humla dialect first and, in Hepka, the Eastern Humla dialect was chosen last.

3.3.5 Summary of dialect intelligibility

To summarize this section on dialect intelligibility, we see that the perceived intelligibility of the different dialects varies quite a bit. We measured perceived intelligibility which we think is sufficient for one of the goals of this survey, that is, to be able to make an informed decision regarding where to base future language development.

In choosing the best variety or dialect for language development purposes, we tried to discover which variety could be used to cover all the varieties. If there is such a variety, it would mean more effective language development work. In sociolinguistics, this variety is called the central dialect.

The perceived intelligibility of the Limi dialect has the widest geographic reach. It is understood by most of the people in the villages of the Upper and Lower Humla dialects. It is less understood by people from Bargaun and Dojam, but people from Bargaun would still choose the Limi dialect before their own when asked which dialect would be best for written material development.

The intelligibility of the Upper Humla dialect is a bit low, and the intelligibility of the Lower Humla dialect is mixed. Especially considering the overall negative attitude toward some villages in the Lower Humla dialect group, neither dialect seems to be best in terms of future language development, although one of the village varieties in the Lower Humla dialect that is perceived quite positively could be considered to base future language development on.

The intelligibility of the Eastern Humla dialect is high for people from Dojam and Hepka, but much less so for other dialects and villages in Humla.

3.4 Summary of dialect variation

Section 3 has had three main focuses: dialect and language identification, dialect attitudes, and dialect intelligibility. In 3.1, we concluded that the different speech varieties among the Tibetan-speaking villages of Humla District should be seen as dialects of the same language. Four dialects were 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). Another conclusion was that the more geographically distant villages are from each other, the more different they find each other’s speech variety. The varieties seem to be different but are still partly comprehensible throughout all Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla.

In 3.2, we saw that the attitudes toward the Limi dialect are mostly very positive, while attitudes toward the variety spoken in Hepka (part of the Lower Humla dialect) are mostly negative. The attitudes toward the Upper Humla and Lower Humla dialects, as well as toward the Eastern Humla dialect, are very mixed. When we only look at Kermi and not Hepka for the attitudes toward the Lower Humla dialect, a much more positive picture appears.

The last section, 3.3, looked at perceived intelligibility. The intelligibility of the Limi dialect has the widest geographic reach. It is understood by most of the people in the villages of the Upper and Lower Humla dialects. The intelligibility of the Upper Humla dialect is a bit low and the intelligibility of the Lower Humla dialect is mixed. Considering the overall negative attitude toward some villages in the Lower Humla dialect group, neither dialect seems to be best for future language

29

development. Although one of the village varieties in the Lower Humla dialect is perceived quite positively and could be considered a possibility to base future language development on. The intelligibility of the Eastern Humla dialect is high for people from Dojam and Hepka, but much less so for other dialects and villages in Humla.

When language development starts among the Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla, the conclusion is that to serve all of the people, at least two development projects are needed. One should focus on the Eastern Humla dialect and the other one should focus on the Limi dialect. Probably almost all Humla Tibetan-speaking people would accept and understand at least one of these two dialects. If there is a focus on only one dialect, chances are high that a segment of the Tibetan-speaking Humla population would not understand or accept it.

4 Ethnolinguistic identity

This section investigates whether Tibetan-speaking people in Humla see themselves as a cohesive language and ethnic community or more broadly related to (Nepali) society. In other words, we will discuss the ethnolinguistic identity of the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla. We will answer the following two research questions:

• Do Humla Tibetans see themselves as a cohesive language community? • Do Humla Tibetans see themselves as a cohesive people group?

Ethnolinguistic identity can be an indicator for considering varieties either to be dialects of the same language or to be different languages. We have seen in section 3 that between some varieties there is (relatively) marginal intelligibility (for example between Dojam and most other varieties, especially Yalbang). Also, between other varieties, there seems to be sufficient intelligibility, but there is the question of whether or not they consider themselves as part of the same ethnolinguistic community (for example between Limi and the rest). This section will explore ethnolinguistic identity and help to determine how we should look at the sociolinguistic situation among the Tibetan speakers in Humla.

The Ethnologue: Languages of Nepal (Eppele et al. 2012:6–7) uses the criteria set by the ISO 639-3 inventory12 for defining a language in relation to varieties which may be considered dialects:

• Two related varieties are normally considered varieties of the same language if speakers of each variety have inherent understanding of the other variety at a functional level (that is, can understand it,based on knowledge of their own variety without needing to learn the other variety).

• Where spoken intelligibility between varieties is marginal, the existence of a common literature or of a common ethnolinguistic identity with a central variety that both understand can be a strong indicator that they should nevertheless be considered varieties of the same language.

• Where there is enough intelligibility between varieties to enable communication, the existence of well-established distinct ethnolinguistic identities can be a strong indicator that they should nevertheless be considered to be different languages.

In the research questions, we separated the idea of ethnolinguistic identity into two different questions; one on cohesive language community and the other on cohesive people group. In reality, it is difficult (if not impossible) to disconnect language from culture. These are closely interrelated and intertwined. For this reason, this section is organized by themes which will include both the linguistic and cultural realities. Each of these themes will provide data to help answer both of the ethnolinguistic identity research questions. We start with marriage patterns.

12 ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 639-3 is a code that aims to assign three-letter identifiers to all known human languages.

30

4.1 Marriage patterns

4.1.1 Marriage patterns ascertained in literature

Fürer-Haimendorf describes to some extent the “named clusters of villages of unequal status which affects the rules of intermarriage” and the “named clans (rhuba) which exist in some village communities, but seem to be absent in others” (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988:270–271). He also writes about ranked classes, or ‘status-groups’ (1988:271–272). But he says that different villages have different rules and uses for these categories. He states, for example, that the individual groups or villages “are neither strictly endogamous nor exogamous”13 (1988:270). Levine (1988), in her book, focuses on polyandry among the Nyinba (The Dynamics of Polyandry). During our two trips to Humla, we encountered several cases of polyandry, but also at least one case of polygamy. Both studies (Fürer-Haimendorf 1988 and Levine 1988) were written more than 25 years ago. Since then, a lot may have changed and, indeed, seems to have changed. This study is not extensive enough to go into detail on the social structures and marriage patterns among the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla. We did, however, have the chance to ask a couple of questions in seven different villages that help to give a rough picture of what people think and do in regards to marriage patterns and social structures.

4.1.2 Marriage patterns ascertained through interviews

Only two out of seventy respondents answered that people from their village did not marry outside their own village or VDC. And the majority (83%) thought marriage to people outside their village or VDC was a good thing. The exception to this is people from Bargaun and Til. With 27 percent and 40 percent respectively saying this is not a good thing, they were less positive about marrying outside their area than the rest. If there are marriage patterns that focus more on marrying inside the area, they are not held very strictly, and people do not seem to see marriage with people of other communities as something negative. This could indicate a weaker emphasis on the smaller area and a stronger and positive focus on the broader group of Tibetan speakers in Humla.

We also asked the leaders of the seven villages if people marry outside their village or VDC and what they think about it. The answers roughly matched the answers from the seventy respondents of the informal interview. The leaders were a bit less positive, in some cases, regarding the reality of marrying outside their own area. The leader of Til said they only marry within the Limi area. And if someone would marry outside, that is not good, especially with people from Bargaun. The leader in Kermi said, although he does not like it, people from Kermi marry people from Limi. In Hepka, the leader said they marry anyone, except for people from the Bargaun area, but he does not like it. He only likes it when villagers marry people from the Hepka and Kermi area (Lower Humla dialect area). According to the leader in Muchu, they marry anyone, except for people from the Bargaun area, and it is a good thing. The other leaders are all positive about the reality or possibility of marrying outside their own village or VDC. It seems the marriage patterns of the Bargaun area are still quite separate from the rest of Tibetan-speaking Humla, but the attitude towards branching out is positive.

We asked if the practice of polyandry (one wife married to several husbands, in this case usually brothers) is still practiced. Most leaders said it is, but only by some people. In Dojam it seems to be the most normal marriage pattern. Young people marry like this, except for those in the villages of Hepka and Yalbang. These interview responses, in combination with the general picture of marrying more and more outside their own village or VDC, signal strong ties among the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla. These ties are not only on a local or VDC level but also indicate a growing move towards a district-wide strengthening of ties.

Only in Dojam are people marrying outside the Tibetan-speaking population. In their case, they have also married Chhetri, Gurung and Bahun people. In the other six villages where we conducted interviews, they reported only marrying Tibetan-speaking people.

13 These are kinship terms. Endogamous, in this context, means marrying only people that are part of your village or group of villages (maybe dialect group). And exogamous means the opposite, only marrying people outside of your village or group of villages (maybe dialect group).

31

4.1.3 Marriage patterns ascertained through attitude questions

During the informal interview, we asked, “How would you feel if your son or daughter married someone who did not speak your mother tongue?” Generally this was understood as a person who does not speak a Humla Tibetan variety. The majority of respondents, 56 percent, felt this would be “bad”. The rest answered that they were “indifferent” (23%) or they felt this is “good”. Again, the respondents in Til gave answers different from the normal replies. The majority (54%) of them are “indifferent”, while the rest (46%) felt this would be “bad”.

In section 3.2, we discussed dialect attitudes. We looked at how people would feel if their son or daughter would marry someone like the person speaking in the different stories. The only indication of possible less cohesiveness is the negative attitudes expressed towards the Hepka variety. The rest of the attitudes were at least mixed, and for the Limi variety, specifically positive.

4.2 Language patterns

4.2.1 Love for the languages

We asked, “Among the languages that you speak which one do you love the most?” Looking at the whole picture (see table 15), a slight majority (56%) chose a broader term (e.g., phot, bhote, orde, lap, kham, lama), comprising most, if not all, of the Tibetan varieties in Humla.

Table 15. Which language do you love the most?

N= Village/area-specific term

Broader terma Tibetan

Foreign language (Nepali, English, Chinese, Hindi)

Til 7 29% - 14% 57%

Muchu 11 45% 45% - 9%

Kermi 12 - 58% - 42% Hepka 12 8% 83% 8% - Bargaun 12 8% 58% 8% 25% Dojam 12 17% 67% 8% 8% All six villages 66 17% 56% 6% 21% aThe broader terms (most of them meaning Tibetan) could refer to the Tibetan language more generally and not just to Humla Tibetan. But, based on the context, it probably meant the Tibetan of Humla.

The rest of the answers were divided between choosing a village/area’s specific variety (17%) or the ‘foreign’ language (Tibetan, Nepali, English, Chinese, or Hindi) (27%). The answers from people in Til formed the major exception to this picture. Not one person named a broader term. Thirty-six percent named a foreign language and the rest (64%) named their own variety or only spoke their own variety (the percentages differ from table 15, because here we also count the 6 persons who only speak one language variety). People in Dojam and Hepka seem to be most drawn to the idea of one language community among Tibetan speakers in Humla, with respectively 67 percent and 83 percent saying they love a language using a broader term. People from Kermi seem to be the least focused on their own variety, with no respondents answering a local language variety name.

4.2.2 Other languages spoken

Five out of seven leaders said there are no other ethnic groups residing in their area, making their villages mono-ethnic and mono-cultural. Only in the Bargaun and Dojam area do Nepali-speaking

32

Dalit people live near them, and near Dojam there is mention of Gurung and Tamang14 people, speaking a Tibetan variety.

4.2.3 Feelings when speaking one’s mother tongue

The majority, four out of seven leaders, feel prestigious when they speak their own language in the presence of Nepali-speaking people. The other three gave a neutral answer. So, towards their Nepali neighbors, there is a tendency to feel pride in their own language, and not embarrassment. Their feelings are a bit more varied when they speak their own language in the presence of people from Tibet. Still, three out of seven (from Hepka, Yalbang, and Bargaun) feel prestigious. The leaders from Til and Muchu gave a neutral answer, but from Dojam and Kermi they reported that they feel embarrassed.

The leader from Kermi commented that Tibetan people call the Kermi language ‘rongba bhasa’, meaning ‘lowlander language’. This is clearly used as a derogatory term. We observed this term being used more often in the villages and by people with whom we talked in Kathmandu, and every time it was said that it had a negative connotation. The ‘higher living’ you are, the ‘purer’ you are, and the more prestigious you are. It goes both ways: ‘higher living’ people look down on the ‘lower living’, but also the ‘lower living’ look to the ‘higher living’ for their wisdom and experience in being good Tibetans. This shows that the opinions of Tibetan people count more than those of Nepali people. They have a stronger connection with the Tibetan language and culture, than with the language and culture of Nepal. This speaks to the cohesiveness of the group both in language and in culture. They feel their language is very different from the Nepali language15 and they are more focused on the ‘higher living’ (in elevation) Tibetans (in Humla but also across the border into Tibet).

4.3 Social patterns

4.3.1 Habits and customs

Not many respondents (6%) think the habits and customs of people in other villages are “very good”. But, on the other hand, only a small percentage of respondents (11%) answered “not good”. Overall, attitudes are neither positive nor negative. The exception, as described in section 3.2 Dialect Attitudes, is the more negative attitude towards the village of Hepka. The overall conclusion in section 3 is that there is not just one strong cohesive language group among the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla. But, on the other hand, there are also no clearly separate smaller groups that do not want to be affiliated with Humla Tibetan as a whole. The Limi area is one exception to this statement. They see themselves as being somewhat separate from the other Tibetan-speaking people in Humla, both linguistically and ethnically.

4.3.2 Social structure

All villages have several clans within the village. There is some overlap between the villages in terms of clan names, but also some distinctive names. How these clans function could be a focus for further research. For our purpose here, the fact that there are clans in every village indicates a common trait among all the Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla. While this could indicate some cohesiveness between these villages, we also see that there are still differences between the Tibetan-speaking areas in Humla. The seemingly different social structures between the Limi area and the Bargaun area are cause for reluctance in saying all Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla together form one cohesive people group.

We also asked the village leaders about dividing the areas in Humla into clusters, as described by Fürer-Haimendorf (1988:269–270). We discussed this earlier in section 3.1.1 Interview Results. The fact that this clustering is rarely referred to or almost forgotten could mean there is a weaker affiliation among the smaller, local area groupings. But at the same time, the clustering has not completely disappeared, but has just moved more towards the use of VDC names instead.

14 There are no known communities of Tamang or Gurung speakers in Humla. So it is unclear who these people are. They may be individuals who have married into the Dojam community. 15 Tibetan belongs to the Tibeto-Burman language family; Nepali belongs to the Indo-Aryan language family.

33

4.4 Other related topics

4.4.1 Attitudes regarding language in Purang County (China)

It is also good to look at what Tibetan speakers from Humla say about the language spoken across the border in China (Tibet). Many Tibetan speakers in Humla regularly cross the border to Purang for trade and religious activities. Almost half (46%) of the respondents said that the Purang language is the same as their own language. The majority (57%) use their own variety when speaking to people from Purang, but of those that do, 63 percent changed their language somewhat to accommodate the Purang speaker. This data suggests substantive linguistic ties between the Tibetan varieties spoken on the two sides of the border. Further study would be helpful to understand the relationship between the Tibetan speakers in Humla and those across the border in Purang.

4.4.2 Migration patterns

Humla Tibetan speakers have a history of trade. This means that many people do not stay all year round in the same place. Another reason for leaving the village and staying somewhere outside Humla is for religious purposes. In Appendix B, data regarding migration patterns can be found (see questions 33 and 34 on the KIQ). Questions were asked separately about the migration patterns of men and women.

4.4.3 Additional observations

In every village in which we stayed during our fieldwork, we sat around with the whole team to talk about what we observed in the village, as well as to record our observations. We used the same observation schedule every time. The information gathered using this tool adds to the general background information. It will give a more complete picture of the context of the research sites. In Appendix E, you can look at the observations we made in the seven villages where we stayed for our research: Kermi, Yalbang, Muchu, Til, Bargaun, Dojam and Hepka.

4.5 Summary

In section 4, we have investigated the ethnolinguistic identity of the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla. Through the three bigger themes of marriage patterns, language patterns and social patterns, we looked at the sociolinguistic situation. The marriage patterns indicate weaker ties to the traditional focus on the village and its area and a growing acceptance and focus on the broader area of the Humla District. This focus is strongly on the Tibetan-speaking people and villages in Humla, not on people speaking other languages. The attitudes concerning marriage patterns indicate a certain cohesiveness (not extremely strong, but certainly not weak) among the Tibetan speakers in Humla.

Looking at the language patterns, we see the same picture emerging. The majority of respondents use a term for the language they love that signifies all the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla (although these terms could refer to the Tibetan language more generally, but, based on the context, they are probably meant the Tibetan of Humla). And the opinions of Tibetan people count more than those of the Nepali speakers around them. They have a stronger connection with the Tibetan language and culture than with the language and culture of Nepal. This again shows a certain cohesiveness of the group in both language and culture. They feel their language is very different from the Nepali language and they are more focused on the ‘higher living’ (in elevation) Tibetans (in Humla but also across the border into Tibet).

The social patterns show us that there is not a strong social homogeneity among all the Tibetan speakers in Humla. There are considerable differences, especially between the Limi area and the Bargaun area. So, although most indicators show some kind of cohesiveness among all the Tibetan speakers, there are still enough unknowns and differences to be reluctant to say that there is strong cohesiveness, linguistically and ethnically.

There is a certain degree of cohesive ethnolinguistic identity among the Tibetan speakers in Humla, strong enough to set them apart from non-Tibetan speakers, but not strong enough to see

34

them as a homogenous group. In working with Humla Tibetans it will be important to acknowledge that there will be differences in ethnic attitude and dialect between certain areas.

5 Language vitality and EGIDS

In this section, we investigate the language vitality of the Tibetan varieties in Humla. This is important because it shows us the strength of the vitality, whether there is a possible decline in the use of the mother-tongue, and what kind of actions might be needed for future language development. One current measurement for language vitality is the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) (Lewis and Simons 2010a). EGIDS is based on an elaboration of Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (Fishman 1991) and measures vitality on a scale from zero (strongest vitality: International) to ten (weakest vitality: Extinct). Lewis and Simons propose a series of questions (Appendix G) to be asked concerning any language in order to determine where it measures on the scale. The answers to these questions lead us to the conclusion that, on the EGIDS scale, the Humla Tibetan varieties fall into category 6a (Vigorous). This is the same EGIDS level that the Ethnologue has documented for Humla Tibetan.

We start by looking at language proficiency and domains of language use, then at intergenerational transfer of the mother tongue. These issues were primarily investigated through the use of the informal interview. We continue by looking at other factors that play a part in language vitality and the EGIDS level for the Humla Tibetan varieties.

5.1 Language proficiency

In response to the question, “What language do you speak?”, all 92 respondents named their local Tibetan variety. We asked 71 respondents what language they spoke first and what other languages they speak. All of them said they spoke their own Tibetan variety first. Ninety percent of respondents also speak Nepali, 32 percent also speak (Lhasa) Tibetan, and 14 percent also speak English.

We also asked questions about their perception of their own language ability. When we asked, from among the languages they speak, which they speak best, 93 percent named their own local variety and 6 percent named Nepali (of the latter, three of the four respondents were 34 years old or younger). Out of the 68 respondents, 66 named a second best language: 79 percent said Nepali, 11 percent said (Lhasa) Tibetan, and 8 percent named their own local variety. Only half named a third best language, and only ten (15%) named a fourth best language. This situation suggests some level of bilingualism, especially with Nepali, but a much lower level of multilingualism. Low levels of multilingualism may be an indicator of strong mother-tongue language vitality.

5.2 Domains of language use

In this section, we will look at the interview data on language use in different contexts and social situations, known as ‘domains’. An important indicator of language vitality is which languages are used in various domains of life.

Language use in the home is viewed as one of the primary domains related to language vitality, because the language of the home is generally a child’s first language. All the people we interviewed responded that they speak their local Tibetan variety at home. This suggests high vitality for the mother-tongue among the Tibetan varieties in Humla.

We also asked which language people use in the following seven domains: singing, at the market, storytelling, praying, telling stories to children, singing at home, and in village meetings. Table 16 displays the percentage of respondents who reported primarily using their local variety, Nepali, or both their local variety and Nepali roughly as often as the other.

35

Table 16. Overall language use

What language do you usually speak… N= Local Both Nepali While singing? 69 61% 7% 28% While at the market? 70 24% 3% 71% While telling stories? 67 75% 4% 21% While praying? 72 88% 4% 3% While telling stories to children? 69 88% 6% 6% While singing at home? 68 87% 4% 9% During village meetings? 71 83% 6% 11%

In a couple of cases in table 16, the percentages do not add up to 100 percent. This is because we did not include the instances when people said they use Tibetan or Hindi. Looking at table 16, we see that the local variety is used the most in six of the seven domains. Only in the case of going to the market do people use more Nepali. The reason for the latter is that there are many non-Tibetan speakers at the market. This table suggests high vitality for the Humla Tibetan varieties. The high percentage (88%) for telling stories to children is especially important, because it is a strong indicator that the local variety is being transmitted to the next generation. The next section goes more deeply into this topic of intergenerational transfer.

5.3 Intergenerational transfer

An important aspect of language vitality is the extent to which the mother-tongue is being passed on to the younger generation, known as intergenerational transfer. If children are using their Humla Tibetan variety, it is a good indicator of strong language vitality.

We asked what language speakers’ parents used to speak to them when they were young. All of the respondents said that their parents spoke to them in their local Tibetan variety as children. Also, all married people speak a local variety to their spouses.

We asked what language people use to talk to their parents, siblings and children. Table 17 displays the percentage of respondents who reported primarily using their local variety, Nepali, or both their local variety and Nepali roughly equally.

Table 17. What language is spoken with family members?

What language do you usually speak… N= Local Both Nepali With your parents? 72 100% - - With your siblings? 71 97% - 1% With your children? 59 97% 2% 2%

In two cases the percentages do not add up to 100 percent, because we rounded the numbers. When talking to their parents, all people replied that they use their own local variety. In talking with siblings, out of 71 respondents, one person responded ‘Nepali’ and one person responded ‘both Hindi and the local variety’. In response to “What language do you use to talk with your children?”, only one respondent reported that he/she uses Nepali and one that he/she uses both Nepali and the local variety.

When playing with each other, children in the village mostly speak the local variety. Only 17 percent of the respondents said they heard children speak Nepali with each other while playing. People reported that when children talk with neighbors they usually speak their own variety. Only 7 percent of the respondents said they hear children use Nepali while speaking to neighbors. When asked if the young people in the village speak their mother-tongue well, 94 percent answered “yes”. In addition, 75 percent of the respondents said the language of young people was not different from their grandparents’ language.

This data strongly suggests that the mother-tongue is being actively passed on to the younger generation. This is an indicator of strong vitality.

36

5.4 Other factors

The interview schedule we used contained several other questions that relate to language vitality but don’t relate to domains of language use or intergenerational transfer. Some of the data presented here is also based on observation. We will now consider the results of several interview questions.

One question we asked was “Which language should children learn first?” The majority (82%) said children should learn the local variety first. The other answers were Nepali (10%), English (7%) and Tibetan (1%). This value of learning your own local variety first as a child is again an indicator of strong vitality.

Another question on language use we asked was: “Are there any situations where you do not speak your mother-tongue with other Tibetan people in Humla?” The majority (79%) said they always speak their mother-tongue with other Tibetan people in Humla. When people did change their language, it was mostly to accommodate the other person’s variety as much as possible. The main reasons for changing their language were: because the other people did not understand their variety, because the other people only speak Nepali, or because the respondent had never met the person before and didn’t want to shame them if they did not understand the local variety. The fact that most people would not consider changing their language in their contact with other Tibetans in Humla indicates a high value of using their own variety and a certain pride in their language. These are indicators of strong language vitality. There are two cases where they do change their language, i.e., where there are low levels of intelligibility or no intelligibility and where they do not want to shame one another. These two cases are based on practical considerations that have little to do with language vitality.

During our fieldwork in Humla, we wrote down our observations in every village. One of the things we observed was the fact that, wherever we went, children seemed to talk mostly in their own local variety among each other and only a handful were able to converse just a little bit in Nepali with us. Another observation was that many people in the older generation are monolingual. We needed local interpreters in many villages to help with translating our Nepali into their variety. In one case, in the village of Bargaun, there was mention of people from Thehe village (non-Tibetans) that come up to work for people in Bargaun and learn some of the local variety for communication. And someone commented that the ‘low caste’ in Bargaun do not speak the Bargaun variety very well. This implies that they should do better. These observations support a categorization of strong language vitality for the Humla varieties.

5.5 Extended Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

Coming back to the conclusion presented at the beginning of section 5, all the data supports the conclusion that the Humla Tibetan varieties fall into category 6a (Vigorous) on the EGIDS scale. The description of 6a (Vigorous), used in the paper on EGIDS by Lewis and Simons (2010a:13), is as follows:

This is the level of ongoing oral use that constitutes sustainable orality. Intergenerational transmission of the language is intact and widespread in the community. The language use and transmission situation is stable or gaining strength.

The EGIDS categories refer to levels of sustainability. Category 6a (Vigorous) indicates the level of ‘Sustainable Orality’. The description for sustainable orality16 is as follows:

A language is at the level of sustainable orality when the entire language community is using the language orally. This does not assume monolingualism, but that in a multilingual community, the language has its place and all members of the community use it according to those social norms. Also transmission to children is occurring in the entire community. All FAMED conditions must be at a level 6a or higher. (Lewis and Simons 2010b)

Lewis and Simons (2010b) explain the Sustainable Use Model (SUM): “The idea is that a language is in a transitory state if it resides between these sustainable levels. It will either move up the scale toward a higher level of sustainability if active language development is occurring, or it will slide down the scale to a lower level of sustainability if there is no language development occurring.” In the case of Humla Tibetan, it seems the varieties are on a solid 6a level.

16 See Appendix G, where FAMED is explained.

37

When we look at the so-called FAMED conditions that help to researchers decide where a language is on the EGIDS scale, we find descriptions that are relevant to the Tibetan varieties in Humla. These conditions for the 6a level reflect, for the most part, the context in Humla. However, there is an important comment that needs to be made. Among the listed ‘FAMED conditions’ one (External Environment) says that government policy hinders language development, and another (Motivation) says the people themselves do not have a positive attitude towards a future of reading and writing their own language. It seems that this is not the case in Humla. In reality, there is no an active government policy that hinders people from developing their own language. In the current political sphere, there seems to be at least a neutral, or even positive, attitude towards a mother-tongue development policy. See point 17 on the Final Interim Constitution: “Each community residing in Nepal shall have the right to preserve and promote its language, script, culture, cultural civility and heritage.”17 We will look at people’s attitude towards future development of their language and other desires they have for their community in section 6.

5.6 Summary and conclusions

We ascertained that the EGIDS category for the Humla Tibetan varieties is correctly documented in the Ethnologue as being 6a (Vigorous). We saw that the language proficiency and vitality is high among the Tibetan villages in Humla. They most frequently use their own variety in all domains, except for using Nepali when they go to the market and interact with non-Tibetan-speaking people. The degree of intergenerational transfer of Humla Tibetan is very high, indicating strong language vitality. People want their children to learn their own variety first and they themselves only change their language with other people who do not speak their language or sometimes when other people would not understand their variety well. EGIDS level 6a is equivalent to being on a level of sustainable orality. Section 6 will begin to look at what kind of language development would be needed to maintain the EGIDS level 6a or move up on the EGIDS scale.

6 Desires for development

In this section, we will focus on the desires of the community for development of their own language as well as other types of development. To ascertain these desires, we used informal interview questions and participatory methods (Appreciative Inquiry) facilitations. The responses show that Humla Tibetan speakers have a desire for language-based development as well as other types of development.

6.1 Interview results concerning language development desires

6.1.1 Learning to read and write

Of the 72 respondents, about half are able to read and write. We then asked: “Which language would you like to be able to read?” Fifteen percent of the respondents named their own, unwritten variety as the language they would like to be able to read. This is remarkable, because it shows that there is a sense among some people that it would be possible to read their own language and that they would even want to take the time to learn it. At the moment, there is, with possibly one exception, no mother-tongue language development among the Tibetan-speaking varieties in Humla.

There seem to be positive attitudes towards language development in their mother-tongue, because 89 percent of the respondents say that they would want to read their own mother-tongue if it would become possible or available. We also asked which language they think would be easiest in which to read and write. Of all the respondents who are able to read and write in Tibetan, 64 percent chose Tibetan as the easiest language in which to read and write. In comparison, of all the respondents who are able to read and write in Nepali, 53 percent chose Nepali as the easiest language in which to read and write. Most Humla Tibetans living in Humla who are able to read and write Tibetan are lamas (Buddhist priests) or monks. In Limi, we witnessed the use of written Tibetan in non-religious contexts by people who had learned how to read or write outside of Humla. Nepali is

17 http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Nepal_Interim_Constitution2007.pdf, accessed on November 25th 2013.

38

primarily used in the public domain, at the market, while traveling outside the Humla area (for example, in Kathmandu) and at school.

In the primary schools in the Limi villages, mother-tongue-based education is taking place. Teachers teach orally in the mother-tongue, but use text-books written in other languages. Children learn to read and write in English, Nepali, and standard, written Tibetan.

6.1.2 Use of the Tibetan script or Devanagari script

When we asked the leaders in the villages if there is written material in their own language, only in Muchu did the leader respond that there are some songs in the Sambhota (Tibetan) script. We also asked if the people in the village use written marriage invitations. Some do not use written invitations, others use Nepali, and only in the villages of Til and Yalbang do they use written invitations in Sambhota script. Another question was related to which language people use for the village meeting minutes. Most villages use Nepali. In Dojam, they use Devanagari script to write their mother-tongue. In Yalbang, in addition to Nepali, they use Sambhota script to write in their own language during village meetings.

When we talked with the leader in Muchu, he explained that half of the villagers are able to read Sambhota script. They read at home or in the gompa (monastery). He comments that, in the primary school, the children are not being taught the Sambhota script. He would like for the lamas to teach the Sambhota script to the children. This conversation shows the importance of the Sambhota script and that the leader is thinking about solutions for the problem that children are not learning the script. During the second and third trips, we met with Kanjok Lama (originally from Kermi village), who is working for the ISIS Foundation18. He is working on a dictionary of the Humla Tibetan language using the Sambhota script. As yet it has not been published.

6.2 Appreciative Inquiry results

We used the participatory method called Appreciative Inquiry with groups of people from the villages to facilitate discussion about hopes and desires for their community. See Appendix E for the steps of this method and the results of the facilitations in six villages.

In every village, there was some desire for developing their local language. The villages that noted more than one desire in this area were Hepka, Bargaun, and Dojam. These desires range from books or booklets written in their local variety, songs and news in their own language, teachers that teach in their local language to preserving the religious language. An exception is Jang, where no desires for literacy were mentioned. In Jang, they do not think it is possible to write in their own variety. Writing, according to them, seems to be only possible in Tibetan. Desires for recording of songs, and a book about the Limi culture were mentioned, but they wanted the book written in Standard Tibetan rather than the local Limi variety.

Besides desires for language development, people also expressed desires for development in the areas of healthcare, business opportunities, basic infrastructure (such as good roads, water facilities and electricity), and religion-focused development.

6.3 Summary

Although, at the moment, there is almost no mother-tongue language development among the Tibetan-speaking varieties in Humla, people seem interested in the possibility of learning to read and write their own language, the exception being people in Limi. Different people have different levels of experience with writing Devanagari or Sambhota (Tibetan) script. On which script to base possible future language development needs to be considered at a later stage.

Through the Appreciative Inquiry method, we had people discuss their hopes and desires for development, whether language or other kinds of development. Overall, there seem to be desires to develop their own language, and people stated a number of other areas where they would like to see changes: in the areas of healthcare, business opportunities, basic infrastructure (such as good roads, water facilities, and electricity), and religion-focused development.

18 http://www.isisgroup.org/foundation-projects/nepal/, accessed on March 6th 2014.

39

7 Summary of findings and recommendations

7.1 Dialect variation

7.1.1 Summary of findings

Section 3 on dialect variation had three main focuses: dialect and language identification, dialect attitudes, and dialect intelligibility. In 3.1, we concluded that the different speech varieties among the Tibetan-speaking villages of Humla District should be seen as dialects of the same language. Four dialects were 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). Another conclusion was that the more geographically distant villages are from each other, the more different they find each other’s speech variety. The varieties seem to be different but are still comprehensible in varying degrees throughout all Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla.

In 3.2, we saw that the attitudes toward the Limi dialect are mainly very positive; while attitudes toward the variety spoken in Hepka (part of the Lower Humla dialect) are mostly negative. The attitudes toward the Upper Humla and Lower Humla dialects, as well as toward the Eastern Humla dialect, are very mixed. When we only look at Kermi and not Hepka for the attitudes toward the Lower Humla dialect, a much more positive picture appears.

Section 3.3 looked at perceived intelligibility. The intelligibility of the Limi dialect has the widest geographical reach. It is understood by most of the people in the villages of the Upper and Lower Humla dialects. The intelligibility of the Upper Humla dialect is a bit low, and the intelligibility of the Lower Humla dialect is mixed. Especially considering the overall negative attitude toward some villages in the Lower Humla dialect group, neither dialect seems to be best for future language development. The intelligibility of the Eastern Humla dialect is high for people from Hepka, but much less so for other dialects and villages in Humla.

7.1.2 Recommendations

When language development efforts start among the Tibetan-speaking villages in Humla, the greatest number of people would be served through having two oral development projects. One should focus on the Eastern Humla dialect, and the other one should focus on the Limi dialect. Most likely all Tibetan-speaking people would accept and understand at least one of these two dialects. If there is a focus on only one dialect, chances are high that a segment of the Tibetan-speaking Humla population would not understand or accept it. For written products, a variety that would serve most Tibetan-speaking people in Humla could be that of Kermi or Khangalgaun village, since speakers of the most well-understood and liked variety, that of Limi, are not all that interested in mother-tongue literacy. But this attitude could change, and then the Limi variety might be the best choice for written products.

A focus for further research would be to check if the variety spoken in Kermi village or Khangalgaun village could be used as a central dialect for all of the Humla Tibetan varieties. The story from Kermi could be used for this.

There are reports of people speaking a Tibetan dialect in Shreemastha VDC in the east of Humla District. The ethnically Tibetan people in Shreemastha reportedly intermarry with people from Dojam. In terms of needs for future research, more investigation should be made into the relationship of the Dojam variety to the Tibetan varieties spoken toward the east in Shreemastha VDC and Mugu District.

There is also the need for more research on the Humli Khyampa and other nomadic and semi-nomadic Tibetan-speakers in northwest Nepal. Several reports mention Tibetan varieties in Bajura District, south of Humla that might be closely related to Humla Tibetan.

Also, more research is needed on the relationship between the Tibetan variety spoken in Purang County in China and Humla Tibetan.

40

7.2 Ethnolinguistic identity

7.2.1 Summary of findings

In section 4, we investigated the ethnolinguistic identity of the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla. Through the three themes of marriage patterns (4.1), language patterns (4.2) and social patterns(4.3), we looked at the sociolinguistic situation. The marriage patterns indicate that the marriage restrictions are being followed less than before, and there is a growing acceptance and focus on marrying people from within the broader area of the Humla District, focusing strongly toward the Tibetan-speaking people and villages in Humla, not toward people speaking other languages. The attitudes on the marriage patterns indicate a certain cohesiveness (not extremely strong, but certainly not weak) among the Tibetan speakers in Humla.

Looking at the language attitude patterns, we saw the same picture appearing. The majority of the respondents use a term for the language they love that signifies all the Tibetan-speaking people in Humla. Also, the opinions of Tibetan people count more than those of Nepali speakers around them. They have a stronger connection with the Tibetan language and culture, than with the language and culture of Nepali speakers. This again shows a certain cohesiveness of the group in language and culture. They feel their language is very different from the Nepali language and they are focused more on the ‘higher living’ (in elevation) Tibetans (in Humla but also across the border into Tibet). This focus suggests a stronger pull towards the Tibetan language and culture, both in Nepal and China.

The social patterns show us that there is not a strong social homogeneity among all Tibetan speakers in Humla. There are considerable differences, especially between the Limi area and the Bargaun area. So, although most indicators show some kind of cohesiveness among all the Tibetan speakers, there are still enough unknowns and differences to make us reluctant to say that there is strong cohesiveness both linguistically and ethnically.

7.2.2 Recommendations

There is a certain level of ethnolinguistic identity among the Tibetan speakers in Humla, strong enough to set them apart from non-Tibetan speakers, but not strong enough to see them as a homogenous group. In working with Humla Tibetans, it will be important to acknowledge that there will be significant differences between certain areas and that dialect and ethnic attitudes vary quite a bit. All future language development efforts should take these differences into consideration.

7.3 Language vitality and EGIDS

7.3.1 Summary of findings

We ascertained that the EGIDS category for the Humla Tibetan varieties is correctly documented in the Ethnologue as being 6a (Vigorous). We saw that the language proficiency and vitality is high among the Tibetan villages in Humla. They almost exclusively use their own variety in all domains, except for using Nepali when they go to the market and interact with non-Tibetan-speaking people. The degree of intergenerational transfer of Humla Tibetan is very high, indicating strong language vitality. People want their children to learn their own variety first and they themselves only change their language when other people do not speak their language or sometimes when other people would not understand their variety well. We saw that the Humla Tibetan varieties seem to be on a solid 6a EGIDS level, equivalent to ‘Sustainable Orality’.

7.3.2 Recommendations

The language vitality (EGIDS) level of a community should be considered in any language development efforts. The language vitality level of a community will determine what next steps would best benefit the community. In this case, where the Humla Tibetan community has a vigorous, vital language, language development efforts could easily begin with written materials and literacy.

41

7.4 Desires for development

7.4.1 Summary of findings

Although, at the moment, there is almost no mother-tongue language development among the Tibetan-speaking varieties in Humla, people seem interested in the possibility of learning to read and write their own language. Different people have different levels of experience with writing Devanagari or Sambhota (Tibetan) script.

Through the Appreciative Inquiry method, we had people discuss their hopes and desires for development, language or otherwise. Overall there seem to be desires to develop their own language, and people stated a lot of other areas they would want to see changes: in the areas of healthcare, business opportunities, basic infrastructure (such as good roads, water facilities and electricity), and religion-focused development.

7.4.2 Recommendations

Because of strong language vitality, combined with desires for language development from the communities themselves, a next step for the Tibetan-speaking communities in Humla could be literacy work and written materials. But to get to that stage, oral forms of development would be much appreciated by the communities such as teaching in the mother-tongue as is being done in the primary schools in the Limi villages. These steps could strengthen the desires of the communities to develop an orthography and start literacy work and multi-lingual education (MLE) efforts. ७ परा� कराहर तथा �सफािरशहरको साराश (Nepali translation of section 7)

(Translation by Krishna Rana of CAS Nepal) ७.१ �थानीय बोलीका �व�वधताहर ७.१.१ परा� कराहरको साराश �थानीय बोलीका �व�वधताहर भ� पिर�छदमा तीनटा कराहरमा �यान क��दरत गिरएका छन �थान �वशषको भाषा तथा भा�षक प�हचान, �थान �वशषको भाषापर�तको मनोब�त र उ� त भाषाहरको बोधग�यता। प�हलो भागमा हामील �न�कषर �नकालका छौ �क ह� ला �ज� लाको �त�बती बो�न गाउहरको फरक फरक �क�समका बोलीहरलाई उही भाषाका �थान �वशषको बोलीको रपमा हिरनपछर । चारवटा �थानमा �वशष भाषाहर प�हचान गिरएका छन, अथारत, �लमी बोली (तील, हा�जी अ�न जाङ ), उप� लो ह� लाको बोली (यारीबाट याङवाङगस�म), त� लो ह� ला बोली (कम�बाट खो�सीस�म र ताङगगीनस�म) र पब� ह� ला बोली (बराङसबाट दोजामस�म)। अक� �न�कषर यो छ �क गाउहर एक अकारमा ज�त टाढा छन उनीहरको बोलीहरको फरक प�न �य�त न धर ह�छन। बोलीका �क�समहर फरक त द�खन आउछन तर प�न ह� लाका सब �त�बती बो�न गाउहरमा उनीहरल अरको बोली आ�शक रपमा ब�दछन। दोसरो ख�डमा हामील यो द�यौ �क �लमी बोली तफर को मनोब�� धरजसो अ�त सकारा�मक छन जब �क ह�का (त� लो ह� ला बोलीको अश) बो�न तफर मा�छहरको मनोब�� धरजसो नकारा�मक छ। उप� लो ह� ला र त� लो ह� लाका बोलीहरका साथसाथ पव� ह� ला का बोली तफर का मनोब��हर �म�शरत छन। य�द हामील ह�कालाई नहरीकन त� लो ह� लाको बोलीलाई �लएर कम�तफर मातर ह�य� भन बढी सकारा�मक मनोब�� द�ख�छ। अ��तम ख�डमा बोधग�यता (बझाइ) को द��कोणल हिर�छ। �लमी बोलीको बोधग�यताल भौगो�लक पहच बढी फरा�कलो कषतर ओगटको छ। यो बोली उप� लो र त� लो ह� ली बोली बो�न गाउहरका धरजसो मा�नसहरल ब�दछन। उप� लो ह� ला बोलीको बोधग�यता अ�ल �यन छ र त� लो ह� ला बोलीको बोघग�यता �म�शरत छ। �बशष गरी त� लो ह� ला बोली समहका कही गाउहर तफर को सम�त नकारा�मक मनोब��लाई �यानमा रा�दा, भ�व�यको भाषा �वकासका ला�ग कन प�न बोली

42

एकदम रामरो द�खदन। ह�काका मा�नसहरल पव� ह� लाको बोली बढी मातरामा ब�दछन तर ह� लाक अर बोली बो�नहर र गाउहरका ला�ग बोधग�यता धर �यन छ।

153७.१.२ �सफािरशहर

ह� लाका �त�बती भाषा बो�न गाउहरमा भाषा �वकासका परयासहर शर गदार, बहस�यक मा�नसहरमा दइटा मौ�खक पिरयोजनाहरदवारा सवा प� याइनछ। एउटाल पव� ह� ला बोलीमा अक�ल �लमी बोलीमा �यान क��दरत गनरपछर । धरजसो �त�बती बो�न मा�नसहरल दइटाम�य क�तीमा प�न एउटा ब�न र �वीकान � ज�तो द�ख�छ। य�द एउट मातर बोलीमा �यान क��दरत भयो भन, �त�बती बो�न ह� लाका जनस�याका कन समहल नब�न र न�वीकान � स�भावना उ� ह�छ। �ल�खत सामगरीहरका ला�ग, ह� लाका �त�बती भाषा बो�न मा�नसहरम�य अ�धकतमलाई सवा प� याउन �क�सम, खागलगाउ र कम� गाउको �क�सम हन स�छ �कन�क सबभ�दा बढील मनपराउन र ब�न �क�समको बोलीहर बो�न मा�नसहर �लमीबासीहर म�य सब मातभाषामा साकषरता ककषा चलाउन करामा �य�त चासो �ददनन। अनस�धान अगा�ड �यान क��दरत गनरपन � करा, खगलगाउ वा कम� गाउमा बो�लन �क�समलाई परा ह� ला �त�बतीको ला�ग क�दरीय बोलीको रपमा चलाउन स�क�छ �क भनर जा�न स�कनछ। यसका ला�ग कम�बाटको कथा परयोग गनर स�क�छ। ह� ला �ज� लाको पवरमा अव��थत शरीम�था गा.�व.स.का मा�नसहरल �त�बती बोली बोलको पर�तवदनहर छन। शरीम�थाका �त�बती जा�तका मा�नसहर र डोजामका मा�नसहर बीच बवा�हक स�ब�ध भएको पाइ�छ। भ�व�यमा अनस�धान गनरपरको ख�डमा, शरीम�था गा.�व.स.को पवरतफर र मग �ज� लामा बो�लन �त�बती �क�समसग दोजामको �क�समको स�ब�ध बारमा अर अनस�धान गनर रामरो ह�छ। ह� ली �या�पा र उ�र—प��म नपालको अ�य घम�त र अधर—घम�त �त�बती भाषी बारमा अर अनस�धान गनर आव�यक छ। बाजरा �ज� ला र द�कषण ह� लाको �क�समको �त�बती, ह� लाको �त�बतीसग �नकटको स�ब�ध हन स�न करा कही पर�तवदनहरमा उ� ल�खत भएको पाइ�छ। चीनको पराङग गाउमा बो�लन �त�बती �क�सम र ह� ली �त�बती �क�सम बीचको स�ब�ध बार प�न अर अनस�धान गनर आव�यक छ।

७.२ जातीय–भा�षक समानता

154७.२.२ परा� कराहरको साराश

यस अ�यायमा, हामील ह� लामा �त�बती बो�न मा�नसहरको जातीय—भा�षक समानताबार अ�वषण ग� यौ । हामील बवा�हक ढाचा, सामा�जक ढाचा र भा�षक ढाचा गरी तीनटा �बषयहरदवारा सामा�जक भा�षक पिर��थ�ततफर ह� यौ । बवा�हक ढाचाल यो दखाउछ �क बवा�हक अवरोधहर प�हलभ�दा कम अनशरण गिरदछन र ह� लाको �यापक कषतर�भतरका मा�नसहरसग �बहावारी गन � करामा जोड �दन स�ब�धमा बढदो �वीक�त छ। यो करामा ह� लाको �त�बती बो�न मा�नसहर र गाउहरतफर बढी क��दरत छ न �क अ�य भाषा बो�नहरमा। बवा�हक ढाचाल ह� लाका �त�बती भाषा बो�नहर बीच कन �क�समको स�ब�ध दखाउछ जन अ�य�त ब�लयो प�न छन र �य�त कमजोर प�न छन। भा�षक मनोब��को ढाचातफर हदार हामील उ�त �चतर भएको द�यौ। बहस�यक जवाफदाताहरल उनीहरल मनपराउन भाषाको ला�ग परयोग गन � श�दल ह� लाको �त�बती भाषा बो�न स�पणर मा�नसहर�तर सकत गदरछ। फिर उनीहरको विरपिरका नपाली भाषी मा�नसहरको भ�दा �त�बतीहरको रायलाई उनीहर बढी मा�यता �द�छन। उनीहरको स�ब�ध नपाली भाषा बो�नको भाषा र स�क�तसग भ�दा �त�बती भाषा र स�क�तसग बढी ब�लयो छ। यसल प�न भाषा र स�क�तमा

43

�यस समहको कन �क�समको सा�म�य दखाउछ। उनीहरलाई ला�छ �क उनीहरको भाषा नपाली भाषाभ�दा धर फरक छ र उनीहर अ�लाईमा ब� करा (उचाईलाई) �त�बतीहर (ह� लामा तर सीमापािर �त�बतमा प�न) बढी �यान क��दरत गदरछन। यसरी �यान क��दरत कायरल नपाल र चीन दब दशमा �त�बती भाषा र स�क�ततफर ब�लयोसग तानको दखाउछ। यस सामा�जक ढाचाहरल हामीलाई ह� लामा सब �त�बतीभाषीहर बीच ब�लयो सामा�जक एकरपता छन भ� करा दखाउछ। �बशषगरी �लमी कषतर र बारगाउ कषतर बीच �बचारणीय �क�समको �भ�ताहर छन। अतः धर पिरसचकहरल सब �त�बती भाषीहर बीच कन �क�समको सा�म�य दखाउछ, तर प�न भा�षक तथा जातीय दव द��कोणल ब�लयो सा�म�यता छ भ� �हच�कचाउनपन � परश�त अन�भजञता तथा �भ�ताहर �वदयमान छन।

155७.२.२ �सफािरशहर

ह� लामा �त�बतीभाषीहर बीच एउटा कन तहस�मको जातीय–भा�षक एकरपता �वदयमान छ, जन गहर–�त�बती भाषीहरलाई उनीहरलाई अल�याउन परश�त ब�लयो छ तर उनीहरलाई एउट रपमा हनर पयार� ब�लयो भन छन। ह� लाका �त�बतीहरसग काम गदार यो ब�न मह�वपणर ह�छ �क कन कषतरमा �बशष �क�समको �भ�ताहर रहनछन र �थान�बशषको बोली र मनोब��हरकही मातरामा �भ� ह�छ। भ�व�यका सब भाषा �बकासका परयासहरल यी �भ�ताहरलाई �यानमा रा�नपछर ।

७.३ भाषाको सजीवता तथा EGIDS

156७.३.१ परा� कराहरको �सफािरश

हामी यो �न��त गछ� �क ह� ला �त�बती �क�समको ला�ग EGIDS बगर, Ethnologue मा तह ६क (भीषण) भएको करा यथाथररपमा उ�ख गिरएको छ। हामील ह� लाको �त�बतभाषी गाउहरमा भाषाको परवीणता तथा सजीवता उ� भएको द�यौ। उनीहर धरजसो समय हरक कषतरमा आ�न �क�समको बोली परयोग गछर न, हाट–बजारमा जादा तथा गहर–�त�बतीभाषीहरसग अ�त�करर या गदार मातर उनीहर नपाली भाषा परयोग गछर न। ह� ला �त�बतीको अ�तरप�तीय सकरमण (एक प�ताबाट अक� प�तामा सन �) को मातरा उ� छ, जसल ब�लयो भा�षक सजीवताको सकत गदरछ। मा�नसहर आ�ना बालबा�लकाहरल प�हल आ�न बोली �सकको चाह�छन, र �तनीहर आ�नो भाषा आफल पिरवतरन गदरछन जब अर मा�नसहरल उनीहरको भाषा बो�दनन वा क�हलकाही उनीहरको �क�समको बोली रामरोसग ब�दनन। हामील यो प�न द�यौ �क ह� लाको �त�बती �क�समको बोली EGIDS तहको पर ६क तहमा द�ख�छ। यो दीगो मौ�खक �तर समान हो।

157७.३.२ �सफािरशहर

समदायको भा�षक सजीवता (EGIDS) तह कन प�न भाषा �बकासको परयासमा �यानमा रा�खन पन � करा हो। समदायको भा�षक सजीवता �तरल कन आगामी कदम समदायको ला�ग सबभ�दा बढी फाइदाजनक ह�छ भ� करा �नधाररण गदरछ। यस मा�मलामा, जहा ह� ला �त�बती समदायसग भीषण सजीव भाषा छ, �यहा भाषा �बकासका परयासहर स�जलसग �ल�खत सामगरी तथा साकषरतादवारा परार�भ गनर स�क�छ।

७.४ �वकासका आकाङकषाहर

158७.४.१ परा� कराहरका साराशहर

यदय�प हालसाल ह� लाको �त�बतभाषी समदायहरमा मातभाषा �बकास परायः छन ज�त छ, तर उनीहरको आ�नो भाषामा ल�न र पढन �स�नलाई स�भा�यतापर�त मा�नसहरको अ�भर�च द�ख�छ। दवनागरी वा स�भोता (�त�बती) �ल�प लखनमा

44

फरक मा�नसको फरक �तरको अनभव छ। सराहनीय सोधपछ तिरका (Appreciative Inquiry method) दवारा हामील मा�नसहरलाई भाषा वा अ�य कराको �वकासको ला�ग उनीहरको आशा र आकाकषाहरबारमा छलफल गराएका �थयौ। समगरमा मा�नसहरल आ�नो भाषा �वकास गन � आकाकषा राखको द�खयो, र मा�नसहरल अ�य धर कराहर बताए जसमा उनीहर पिरवतरन भएको हनर चाह�थ।

159७.४.२ �सफािरशहर

ब�लयो भा�षक सजीवता का साथ समदायहर आफबाट भाषा �बकासको आकाकषा दखाएकोल ह�ाको �त�बती भाषी समदायहरको ला�ग आगामी कदम साकषरता कायर तथा �ल�खत सामगरीहर हन स�छ। तर �यस अव�थास�म प�नका ला�ग समदायहरदवारा �वकासका मौ�खक रपहर बढी �वीकार गिरनछन। (ज�तः–मातभाषामा �सकाउन जन �लमी गाउको पराथ�मक �वदयालयहरमा भइरहको छ)। यी कराहरल समदायहरको �ह�ज लखन �वकास गन � आकाकषा र साकषरता कायर शर गरर बहभा�षक �शकषा परयासहरलाई सश� पानर स�छ।

45

Appendix A: Wordlists

A.1 International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) chart

46

A.2 Lexical similarity comparison procedures

Wordlists were elicited from a small group or, if elicited from an individual, checked by people that were around during the elicitation. This provided a measure of checking for accuracy, as well as a process that was more participatory in nature for each village visited during the survey.

During the process of wordlist elicitation, the researcher transcribes the words phonetically using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). It would be best if only one person did the transcriptions, because each fieldworker eliciting words may hear and transcribe the sounds slightly differently. Keeping this in mind, there might be some minor differences in transcription of the wordlists because they were elicited and transcribed by different researchers.

Furthermore, the transcriptions should be done as accurately as possible. A phonetic chart with the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols used is shown in Appendix A.1. Some of the wordlist data was normalized. After the actual wordlist collection, all the variations that were thought to obviously represent the same sound but were marked in different ways were made consistent in notation. This was done in order to make the data entry and calculations less complicated.

Normally, a single term is recorded for each item of the wordlist. However, more than one term is recorded for a single item when synonymous terms are apparently in general use or when more than one specific term occupies the semantic area of a more generic item on the wordlist.

For a lexical similarity count, the wordlists are compared, in order to determine the extent to which the vocabulary of each pair of speech forms is similar. No attempt is made to identify genuine cognates based on a network of sound correspondences. Rather, two items are judged to be phonetically similar if at least half of the segments compared are the same (category 1) and of the remaining segments at least half are rather similar (category 2). For example, if two items of eight segments in length are compared, these words are judged to be similar if at least four segments are virtually the same and at least two more are rather similar. The criteria applied are:

Category 1 • Consonant (consonant-like) segments which match exactly • Vowel (vowel-like) segments which match exactly or differ by only one articulatory feature • Phonetically similar consonant segments (of the sort which frequently are found as

allophones, such as difference in only one articulatory feature) which are seen to correspond in at least three pairs of words

Category 2 • All other phonetically similar pairs of segments which are not, however, supported by at

least three pairs of words

Category 3 • Pairs of segments which are not phonetically similar • A segment which is matched by no segment in the corresponding item

After pairs of items on two wordlists had been determined to be phonetically similar, according to the criteria stated above, the percentage of items judged similar was calculated. The procedure was repeated for each pair of language varieties.

The following table summarizes the lower threshold limits for considering words as phonetically similar in a specified length (number of segments or phones).

Blair (1990:32) writes, “In contextualizing these rules to specific surveys in South Asia, the following differences between two items are ignored: (a) interconsonantal [ə], (b) word initial, word final, or intervocalic [h, ɦ], (c) any deletion which is shown to be the result of a regularly occurring process in a specific environment.”

47

Word length and linguistic similarity

Word Length

Category One

Category Two

Category Three

2 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 4 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 6 3 2 1 7 4 2 1 8 4 2 2 9 5 2 2 10 5 3 2 11 6 3 2 12 6 3 3

Additional modifications to lexical similarity procedures used in this survey are: • Accounting for slight variation between elicitors, consonants counted as category 1 include:

[sɻ, tɻ, ʈɻ], [c, cʰ, kʰ], [ɟ, c], [k, g] (word initial), [w, b], [d], and [k, k, ʔ, #]. • The table above specifies that when comparing words of two segments, both segments must

be category 1 in order to be counted as similar. Since the rationale for the distribution is at least half of the segments compared should be category 1, this principle was applied to two-segment words so that a distribution of 1-1-0 was considered similar.

• Aspirated versus unaspirated consonants are considered as category one. • Nasalised versus unnasalised vowels are considered as category one. • Possible palatalisation of consonants are considered as category one. • Consonants that differ only between the following places of articulation are considered as

category one: alveolar and post-alveolar, post-alveolar and retroflex, alveolar and retroflex, retroflex and palatal, palatal and velar.

• Based on consultant meetings with a linguist who is an expert in Tibetan languages, the following endings are not counted (in order of appearance in the alphabetical ordered wordlist): -ti, -li, -pa, -mo, -pu, -ma, -bu, -mar, -mu, -bo, -wo, -wu, -da, -na, -sɛ, -gu, -go, -po, -raŋ, - roŋ, -gamu, - ɟa, -ca, -ure.

• Lengthened and non-lengthened consonants and vowels are considered as category one. • When there was an obvious shortening of the word, the long version is not counted as

different. This happens mostly with the words elicited in Dojam. • Voicing between affricates are considered as category one.

While the goal is to compare word roots between varieties, some morphology may be included in our comparisons. The lexical similarity percentages should be considered as a conservative counting of lexical similarity between varieties.

Although a total of 212 items were elicited in each location, the final number of words compared for the lexicostatistic comparisons was 205. Some wordlist items needed to be disqualified, that is, not taken into consideration in the lexicostatistic count. Eleven items were disqualified because we had doubts whether people had really given a word with the intended meaning or the word was unknown to other speakers. The eleven lexical items that were problematic were: spice pestle, above, how?, these, different, run, and know. These entries were disqualified in order to eliminate potential skewing of the results. For some of the words, two or three locations were compared and one or two locations were excluded because the confidence in the accuracy of the word given was low or the word was the Nepali version (such as alu, sag, besar, pjadʒ, and ama).

After the words for each wordlist item had been determined to be phonetically similar or dissimilar, the lexical similarity percentages were calculated using the WordSurv computer program. It should be noted that the wordlist data are field transcriptions and have not undergone thorough phonological and grammatical analysis.

48

A.3 Wordlist data and similarity grouping

This table lists the sites where we collected wordlists as well as the people who provided the wordlists.

Word length and linguistic similarity

Village VDC Age Bio-data found on subject number (if applicable):

Kermi Khangalgaun 42 KERD01 Til Limi 28 TILK01 Muchu Muchu 45 MUCD01 Yalbang Muchu 29 YALS01 Bargaun Bargaun 63 BARJ02 Dojam Thehe 60 DOZJ01 Yakpa Hepka 54 YAKD01

The wordlists are displayed on the following pages. The first column lists the English gloss and the seven villages in which the wordlists were elicited. The middle column displays the Nepali gloss that corresponds to the English gloss. Below the Nepali are the lexical items given in each location for the same gloss. The third column displays the lexical similarity groupings. In some cases an ‘x’ is listed next to the number, which means that that item was excluded from the comparison. The following abbreviations are used: sg = singular; pl = plural; for = formal; inf = informal; incl = inclusive; excl = exclusive.

The informed consent script which we used for the wordlists is as follows:

My name is ….What is your name? We are from Tribhuvan University, Department of Linguistics. We are here to learn about your language and its situation. We will ask you a few questions about yourself and about your language. After that, we will ask you to pronounce some words in your own language. We will write your words in our copybook using a special script. We will also record the words that you will speak. We will also give the information you give us and the recordings to other people. We will keep these recordings in a safe place for future use on things such as computers and recordings. We may provide these to other people who may want to learn about your language. Can you help us?

We are thinking of listing your name in this information, but if you don’t want your name to be listed, we won’t. Shall we keep your name or not?

मरो नाम ..... हो। तपाईको नाम क हो? हामी �तरभवन �व��वदयालय भाष�वजञान क�दरीय �वभागबाट आएका हौ। हामी यहा तपाईको भाषाको बारमा र �यसको ��थ�तको बारमा थाहा पाउन आएका छौ। हामील तपाईलाई तपाई आफको बारमा र तपाईको भाषाको बारमा कही पर�नहर सो�छौ। �यसप�छ हामील तपाईलाई कही श�दहर तपाईको आ�न भाषामा उ�ारण गनर अनरोध गछ�। हामील तपाईका श�दहरलाई हामरो कापीमा �वशष अकषर परयोग गरी ल�छौ। हामील तपाईल बोलका ती श�दहरलाई रकडर प�न गछ�। हामील तपाईल �दनभएको जानकारी र रकडर गरका करा अर मा�नसहरलाई प�न �द�छौ। हामील यी रकडर गरका कराहरलाई प�छ प�न परयोग गनरका �न��त एउटा सर�कषत ठाउमा रा�खरा�नछौ ज�त क��यटरमा अ�न टपमा। तपाईको भाषाको वारमा �स�न चाहन अ�य धर मा�नसहरलाई हामील ती स�का �न��त उपल�ध गराउन स�छौ। तपाईल हामीलाई सहायता गनर स�नह�छ? हामील तपाईसग �लन यो जानकारीमा तपाईको नाम रा�न �वचार गरका छौ, तर य�द तपाईल आ�नो नाम रा�न चाहनह� भन, हामील रा�दनौ। तपाईको नाम राखौ �क नराखौ?

49

body जीउ

Til zuwu 3 Muchu liubʰi 2 Yalbang liu 1 Kermi liu 1 Yakpa lʏbu 1 2 Bargaun lʏbi 1 2 Dojam lipa 1 2 head टाउको

Til go 2 Muchu go 2 Yalbang go 2 Kermi go 2 Yakpa go 2 Bargaun kʰoro 1 Dojam go 2 hair कपाल

Til sɻa 1 Muchu ʈa 1 Yalbang tɻa 1 Kermi ʈa 1 Yakpa ʈa 1 Bargaun ʈɻa 1 Dojam tɻa 1 face अनहार/मख

Til doŋba 4 Muchu ŋəraŋ 3 Yalbang ŋaraŋ 3 Kermi tsʲaŋan 2 Yakpa kʰʌri 1 Bargaun kʰʌri 1 Dojam kʰʌri 1

eye आखा

Til mik 1 Muchu mik 1 Yalbang mik 1 Kermi mik 1 Yakpa mik 1 Bargaun mik 1 Dojam mik 1 ear कान

Til amtsʲʰok 1 Muchu amdʒok 1 Yalbang namʒok 1 Kermi namdzʲok 1 Yakpa namdzʲok 1 Bargaun namʒok 1 Dojam namdzʲok 1 nose नाक

Til na 1 Muchu na 1 Yalbang na 1 Kermi na 1 Yakpa na 1 Bargaun na 1 Dojam na 1 mouth मख

Til kʰa 2 Muchu kʰa 2 Yalbang kʰa 2 Kermi kʰa 2 Yakpa kʰa 2 Bargaun kʰʌpkil 1 Dojam kʰa 2

tooth दात

Til so 1 Muchu so 1 Yalbang so 1 Kermi so 1 Yakpa so 1 Bargaun so 1 Dojam so 1 tongue �जबरो

Til tsʲe 1 Muchu tsʲeli 1 Yalbang tsʲeli 1 Kermi tsʲe 1 Yakpa tsʲe 1 Bargaun tsʲe 1 Dojam tsʲe 1 chest छाती

Til taŋ 1 Muchu ʈaŋ 1 Yalbang ʈaŋ 1 Kermi ʈaŋ 1 Yakpa taŋ 1 Bargaun ʈaŋ 1 Dojam ʈaŋ 1 belly पट

Til ʈʰopa 1 Muchu ʈopʰa 1 Yalbang ʈʰopa 1 Kermi ʈopa 1 Yakpa ʈupa 1 Bargaun ʈʰopa 1 Dojam ʈʰopa 1

50

hand हात

Til lakpa 1 Muchu lakpa 1 Yalbang lakpa 1 Kermi lakpa 1 Yakpa lakpa 1 Bargaun lakpa 1 Dojam laː 1 elbow क�हनो

Til ʈeᵒtsok 5 Muchu ʈũdzʲi 4 Yalbang ʈõsi 4 Kermi ʈʰĩgule 3 Yakpa tiŋgule 3 Bargaun tubusʲiŋ 1 Dojam ʈiŋdzʲuma 2 palm of hand ह� कला

Til lakpanaŋ 2 Muchu laktʰil 1 Yalbang laktʰil 1 Kermi laktʰil 1 Yakpa laktʰil 1 Bargaun laktil 1 Dojam lʌktʰil 1 finger(s) औला

Til ʈanze 2 Muchu ʈãʒi 2 Yalbang ʈãnsi 2 Kermi ʈãzi 2 Yakpa ʈãnzer 2 Bargaun dzũ 1 Dojam dzugu 1

fingernail नङ

Til sɛrmo 1 Muchu sɛrmu 1 Yalbang sɛrmu 1 Kermi samu 1 Yakpa sɛrmu 1 Bargaun sʏnmu 1 Dojam sʌnma 1 foot खटटा

Til kaŋba 1 Muchu kaŋba 1 Yalbang kʰaŋba 1 Kermi kaŋba 1 Yakpa kaŋba 1 Bargaun kaŋba 1 Dojam kaŋba 1 skin छाला

Til pamo 1 Muchu pakpu 1 Yalbang pakpu 1 Kermi paːmu 1 Yakpa paŋmu 1 Bargaun pãŋmu 1 Dojam paːmu 1 bone हाड

Til rywa 1 Muchu rikok 1 Yalbang rikok 1 Kermi rikok 1 Yakpa rʉkɔʔ 1 Bargaun rukaʔ 1 Dojam rykɔʔ 1

heart मट

Til ɲiŋ 1 Muchu ɲiŋ 1 Yalbang ɲiŋ 1 Kermi ɲiŋ 1 Yakpa ɲiŋ 1 Bargaun ɲiŋ 1 Dojam ɲiŋ 1 blood रगत

Til ʈʰak 1 Muchu ʈʰak 1 Yalbang ʈʰak 1 Kermi ʈʰak 1 Yakpa ʈʰak 1 Bargaun ʈʰak 1 Dojam ʈʰak 1 urine �पसाब

Til baŋ 1 Muchu ba 1 Yalbang ba 1 Kermi baŋ 1 Yakpa baŋ 1 Bargaun baŋ 1 Dojam tsʲin 2 feces �दसा

Til kʲækpa 2 Muchu cakpa 2 Yalbang aka 1 Kermi aː 1 Yakpa cakpa 2 Bargaun aːk 1 Dojam agʌ 1

51

village गाउ

Til jyl 1 Muchu jyl 1 Yalbang jʉl 1 Kermi jyl 1 Yakpa jʉl 1 Bargaun jʉl 1 Dojam jyl 1 house घर

Til kʰaŋba 1 Muchu kʰaŋba 1 Yalbang cʰɪm 2 Kermi kʰaŋba 1 Yakpa kaŋba 1 Bargaun kʰaŋba 1 Dojam kʰaŋba 1 roof छाना

Til ʈʰok 3 Muchu tʰok 3 Yalbang kanak 1 Kermi kʰanak 1 2 Yakpa kʰanak 1 Bargaun kʰanjak 1 Dojam tenak 2 door ढोका

Til go 1 Muchu go 1 Yalbang go 1 Kermi go 1 Yakpa ko 1 Bargaun go 1 Dojam ko 1

firewood दाउरा

Til ʃiŋ 1 Muchu ʃiŋ 1 Yalbang ʂiŋ 1 Kermi ʃiŋ 1 Yakpa ʃiŋ 1 Bargaun ʃiŋ 1 Dojam ʃiŋ 1 broom कचो

Til holmo 1 Muchu holmu 1 Yalbang homu 1 Kermi holmu 1 Yakpa holmu 1 Bargaun ɦwaŋmu 1 Dojam kutso x spice mortar �सलौटो

Til marʒoŋ 4 Muchu gokpor 1 Yalbang gokpur 1 Kermi mortsatʰakan 3 Yakpa guakpur 1 Bargaun guʷakpur 1 Dojam tʃom 2 hammer घन

Til tʰoa 2 Muchu tʰo 2 Yalbang tʰoː 2 Kermi tʰo 2 Yakpa tʰoa 2 Bargaun haʈoɖa 1 Dojam gʰʌn x

small knife च� क

Til ʈʰi 1 Muchu ʈi 1 Yalbang ʈʰi 1 Kermi ʈi 1 Yakpa ʈi 1 Bargaun ʈʰi 1 Dojam ʈʰi 1 axe ब� चरो

Til tari 1 Muchu tari 1 Yalbang tari 1 Kermi tari 1 Yakpa tʌri 1 Bargaun tari 1 Dojam ʈɐri 1 rope डोरी

Til tʰakpa 1 Muchu tʰakpa 1 Yalbang tʰakpa 1 Kermi tʰakpa 1 Yakpa tʰakpa 1 Bargaun tʰakpa 1 Dojam tʰakpa 1 cotton thread धागो

Til kupa 1 Muchu kupa 1 Yalbang kupa 1 Kermi kudpa 1 Yakpa kupa 1 Bargaun kudpa 1 Dojam kudpa 1

52

woolen thread भडाको डोरी

Til palcut 3 Muchu neⁱma 2 Yalbang palkut 3 Kermi naⁱma 2 Yakpa pal 1 Bargaun pal 1 Dojam pal 1 needle �सयो

Til kʰap 1 Muchu kʰap 1 Yalbang kʰap 1 Kermi kʰap 1 Yakpa kʰap 1 Bargaun kʰap 1 Dojam kʰap 1 cloth कपडा

Til kolak 1 Muchu re 2 Yalbang kolok 1 Kermi raⁱ 2 Yakpa ʈoʒi 3 Bargaun kolak 1 Dojam raⁱ 2 ring औठ�

Til sɪrtup 1 Muchu sertup 1 Yalbang sɪptu 1 Kermi surtup 1 Yakpa sɪptu 1 Bargaun sɛrtup 1 Dojam sɪrtup 1

gold सन

Til sɛr 1 Muchu ser 1 Yalbang sɛr 1 Kermi sər 1 Yakpa sœr 1 Bargaun sɛr 1 Dojam sɛr 1 sun सयर

Til ɲⁱã 1 Muchu ɲeⁱ 1 Yalbang ɲa 1 Kermi ɲⁱã 1 Yakpa ɲã 1 Bargaun ɲʏã 1 Dojam ɲima 1 moon च� दर

Til dar 1 Muchu ɖagar 1 Yalbang dar 1 Kermi dar 1 Yakpa dar 1 Bargaun dar 1 Dojam dagar 1 sky आकाश

Til nam 2 Muchu nam 2 Yalbang nam 2 Kermi nam 2 Yakpa nam 2 Bargaun namaŋ 1 Dojam namaŋ 1

star तारा

Til karma 1 Muchu karma 1 Yalbang karma 1 Kermi karma 1 Yakpa karma 1 Bargaun karma 1 Dojam karma 1 rain पानी (पछर )

Til tsʲerwa 1 Muchu tsʲerba 1 Yalbang tsʲʰɛrwa 1 Kermi tsʲerwa 1 Yakpa nam 2 Bargaun tsʲʰerba 1 Dojam tsʲʰerba 1 water पानी

Til tsʲʰu 1 Muchu tsʲʰu 1 Yalbang tsʲʰu 1 Kermi tsʲʰu 1 Yakpa tsʲʰu 1 Bargaun tsʲʰu 1 Dojam tsʲʰu 1 small river खोला

Til ɟuktsʲu 2 Muchu luŋba 1 Yalbang luŋba 1 Kermi luŋba 1 Yakpa luŋba 1 Bargaun luŋba 1 Dojam luŋba 1

53

large river नदी

Til tsaŋbo 3 Muchu mapdʒa 2 Yalbang maptʃa 2 Kermi maptʃa 2 Yakpa maptʃa 2 Bargaun maʒep 1 Dojam martʃal 2 cloud बादल

Til tin 1 Muchu tin 1 Yalbang ʈin 1 Kermi tin 1 Yakpa ʈin 1 Bargaun ʈin 1 Dojam ʃin 1 lightning �बजली

Til lokmar 1 Muchu ʈok 3 4 Yalbang ʈak 3 Kermi lokkʲaŋman 2 Yakpa ɖuk 4 Bargaun loŋmar 1 Dojam luŋmar 1 rainbow इ� दरणी

Til dzʲa 1 Muchu zʲa 1 Yalbang dzʲa 1 Kermi dzʲa 1 Yakpa dzʲa 1 Bargaun dzʲa 1 Dojam dzʲa 1

wind बतास

Til luŋbu 1 Muchu luŋbu 1 Yalbang luŋbu 1 Kermi luŋbu 1 Yakpa mur 2 Bargaun luŋmar 1 Dojam luŋmar 1 stone ढङगा

Til doa 1 Muchu do 1 Yalbang ɖo 1 Kermi do 1 Yakpa to 1 Bargaun doa 1 Dojam tugu 2 path बाटो

Til lam 1 Muchu lam 1 Yalbang lam 1 Kermi lam 1 Yakpa lam 1 Bargaun lam 1 Dojam lam 1 sand बालवा

Til pʲã 1 Muchu pẽ 1 Yalbang pẽ 1 Kermi pẽ 1 Yakpa pʲɛ 1 Bargaun pʲã 1 Dojam pema 1

fire आगो

Til me 1 Muchu me 1 Yalbang me 1 Kermi me 1 Yakpa mɛ 1 Bargaun me 1 Dojam me 1 smoke धवा

Til tʰypa 1 Muchu tʏpa 1 Yalbang tupa 1 Kermi tutpa 1 Yakpa tuppa 1 Bargaun tutpa 1 Dojam tutpa 1 ash खरानी

Til koktal 2 Muchu koktal 2 Yalbang koktal 2 Kermi tʰala 1 Yakpa tʰala 1 Bargaun tʰala 1 Dojam tʰala 1 mud �हलो

Til dambak 1 Muchu dambak 1 Yalbang damak 1 Kermi daŋbak 1 Yakpa damak 1 Bargaun damak 1 Dojam dabak 1

54

dust (from soil) धलो

Til tʰala 1 Muchu tʰʌlzup 3 Yalbang sapʰur 4 Kermi tʰala 1 Yakpa tʰala 1 Bargaun tʰala 1 Dojam pʰe 2 tree रख

Til doŋbo 1 Muchu doŋbu 1 Yalbang doŋbu 1 Kermi doŋbu 1 Yakpa toŋbu 1 Bargaun doŋbu 1 Dojam toŋba 1 leaf पात

Til lɐpti 1 Muchu lapti 1 Yalbang lapti 1 Kermi lep 1 Yakpa lɛp 1 Bargaun lap 1 Dojam lap 1 root जरा

Til patak 1 Muchu padak 1 Yalbang patak 1 Kermi paldak 1 Yakpa paldak 1 Bargaun patak 1 Dojam paʈak 1

thorn काडो

Til tsʰermak 1 Muchu tsʰɛrmak 1 Yalbang tsʰɛrmak 1 Kermi tsʰɛrmak 1 Yakpa tsʰɛrmak 1 Bargaun tsʰɛrmak 1 Dojam tsʰɛrmʲak 1 flower फल

Til mendok 1 Muchu mɛndok 1 Yalbang mendok 1 Kermi mɛndok 1 Yakpa mendok 1 Bargaun mɛndok 1 Dojam medok 1 fruit फलफल

Til ʃintok 1 Muchu ʃiŋdok 1 Yalbang ʂiŋtok 1 Kermi ʃindok 1 Yakpa ʃiŋdok 1 Bargaun ʃiŋdok 1 Dojam pʰʌlpʰul 2 wheat गह

Til nɛː 2 Muchu ʈʰo 1 Yalbang ʈɻo 1 Kermi ʈo 1 Yakpa ʈo 1 Bargaun ʈʰo 1 Dojam ʈʰo 1

millet कोदो

Til kodo 1 Muchu koɖe 1 Yalbang koɖe 1 Kermi koru 1 Yakpa koɖo 1 Bargaun kodo 1 Dojam kola 1 husked rice चामल

Til ɖɛ 2 Muchu ɖe 2 Yalbang ɖɽai 2 Kermi dai 2 Yakpa ɖaⁱ 2 Bargaun tʃuluk 1 Dojam tʃulu 1 potato आल

Til alu x Muchu alu x Yalbang alo x Kermi tʰɔr 2 Yakpa ʈoᵃ 1 Bargaun alu x Dojam ʈomʌ 1 “dollo” radish दो�ो मला

Til lawuk 1 Muchu lou 2 Yalbang lou 2 Kermi lau 2 Yakpa lʌbuʔ 1 2 Bargaun lʌbuk 1 Dojam lʌbʰuk 1

55

green leafy veg साग

Til tsʰɛ 2 Muchu ŋo 1 Yalbang hepa 3 Kermi ɲat 1 Yakpa tsaⁱ 2 Bargaun sag x Dojam ŋat 1 nettle �स� न

Til sa 3 Muchu sa 3 Yalbang sa 3 Kermi sa 3 Yakpa sa 3 Bargaun sua 1 Dojam dza 2 chili खसारनी

Til martsa 1 Muchu martʃa 1 Yalbang martsa 1 Kermi mortsa 1 Yakpa mortsa 1 Bargaun mʌrtsa 1 Dojam martsa 1 turmeric बसार

Til mɛna 3 Muchu besar x Yalbang besar x Kermi ɲⁱa 1 2 Yakpa ɲã 2 Bargaun ɲua 1 Dojam besar x

garlic लसन

Til gokpa 1 Muchu gokpa 1 Yalbang gokpa 1 Kermi gokpa 1 Yakpa kokpa 1 Bargaun guᵃkpa 1 Dojam guᵃkpa 1 onion/chives � याज

Til tsʰoŋ 1 Muchu pjadʒ x Yalbang tsoŋ 1 Kermi tsʰoŋ 1 Yakpa tsoŋ 1 Bargaun pjaʃ x Dojam pjadʒ x oil तल

Til marku 1 Muchu marku 1 Yalbang mɔrku 1 Kermi marku 1 Yakpa mʌrku 1 Bargaun mʌrku 1 Dojam mʌrku 1 salt नन

Til tsʰa 1 Muchu tsʰa 1 Yalbang tsʰa 1 Kermi tsʰa 1 Yakpa tsʰa 1 Bargaun tsʰa 1 Dojam tsʰa 1

meat मास

Til ʃia 1 Muchu ʃa 1 Yalbang ʃⁱa 1 Kermi ʃia 1 Yakpa ʃa 1 Bargaun ʃⁱa 1 Dojam ʃa 1 fat बोसो

Til tsɪluk 1 Muchu tsilup 1 Yalbang tselu 1 Kermi tselu 1 Yakpa tsʰɪlu 1 Bargaun tsɪlu 1 Dojam tsʰilu 1 fish माछा

Til ɲⁱa 1 Muchu ɲa 1 Yalbang ɲa 1 Kermi ɲia 1 Yakpa ɲa 1 Bargaun ɲⁱa 1 Dojam ɲⁱa 1 chicken (gen.) कखरा

Til tsʲʰau 1 Muchu tsʲau 1 Yalbang tsʲʰau 1 Kermi tsʲʰau 1 Yakpa tsʲaũ 1 Bargaun tsʲaũ 1 Dojam tsʲaũ 1

56

egg फल/आ�दा

Til goã 1 Muchu gõ 1 Yalbang gõã 1 Kermi gõ 1 Yakpa kõa 1 Bargaun gõã 1 Dojam gõ 1 cow गाइर

Til palaŋ 1 Muchu palaŋ 1 Yalbang palaŋ 1 Kermi palaŋ 1 Yakpa palaŋ 1 Bargaun palaŋ 1 Dojam palaŋ 1 buffalo भसी

Til mae 1 Muchu mai 1 Yalbang mai 1 Kermi mai 1 Yakpa mai 1 Bargaun mai 1 Dojam mai 1 milk दध

Til ɦoa 1 Muchu ɦo 1 Yalbang ɦõ 1 Kermi ɦo 1 Yakpa ɦõ 1 Bargaun ɦõã 1 Dojam homa 1

horn �सङ

Til radʲok 1 Muchu racok 1 Yalbang ratʲu 1 Kermi rai 2 Yakpa rai 2 Bargaun raʒu 1 Dojam raˑʒo 1 tail प� छर

Til ŋã 1 Muchu ŋã 1 Yalbang ŋã 1 Kermi ŋã 1 Yakpa ŋã 1 Bargaun ŋã 1 Dojam ŋãma 1 goat (gen.) बाखरा

Til ra 1 Muchu ra 1 Yalbang ra 1 Kermi ra 1 Yakpa ra 1 Bargaun ra 1 Dojam ra 1 sheep (gen.) भडा

Til luk 1 Muchu luk 1 Yalbang luk 1 Kermi luk 1 Yakpa luk 1 Bargaun luk 1 Dojam luk 1

dog ककर

Til kʲʰi 1 Muchu ci 1 Yalbang ci 1 Kermi kʰi 1 Yakpa cʰi 1 Bargaun cʰi 1 Dojam cʰi 1 snake सपर

Til ɖul 1 Muchu ɖul 1 Yalbang ɖʰul 1 Kermi ɖul 1 Yakpa ɖul 1 Bargaun ɖul 1 Dojam rul 1 monkey बादर

Til ʈiu 1 Muchu ʈiu 1 Yalbang ʈiu 1 Kermi ʈiu 1 Yakpa riu 1 Bargaun ʈiu 1 Dojam ʃiu 1 fly �झगा

Til ɖaŋma 1 Muchu ɖaŋma 1 Yalbang ɖaŋma 1 Kermi ɖoŋma 1 Yakpa ɖaŋma 1 Bargaun ɖoŋ 1 Dojam remjakpa 2

57

ant क�मला

Til ʈãjɛkpa 2 Muchu ʈẽbu 1 Yalbang ʈẽbũ 1 Kermi tsʲãrakpa 2 Yakpa tsʲarakpa 2 Bargaun ʈãmu 1 Dojam tẽmjakpa 2 spider माकरा

Til paulia 4 Muchu balba 3 Yalbang pabla 2 3 Kermi papla 3 Yakpa palba 3 Bargaun labʌmʒe 1 Dojam pamlai 2 4 name नाम

Til miŋ 1 Muchu min 1 Yalbang min 1 Kermi min 1 Yakpa min 1 Bargaun miŋ 1 Dojam min 1 man लो� नमा� छ

Til pʰosar 4 Muchu tʰu 3 Yalbang tu 3 Kermi piza 1 Yakpa piza 1 Bargaun puʒa 1 4 Dojam pʰipso 2

woman आइमाइर

Til põː 1 Muchu põ 1 Yalbang põ 1 Kermi põ 1 Yakpa põ 1 Bargaun põ 1 Dojam pompʰʌ 2 baby ब� चा

Til ʈua 2 Muchu tuka 2 Yalbang ʈuka 2 Kermi ʈuo 2 Yakpa tugu 2 Bargaun kãta 1 Dojam ʈugu 2 father बा

Til ou 2 Muchu aʰja 1 Yalbang aija 1 Kermi hawa 1 Yakpa awa 1 Bargaun aⁱja 1 Dojam aⁱja 1 mother आमा

Til ãː 1 Muchu ã 1 Yalbang ã 1 Kermi ãː 1 Yakpa ãː 1 Bargaun ãː 1 Dojam ama x

older brother दाज / दा� य

Til au 3 Muchu azʲu 1 Yalbang azʲu 1 Kermi ai 2 Yakpa ai 2 Bargaun azʲu 1 Dojam ajo 1 younger brother भाई

Til nõː 1 2 Muchu nɔ 1 2 Yalbang nã 2 Kermi nũ 1 Yakpa nũ 1 Bargaun nõ 1 2 Dojam nõː 1 2 older sister �ददी

Til ei 2 Muchu iː 2 Yalbang eʒi 1 Kermi iː 2 Yakpa ei 2 Bargaun aʒi 1 Dojam ʌʒi 1 younger sister ब�हनी

Til nõː 1 Muchu nũ 1 Yalbang nũ 1 Kermi nũ 1 Yakpa nõ 1 Bargaun nõː 1 Dojam numu 1

58

son छोरा

Til ʈu 2 Muchu ʈu 2 Yalbang ʈũ 2 Kermi piza 1 Yakpa piza 1 Bargaun puʒa 1 Dojam piza 1 daughter छोरी

Til põː 1 Muchu põ 1 Yalbang põ 1 Kermi põ 1 Yakpa põ 1 Bargaun põ 1 Dojam pomu 2 husband शरीमान

Til makpa 1 Muchu coka 3 Yalbang makpa 1 Kermi makpa 1 Yakpa kitʲal 4 Bargaun makpa 1 Dojam kʰimʒaŋ 2 wife शरीमती

Til na 3 Muchu cemʒama 2 Yalbang na 3 Kermi na 3 Yakpa paŋma 1 Bargaun paŋma 1 Dojam kʰimʒaŋmu 2

boy (<15 yrs) कटा

Til piza 2 Muchu ʈuʈuka 3 Yalbang nã 4 Kermi piza 2 Yakpa tsʲoktɔŋ 1 Bargaun caktuŋ 1 Dojam piza 2 girl (<15 yrs) कटी

Til põː 1 Muchu põ(ʈuka) 2 Yalbang nũ 4 Kermi põ 1 Yakpa najuŋ 3 Bargaun pũ 1 Dojam pomu 1 day �दन

Til ɕak 1 Muchu ʃak 1 Yalbang ʃak 1 Kermi ʃak 1 Yakpa ʃak 1 Bargaun ɕak 1 Dojam jak 1 night रात

Til tsʰamỹn 1 Muchu tʃɛmɪn 1 Yalbang tsʰamɪn 1 Kermi tsʰamɪn 1 Yakpa tsʰamỹn 1 Bargaun tsʰamỹn 1 Dojam tsʰamʏn 1

morning �बहान

Til nemeʔ 3 Muchu ʃokle 1 Yalbang ʃaklai 1 Kermi ʃoklai 1 Yakpa ʃɔklaⁱ 1 Bargaun ʃɔkla 1 Dojam toblaⁱ 2 afternoon �दउसो

Til ɲimʏn 1 Muchu ɲimɪn 1 Yalbang ɲigõŋ 2 Kermi ɲimɪn 1 Yakpa ɲimyn 1 Bargaun ɲimʏn 1 Dojam ɲimʏn 1 evening बलका

Til gɔmʏn 1 Muchu gomɪn 1 Yalbang gomɪn 1 Kermi gomʏn 1 Yakpa komʉn 1 Bargaun gʷoŋmʏn 1 Dojam kʰomʏn 1 today आज

Til tiriŋ 1 Muchu tiriŋ 1 Yalbang tiriŋ 1 Kermi tiriŋ 1 Yakpa tiriŋ 1 Bargaun tiriŋ 1 Dojam tiriŋ 1

59

yesterday �हजो

Til daŋ 1 Muchu daŋ 1 Yalbang daŋ 1 Kermi daŋ 1 Yakpa daŋ 1 Bargaun daŋ 1 Dojam daŋ 1 tomorrow भो�ल

Til ɲɛro 1 Muchu ɲetuk 2 Yalbang ɲaⁱʈu 1 2 Kermi ɲaru 1 Yakpa ŋaru 1 Bargaun ŋaru 1 Dojam ŋaru 1 week ह� ता

Til sagor 3 Muchu dun 1 Yalbang dun 1 Kermi dun 1 Yakpa tyn 1 Bargaun dʏn 1 Dojam jʌŋmicep 2 month म�हना

Til daː 1 Muchu daː 1 Yalbang daː 1 Kermi daː 1 Yakpa daː 1 Bargaun da 1 Dojam daa 1

year बषर

Til lo 1 Muchu lo 1 Yalbang lo 1 Kermi lo 1 Yakpa lo 1 Bargaun lo 1 Dojam lo 1 old (things) परानो

Til ɲiŋba 1 Muchu ɲiŋba 1 Yalbang ɲiŋpa 1 Kermi ɲiŋba 1 Yakpa ɲiŋba 1 Bargaun ɲiŋba 1 Dojam ɲiŋba 1 new (things) नया

Til sarwa 1 Muchu sɛrba 1 Yalbang sarwa 1 Kermi sarwa 1 Yakpa sarba 1 Bargaun sarba 1 Dojam sɛrba 1 good रामरो

Til jɛwo 1 Muchu lau 1 Yalbang lau 1 Kermi lau 1 Yakpa lawu 1 Bargaun jebu 1 Dojam lʲabo 1

bad खराब / नरामरो

Til hage 1 Muchu nowa 3 Yalbang nowa 3 Kermi nowa 3 Yakpa hagi 1 Bargaun haxe 1 Dojam abe 2 wet �भजको

Til lʏnba 1 Muchu pãba 2 Yalbang lomba 1 Kermi lonba 1 Yakpa lʏnba 1 Bargaun luŋba 1 Dojam papãba 2 dry सकको

Til kampo 3 Muchu kamkamba 2 Yalbang kau 1 Kermi kãu 1 Yakpa kãbu 1 3 Bargaun kãbu 1 3 Dojam kamkamma 2 long लामो

Til riŋmu 1 Muchu riŋbu 1 Yalbang riŋbu 1 Kermi riŋbu 1 Yakpa riŋmu 1 Bargaun riŋbu 1 Dojam riŋbo 1

60

short छोटो

Til ʈuŋmu 1 2 Muchu ʈun 2 Yalbang ʈun 2 Kermi tun 2 Yakpa tun 2 Bargaun ʈuⁱma 1 Dojam ʈuⁱma 1 hot (things) तातो

Til tsʰande 1 Muchu tsʰãdi 1 Yalbang tsʰade 1 Kermi tsʲãdi 1 Yakpa ʈonbu x Bargaun tsʰãdi 1 Dojam tsʰãde 1 cold (things) �चसो

Til ʈɐŋmu 1 Muchu ʈaŋbu 1 Yalbang ʈʰoŋmu 1 Kermi ʈoŋmu 1 Yakpa ʈoŋmu 1 Bargaun ʈɵŋmu 1 Dojam ʈaŋmu 1 right दा�हन / दाया

Til jɛwa 1 Muchu jɛwa 1 Yalbang jaⁱwa 1 Kermi jɛwa 1 Yakpa jaⁱba 1 Bargaun jæpa 1 Dojam jɛⁱba 1

left दबर / बाया

Til jønpa 1 Muchu jʏma 1 Yalbang jøjma 1 Kermi jøma 1 Yakpa jøⁱma 1 Bargaun jʏnma 1 Dojam jønma 1 near न�जक

Til tsa 3 Muchu ɲeũ 1 2 Yalbang ɲeũ 1 2 Kermi ɲeoŋ 2 Yakpa ɲeũ 1 2 Bargaun ɲeõ 1 2 Dojam ɲemu 1 far टाढा

Til tʰakriŋbu 1 Muchu tʰakriŋbu 1 Yalbang tariŋmo 1 Kermi tʰariŋbo 1 Yakpa tʰaruŋmu 1 Bargaun tʰakriŋbu 1 Dojam tʰariŋbo 1 big ठलो

Til tsʲʰowo 1 Muchu tsʲʰabu 1 Yalbang tsʲʰopo 1 Kermi tsʲʰopu 1 Yakpa tsʲʰobu 1 Bargaun tsʲʰobu 1 Dojam tsʲʰowo 1

small सानो

Til tsʲʰuŋmu 1 2 Muchu tsʲun 2 Yalbang tsʲʏn 2 Kermi tsʲun 2 Yakpa tsʲuŋma 1 2 Bargaun tsʲima 1 Dojam tsʲima 1 heavy गहरङगो

Til dzʲindi 1 Muchu zʲindi 1 Yalbang zʲĩdi 1 Kermi zʲindi 1 Yakpa tsʲindi 1 Bargaun dzʲĩdi 1 Dojam dʒinde 1 light हलका

Til jaŋmo 1 Muchu jaŋmu 1 Yalbang jaŋmũ 1 Kermi jaŋmu 1 Yakpa jɛũ 2 Bargaun jʉŋmu 1 Dojam jɐŋmu 1 below तल / म�न

Til ɦok 3 Muchu jogne 2 Yalbang gogne 1 2 Kermi gukna 1 Yakpa gugna 1 Bargaun gugna 1 2 Dojam kuglʌ 1

61

white सतो

Til karpo 1 Muchu karbu 1 Yalbang karwo 1 Kermi karu 1 Yakpa karbu 1 Bargaun karpu 1 Dojam karbo 1 black कालो

Til nakpo 1 Muchu nakbu 1 Yalbang nakpu 1 Kermi nakpu 1 Yakpa nakpu 1 Bargaun nakpu 1 Dojam nakpo 1 red रातो

Til mɐru 1 Muchu marbu 1 Yalbang marwu 1 Kermi maru 1 Yakpa marbu 1 Bargaun marbu 1 Dojam marbo 1 one एक

Til tʃik 1 Muchu tʃek 1 Yalbang tʃɪk 1 Kermi tʃik 1 Yakpa tʃik 1 Bargaun tʃik 1 Dojam dzik 1

two दई

Til ɲiː 1 Muchu ɲi 1 Yalbang ɲi 1 Kermi ɲiː 1 Yakpa ɲiː 1 Bargaun ɲiː 1 Dojam ɲiː 1 three तीन

Til sum 1 Muchu sum 1 Yalbang sum 1 Kermi sum 1 Yakpa sum 1 Bargaun sum 1 Dojam sum 1 four चार

Til ʒi 1 Muchu ʒi 1 Yalbang dʒi 1 Kermi ʒi 1 Yakpa ʃi 1 Bargaun ʒi 1 Dojam ʒi 1 five पाच

Til ŋa 1 Muchu ŋa 1 Yalbang ŋa 1 Kermi ŋa 1 Yakpa ŋa 1 Bargaun ŋa 1 Dojam ŋa 1

six छ

Til ʈʰuk 1 Muchu ʈʰuk 1 Yalbang ʈʰuk 1 Kermi ʈʰuk 1 Yakpa ʈʰuk 1 Bargaun ʈuk 1 Dojam ʈuk 1 seven सात

Til dyn 1 Muchu dʏn 1 Yalbang dʉn 1 Kermi dun 1 Yakpa tun 1 Bargaun dʉn 1 Dojam tʉn 1 eight आठ

Til ɟɛʔ 1 Muchu ɟe 1 Yalbang ɟet 1 Kermi ɟet 1 Yakpa ɟɛt 1 Bargaun ɟet 1 Dojam ɟɛt 1 nine नौ

Til gu 1 Muchu ⁿgo 1 Yalbang gu 1 Kermi ⁿgu 1 Yakpa ku 1 Bargaun gu 1 Dojam ku 1

62

ten दश

Til tsʲu 1 Muchu tsʲu 1 Yalbang tsʲu 1 Kermi tsʲu 1 Yakpa tsʲu 1 Bargaun tsʲu 1 Dojam tsʲu 1 eleven एघार

Til tsʲutsʲik 1 Muchu tsʲuktsʲek 1 Yalbang tsʲuktsʲɪk 1 Kermi tsʲutsʲik 1 Yakpa tsʲutsʲik 1 Bargaun tsʲuktsʲik 1 Dojam tsʲuktsʲik 1 twelve बाहर

Til tsʲuɲiː 1 Muchu tsʲuni 1 Yalbang tsʲuɲi 1 Kermi tsʲuni 1 Yakpa tsʲuɲi 1 Bargaun tsʲuɲi 1 Dojam tsʲuɲiː 1 twenty बीस

Til ɲiʃu 1 Muchu ɲiʃu 1 Yalbang ɲiʃu 1 Kermi ɲiʃu 1 Yakpa ɲiʃu 1 Bargaun ɲiʃu 1 Dojam ɲiʃu 1

hundred सय

Til ɟa 1 Muchu ɟa 1 Yalbang ɟa 1 Kermi ɟa 1 Yakpa ɟa 1 Bargaun ɟa 1 Dojam ca 1 who? को?

Til su 1 Muchu su 1 Yalbang suda 1 Kermi su 1 Yakpa su 1 Bargaun su 1 Dojam su 1 what? क?

Til tsʲi 1 Muchu tsʲi 1 Yalbang tsʲida 1 Kermi tsʲida 1 Yakpa tsʲi 1 Bargaun tsʲi 1 Dojam tsʲi 1 where? कहा?

Til kana 1 Muchu kãla 1 2 Yalbang kãla 1 2 Kermi kana 1 Yakpa kana 1 Bargaun kãna 1 Dojam kʌl 2

when? क�हल?

Til nam 1 Muchu nam 1 Yalbang nam 1 Kermi nam 1 Yakpa nam 1 Bargaun nam 1 Dojam nam 1 what kind? क� तो?

Til tsʲira tsʲikpa 4 Muchu tsʲida 4 Yalbang tsʲiduwa 3 Kermi tsʲukdawa 3 Yakpa tsʲida 4 Bargaun tsʲugna 1 Dojam tsʲirada 2 this यो

Til de 3 Muchu di 3 Yalbang ide 1 Kermi di 3 Yakpa di 3 Bargaun idi 1 Dojam hoine 2 that � यो

Til pʰei 1 Muchu pʰai 1 Yalbang oⁱde 2 Kermi pʰaŋɛi 1 Yakpa pʰaⁱna 1 Bargaun pʰaina 1 Dojam pʰaine 1

63

those ती

Til pʰeigʲa 1 Muchu pʰai 3 Yalbang odeja 4 Kermi pʰaŋɛi 2 Yakpa pʰaⁱna 1 Bargaun pʰaina 1 Dojam pʰaine 1 same उही/एउट/उ�त

Til tsʲikpa 4 Muchu tsʲekpa 4 Yalbang tsʲore 3 Kermi tsʲora 3 Yakpa tsʲikpa 4 Bargaun tʰakriŋbunaŋ 1 Dojam otsʲerade 2 whole परा

Til tsaŋma 2 Muchu tamdzʲet 3 Yalbang ʂugi 4 Kermi tsʲaŋma 2 Yakpa tsʰaŋma 2 Bargaun gaŋpu 1 Dojam tsʰaŋbo 2 broken फट यो

Til tsʲʰak 1 Muchu tsʲak 1 Yalbang tsʲʰak 1 Kermi tsʲʰæk 1 Yakpa tsʲʰak 1 Bargaun tsʲʰak 1 Dojam tsʲʰak 1

few थोर

Til ɲuŋmu 1 Muchu pili 3 Yalbang ɲuɲmaⁱ 1 Kermi ɨma 2 Yakpa ɲuŋ 1 Bargaun ɲuŋsɛ 1 Dojam ɲuŋse 1 many धर / थपर

Til maŋbo 1 Muchu maŋbu 1 Yalbang maŋbu 1 Kermi maŋbo 1 Yakpa maŋbo 1 Bargaun maŋsɛ 1 Dojam maŋbo 1 all सब

Til tsʰaŋgo 1 Muchu tamdzʲet 3 Yalbang ʂugi 4 Kermi tsʲaŋma 1 Yakpa tsʰaŋma 1 Bargaun tsʰaŋpo 1 Dojam kʰurukʌ 2 eat खायो/नखाऊ

Til sa (se) 1 Muchu sa (se) 1 Yalbang sa 1 Kermi sa (sõ) 1 Yakpa sa (so) 1 Bargaun so (sa) 1 Dojam ʒaⁱ (dʒaⁱ) 1

bite (dog) टो� यो/नटोक

Til dʲak (cap) 2 Muchu mu/ɟak 1 2 Yalbang dʲak (ɟap) 2 Kermi ɟap 2 Yakpa muŋ (muk) 1 Bargaun muk 1 Dojam muk 1 be hungry भोक ला� यो

Til tori 1 Muchu tɔri 1 Yalbang tari 1 Kermi tori 1 Yakpa tokri 1 Bargaun tari 1 Dojam tɔri 1 drink �पयो/न�पऊ

Til tʰuŋ (tuŋ) 1 Muchu tuŋ (tũ) 1 Yalbang tʰuŋ 1 Kermi tʰuŋ (tõ) 1 Yakpa tʰoŋ (tũŋ) 1 Bargaun tʰuŋ (tuŋ) 1 Dojam tuŋ 1 be thirsty �तखार ला� यो

Til kumdi 1 Muchu kumɖi 1 Yalbang kumdi 1 Kermi kumdi 1 Yakpa komdi 1 Bargaun kumdi 1 Dojam kumdi 1

64

sleep स� यो/नसत

Til ɲal (ŋʲal) 1 Muchu ɲal 1 Yalbang ɲal 1 Kermi ŋal (ɲɛl) 1 Yakpa ɲal 1 Bargaun ɲal 1 Dojam ɲal 1 sit ब� यो/नबस

Til døʔ (dɛ) 1 Muchu døt (de) 1 Yalbang dot (da) 1 Kermi dot (da) 1 Yakpa tot (ta) 1 Bargaun dot (dat) 1 Dojam tot (ta) 1 give �दयो/नदऊ

Til ter (tɛ) 1 Muchu ter (te) 1 Yalbang tat (tat) 1 Kermi ter (ta) 1 Yakpa tat (ta) 1 Bargaun ʈer (tat) 1 Dojam ter (ta) 1 burn (intr.) ब� यो/नबाल

Til ʈoŋ (taŋ) 1 Muchu bar 2 Yalbang tsʲʰe 3 Kermi tsʲʰɛ/toŋ 1 3 Yakpa toŋ (ʈoŋ) 1 Bargaun but (pur) 4 Dojam toŋ (taŋ) 1

die म� यो/नमर

Til ʃe/ɕøʔ 1 2 Muchu ʃe/søt 1 2 Yalbang ɕe (ɕi) 2 Kermi ʃe 2 Yakpa ʃi 2 Bargaun ʃi 2 Dojam ʃe 2 kill मा� यो/नमार

Til se/søʔ 1 2 Muchu ʃe/sʏt 1 2 Yalbang so (sa) 1 Kermi sa 1 Yakpa sa/søt 1 2 Bargaun sot (sat) 2 Dojam ʃa 1 fly (bird) उड यो/नउड

Til pʰur 1 Muchu pʰur 1 Yalbang pʰur 1 Kermi pʰur 1 Yakpa pʰur 1 Bargaun pʰur 1 Dojam pʰur 1 walk �हड यो/न�हड

Til laː (lãː) 1 Muchu la/ɖo 1 3 Yalbang la/ɖo 1 3 Kermi la 1 Yakpa lã/ɖo 1 3 Bargaun lãŋ/ɖo 1 3 Dojam pu/do 2 3

jump उ� रयो/नउ� र

Til pʰur 2 Muchu pʰar 2 Yalbang pʰak (pʰak) 2 Kermi pʰa 2 Yakpa pʰaʔ (pʰʌ) 2 Bargaun tsʲoŋ 1 Dojam pʰar 2 swim पौडी ख� यो/नपौडी खल

Til cal cæp 1 Muchu ɟap 1 Yalbang tsʲal ɟap 1 Kermi cal ɟap 1 Yakpa cap (cap) 1 Bargaun tsʲal ɟap 1 Dojam ɟap 1 go गयो/नजाऊ

Til lã/ɖo 1 2 Muchu lã/ɖo 1 2 Yalbang laː/ɖo 1 2 Kermi laː/ɖo 1 2 Yakpa laŋ/ɖo 1 2 Bargaun laŋ/ɖo 1 2 Dojam pu/ɖo 1 come आयो/नआऊ

Til soŋ/maŋ 1 2 Muchu suŋ/maŋ 1 2 Yalbang sõ/maŋ 1 2 Kermi joŋ (dzuŋ) 1 Yakpa joŋ (suŋ) 1 Bargaun juŋ (ʒuŋ) 1 Dojam juŋ (ʒuŋ) 1

65

speak बो� यो/नबोल

Til toŋ (taŋ) 1 Muchu toŋ (taŋ) 1 Yalbang toŋ (taŋ) 1 Kermi taŋ 1 Yakpa tɔŋ (taŋ) 1 Bargaun ɟa tot (ɟa tat) 2 Dojam cap 3 hear स� यो/नसन

Til ko/ɲin 1 2 Muchu hako/ɲin 1 2 Yalbang ɲen 1 Kermi ɲan 1 Yakpa tʲor/ɲɛn 1 3 Bargaun ɲan 1 Dojam jen (jan) 1 see द� यो

Til tãŋ 1 Muchu tʰoŋ 1 Yalbang tʰoŋ 1 Kermi tʰoŋ 1 Yakpa tʰoŋ 1 Bargaun ʈʰoŋ 1 Dojam tʰoŋ 1 I (1st sg) म

Til ŋa 1 Muchu ŋa 1 Yalbang ŋa 1 Kermi ŋa 1 Yakpa ŋaraŋ 1 Bargaun ŋaraŋ 1 Dojam ŋa 1

you (2nd sg inf) �तमी

Til kʰʏ 4 Muchu tʲo 3 Yalbang tʲo 3 Kermi co 1 Yakpa cʰaraŋ 2 Bargaun cʰo 1 Dojam kʰeraŋ 2 you (2nd sg for) तपाई

Til ceraŋ 1 Muchu hoʒak 3 Yalbang horaŋ 3 Kermi coraŋ 1 Yakpa cʰaraŋ 1 Bargaun caraŋ 1 Dojam cʰo 2 he (only) उनी (keʈa)

Til kʰo 2 3 Muchu kʰo 2 3 Yalbang kʰe 3 Kermi kʰo 2 3 Yakpa kʰoroŋ 2 Bargaun cʰoktuŋ 1 Dojam kʰoraŋ 2 she (only) उनी (keʈi)

Til mo 2 Muchu kʰo 3 4 Yalbang kʰe 3 Kermi kʰo 3 4 Yakpa kʰoroŋ 4 Bargaun nʌʒuŋ 1 Dojam mo 2

we (1st pl, incl) हामीहर

Til ɲegʲa 5 Muchu hotamʒe 4 Yalbang ɲegaũ 5 Kermi ɲeraŋɟa 3 Yakpa hɔrɔŋ 6 Bargaun wahaɟaŋpu 1 Dojam waraŋure 2 we (1st pl, excl) हामी

Til ɲegamu 2 Muchu hoɲi 3 Yalbang ɲe 2 Kermi ɲeɟa 2 Yakpa hɔrɔŋca 4 Bargaun waraŋ 1 Dojam waraŋure 1 you (2nd pl, inf) �तमीहर

Til cʰeca 1 Muchu kʰeja 1 Yalbang cʰe 1 Kermi kʰeɟa 1 Yakpa cʰeraŋca 1 Bargaun cʰeraŋ 1 Dojam cʰeraŋure 1 you (2nd pl, for) तपाईहर

Til kʰeraŋca 1 Muchu hoʒakja 2 Yalbang horaŋja 2 Kermi ceraŋɟa 1 Yakpa cʰeraŋca 1 Bargaun cʰagaŋpo 1 Dojam cʰeraŋure 1

66

they (3rd pl, inf) उनीहर

Til cʰeca 4 Muchu kʰoja 3 Yalbang kʰɔja 3 Kermi kʰoɟa 3 Yakpa kʰoraŋca 1 Bargaun kʰwaraŋ 1 Dojam pʰaiure 2

67

Appendix B: Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire

B.1 Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire schedule

My name is ____. What is your name? We are from the Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University. We are here to learn about your language and its situation. We have come to research the languages of this village. We will ask you questions about your village and the languages used in your village. We will give the information given by you to others. Can you give us help? मरो नाम_______________हो। तपाईको नाम कहो ? हामी �तरभवन �व� व�वदयालय भाषा �वजञान क�दरीय �वभागबाट आएकाहौ। हामी तपाईहरल बो�न भाषाको अ� ययन अनस� धान गनर आएका हौ। तपाईको गाउ र तपाईहरल बो�न भाषाका बारमा हामी कही पर� नहर सो�न चाहनछौ। तपाईल �दन भएको भाषा स� ब� धी जानकारी अर मा�नसलाई प�न दखाउनछौ। तपाईल

हामीलाई सहायता गनर स�नह�छ?

INFORMED CONSENT: Given: Not Given: 1. Subject Number 2. Date Day: Month: Year:

3. Place of Interview (a) Village: (b) VDC: (c) GPS Coordinates:

4. Interviewer’s Name 5. Language of Elicitation 6. Language of Response 7. Interpreter’s Name (if needed) 8. Sex: (a) � Male (b) � Female 9. Full Name तपाईको परा नाम क हो? 10. Age तपाईको उमर? 11. What is your mother tongue? तपाईको मात भाषा क हो?

[If Tibetan]: Just like Lhasa Tibetan?: लासा �ट� बटन ज� त छ? 12. What do others call your language? तपाईको भाषा नबो�न मा�छल तपाईको भाषालाई क भ�छन? 13. Are there any other names for this language? यो भाषाका अर क क नाम छन? 14. What village were you born in? तपाई कहा ज� मनभयो? 15. Where do you live now? तपाई आजभो�ल कहा ब� नह� छ? 16. How long have you been living here? तपाई अ�हल बसको ठाउमा क�त बषर ब� नभयो? 17. Have you lived anywhere else for more than a year?

तपाई अर ठाउमा एक वषर भ�दा बढी ब� भएको छ? [If yes]: (a) Where? कहा?, (b) When? क�हल?, (c) How long did you live there? क�त समयस�म?

18. Where is your father from? तपाईको बवाको खास गाउ कन हो? 19. What is his mother tongue? उहाको मात भाषा क हो? 20. Where is your mother from? तपाईको आमाको माइ�त घर कहा हो? 21. What is her mother tongue? उहाको मात भाषा क हो? 22. How many homes are there in your village? तपाईको गाउमा क�त वटा घरहर छन ? 23. Which religion do you practice? तपाई कन धमर मा� न ह� छ?

[If Buddhist]: कन ब�दध� हो? For example: Nyingmapa, Gelugpa 24. Are there other religions present in the village? (For example Hindu)

तपाईको गाउमा अर धमरहर छन? 25. Other ethnic groups residing in your area? अर जातीका मा�नसहर यहा ब� छन?

[If “yes”]: Other languages spoken by those groups? �य जातीका मा�नसहर कन कन भाषाहर बो� छन?

68

26. Do you have different clans (rhuba) in your village? तपाईको गाउमा �ब�भ� न कलहर(rhuba) छन? Which ones? कन कन?

27. Do you have different castes (jaat) in your village? तपाईकोगाउमा धर जातहर छन? Which ones? कन कन?

28. Is there intermarriage in your village? तपाईको गाउमा अ�तजातीय �ववाह भएको छ? [If yes]: With which ethnic groups? कन-कन जाती सग?

29. Do people from your village marry people from outside your village/VDC area? तपाईको गाउको मा� छ अर गाउ-ग�वसको मा� छसग �बबाह गछर न ?

a. From which other places? कन कन अर गाउको मा� छसग �बबाह गछर न ? b. Do people from your village marry people from ____________________ area?

तपाईको गाउको मा� छ _______________�तरको मा� छसग प�न �बबाह गछर न ? i. Limi area

ii. Muchu area iii. Khangalgaun area iv. Hepka/Kermi area v. Bargaun area (Nyinba)

vi. Purang c. What do people think about it; Is it good or not?(ask about each place separately)

मा� छहरको �बचारमा � यो रामरो छ �क नरामरो? 30. [Polyandry]: Do women have more than one husband in this village?

[बहप�त परथा]: क यस गाउको कन � वा� नी मा�नसको एउटा भ� दा बदी लो� न छ? a. [If yes]: How many: (all, most, some, almost none)?

[छ भन]: क�तजनाको: (सबको, धर जसोको, कसको प�न छन)? b. When young people get married nowadays, do they also marry this way?

क आज भो�लका जवान आईमाईहर प�न यसरी �बह गछर न? 31. We have heard that different areas of Humla are divided into clusters. We have heard about

Satthapale (around Muchu), Syandephale and Panchsati (around Hepka and Kermi), and Barthapale (around Bargaun), and Limi. हामील सनका छौ �क ह� लालाई �व�भ� भागमा बा�डएको छ। हामील Sathapale (Muchu न�जक), Syandepale र Panchsati (Hepka र Kermi न�जक), र Barthapale (Bargaun न�जक) र Limiको बारमा सनका छौ।

a. Do you have any local names for these groups? यी समहहरको � थानीय नामहर छन? यी कसरी मह� वपणर छन?

b. Why are these important? यी �कन मह� वपणर छन? c. Can you tell us little bit more about what it means to belong to these groups?

क तपाई हामीलाई यी समहहरमा बा�डनको अथर क हो कही अर करा बताइ�दन स� नह� छ? 32. Have you heard of Humli Khyampas (nomads that travel)?

तपाईल ह� ली ख� पा (घम� त जात) को बारमा स� नभएको छ? a. Do they come to your village? क �तनीहर तपाईको गाउमा आउछन? b. Has anyone in your village married with a Humli Khyampa? (anyone living here now?)

क तपाईको गाउको कसल ह� ली ख� पासग �बह गरका छन? (उनीहरम� य कोही यही ब� दछन?) c. Is their language similar or different to yours?

उनीहरको भाषा तपाईको भाषा ज� त छ �क फरक? d. Can you tell us little bit more about them?

क तपाई हामीलाई �तनीहरको बारमा कही थप करा बताइ�दन स� नह� छ? 33. How often do men from your village travel outside the village?

तपाईको गाउको लो� न मा� छहर क�तको गाउबाट बा�हर जा� छन ? [Ask these questions for each of the different locations]:

a. Where do they go? कन-कन ठाउहरमा जा� छन ? b. What are the reasons they travel outside the village? कको ला�ग बा�हर जा� छन ? c. In which seasons do people go to these places? कन म�हनामा � यो ठाउमा जा� छन ? d. For how long do they generally remain outside the village? पराय � यो ठाउमा क�त समय ब� छन ?

69

34. How often do women from your village travel outside the village? तपाईको गाउको आइमाइ मा� छहर क�तको गाउबाट बा�हर जा� छन ? [Ask these questions for each of the different locations]:

a. Where do they go? कन-कन ठाउहरमा जा� छन ? b. What are the reasons they travel outside the village? कको ला�ग बा�हर जा� छन ? c. In which seasons do people go to these places? कन म�हनामा � यो ठाउमा जा� छन ? d. For how long do they generally remain outside the village?परय � यो ठाउमा क�त समया ब� छन ?

We have heard that there are other places here in Humla that people speak in a similar way to the way you do; around Limi, around Muchu, around Khangalgaun, around Hepka (Yakpa), around Bargaun (Nyimba), don’t they? हामील सनको छौ �क एता ह� लामा आर ठाउहारमा प�न तपाईको भाषा ज� त बो�ल� छ। �ल�म �तर, मछ �तर, खागलगाउ �तर, ह� क �तर (य�पा) र बाहरगाउ �तर (�� य� बा) होइन त?

35. Are there any specific names for these different language varieties? यो फरक फरक ठाउहारको भाषाहरको ला�ग कन �बशस नाम हर छ �क?

36. Do people in these other places speak the same way as you? … �तर प�न तपाई ज� त बो� छन �क?

37. Have you met people from these other places? तपाईल …को मा� छहर सग भट न भएको छ? 38. [If yes]:

a. When you speak with people from these other places what language do you use? …को मा�नसहर सग भट दाखरी तपाईल कन भाषामा बो� न ह� छ?

b. Do you change the way you speak? Or do you speak exactly the dialect of your village? उहाहरसग बो� दा तपाईल बो� न तिरका बद� न ह� छ? �क ठया� क आ� नो गाउको भाषा बो� न ह� छ?

39. Have you met people from Purang? तपाईल पराङको मा� छहर सग भट न भएको छ? 40. [If yes:] Do people also in Purang speak the same way as you?

पराङ �तर प�न तपाई ज� त बो� छन �क? a. When you speak with people from Purang what language do you use?

पराङको मा�नसहर सग भट दाखरी तपाईल कन भाषामा बो� न ह� छ? b. Do you change the way you speak? Or do you speak exactly the dialect of your village?

उहाहरसग बो� दा तपाईल बो� न तिरका बद� न ह� छ? �क ठया� क आ� नो गाउको भाषा बो� न ह� छ? 41. What do you call the language spoken in Purang? पराङगमा बो�लन भाषालाई क भ�न� छ? 42. Do you call it Drokke (Drokpa) or is Drokke something different?

यसली डरो� क (डरो� पा) भ�न� छ? �क डरो� क कही फरक छ? [If different, ask the questions 43‒45:]

43. Where is Drokke spoken? डरो� क भाषा कहा af]lnG5? 44. Have you met Drokpa people? तपाईल डरो� पा मा� छहर सग भट न भएको छ?

Where do you normally meet them? तपाई �त�नहरलाई सामा� यतया कहा भट नह� छ? 45. [If yes:]

a. When you speak with Drokpa people, what language do you use? डरो� पा मा�नसहर सग भट दाखरी तपाईल कन भाषामा बो� न ह� छ?

b. Do you change the way you speak? Or do you speak exactly the dialect of your village? उहाहरसग बो� दा तपाईल बो� न तिरका बद� न ह� छ? �क ठया� क आ� नो गाउको भाषा बो� न ह� छ?

46. When you speak your mother tongue in the presence of people from Tibet what do you feel? �ट� बटको मा� छहरको बीचमातपाई लाई आ�नो मातभाषा बो�दा क�तो ला�छ?

(a) � Prestigious पर�त�ा बढ ज�तो ला�छ (b) � Embarrassed अ� ठयारो ला�छ (c) � Neutral �य�तो कही ला�दन

47. When you speak your mother tongue in the presence of Nepali speaking people what do you feel? नपाली भाषा बो�न मा� छहरको बीचमा तपाईलाई आ�नो मातभाषा बो�दा क�तो ला�छ?

(a) � Prestigious पर�त�ा बढ ज�तो ला�छ (b) � Embarrassed अ� ठयारो ला�छ (c) � Neutral �य�तो कही ला�दन

48. Have you ever had any problem because of being a native speaker of your mother tongue? मातभाषी भएक कारण तपाईल क�ह�य कन सम�या भो�न भएको छ?

49. [If yes:] What kinds of problems have you had? क क�तो सम�या भो�नभएको छ?

70

50. Is a school available for primary level children? पराथ�मक तहको �कल छ? a. Where are schools located? कहा छ? b. Which ethnic group(s) are the teachers from? �शकषक �श�कषकाहर कन जातबाट? c. What language(s) do teachers use with children in the classroom?

उहाहर ककषामा कन भाषा परयोग गनरह�छ? 51. Is a school available for secondary-level children? मा�य�मक तहको �कल छ?

a. Where are schools located? कहा छ? b. Which ethnic group(s) are the teachers from? �शकषक �श�कषकाहर कन जातबाट? c. What language(s) do teachers use with children in the classroom?

उहाहर ककषामा कन भाषा परयोग गनरह�छ? 52. Are there any recordings available in the language of your village?

तपाईको गाउको भाषामा कन रकड�ङहर गिरएको छन? � folk tales लोक कथा � songs सगीत � religious matters धा�मरक सा�ह�य � radio र�डयो � films �सनमा / चल चीतर � other अ�य

53. Are there materials written in your language? तपाईको भाषामा �ल�खत सामगरी क-क छन? a. What script(s) is it written in? कन �ल�पमा ल�खएका छन? b. What kind of materials are they? ती क� ता �क�समका सामगरी हर हन? � phonemic inventory वणरमाला � grammar �याकरण � dictionary श�दकोष � textbooks � कलको �कताब � literacy materials साकषरता सामगरी � newspapers समाचारपतर � magazines प�तरका � written literature �ल�खत सा�ह�य � folklore लोकवातार � other अ�य c. Do you read any of these things written in your language?

तपाई आ�नो भाषामा मा�थका सामगरी म�य कन पढन ह�छ? 54. Are there any organizations that promote the knowledge and/or use of the language?

तपाईको भाषामा भएको जञान अथवा उपयोगलाई �वकास वा परवदधरनमा ला�गपरका कन सघस�था वा �नकायहर छन? a. [If yes:] Please name those organizations. ती स�थाहरको नाम भनी �दन होस। b. What kinds of activities does each organization perform?

ती स�थाल क क�ता काम गछर न? � cultural सा�क�तक � linguistic भा�षक � educational श�कषक � other अ�य

55. Does your community use written marriage invitations? तपाईहरलखको �बहको �न�तो गनर पदार परयोग गनर ह�छ?

Which language? कन कन भाषा? 56. Does your community write minutes in community meetings?

समदायका बठकमा भएका �नणरयतपाईहर ल� न ह� छ? In which language? कन कन भाषामा?

71

B.2 Knowledgeable Insider Questionnaire data

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

2 Date 13-Jun-12 15-Jun-12 19-Jun-12 26-Jun-12 15-Oct-12 18-Oct-12 23-Oct-12

3a Village Kermi Muchu Til Yalbang Bargaun Dojam Yakpa

3b VDC Khangalgaun Muchu Limi Muchu Bargaun Thehe Hepka

4 Interviewer David/Norbu David/Norbu David David/Norbu David David David

5 L of Elic Nepali Nepali English Nepali Nepali Nepali Nepali

6 L of Resp Nepali Nepali Limi Nepali Nepali Nepali Nepali

7 Interpreter Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No

8 Sex M M M M M M M

10 Age 42 45 63 67 66 47 54

11 MT Lama, Bhote, Kham (Nepalis use these three)

Lama language pöke (Tibetan) Kham/Kham lap/ phoket lap

Tibetan Kham language Phoka

11a Lhasa No No, little different No, different No No No N/A

12 Others call language

Sarak Khalu (Khangalgaun)

Lama Bhasa Muchu: Limi, Limi Bhasa

Kham Bhote Bhasa Bhote Bhasa Bhote bhasa

13 Other names

Sarak Khalu (auto glottonym)

Muchu Phöke (autoglottonym)

Limi Kecha (autoglottonym)

Lap Tong Lu, Yalbang Lap Tong Lu

No response Bhote Bhasa, Pot Bhasa, Chang Kat

N/A

14 Born Kermi Muchu Til Yari Bargaun Dojam Yakpa

15 Live now Kermi Muchu Til Yalbang Bargaun Dojam Yakpa

16 How long All life All life All life 40 years All life All life All life

17 Lived elsewhere

No No No Yes No No No

72

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

17a Where N/A N/A N/A India/Bajura N/A N/A N/A

17b When N/A N/A N/A 12–13 years old, 40 years ago

N/A N/A N/A

17c How long N/A N/A N/A 2/3/2007 N/A N/A N/A

18 Where father

Kermi Muchu Til Yari Bargaun Dojam Yakpa

19 MT father Sarak Khalu Muchu phöke Limi Kham/phoket Tibetan Bhote Bhasa Phoka/Bhote (here)

20 Where mother

Chyaduk Yari Til Yari (Gumba/Yangshi)

Torpa Dojam Yakpa

21 MT mother

Chyaduk Khalu Yari poke Limi Kham/phoket Tibetan Bhote Bhasa Phoka/Bhote (here)

22 # homes in village

70 32 Big: 13, middle/small, Total: 38

32 52 58 90

23 Religion Boudha (Buddhist) Boudha (Buddhist) Buddhist Boudha Buddhist Boudha Boudha

23a Sect Nyingma Nyingma Drikung Kyagu Nyungmu (Tumkot Sakya)

Nyingmapa Nyingmapa maybe (same as Bargaun)

Nyingma

24 Other religions

No No Some Nyingmapa Buddhist influence; Sheba Rinboche-Yalbang (master); Pema Riksal Rinboche-Yalbang)

No Hindu Hindu No

25 Other ethnicity

No No No No Yes - Dalit (3 houses) Nepali

Gurung (Bhote Bhasa), Tamang (Bhasa), Kami/Dalit (Nepali)

No

26 Clans Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

26a Which Tyeba, Darba, Goo, Gyelgud (perhaps 1 more)

Tyewa, Gyelgut, (maybe others but not sure)

High clan: [ru tʰowa]; Low clan: [ru mawa]

2–3 clans, Tyewa, Gyegit

Kyuupa, Duwa, Darba (a few others, 1 or 2 houses)

Khaushila (blood caste), Nyinba

Darba, Tewa, Gasha, Chowa

73

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

27 Caste No No No No No No response No

27a Which N/A N/A N/A N/A Nyimba rohe, Hindu dalit

No response N/A

28 Intermarriage

No Yes No No No Yes No

28a Which groups

N/A n/r N/A N/A None in the village, but if they leave the village American, Nepali

Chhetri, Gurung, Baun

N/A

29 Marry out Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

29a Which places

Chyaduk, Khangalgaun, Dhingga (Kermi women go up, but upper women don’t come down)

Khangal VDC, Yakpa VDC, Purang

N/A Chala, Khangalgaun, Yari, Yanger, Muchu

Torpu, Nimatang, Burangshe

Thehe, Dingga, Bargaun, Chhipru, Nimatang

Khalgalgaun, Kermi, Yalbang, Muchu, Purang, Limi

29b-i Yes No Yes No No No Yes

29c-i No, a little Yes Yes Yes own desire Yes No

29b-ii No Yes No Yes No No Yes

29c-ii No, a little Yes No Yes own desire Yes No

29b-iii Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes

29c-iii Yes Yes No Yes own desire Yes No

29b-iv No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

29c-iv No, a little Yes No, a little Yes own desire Yes Yes - Yakpa, Tangin, Dingga, Gadapari

29b-v No No No No Yes Yes No

29c-v No, a lot Yes No, a lot Yes Own desire Yes No

74

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

29b-vi No Yes No No No Yes Yes

29c-vi No Yes No Yes Own desire Yes No

30 1> husband

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - in the past

30a How many

Some Some Most Almost none (2 families)

Some Some (18) None now

30b Young this way

Yes, a little Yes, a little Yes, some No Yes - people marry according to their desire

Yes No

31a Local names

Tukchuk, Lungba-Kolshi, Khangalgaun, Chyaduk, Kermi, Yalbang, Yanggar, Muchu, Tumkot, Yari, Chala

VDC names, Tukchuk Lungba/Khola

Rongba VDC names only Thapale= lama jaati; Charthapale(?)= baray meltsam, Radu Buwa, Putsa Khola, Puma Charigau, Yepka; Chaubise= lama but speak Nepali (Byansi); Limi= Limi (drikung); Muchu= (7 gaun) Satthapale (Sakya); Hepka/Khagalgaun VDC= SatiKhole/Tukchulungba (Nyingmapa); Barthapale= Nyimba (Nyingmapa)

No other names Satikhola, Tukchu lungba refers to Hekpa VDC only

31b Important

Yes before it was important

n/r No n/r Yes N/A

31c Comment Has heard of Barthapale and Satthapale

Has heard of Barthapale and Satthapale

Groups not known Old names n/r Dojam part of Barthhapale? n/r?

(Recording)

75

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

32 Kyampas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

32a Come to village

Yes, sometimes Yes, some have settled in Muchu

No Yes, sometimes, coming up and down for Rinpoche

Yes - only for gomba jet month

Yes Yes

32b Married No Yes No No No Yes No

32c Language similar

Very different A little (half) different

Little different Similar; words same, pronunciation different

Different; but understand

Different; a little Different; one language, but different

32d Other They travel from Tibet to Simikot orKTM

Dangali Khyampa/Tasadunga (summer) + Acham (winter)

Homlo Khampa, go to Sher

Known as Humlu Khampa, before they had no fields, winter; Saphebugar Doti, summer; Tadadunga [Yari], but now they have land; Martari [Bajeria], Syaina [Khangalgaun]

Rani Karka stay in some cold months

n/r Also called Dangali Khyampa; One language, but different: Bajura, Bajang, Surkhet-houses now

33 Men travel

Yes, a lot Half A lot Often Often Sometimes Often

33a Where Darchula, Bajang, India, KTM

KTM, India, China, all Humla towns

Purang, KTM, India (phuru), Mt Kailash

India, KTM, Purang

Taklakot, KTM, India

Taklakot; Limi/Kermi/Darma; Simikot; Mugu/Dolpa/Bajang

India; Chainpur; Taklakot

33b Reasons Business, (phuru), medicine plant(?)

Business, government work, school, pilgrimage

Phuru, work (construction, farming), buy supplies, pilgrimage

Phuru, pilgrimage, buy supplies/business

Business (Taklakot+India)

Business (all) Business (all)

76

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

33c Seasons Dhagun-Asar (5 months), Mugsher-Phagu (phuru)

Summer: China, Mangsir- (KTM/India). All months: Humla pilgrimage

Spring-summer, autumn, some before snow

Winter: KTM,India, Monsoon: Purang

Cold months (Taklakot), winter (India)

Jeth/Kartik (Taklakot); Saun/Bhadau (Limi/Kermi/Darma); all months (Simikot)

Kartik (India), winter (Chainpur), Jeth through Mangsir (Taklakot)

33d How long

5 months 2–3 months, Humla few days

Depends on people India: 1–3 months [depends on money], KTM: 1–6 months, Purang: 1–2 days

6 months (Taklakot), depends (India)

3 months (Taklakot); 4–5 days (Limi/Kermi/Darma); depends (1 day to 2–3 months)(Simikot); 4–5 days (Mugu/Dolpa/Bajang)

2–3 months (India); 1–2 months (Chainpur); 7 months (Taklakot)

34 Women travel

Yes, sometimes Seldom Purang often, other places rarely

Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes

34a Where Simikot, KTM, Kailash

KTM, India, China, Simikot, other countries

Purang mostly, KTM few

KTM, Simikot Simikot, Kailash, KTM, India

Thehe, Simikot, Nepalgunj

India; Taklakot

34b Reasons Hospital/medicine, pilgrimage

Pilgrimage, work Food, construction, farming, irrigation

KTM: pilgrimage or when sick, Simikot: official stuff, shopping

Pilgrimage (Kailash, KTM + India), not for business

Meet friends (Thehe); business (Simikot); business/medical (Nepalgunj)

Hotel/purwu (all)

34c Seasons KTM: winter, Kailash: set-asar, Simikot: winter

Mangsir: KTM/China, monsoon: Kailash, Any time: Simikot+other countries. Sattaple-Muchu VDC, Tapale=Lama

Spring-summer, autumn, some before snow

Winter: KTM, any time needed; Simikot

Winter (Kailash, KTM + India)

Mangsir (Thehe); Mangsir (Simikot); Poush/Magh/Bhadau (Nepalgunj)

Winter (India); summer (Taklakot)

77

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

34d How long

KTM: one month, Kailash: 15 days, Simikot: 7 days

1 month Depends on job; KTM:1‒3 months

Simikot; 1–2 days, KTM; depends on money

Depends (Kailash, KTM + India)

1 day (Thehe); depends (Simikot); 1–2 weeks (Nepalgunj)

5–6 months (India); 7 months (Taklakot)

35 Limi Limi khalu Limi lap N/A BUT Humlake/kecha; Rongba kecha/ke below Nyahla/Nara la

Phoket Drikungko bhasa Limi Bhote/Phoka

35 Muchu Muchu khalu Phöke n/r Phoket Sakyako bhasa Tukchu bhasa Bhote/Phoka

35 Khangal Khanglang khalu Khoma lap + Kermi=Sarak lap

Yakpa (+ Kermi) Phoket/Ronget n/r N/A Bhote/Phoka

35 Hepka Yakpa khalu Yakpa lap/bhasa Yakpa Phoket/Ronget n/r N/A N/A

35 Bargaun Nyimba khalu Parka lap (and other villages have other names)

Nyimba ke Phoket/Ronget Nyingmapako bhasa

Nyinkat Rongbu Khalu

36 Limi No, a lot No, a little N/A, BUT Tibetan language, but different

Yes, a little different

Every place is different, but the same language. Understand eachother.

No No, a little different

36 Muchu No, a little Yes, BUT Muchu, Tumkot, Yari (=Yerikpa) is the same, and Yangar and Yalbang is different.

No Yes, a little different

Every place is different, but the same language. Understand each other.

No No, a little different

36 Khangal No, a little No, a little No Yes, a little different

Every place is different, but the same language. Understand each other.

No No, a little different

78

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

36 Hepka No, a little No, a lot No Yes, a little different

Every place is different, but the same language. Understand each other.

No N/A

36 Bargaun No, a lot No, a lot No Yes, a little different

Every place is different, but the same language. Understand each other.

Yes No, does not understand everything (mildaina)

37 Limi Yes Yes N/A Yes n/r Yes Yes

37 Muchu Yes Yes Yes Yes n/r Yes Yes

37 Khangal Yes Yes N/A, Kermi is seen as Yakpa

Yes n/r Yes Yes

37 Hepka Yes Yes Yes Yes n/r Yes N/A

37 Bargaun Yes Yes Yes Yes n/r Yes Yes

38a Use language

Own language with everyone

Own L with everyone, Kaas Lama Muchu, Limi: Tibetans understand

Own language with everyone

Phoket Yalbang with all

n/r Limi; Muchu; Khangalgau; Yakpa; Dojam language

Own

38b Change Yes, with Limi like Limi, no with the rest

No No No n/r n/r; change a bit Own; for Bargaun they change a bit

39 Met Purang

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not asked Yes

40 Purang L same

No No, but understand No, but very similar

n/r nr not asked Yes

40a What L w/ Purang

Tibetan Own Muchu Limi (Purang use own language)

Phoket Yalbang Own Not asked Yakpa

40b Change L N/A No No No No Not asked No

41 Purang L name

Purang khalu Purang lap Purang kecha Phoket Tibetan Not asked Purang Kaln

79

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

42 Drokke same

Different Different Different; Tibetan hard to understand

Different, a little, phoket

Different; understand

Not asked Different

43 Where Kailash, Dachen (?), Miserchuw; Horchni

Purang, Kailash No special place Don’t know N/A N/A Purang area

44 Met Drokke

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not asked Yes

44a Where Kailash, Purang Purang, Kailash Purang Purang Taklakot Not asked Taklakot, Purang, and Limi area

45a What Language

Drokpa-ko language

Try to speak like Drokke

Speak Limi, and Drokpa people speak own language

Yalbang phoket Tibetan Not asked Own

45b Change N/A Yes No No No Not asked No

46 MT w/ Tib feel

Embarrassed. Tibetans call our L Rongba Bhasa

Embarrassed with Drokke, but neutral with Tibet

Neutral Prestigious Prestigious Embarrassed Prestigious

47 MT w/ Nepali feel

Prestigious Neutral Neutral, but thinking maybe they understand

Neutral Prestigious Prestigious Prestigious

48 Problem Yes Yes No No n/r Not asked No

49 What problems

With Tibetans that call our L Rongba Bhasa ‘lowlander languae’

Communication problems with Indians + foreigner

N/A N/A N/A Not asked N/A

50 Primary school

Yes Yes, until 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, up to class 8

50a Where Kermi Muchu Til [later found out that this only goes to class 1, but each year they plan to get new books up to class 5 - info from…]

Yalbang Bargaun Dozan up to class 5 Yakpa

80

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

50b Teachers Kermi Lama Chaudari, Sarma, Artel (Chetri/Bahun), Lama

Tilwa (1 from Til) Chaudari, Humli, Nepali, Bhote, Nepali

Lama, Brahmin, Thakuri

Chhetri Chaudhary, Lama, Thakuri

50c Language used

Nepali (sometimes, if something is not understood local language used)

Nepali Not sure Nepali, English, Lama [Nepali medium]

Nepali, English Nepali Nepali, English

51 Secondary school

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

51a Where Changonphaya and Lulbang

Yalbang+Yangar Most people send to India, KTM

Yalbang Bargaun Bargaun, Simikot Changonphaya

51b Teachers Nepali, Lama, Chaudhari

All ethnic groups, volunteer Lama

Tibetan, sometimes Indian+Nepali

Chaudari, Humli, Nepali, Bhote

Lama, Brahmin, Thakuri

Not asked (see Bargaun KIQ)

Chettri, Bista, Bahun, Lama

51c Language used

Nepali plus Tibetan in Yalbang

Tibetan, Nepali Tibetan, English, Nepali

Nepali, English, Lama [Nepali medium]

Nepali, English Not asked (see Bargaun KIQ)

Nepali and English

52 Recordings

No No Not sure (Dorje from KTM said there are some but probably not available)

No Yes - radio Yes - religious matters

Yes - songs and songs for TV

53 Written materials

No Yes No No No No No

53a Script N/A Tibetan N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

53b Kind N/A Songs, available in Yari (same songs)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

53c Read N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

54 Organisations

No No No, but No No No No

54a Names N/A N/A Limi Youth Society N/A N/A N/A N/A

54b Activities N/A N/A Cultural, Educational, phone

N/A N/A N/A N/A

81

Sub # KERD01 MUCD01 TILD01 YALD01 BARD01 DOD001 YAKD001

55 Marriage invitation

Khata + chang, Tibetan bread

Orally, Nepali+English

Go to village by house, one letter for each village in Tibetan

Nepali and Tibetan Script [own language]

Oral Oral language only Oral language only

56 Language for meeting

Nepali Nepali No Mostly Nepali, Tibetan Script [own language]

Nepali writing but speak Tibetan

Nepali, Bhote Bhasa (Devanagari)

Nepali

Additional comments

*50% of people read Tibetan script *They read at home or in gompa *Primary school they don’t learn Tibetan script, but he wants lamas to teach Tibetan script.

Sattapale = Muchu VDC, Barthapale = Nyimba, Yari changoi West, Yari Longoi East \ really good, but too old

* Teacher to teach Tibetan language * Money to pay the teacher * Maoists gave Tibetan books, but they didn’t have money to pay teachers. * Recording STE-000.wav (folder 1 David).

Recording STE-000.wav

Recording STE-013 (folder 2, David)

82

Appendix C: Informal Interview

C.1 Informal interview schedule

My name is ____. What is your name? We are from Tribhuvan University. We are here to learn about how your language is used for speaking and writing. We will ask you questions about yourself and your language. [RSQ: Then we will listen to a story and ask you a few questions about that story.]We will give the information given by you to others. Can you give us help? मरो नाम _____ हो। तपाईको नाम क हो ?हामी �तरभवन �व� व�वदयालयबाट आएका हौ। हामी तपाईहरको भाषा कसरी बो�लनरहछ कसरी ल�खनरहछभ� नकराजा� नका ला�ग आएका हौ। तपाई र तपाईको भाषाकाबारमाहामी कही पर� नहर सो� छौ। [RSQ: � यसप�छ कथा स� छौ र � यो कथाको बारमा कहीपर� नहरसो� छौ।]तपाईल �दन भएको भाषास� ब� धी जानकारी अर मा�नसलाई प�न दखाउन छौ। तपाईल हामीलाई सहायता गनर स�नह�छ?

INFORMED CONSENT: Given: Not Given: 1. Subject Number 2. Date Day: Month: Year:

3. Place of Interview Village: VDC: GPS Coordinates:

4. Interviewer’s Name 5. Language of Elicitation 6. Language of Response 7. Interpreter’s Name (if needed) 8. Sex: (a) � Male (b) � Female 9. Full Name तपाईको परा नाम क हो? 10. Age तपाईको उमर? 11. What is your mother tongue? तपाईको मात भाषा/आ� नो भाषा क हो?

a. [If Tibetan:] Just like Lhasa Tibetan? लासा �ट� बटन ज� त छ? b. But what do you call the language that you speak here in the village?

तर तपाईको गाउको भाषा कन नाम बाट �च�न� छ? 12. Where were you born? तपाई कहा ज� मनभयो? 13. Where do you live now? तपाई आजभो�ल कहा ब� नह� छ? 14. How long have you been living there? तपाई अ�हल बसको ठाउमा क�त बषर ब� नभयो?

83

15. Have you lived anywhere else for more than a year? तपाई आर ठाउमा एक बषर भ�दा बढी ब� न भएको छ? [If yes]: a. Where? कहा?b. When? क�हल?c. How long did you live there? क�त समयस�म?

16. Where is your father from? तपाईको बवाको खास गाउ कन हो? 17. What is his mother tongue? उहाको मात भाषा क हो? 18. Where is your mother from? तपाईको आमाको माइ�त घर कहा हो? 19. What is her mother tongue? उहाको मात भाषा क हो? 20. What language did your father/mother usually speak to you when you were a child?

तपाई सानो हदा तपाईको बवा र आमाल तपाईसग कन भाषा बो�न ह��यो? 21. What language did you speak first? तपाईल सबभ�दा प�हल कन भाषा बो�न भयो? 22. What other languages can you speak? तपाई कन कन अक� भाषा बो� न स� न ह� छ? 23. Which language do you speak… यी भाषाहर म�य तपाई कन भाषा …. बो� न ह� छ:

a. best सब भ�दा रामरो? b. second best? दोसरो रामरो? c. third best? तसरो रामरो? d. fourth best? चौथो रामरो?

24. Among the languages that you speak which one do you love the most? तपाईल बो�न भाषाहर म�य कन चाही सब भ�दा बढी मन पराउनह�छ?

25. What is your (present) occupation? तपाई क काम गनर ह� छ? 26. Previous occupation प�हल तपाईल क क काम गनर भएको छ? 27. Are you married? तपाईको �ववाह भएको छ? 28. [If married]: Where is your spouse from?

तपाईको शरीमानको खास गाउ कन हो? (OR: तपाईको शरीमतीको माइ�त घर कहा हो?) a. [If MT is different]: What is his/her mother tongue? उहाको मात भाषा क हो? b. Can your spouse speak your mother tongue?

तपाईको शरीमान / शरीमती तपाईको मात भाषा बोल न सक नह�न छ? 29. In your home, what language do you speak? तपाईको घरमा कन भाषा बो� नह� छ? 30. How many children do you have? तपाईको क�त जना छोराछोरीहर छन? 31. How many of your children go (/have gone) to school?

तपाईको क�त जना छोराछोरीहर � कलमा पढ छन )पढका छन( ? 32. Have you ever been to school? तपाई अफल � कलमा पढ नभएकोछ?

[If so]:Up to which class? क�त ककषा स� म?

84

33. What language(s) do you speak with your…: [If they give several, write all down, but also ask “Which one do you use the most?”] सब भ�दाधर कन चा�ह बो� न ह� छ?:

a. parents तपाईको बवा आमासग तपाई कन भाषा बो� नह� छ? b. brothers and sisters तपाईको दाजभाई र �ददी ब�हनीहर सग तपाई कन भाषा बो� नह� छ? c. children [If no children, don’t ask!] तपाईको छोराछोरीहरसग तपाई कन भाषा बो� नह� छ? d. village friends तपाईको गाउको साथीहरसग तपाई कन भाषा बो� नह� छ?

34. Which language do you use most frequently for the following purposes? तपाई ………..…………………………… कन भाषा पराय परयोग गनर ह� छ?

Domain Language a. Singing गीत गाउदा b. Bargaining/ Shopping/ Marketing हाटबजार गदार/मोलतोलगदार c. Story telling कथा भ�दा d. Praying पजा गदार / पराथरना गदार e. Telling stories to children कटाकटीलाई कथा सनाउदा f. Singing at home घरमा गीत गाउदा g. Village meetings गाउको बठकमा

35. What language do your children usually speak while: तपाईका छोराछोरील पराय जसो ………..……………………… कन भाषा परयोग गछर न?

a. playing with other children? साथीहरसग ख�दा? b. talking with neighbors? �छमक�हरसग करा गदार?

36. In your opinion, what language should children in your village learn to speak first? तपाईको �बचारमा तपाईको गाउको ब� चाहरल कन भाषा सबभ� दा प�हल बो� नपछर?

37. Do people from your village marry people from outside your village/VDC area? तपाईको गाउको मा� छ अर गाउको मा� छसग �बबाह गछर न ?

a. From which other places? कन कन अर गाउको मा� छसग �बबाह गछर न ? b. Is it good or not? � यो रामरो छ �क नरामरो?

38. How would you feel if your son or daughter married someone who did not speak your MT? तपाईलाई क� तो ला� छ य�द तपाईको छोरा �क छोरील तपाईको भाषा नबो� नसग �बह गय� भन? [If positive answer]:

What other languages do you accept? कन कन अर भाषा बो� नलाई तपाईल � वीकार गनरह� छ? 39. Do young people in your village speak your mother tongue well, the way it ought to be spoken? तपाईका गाउका यवाल तपाईको भाषा रामरोसग बो� न जा� दछन? 40. Do you think that the language spoken by you is different from your grandparents?

तपाईलाई तपाईल बो�न भाषा तपाईका हजरबा/हजरआमाल बो�न भाषा भ�दा फरक छ भ� न ला� छ?

85

41. [If yes]: How is it different? क कमा फरक होला? (Allow them to answer and then pompt with these options): a. Pronunciation उ�ारण गदार खरी b. Vocabulary श�दहरमा c. Mixing of languages अक� भाषाहर �मसाएर d. Way of speaking बो�न तिरकामा e. Other अ�यमा /

42. Have you met people from (around)_________: तपाईल _________ �तराको मा� छहर सग भट न भएको छ?

Yes No Comment a. Limi b. Muchu c. Khangalgaun d. Hepka e. Bargaun

43. When people from (around)_______________ speak to each other fast how much do you understand _________ �तराको मा� छहारल एक अकर सग �छटो बो� दा तपाईल क�तको ब� न ह� छ?

All

सब Most

धरजसो Half

आधाज�त

Only a little अ�लअ�लमातर

None

कहीप�न

Comment

a. Limi b. Muchu c. Khangalgaun d. Hepka e. Bargaun

86

44. How do you like the way people from ….speak? तपाईलाई _________________ �तरको भाषा क� तो ला� छ?

Very good धररामरो

Good रामरो

OK ठीक

Not good नरामरो

Comment

a. Limi b. Muchu c. Khangalgaun d. Hepka e. Bargaun

45. How do you like the habits / customs of people from….? तपाईलाई __________�तरको चलनहर (बानी � यवहार) क� तो ला� छ?

Very good धररामरो

Good रामरो

OK ठीक

Not good नरामरो

Comment

a. Limi b. Muchu c. Khangalgaun d. Hepka e. Bargaun

46. What language do you speak with other Tibetan people in Humla? तपाई अर ह� लाको phöpa हर सग कन भाषा बो� नह� छ?

47. Are there any situations where you do not speak your mother tongue with other Tibetan people in Humla? तपाई क�हल क�ह अर ह� लाको phöpa हर सग तपाईको आ� नो भाषा बो� न ह� न?

[If yes:] In what kind of situations? क�हल? 48. Have you met people from Purang? तपाईल पराङको मा� छहर सग भट न भएको छ?

[If yes, ask questions 49–51]

87

49. Do people in Purang speak the same way as you? फराङ �तर प�न तपाई ज� त बो� छन �क? a. When you speak with people from Purang what language do you use?

पराङको मा�नसहर सग भट दा खरी तपाईल कन भाषामा बो� न ह� छ? b. Do you change the way you speak? Or do you speak exactly the dialect of your village?

उहाहरसग बो� दा तपाईल बो� न तिरका बद� न ह� छ? �क ठया� क आ� नो गाउको भाषा बो� न ह� छ? 50. Could you understand Purang people the first time you met them?

तपाई पराङको मा� छलाई प�हलो चोटी भट दा तपाईल पराङको भाषा ब� न ह� छ? 51. When people from Purang speak to each other fast, how much do you understand?

पराङको मा� छहरल एक अकर सग �छटो बो� दा तपाईल क�तको ब� न ह� छ? All (सब) Most (धरजसो) Half (आधाज�त) Only a little (अ�ल अ�ल मातर) None (कही प�न)

52. Where is your MT spoken the best? कन गाउमा तपाईको भाषा सबभ� दा रामरो बो� छन ? Why? �कन होला?

53. Where is your MT spoken most poorly? कन गाउमा तपाईको भाषा सबभ� दा नरामरो बो� छन ? Why? �कन होला?

54. And in the whole Humla region (meaning Limi, Muchu, Hepka, Bargaun), in your opinion, where do people speak the best? अ�न परा ह� लामा (भ� नाल �ल�म, मछ, ह� का र बाहरगाउमा) तपाईको �बचारमा कहाको मा� छहरल सबभ� दा रामरो बो� छन?

Why? �कन होला? 55. And in the whole Humla region (meaning Limi, Muchu, Hepka, Bargaun), in your opinion, where do people speak most poorly?

अ�न परा ह� लामा (भ� नाल �ल�म, मछ, ह� का र बाहरगाउमा) तपाईको �बचारमा कहाको मा� छहरल सबभ� दा नरामरो बो� छन ? Why? �कन होला?

56. Are you able to read? तपाई पढ न स� नह� छ? In what languages? कन कन भाषामा- ?

57. Are you able to write? तपाई ल� न स� नह� छ? In what languages? कन भाषाकन मा?

58. Which language would you like to be able to read? तपाई कन भाषा पढ न स� न चाहनह� छ? 59. If books were written in your village language, would you want to read in this language?

य�द यो तपाईको गाउको भाषामा �कताबहर ल�खएको भए तपाई यो भाषा पढ न चाहनह� छ? 60. Of the languages you know, which is easiest for you to read and write in?

तपाईल जा� नको भाषाहर म� य, कन भाषा पढ न ल� न सब भ�दा स�जलो ला� छ? Why would it be easiest in that script? � यो �ल�प )आकषर ( सा�जलो �कन होलासबभ� दा ?

88

C.2 Informal interview data

C.2.1 Abbreviations

Languages Village names Chi Chinese Bar Bargaun Eng English Doz Dojam Hin Hindi Hep Hepka Nep Nepali KTM Kathmandu Tib Tibetan Ker Kermi Khang Khangalgaun Demographics Muc Muchu F Female Nyi Nyinba M Male Yak Yakpa Yal Yalbang Other N/A Not applicable n/r No response Scr Cri Screening criteria

89

C.2.2 Metadata and additional abbreviations

Metadata: Til (TIL)

Metadata: Muchu (MUC)

Metadata: Bargaun (BAR)

Informed consenta Yes Informed consent Yes Informed consent Yes Dates of data collection

June 19‒21, 2012 Dates of data collection

June 15, 25‒26, 2012

Dates of data collection

October 15‒17, 2012

VDC Limi VDC Muchu VDC Bargaun District, Zone Humla, Karnali District, Zone Humla, Karnali District, Zone Humla, Karnali GPS coordinates N 30˚13.292

E 081˚27.154 GPS coordinates N 30˚03.989

E 081˚32.498 GPS coordinates N 29˚57.54

E 81˚51.16 Interviewers Stephanie(S)

David(D) Klaas(K)

Interviewers Stephanie(S) David(D) Klaas(K)

Interviewers John(J) David(D) Klaas(K)

Interpreters Nurpu Interpreters Nurpu Interpreters Nurpu Language used Nepali, English Language used Nepali Language used Nepali aDuring the fieldwork in June 2012, we collected verbal informed consents. On our 2nd and 3rd trips, we recorded the informed consents.

Metadata: Dojam (DOZ)

Metadata: Yakpa/Hepka (YAK/HEP)

Metadata: Kermi (KER)

Informed consent Yes Informed consent Yes Informed consent Yes Dates of data collection

October 18‒19, 2012

Dates of data collection

October 23‒24, 2012

Dates of data collection

October 25, 2012

VDC Thehe VDC Hepka VDC Khangalgaun District, Zone Humla, Karnali District, Zone Humla, Karnali District, Zone Humla, Karnali GPS coordinates N 29˚57.22

E 81˚55.47 GPS coordinates N 30˚02.20

E 81˚49.29 GPS coordinates N 30˚03.07

E 81˚41.57 Interviewers John(J)

David(D) Klaas(K)

Interviewers John(J) David(D) Klaas(K)

Interviewers John(J) Klaas(K)

Interpreters Nurpu Interpreters Nurpu Interpreters Anonymous Language used Nepali Language used Nepali Language used Nepali

90

C.2.3 Interview questions

Questions 3a–15c Sub # 3a

Village 3b VDC

8 Sex 10 Age

11 Mother Tongue

11a Lhasa

11b Village L

12 Birthplace

13 Live now

14 How long

15 +1 yr

15a Where 15b When 15c How long

Scr Cri #1

TILK02 Til Limi M 34 Til lap N/A N/A Til Til All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILK03 Til Limi M 55 Limi lap N/A N/A Til Til All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILK04 Til Limi M 41 Limi ke N/A N/A Til Til 30 yrs Yes Tibet 10 yrs ago 11 yrs Yes TILK05 Til Limi M 38 Tilpi lap N/A N/A Til Til 19 No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILK07 Til Limi M 19 Popo ke No Limi Til Til 19 No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILS01 Til Limi M 21 Tilko lap N/A N/A Til Til 21 Yes KTM 16 yrs ago 4 yrs Yes TILS02 Til Limi M 36 Limi ke N/A N/A Til Til 35 yrs Yes India 1988 1 yr Yes TILS03 Til Limi F 70 Limi kaja N/A N/A Til Til 70 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILS04 Til Limi F 63 Limi lap N/A N/A Halji Til 55 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILS05 Til Limi F ~70 Limi lap N/A N/A Til Til All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILS06 Til Limi F 40 Limi N/A N/A Til Til All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILS07 Til Limi F 30 Limike N/A N/A Halji Til 20 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes TILS08 Til Limi F 30 Limike N/A N/A Til Til All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes MUCK01 Muc Muc F 44 Phot N/A N/A Chala Muc 24 No N/A N/A N/A No MUCK03 Muc Muc M 37 Poke N/A N/A Muc Muc All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes MUCK04 Muc Muc F 30 Poke N/A N/A Muc Muc All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes MUCK05 Muc Muc M 29 Muchuke N/A N/A Chala Muc 9 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes MUCK06 Muc Muc M 35 Muc N/A N/A Chala Muc 9 yrs Yes India 8 yrs ago 1.5 yr No MUCK07 Muc Muc F 42 Muc N/A N/A Yangar Muc 21 yrs Yes Simikot When

small 5 yrs Yes

MUCS01 Muc Muc M 40 Muchu yuke N/A N/A Muc Muc 31 yrs Yes Bajhang 20 yrs ago 9 yrs Yes MUCS02 Muc Muc M 31 Muc N/A N/A Chala Muc 8 yrs Yes Yal 10 yrs ago 10 yrs

(gompa) No

MUCS03 Muc Muc M 15 Muc N/A N/A Muc Muc All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes MUCS05 Muc Muc F 47 Orde lap

(Muchu) N/A N/A Muc Muc All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes

91

Sub # 3a Village

3b VDC

8 Sex 10 Age

11 Mother Tongue

11a Lhasa

11b Village L

12 Birthplace

13 Live now

14 How long

15 +1 yr

15a Where 15b When 15c How long

Scr Cri #1

MUCS06 Muc Muc F 62 Muc N/A N/A Tumkot Muc 40 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes BARK001 Bar Bar M 70 Lama N/A N/A Bar Bar All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes BARK002 Bar Bar F 70 Photke N/A N/A Bar Bar All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes BARK003 Bar Bar M 25 Lama N/A N/A Bar Bar 23 yrs Yes Nepalgunj 2003–2005 2 yrs Yes BARK004 Bar Bar M 26 Lama N/A N/A Bar Bar 11 yrs Yes KTM 1995–2010 15 yrs No BARK005 Bar Bar F 21 Lama N/A N/A Bar Simikot 2 yrs Yes Dharma 1 yr ago 1 yr Yes BARK006 Bar Bar F 70 Lama N/A N/A Bar Bar All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes BARK007 Bar Bar F 16 Lama N/A N/A Bar Bar All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes BARK008 Bar Bar F 60 Lama N/A N/A Bar Bar All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes BARK009 Bar Bar M 55 Nyimbi N/A N/A Bar Bar All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes BARJ001 Bar Bar M 56 Bhote No Lama

Kham Bar Bar 20–21

yrs Yes India 25 yrs ago 15–16

yrs Yes

BARD002 Bar Bar M 28 Tibetan No Bhote Bar Bar Last 10 yrs

Yes India 10 yrs ago 8 yrs Yes

BARD003 Bar Bar F 21 Potkat N/A N/A Gumba Bar 3 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZK001 Doz Thehe M 22 Bhote N/A N/A Doz Doz All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZK002 Doz Thehe M 50 Bhote Kham N/A N/A Doz Doz All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZK003 Doz Thehe M 46 Kham N/A N/A Doz Doz All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZK004 Doz Thehe F 46 Kham N/A N/A Doz Doz All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZK005 Doz Thehe F 24 Kham N/A N/A Baisipada Doz 12 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZK006 Doz Thehe M 23 Lama N/A N/A Doz Doz all life No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZK007 Doz Thehe F 51 Lap N/A N/A Burangse Doz 24 No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZJ002 Doz Thehe M 67 Tho No Tsangba Doz Doz All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZJ003 Doz Thehe F 48 Lama N/A N/A Doz Doz All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZJ004 Doz Thehe F 31 Kham/Bhote N/A N/A Doz Doz All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes DOZD002 Doz Thehe M 24 Changlap N/A N/A Doz Doz 7–8 yrs Yes India 7–8 yrs

ago 12 yrs Yes

DOZD003 Doz Thehe F 34 Bhote N/A Tsangkat Tsang [Doz]

Tsang All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes

92

Sub # 3a Village

3b VDC

8 Sex 10 Age

11 Mother Tongue

11a Lhasa

11b Village L

12 Birthplace

13 Live now

14 How long

15 +1 yr

15a Where 15b When 15c How long

Scr Cri #1

HEPK001 Yak Hep M 22 Tibetan No Lama Yak Bazang 3 yrs No N/A N/A N/A No HEPK002 Yak Hep M 38 Laptangse N/A N/A Yak Yak All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes HEPK003 Yak Hep M 39 Lama N/A N/A Yak Yak All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes HEPK004 Yak Hep F 22 Lama N/A N/A Yak Yak All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes HEPK005 Yak Hep F 18 Lama N/A N/A Yak Yak All life Yes KTM 4 yrs ago 1 yr Yes HEPK006 Yak Hep M 15 Lama N/A N/A Yak Yak All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes HEPK007 Yak Hep F 20 Lama N/A N/A Dinga Yak 4 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes YAKJ001 Yak Hep M 41 Lama N/A N/A Yak Yak All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes YAKJ002 Yak Hep F 50 Kham/Yak N/A N/A Yak Yak All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes YAKD002 Yak Hep M 23 Bote N/A Kham Yak Yak All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes YAKD003 Yak Hep F 38 Bote N/A N/A Yak Yak All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes YAKD004 Yak Hep F 53 Lama N/A N/A Dinga Yak 29 Yes Lukna 11 yrs ago 1 yr Yes KERK010 Ker Khang M 58 Photke N/A N/A Ker Ker All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes KERK012 Ker Khang M 25 Photke N/A N/A Ker Ker 3 yrs Yes Yalbang

monastery 3 yrs ago 10 yrs Yes

KERK013 Ker Khang M 41 Photke N/A N/A Ker Ker All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes KERK014 Ker Khang F 20 Photke N/A N/A Dinga Ker 3 yrs Yes Dinga 0–17 yrs 17 yrs Yes KERK015 Ker Khang F 30 Lap N/A N/A Ker Ker All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes KERK016 Ker Khang F 45 Potka N/A N/A Chyaduk Ker 25 yrs No N/A N/A N/A Yes KERJ001 Ker Khang M 31 Bhotka N/A N/A Ker Ker All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes KERJ002 Ker Khang M 25 Bhotka/Potka N/A N/A Ker Ker All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes KERJ003 Ker Khang M 40 Bhote N/A N/A Ker Ker All life Yes Limi 2 yrs ago 1 yr Yes KERJ004 Ker Khang F 37 Bhotka N/A N/A Ker Ker All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes KERJ005 Ker Khang F 50 Bhotka N/A N/A Ker Ker All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes KERJ006 Ker Khang F 18 Kham N/A N/A Ker Ker All life No N/A N/A N/A Yes

93

Questions 16–23d Sub # 16 Where

father 17 MT father

18 Where mother

19 MT mother

20 Lang. as child

21 1st Lang. Scr Cri #2

Scr Cri #3

22 Other languages

23a Best Lang.

23b 2nd Lang.

23c 3rd Lang.

23d 4th Lang.

TILK02 Til Tip lap Til Til lap Til lap Til lap Yes Yes Nep, Chi Til lap Nep Chi N/A TILK03 Til Limi Til Limi Limi lap Limi lap Yes Yes Nep Limi Nep N/A N/A TILK04 Til Limi Til Limi Limi Limi Yes Yes Tib Limi Tib N/A N/A TILK05 Til Tilpi lap Til Tilpi lap Tilpi lap Tilpi lap Yes Yes Chi, Nep, Hin,

Tib Tilpi lap Tib Nep Hin

TILK07 Til Limi Til Limi Limi lap Limi lap Yes Yes N/A Limi N/A N/A N/A TILS01 Til Tilko Jang Tilko Tilko Tilko Yes Yes Nep, Eng Tilko Nep Eng N/A TILS02 Chuck

Chang (Tibet)

Limi Purang Purang Limi Limi No, but born and raised here

No Tib Limi Tib N/A N/A

TILS03 Til Limi Halji Limi Limi Limi Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TILS04 Halji Limi Halji Limi Limi lap Limi lap Yes Yes None, I don’t

need other languages

N/A N/A N/A N/A

TILS05 Til Limi Til Limi Limi Limi Yes Yes None N/A N/A N/A N/A TILS06 Til Limi Til Limi Limi Limi Yes Yes Tib Limi Tib N/A N/A TILS07 Til Limi Halji Limi Limi Limi Yes Yes None N/A N/A N/A N/A TILS08 Jang Limi Til Limi Limi Limi Yes Yes None N/A N/A N/A N/A MUCK01 Chala Phot Khang Phot Phot Phot Yes No Nep Phot Nep N/A N/A MUCK03 Muc Poke Bajang Poke Poke Poke Yes Yes Nep Poke Nep N/A N/A MUCK04 Muc Poke Yangar Poke Poke Poke Yes Yes Nep Poke Nep N/A N/A MUCK05 Chala Chala Khang Khangal-

gaun Chala Chala Yes No Nep, Tib Muc Nep Tib N/A

MUCK06 Chala Chala Chala Chala Chala Chala Yes No Nep, Tib Muc Nep Tib N/A MUCK07 Yangar Yangar Yal Yalbang Yangar Yangar Yes No Nep Muc Nep N/A N/A MUCS01 Muc Muchu

yuke Yari Muchu yuke Muchu

yuke Muchu yuke Yes Yes Nep, Hin Muc Nep Hin N/A

94

Sub # 16 Where father

17 MT father

18 Where mother

19 MT mother

20 Lang. as child

21 1st Lang. Scr Cri #2

Scr Cri #3

22 Other languages

23a Best Lang.

23b 2nd Lang.

23c 3rd Lang.

23d 4th Lang.

MUCS02 Chala Chala Khang Khangal-gaun

Chala Chala Yes No Yal, Muc, Nep Muc, Chala

Nep Yal N/A

MUCS03 Muc Muc Yangar Yangar Muc Muc Yes Yes Nep, Eng, Hin Muc Nep Eng Hin MUCS05 Ker Rhomba Muc Orde lap Orde lap Orde lap Yes Yes Purang, Nep Orde lap Nep Purang N/A MUCS06 Yangar Phot Yangar Phot Phot Phot Yes No Nep Phot Nep N/A N/A BARK001 Bar Lama Bar Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Lama Nep N/A N/A BARK002 Langhdu Photke Bar Photke Photke Photke Yes Yes Nep, Thel Photke Thel Nep N/A BARK003 Bar Lama Torpa Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep, Eng Nep Lama Eng N/A BARK004 Bar Lama Torpa Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Ladaki, Tib,

Hin, Eng, Nep Tib Lama Nep Ladaki

BARK005 Bar Lama Burangse Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep, Eng Lama Nep Eng N/A BARK006 Bar Lama Torpa Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Lama Nep N/A N/A BARK007 Bar Lama Bar Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Lama Nep N/A N/A BARK008 Bar Lama Hutik Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Tel Kham,

Nep Lama Tel Kham Nep N/A

BARK009 Barungse Nyimbi Bar Nyimbi Nyimbi Nyimbi Yes Yes Tib, Nep Nyimbi Nep Tib N/A BARJ001 Bar Lama Torpa Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep, Hin Lama n/r n/r N/A BARD002 Bar Bar Tib Torpa Bar Tib Bar Tib Bar Tib Yes Yes Nep, Tib

[Lhasa], Eng Lhasa Bar Tib Nep Eng

BARD003 Burangse Potkat Gumba Potkat Potkat Potkat Yes Yes Nep, Eng Potkat Nep Eng N/A DOZK001 Doz Bhote Doz Bote Bote Bote Yes Yes Nep Bhote Nep N/A N/A DOZK002 Doz Kham Doz Kham Kham Kham Yes Yes Hin, Nep Nep Kham Hin N/A DOZK003 Doz Kham Doz Kham Kham Kham Yes Yes Nep Kham Nep N/A N/A DOZK004 Doz Kham Doz Kham Kham Kham Yes Yes Nep Kham Nep N/A N/A DOZK005 Baisipada Kham Baisipada Kham Kham Kham Yes Yes Nep Kham Nep N/A N/A DOZK006 Doz Lama Doz Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Nep Lama N/A N/A DOZK007 Burangse Lap Burangse Lap Lap Lap Yes Yes Nep Lap Nep N/A N/A DOZJ002 Doz Tsangba Doz Tsangba Tsangba Tsangba Yes Yes Nep Tsangba Nep N/A N/A DOZJ003 Doz Lama Doz Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Lama Nep N/A N/A

95

Sub # 16 Where father

17 MT father

18 Where mother

19 MT mother

20 Lang. as child

21 1st Lang. Scr Cri #2

Scr Cri #3

22 Other languages

23a Best Lang.

23b 2nd Lang.

23c 3rd Lang.

23d 4th Lang.

DOZJ004 Doz Kham Doz Bhote/Kham Kham Kham Yes Yes Nep, Limi/Chimi

Kham Nep Limi/ Chimi

N/A

DOZD002 Doz Changlap Doz Changlap Changlap Changlap Yes Yes Hin, Tib, Nep, Eng

Changlap Tib Nep Hin

DOZD003 Tsang Tsangkat Tsang Tsangkat Tsangkat Tsangkat Yes Yes Nep, Lama Tsangkat Nep N/A N/A HEPK001 Yak Lama Yak Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep, Tib, Eng Lama Nep Tib Eng HEPK002 Yak Lap Yak Lap Lap Lap Yes Yes Nep Lap Nep N/A N/A HEPK003 Yak Lama Tangin Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Lama Nep N/A N/A HEPK004 Yak Lama Garde-

pathi Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Lama Nep N/A N/A

HEPK005 Yak Lama Yak Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep, Tib Lama Nep Tib N/A HEPK006 Yak Lama Tangin Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Lama Nep N/A N/A HEPK007 Dinga Lama Dinga Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep Lama Nep N/A N/A YAKJ001 Yak Lama Yak Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Tib, Nep, Hin Lama Nep Tib Hin YAKJ002 Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yes Yes Nep, “puyali” Yak Nep “puyali” N/A YAKD002 Yak Kham Yak Kham Kham Kham Yes Yes Tib, Hin,

Tamang, Nep Kham, Nep

Tib Hin Lama Tamang

YAKD003 Yak Bhote Yak Bhote Bhote Bhote Yes Yes Nep, Tib, Lim Bote Nep Lim Tib YAKD004 Dinga Lama Dinga Lama Lama Lama Yes Yes Nep, Tib, Hin Lama Nep Tib Hin KERK010 Ker Phot Ker Phot Phot Phot Yes Yes Nep, Tib Phot Nep Tib N/A KERK012 Ker Phot Ker Phot Phot Phot Yes Yes Tib, Nep, Eng Phot Nep Tib N/A KERK013 Ker Phot Ker Phot Phot Phot Yes Yes Nep, Tib Phot Tib Nep N/A KERK014 Dinga Phot Kolshi Phot Phot Phot Yes Yes Nep Phot Nep N/A N/A KERK015 Ker Lap Ker Lap Lap Lap Yes Yes Nep Lap Nep N/A N/A KERK016 Chaduk Potka Ker Potka Potka Potka Yes Yes Nep Potka Nep N/A N/A KERJ001 Ker Bhotka Ker Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Yes Yes Nep, Tib Bhotka Nep Tib N/A KERJ002 Ker Bhotka Chiadup Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Yes Yes Nep, Tib Bhotka Nep Tib N/A KERJ003 Ker Bhote Ker Bhote Bhote Bhote Yes Yes Nep, Tib Bhote Nep Tib N/A KERJ004 Ker Bhotka Ker Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Yes Yes Nep Bhotka Nep N/A N/A

96

Sub # 16 Where father

17 MT father

18 Where mother

19 MT mother

20 Lang. as child

21 1st Lang. Scr Cri #2

Scr Cri #3

22 Other languages

23a Best Lang.

23b 2nd Lang.

23c 3rd Lang.

23d 4th Lang.

KERJ005 Ker Bhotka Ker Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Yes Yes Nep Bhotka Nep N/A N/A KERJ006 Ker Bhotka Chiadup/

Tsarak Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Yes Yes Nep, Tib Bhotka Nep Tib N/A

Questions 24–32a Sub # 24

Love L Scr Cri #4

25 Occupation

26 Previous occupation

27 Married

28 Spouse from where

28a Spouse MT

28b Speak spouse MT

29 Home Language

30 # of children

31 Children to school

32 To school

32a Class

TILK02 Chi Yes Gompa Gompa No N/A N/A N/A Limi lap N/A N/A No N/A TILK03 Nep Yes Sews,

carpenter, praying

Farming, but now old

Yes Til Til lap N/A Til lap 8 3 Yes Just ABC

TILK04 Tib Yes Farming Taking care of animals

Yes Til Til N/A Limi 2 Both in KTM

No N/A

TILK05 Nep Yes Farming Small business Yes Til Tilpi lap N/A Tilpi lap 4 3 in India, 1 a monk

No N/A

TILK07 N/A Yes Look after cattle

N/A No N/A N/A N/A Limi N/A N/A No N/A

TILS01 Eng Yes No work Gompa for 3 years, school

No N/A N/A N/A Tilko N/A N/A Yes Upper KG

TILS02 Lim Yes Construction Reading Tibetan/Buddhism books

No N/A N/A N/A Limi N/A N/A No N/A

TILS03 N/A Yes Farming, animals

N/A Yes Til Limi N/A Limi 4 2 No N/A

TILS04 N/A Yes Collect firewood, farming

Same, mostly farming

Yes Til Limi lap N/A Limi lap 3 2 No N/A

TILS05 N/A Yes Irrigation, farming

Collect soil for crops, firewood

No N/A N/A N/A Limi N/A N/A No N/A

TILS06 Lim Yes Farming, animals

Same Yes Jang Limi N/A Limi 2 1 No N/A

TILS07 N/A Yes Farming, animals

Same No N/A N/A N/A Limi N/A N/A No N/A

97

Sub # 24 Love L

Scr Cri #4

25 Occupation

26 Previous occupation

27 Married

28 Spouse from where

28a Spouse MT

28b Speak spouse MT

29 Home Language

30 # of children

31 Children to school

32 To school

32a Class

TILS08 N/A Yes Farming Graze cattle Yes Til Limi N/A Limi 1 too little, 2 yrs old

No N/A

MUCK01 Phot Yes Farming Cattle, milk Yes Muc Muc N/A Phot 3 3 No N/A MUCK03 Poke Yes Farming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A MUCK04 Poke Yes Farming Farming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A MUCK05 Nep Yes Farming Farming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 6 MUCK06 Muc Yes Farming Sheep/goat,

farming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 5

MUCK07 Muc Yes Farming Farming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 10 MUCS01 Muc Yes Gompa

rebuilding Hotel work Yes Muc Muc N/A Muc n/r n/r No N/A

MUCS02 Muc Yes Farming None Yes Yal Yal n/r Muc n/r n/r Yes 3 MUCS03 Muc Yes Student Student No N/A N/A

Not asked n/r n/r Yes 8

MUCS05 Orde lap Yes Farming Shop, sheep, animals, herder

Yes Khang Rhonge Yes Orde lap n/r n/r Yes 2

MUCS06 Phot Yes Watch kids, fetch water

Same N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A

BARK001 Lama Yes Farming Sheep, goat Yes Burangse Lama N/A Lama 4 All (a little, daughter to class 8)

No N/A

BARK002 Photke Yes Farming Farming Yes Bar Photke N/A Photke 8 2 + 1 lama No N/A BARK003 Eng Yes Teacher Study, helping

parents Yes Langdu Lama N/A Lama 1 N/A Yes BA 3rd

yr BARK004 Tib Yes Business Lama in KTM No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 5 BARK005 Lama Yes Office Study No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes BA 3rd

yr BARK006 Lama Yes Cooking Farming Yes Bar Lama N/A Lama 4 None No N/A BARK007 Lama Yes School N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 6 BARK008 Lama Yes Farming Animals Yes Nimatang Lama N/A Lama 7 7 No N/A BARK009 Nyimbi Yes Farming Farming Yes Barungse Nyimbi N/A Nyimbi 5 2 Yes 2

98

Sub # 24 Love L

Scr Cri #4

25 Occupation

26 Previous occupation

27 Married

28 Spouse from where

28a Spouse MT

28b Speak spouse MT

29 Home Language

30 # of children

31 Children to school

32 To school

32a Class

BARJ001 Lama Yes Furniture making

Many things Yes Bar Lama N/A Kham 2 2 No N/A

BARD002 Eng Yes Farming Tibetan artist Yes Bar Bar Tibetan N/A Bar Tibetan

4 4 Yes 8

BARD003 Nep Yes House work, fieldwork

Fieldwork, ‘zuma chalanne’

Yes Bar Potkat N/A Potkat 1 N/A Yes 12

DOZK001 Bhote Yes Farming Farming Yes Baisipada Bhote N/A Bhote N/A N/A Yes 6 DOZK002 Nep Yes Farming Farming Yes Burangse Kham N/A Kham 4 3 Yes 3 DOZK003 Kham Yes Farming Farming Yes Doz Kham N/A Kham 5 2 Yes 2 DOZK004 Kham Yes Farming Farming Yes Doz Kham N/A Kham 8 4 No N/A DOZK005 Kham Yes Farming Farming Yes Doz Kham N/A Kham 3 Too small No N/A DOZK006 Lama Yes Farming Farming Yes Doz Lama N/A Lama N/A N/A No N/A DOZK007 Lap Yes Farming Farming Yes Doz Kham No Lap

(Barungse) 4 3 No N/A

DOZJ002 Tsangba Yes Agriculture No other work Yes Doz Tsangba N/A Tsangba 3 3 No N/A DOZJ003 Lama Yes Agriculture,

house work none Yes Doz Lama N/A Lama 5 1 Yes 1

DOZJ004 Kham Yes House work, fieldwork

none Yes Doz Kham N/A Kham 3 2 No N/A

DOZD002 Tib Yes Fieldwork Lama, monk work No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 9 DOZD003 Tsangkat Yes Fieldwork Fieldwork Yes Tsangba Tsangkat N/A Tsangkat 4 2 Yes 5 HEPK001 Lama Yes Farming Student No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 9 HEPK002 Lap Yes Farming Farming Yes Yak Lap N/A Lap 4 4 No N/A HEPK003 Lama Yes Farming “Phuru” [Tibetan

bowl] Yes Yak Lama N/A Lama 7 7 No N/A

HEPK004 Lama Yes Farming Farming Yes Yak Lama N/A Lama 2 N/A No N/A HEPK005 Lama Yes Farming Farming No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 5 HEPK006 Lama Yes School N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 9 HEPK007 Lama Yes Farming Farming Yes Yak Lama N/A Lama 2 N/A Yes 8 YAKJ001 Lama Yes Farming None Yes Yak Lama N/A Lama 3 3 Yes 3

99

Sub # 24 Love L

Scr Cri #4

25 Occupation

26 Previous occupation

27 Married

28 Spouse from where

28a Spouse MT

28b Speak spouse MT

29 Home Language

30 # of children

31 Children to school

32 To school

32a Class

YAKJ002 Yakpa Yes Farming None Yes Yak Yak N/A Yak 6 6 No N/A YAKD002 Tib Yes Farming N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 9 YAKD003 Bhote Yes Farming Farming Yes Yak Bhote N/A Bhote 3 3 No N/A YAKD004 Lama Yes Farming,

social work Same Yes Yak Lama N/A Lama 3 3 No N/A

KERK010 Phot Yes Farming Farming Yes Ker Phot N/A Phot 6 6 No N/A KERK012 Eng Yes Farming Studied at gompa Yes Ker Phot N/A Phot 1 N/A Yes 5 or 6 KERK013 Phot Yes Farming Farming Yes Ker Phot N/A Phot 2 2 Yes 5 KERK014 Phot Yes Farming Farming Yes Ker Phot N/A Phot 1 N/A Yes 5 KERK015 Lap Yes Farming Farming Yes Ker Lap N/A Lap 3 2 No N/A KERK016 Potka Yes Animal,

farming Animal, farming Yes Ker Potka N/A Potka 4 3 Yes 3

KERJ001 Bhotka Yes Farming Micro hydropower Yes Khang Bhotka N/A Bhotka 4 3 Yes 6 KERJ002 Nep Yes Farming None Yes Ker Bhotka N/A Bhotka 2 None Yes 9 KERJ003 Nep Yes Farming None Yes Chidtup Bhote N/A Bhote 3 3 No N/A KERJ004 Bhotka Yes Farming None Yes Ker Bhotka N/A Bhotka 4 4 No N/A KERJ005 Nep Yes Animal,

farming Weaving Yes Ker Bhotka N/A Bhotka 3 3 No N/A

KERJ006 Nep Yes Animal, farming

None No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 5

100

Questions 33a–35a Sub # 33a L w/

parents 33b L w/ siblings

33c L w/ children

33d L w/ vill. friends

34a Singing

34b Market

34c Story telling

34d Praying 34e Stories to children

34f Singing at home

34g Vill. meeting

35a Playing w/ other children

TILK02 Limi Limi N/A Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi N/A TILK03 Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap Til Lap TILK04 Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Purang,

Limi or Tib

Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi

TILK05 Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap Nep, Hin, Chi

Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap Tilpi Lap (Nep games)

TILK07 Limi N/A N/A Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi N/A TILS01 Tilko Tilko Tilko, w

village children

Tilko Tilko Nep Tilko Tib Tilko Tilko Tilko Tilko

TILS02 Limi Limi Limi, w/ village children

Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi

TILS03 Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi TILS04 Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Not Limi, but

doesn’t know TILS05 Limi Limi N/A Limi Limi Limi Limi Tib, (knows

Tib prayer, otherwise only speaks Limi)

Limi Limi Limi Doesn’t know

TILS06 Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi TILS07 Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi TILS08 Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi MUCK01 Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Yungma Phot Phot Phot Phot MUCK03 Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Nep Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke MUCK04 Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke Poke MUCK05 Chala Chala Muc Muc Nep (&

Muc) Nep (in Simikot)

Nep (& Muc) Muc Muc Muc Nep (& Muc)

Muc

MUCK06 Chala Chala Muc Muc Muc (& Nep/Tib)

Nep Muc Muc Muc Muc (& Nep/Tib)

Muc Muc

101

Sub # 33a L w/ parents

33b L w/ siblings

33c L w/ children

33d L w/ vill. friends

34a Singing

34b Market

34c Story telling

34d Praying 34e Stories to children

34f Singing at home

34g Vill. meeting

35a Playing w/ other children

MUCK07 Yangar Yangar Muc Muc Yangar Nep Muc Muc Muc Muc Muc Nep MUCS01 Muc Muc Muc Muc Muc Nep Muc Muc Muc Muc Muc Nep MUCS02 Muc Muc Muc Muc Tib Nep Nep Tib Muc Muc Muc Nep MUCS03 Muc Muc N/A Muc Nep Nep Nep Muc Muc Muc Nep Muc MUCS05 Orde Lap Orde Lap Orde Lap Orde Lap Orde Lap Nep Orde Lap Orde Lap Orde Lap Orde Lap Orde Lap Orde Lap MUCS06 Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Phote Phote Phote Phot BARK001 Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama (&

Nep) Nep Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama

BARK002 Photke Photke Photke Photke Photke Nep Photke Photke Photke Photke Nep Photke BARK003 Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep Nep Lama Lama Lama N/A Lama Lama BARK004 Lama Nep N/A Lama Nep Nep Nep Tib Lama Nep Lama Lama BARK005 Lama Lama N/A Lama Nep Nep Nep Lama Nep Nep Nep N/A BARK006 Lama Lama Lama Lama N/A N/A N/A Lama Lama Lama N/A Lama BARK007 Lama Lama N/A Lama N/A Nep Nep Lama Nep N/A Lama N/A BARK008 Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep N/A Lama N/A Lama Nep, Lama Nep, Tel BARK009 Nyimbi Nyimbi Nyimbi Nyimbi Tib Nyimbi Nyimbi Nyimbi Nyimbi Nyimbi Nyimbi Nyimbi BARJ001 Bhote Bhote Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham BARD002 Bar Tib Bar Tib Bar Tib Bar Tib Hin Nep Bar Tib Bar Tib Bar Tib Bar Tib Bar Tib Bar Tib BARD003 Potkat Potkat Potkat Potkat Nep Nep Nep Potkat Potkat Potkat Potkat Potkat DOZK001 Bhote Bhote N/A Bhote Nep Nep Nep Nep Nep Nep Bhote N/A DOZK002 Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Nep Nep Nep Nep Kham Kham Kham DOZK003 Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Nep Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham DOZK004 Kham Kham Kham Kham Nep,

Kham Nep N/A Kham N/A Kham Kham Kham

DOZK005 Kham Kham Kham Kham Nep Nep Nep Kham Kham Kham Nep, Kham

Kham

DOZK006 Lama Lama N/A Lama Lama Nep Nep, Lama Nep, Lama Nep, Lama Lama Lama N/A DOZK007 Lap Lap Doz and

Burangse Lap Nep Nep Nep, Bhote Lap Lap N/A Lap Nep

102

Sub # 33a L w/ parents

33b L w/ siblings

33c L w/ children

33d L w/ vill. friends

34a Singing

34b Market

34c Story telling

34d Praying 34e Stories to children

34f Singing at home

34g Vill. meeting

35a Playing w/ other children

DOZJ002 Tsangba Tsangba Tsangba Tsangba Tsangba Nep Tsangba Tsangba Tsangba Tsangba Tsangba Tsangba DOZJ003 Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep DOZJ004 Kham Kham Kham Kham Nep Kham Kham Nep, Kham Kham N/A Kham Kham DOZD002 Chang

Lap Chang Lap

N/A Chang Lap Nep, Chang Lap

Nep Nep Chang Lap Chang Lap Nep Chang Lap N/A

DOZD003 Tsangkat Tsangkat Tsangkat Tsangkat N/A Nep N/A Nep, Tsangkat

Nep, Tsangkat

Nep, Tsangkat

Tsangkat Tsangkat

HEPK001 Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep Nep Lama Lama Lama Lama N/A HEPK002 Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Nep Nep/Lap Lap Lap Lap Nep Nep, Lap HEPK003 Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep Nep Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama HEPK004 Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep Nep N/A Lama N/A Nep Nep Lama HEPK005 Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep Nep Nep Lama Lama Nep, Lama Nep N/A HEPK006 Lama Lama N/A Lama Nep Nep Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep N/A HEPK007 Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama YAKJ001 Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Nep Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama YAKJ002 Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Nep YAKD002 Kham Kham N/A Kham Nep Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham Kham N/A YAKD003 Bhote Bhote Bhote Bhote Nep,

Bhote Nep Bhote Bhote Nep, Bhote Nep, Bhote Nep,

Bhote Nep, Bhote

YAKD004 Lama Lama Lama, Nep in KTM

Lama Lama Nep Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama Lama

KERK010 Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Nep Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot KERK012 Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Nep Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot Phot KERK013 Phot Phot, Hin Phot Phot Nep, Tib,

Phot Nep, Hin Phot Phot Nep, Phot Phot Phot Nep, Tib,Hin

KERK014 Phot Phot Phot Phot Nep Nep Nep Phot Phot Phot Phot N/A KERK015 Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Nep,Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap KERK016 Potka Potka Potka Potka Potka N/A Potka Potka Potka Potka Potka Potka

103

Sub # 33a L w/ parents

33b L w/ siblings

33c L w/ children

33d L w/ vill. friends

34a Singing

34b Market

34c Story telling

34d Praying 34e Stories to children

34f Singing at home

34g Vill. meeting

35a Playing w/ other children

KERJ001 Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Nep, Bhotka

Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka

KERJ002 Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Nep Nep,Tib Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka KERJ003 Bhote Bhote Nep Bhote Nep Nep Bhote Bhote Bhote Bhote Bhote Nep KERJ004 Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Nep Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka KERJ005 Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Nep Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Nep KERJ006 Bhotka Bhotka N/A Bhotka Nep Nep Bhotka Bhotka Bhotka Nep Nep,

Bhotka N/A

Questions 35b–42d Sub # 35b

Talking w neighbour

36 Lang. children to learn

37 Marry outside

37a Where 37b Good

38 Children marry non-MT

38a Other Languages

39 Young speak MT well

40 MT diff from g-parents

41 What difference

42a Met Limi

42b Met Muc

42c Met Khang

42d Met Hep/Yak

TILK02 N/A Limi No Limi only N/A Bad N/A Yes No N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes TILK03 Til Lap Eng Yes Jang, Halji,

Purang Yes Depends on

person Tib Yes,

unless lived in KTM or outside

No N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes

TILK04 Limi Nep Yes Purang, Kyampa from Tibet

No Indifferent Tib Yes No N/A N/A Yes No Yes

TILK05 Tilpi Lap Eng Yes Purang, Jang, Halji

Yes Indifferent Tib and whatever they like

Yes, but kids that leave area mix

No N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes

TILK07 N/A Nep Yes Jang, Halji, Sherwa/Purang

No Indifferent only Til Yes No N/A N/A No No Yes

TILS01 Tilko Limi Yes Jang Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A N/A Yes No No TILS02 Limi Nep n/r n/r n/r Indifferent N/A Yes No N/A N/A Yes No No TILS03 Limi Limi n/r n/r n/r Bad N/A Yes No N/A N/A Yes No No TILS04 Limi Limi Yes Halji, Jang Yes Indifferent N/A Yes No N/A N/A No No No TILS05 Limi Limi Yes Halji, Jang Yes Indifferent N/A Yes No N/A N/A No No No

104

Sub # 35b Talking w neighbour

36 Lang. children to learn

37 Marry outside

37a Where 37b Good

38 Children marry non-MT

38a Other Languages

39 Young speak MT well

40 MT diff from g-parents

41 What difference

42a Met Limi

42b Met Muc

42c Met Khang

42d Met Hep/Yak

TILS06 Limi Engl Yes Purang, but anywhere is possible

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A N/A Yes No Yes

TILS07 Limi Limi Yes Halji, Jang No Bad N/A Yes No N/A N/A No No No TILS08 Limi Tib Yes Rhomba,

Jang/Halji No Bad N/A Yes No N/A N/A No No Yes

MUCK01 Phot Phot Yes Chala, Khang, Yal, Yangar, Yari, Tumbu

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes

MUCK03 Poke Poke Yes Khang, Yal, Yangar, Tamang

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes

MUCK04 Poke Poke Yes Kermi, Yal, Yari Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes MUCK05 Muc Muc Yes Yari, Tumkot,

Yal, Chala Yes Good Nep, Tib Yes No N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes

MUCK06 Muc Muc Yes Yal, Yangar, Yari, Khang, Tumkot, Chala

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes

MUCK07 Muc Muc Yes Chala, Yangar, Yal, Yari, Khang

Yes Good Nep, Tib, Eng

No No N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes

MUCS01 Muc Muc Yes Yari, Tumkot, Yal, Chala, Yangar

Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Pronunciation, sentence types, mixing lgs/way of speaking

Yes N/A Yes Yes

MUCS02 Nep Muc Yes Muc VDC Yes Good all lgs Yes No N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes MUCS03 Muc Muc Yes Muc VDC Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Pronunciation,

sentence types, mixing lgs/way of speaking

No N/A Yes Yes

MUCS05 Orde Lap Orde Lap Yes Khang, Hep, Yal, Muc VDC

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A No N/A Yes Yes

105

Sub # 35b Talking w neighbour

36 Lang. children to learn

37 Marry outside

37a Where 37b Good

38 Children marry non-MT

38a Other Languages

39 Young speak MT well

40 MT diff from g-parents

41 What difference

42a Met Limi

42b Met Muc

42c Met Khang

42d Met Hep/Yak

MUCS06 Phot Phot Yes Khang, Ker Yes Indifferent Humla Tib, Limi, Nep, Tib, all

Yes No N/A No N/A Yes Yes

BARK001 Lama Lama Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Way of speaking

Yes Yes Yes Yes

BARK002 Photke Photke Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes No No Yes

BARK003 Lama Lama Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

No Indifferent Nep Yes No N/A No No Yes No

BARK004 Lama Lama Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

No Good Eng Yes Yes Vocab, mixing lgs

Yes No No Yes

BARK005 N/A Engl Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

Yes Good Nep, Eng, Hin

Yes Yes, they don’t know Nep

Pronunciation, vocab

Yes Yes Yes Yes

BARK006 Lama Lama Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A No No No No

BARK007 N/A Lama Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

Yes Good Nep Yes No N/A No No No No

BARK008 Lama Lama Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A No Yes No Yes

BARK009 Nyimbi Nyimbi Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Burangse

Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Vocab Yes Yes Yes Yes

BARJ001 Kham Kham No N/A N/A Indifferent Nep Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes BARD002 Bar Tib Bar Tib Yes Nimatang,

Torpa, Burangse Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes No

BARD003 Potkat Potkat Yes Burangse [Simikot VDC]

No Good Whatever people want

Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOZK001 N/A Bhote Yes Bar, Nimatang, Torpa

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes No No

DOZK002 Kham Kham Yes Nimatang, Burangse, Bar, Dingga

Yes Good Nep Yes Yes Vocab, mixing langs, way of speaking

Yes Yes No Yes

106

Sub # 35b Talking w neighbour

36 Lang. children to learn

37 Marry outside

37a Where 37b Good

38 Children marry non-MT

38a Other Languages

39 Young speak MT well

40 MT diff from g-parents

41 What difference

42a Met Limi

42b Met Muc

42c Met Khang

42d Met Hep/Yak

DOZK003 Kham Kham Yes Nimatang, Bar Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Way of speaking

Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOZK004 Kham Kham Yes Nimatang, Torpa, Pomma

Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Mixing lgs No No No No

DOZK005 Kham Kham Yes Baisipada n/r Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes DOZK006 N/A Nep Yes Nimatang, Bar,

Yak, Burangse, Tangini, Dinga

Yes Indifferent Nep, Tib Yes Yes Vocab, mixing lgs, way of speaking

Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOZK007 Nep, Kham

Kham Yes Burangse, Saatapali

Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Mixing lgs, way of speaking

Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOZJ002 Tsangba Tsangba Yes Pyusthan, Nepalgunj, Achham, etc.

OK Indifferent, Bad

Tib, India, Nepal; don’t speak our language well

Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOZJ003 Lama Lama Yes Bar Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A No No No No DOZJ004 Kham Kham Yes Nimatang, Bar,

Torpa OK Good Nep, Limi,

Chorpa Yes No N/A Yes No Yes Yes

DOZD002 N/A Nep Yes Bar, Hep, Puna, Bajura

Yes Bad Nep, Tib, Changlap

Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOZD003 Tsangkat Tsangkat Yes Bar VDC, Karpu VDC

Yes Good n/r Yes No N/A No Yes No No

HEPK001 N/A Lama Yes Tanggin,Hep, Dinga, other Lama-speaking areas

Yes Good Nep, Tib, Eng

Yes No Only we speak Nep

Yes Yes Yes N/A

HEPK002 Nep, Lap Lap Yes Yangar, Yal, all villages

No Bad Only our village is good

Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A

107

Sub # 35b Talking w neighbour

36 Lang. children to learn

37 Marry outside

37a Where 37b Good

38 Children marry non-MT

38a Other Languages

39 Young speak MT well

40 MT diff from g-parents

41 What difference

42a Met Limi

42b Met Muc

42c Met Khang

42d Met Hep/Yak

HEPK003 Lama Lama Yes Khang, Dinga, Tadepani?, Hep, Tangin, Yal, many more

Yes Good Nep Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A

HEPK004 Lama Lama Yes Dinga, Hep, Tangin

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes No N/A

HEPK005 N/A Lama Yes Dinga, Tangin, Yak, Muc, every Lama village

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A

HEPK006 N/A Nep Yes Tangin, Dinga, Khang, Yal

Yes good Nep, Lama

Yes No N/A Yes No Yes N/A

HEPK007 Lama Lama Yes within VDC Yes Bad

Yes No N/A Yes No Yes N/A YAKJ001 Lama Lama Yes other Lama

villages Yes indifferent Only with

higher caste, lower caste is bad

Some speak well, some don’t

No N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A

YAKJ002 Yak Yak No N/A N/A Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes No No N/A YAKD002 N/A Nep Yes Depends Yes Indifferent N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A YAKD003 Bhote Bhote Yes Tangin, Dinga,

Khang, Yal, Ker No Bad N/A Yes Yes Vocab, way of

speaking Yes Yes Yes N/A

YAKD004 Lama Lama Yes Tangin, Dinga, Khang, Ker, Chyaduk

Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Pronunciation, vocab, mixing lgs/way of speaking

Yes Yes Yes N/A

KERK010 Phot Phot Yes Khang, Tjado, Yak, all Lama villages

Yes Bad N/A Yes Yes Vocab, mixing lgs/way of speaking

Yes Yes Yes Yes

KERK012 Phot Phot Yes All Lama villages

Yes Good Nep, Tib, Eng

Yes Yes Way of speaking

Yes Yes Yes Yes

KERK013 Nep, Eng Eng Yes Khang, Derai Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes KERK014 N/A Phot Yes All Lama

villages Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A No Yes Yes Yes

108

Sub # 35b Talking w neighbour

36 Lang. children to learn

37 Marry outside

37a Where 37b Good

38 Children marry non-MT

38a Other Languages

39 Young speak MT well

40 MT diff from g-parents

41 What difference

42a Met Limi

42b Met Muc

42c Met Khang

42d Met Hep/Yak

KERK015 Lap Lap Yes All Lama villages

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes No

KERK016 Potka Potka Yes Other Lama villages

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

KERJ001 Bhotka Bhotka Yes Kutuma Yes Indifferent Nep, Eng No Yes Mixing w/ Nep

Yes Yes Yes Yes

KERJ002 Bhotka Bhotka Yes Yal, Khang, Chyaduk, Lama Kholsi, Yangar

Yes Bad N/A No Yes Mixing w/ Eng, Nep, Tib

Yes Yes Yes Yes

KERJ003 Nep Bhote Yes Khang, Chiatup Yes Indifferent Nep Yes Yes Mixing w/ Nep

Yes Yes Yes Yes

KERJ004 Bhotka Bhotka Yes With other Lama people

Yes Indifferent n/r Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

KERJ005 Nep, Bhotka

Bhotka Yes Yal, Chiatup, Yak

Yes Good Nep Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

KERJ006 N/A Bhotka Yes Yal, Yangar, Chiadup, Khang, Khulchi, Yak

Yes Bad N/A Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

Questions 42e–45e Sub # 42e Met

Bar/Nyi 43a Underst Limi

43b Underst Muc

43c Underst Khang

43d Underst Hep/Yak

43e Underst Bar/Nyi

44a Like Limi

44b Like Muc

44c Like Khang

44d Like Hep/Yak

44e Like Bar/Nyi

45a Like habits Limi

45b Like habits Muc

45c Like habits Khang

45d Like habits Hep/Yak

45e Like habits Bar/Nyi

TILK02 Yes N/A All Only a little

Only a little

All N/A Very good

OK OK OK N/A OK OK Not good OK

TILK03 Yes N/A Most All All All N/A Very good

Very good

OK Very good

N/A Very good

OK n/r Very good

TILK04 Yes N/A Half N/A Only a little

Only a little

N/A Not good

N/A Not good

OK N/A Not good

N/A Not good OK

TILK05 Yes N/A All All All All N/A OK OK Not good

OK N/A Good Good Not good OK

TILK07 No N/A N/A N/A All N/A N/A N/A N/A OK N/A N/A N/A N/A Not good N/A

109

Sub # 42e Met Bar/Nyi

43a Underst Limi

43b Underst Muc

43c Underst Khang

43d Underst Hep/Yak

43e Underst Bar/Nyi

44a Like Limi

44b Like Muc

44c Like Khang

44d Like Hep/Yak

44e Like Bar/Nyi

45a Like habits Limi

45b Like habits Muc

45c Like habits Khang

45d Like habits Hep/Yak

45e Like habits Bar/Nyi

TILS01 No N/A Only a little

N/A N/A N/A N/A Good N/A N/A N/A N/A OK N/A N/A N/A

TILS02 No N/A Only a little

N/A N/A N/A N/A Good N/A N/A N/A N/A Very good

N/A N/A N/A

TILS03 No N/A Only a little

N/A N/A N/A N/A Good N/A N/A N/A N/A OK N/A N/A N/A

TILS04 No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TILS05 No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TILS06 No N/A None N/A Most N/A N/A Not

good N/A Not

good N/A N/A Not

good N/A Not good N/A

TILS07 No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TILS08 No N/A N/A N/A Only a

little N/A N/A N/A N/A Not

good N/A N/A N/A N/A Not good N/A

MUCK01 Yes All N/A All All Half OK N/A Very good

Very good

OK N/A N/A Very good

N/A N/A

MUCK03 Yes All N/A All All All Good N/A Good Not good

OK N/A N/A Good N/A N/A

MUCK04 Yes All N/A All All All Good N/A Good Good Good Good N/A Good Good Good MUCK05 Yes All N/A All All All OK N/A OK Not

good Very good

OK N/A Good Not good OK

MUCK06 Yes All N/A All Only a little

Half OK N/A OK Not good

OK OK N/A OK OK OK

MUCK07 Yes All N/A All All All OK N/A OK OK OK N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MUCS01 Yes Most N/A All All All OK N/A OK OK Good OK N/A Very

good OK Good

MUCS02 Yes All N/A All Half Half OK N/A Good OK OK OK N/A Good OK OK MUCS03 Yes N/A N/A Most Only a

little Half N/A N/A OK Not

good Good N/A N/A Not

good Not good Not

good MUCS05 Yes N/A N/A All All All N/A N/A Good Good Good N/A N/A Good Good Good MUCS06 Yes N/A N/A All All All N/A N/A Very

good Good Good N/A N/A Good Good Good

110

Sub # 42e Met Bar/Nyi

43a Underst Limi

43b Underst Muc

43c Underst Khang

43d Underst Hep/Yak

43e Underst Bar/Nyi

44a Like Limi

44b Like Muc

44c Like Khang

44d Like Hep/Yak

44e Like Bar/Nyi

45a Like habits Limi

45b Like habits Muc

45c Like habits Khang

45d Like habits Hep/Yak

45e Like habits Bar/Nyi

BARK001 N/A None Only a little

Only a little

Only a little

N/A OK OK OK OK N/A OK OK OK OK N/A

BARK002 N/A Only a little

N/A N/A Only a little

N/A OK N/A N/A Not good

N/A Not good

N/A N/A Not good N/A

BARK003 N/A N/A N/A Only a little

N/A N/A N/A N/A OK N/A N/A N/A N/A OK N/A N/A

BARK004 N/A All N/A N/A Only a little

N/A OK N/A N/A OK N/A Not good

N/A N/A n/r N/A

BARK005 N/A None Only a little

Half Only a little

N/A Not good

OK OK OK N/A n/r OK OK OK N/A

BARK006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BARK007 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BARK008 N/A N/A All N/A All N/A N/A Good N/A Good N/A N/A Good N/A Not good N/A BARK009 N/A Most Most Most Most N/A OK OK OK OK N/A Not

good OK OK Not good N/A

BARJ001 N/A Most Most Only a little

Only a little

N/A OK Good OK OK N/A Good OK OK n/r N/A

BARD002 N/A Most Half Most N/A N/A Good OK Good N/A N/A Very good

N/A Good N/A N/A

BARD003 N/A Half Only a little

Most Half N/A Not good

OK OK OK N/A n/r n/r n/r n/r N/A

DOZK001 Yes Half Most N/A N/A All OK Good N/A N/A Very good

Good Good N/A N/A Good

DOZK002 Yes Only a little

OK N/A Only a little

All Good OK N/A Not good

OK OK OK N/A OK OK

DOZK003 Yes Half Most Most Most All OK OK OK OK Good OK Good Good Good Good DOZK004 No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DOZK005 Yes Half Only a

little Only a little

Only a little

Only a little

Good Very good

Good Good OK OK Very good

Good Good Good

DOZK006 Yes Half Most All Half All Not good

OK OK Not good

Good OK OK OK Good Good

111

Sub # 42e Met Bar/Nyi

43a Underst Limi

43b Underst Muc

43c Underst Khang

43d Underst Hep/Yak

43e Underst Bar/Nyi

44a Like Limi

44b Like Muc

44c Like Khang

44d Like Hep/Yak

44e Like Bar/Nyi

45a Like habits Limi

45b Like habits Muc

45c Like habits Khang

45d Like habits Hep/Yak

45e Like habits Bar/Nyi

DOZK007 Yes All All All All All Good Good Good OK Not good

OK Good Good Not good Good

DOZJ002 Yes All All All All All OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK DOZJ003 Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Only a

little N/A N/A N/A N/A Good N/A N/A N/A N/A OK

DOZJ004 Yes Only a little

N/A Only a little

Most All OK N/A OK Good Good OK N/A Good Good Good

DOZD002 Yes None None Only a little

Only a little

All OK OK Good OK OK Very good

OK OK OK OK

DOZD003 Yes N/A Only a little

N/A N/A All N/A OK N/A N/A Very good

N/A OK N/A N/A Very good

HEPK001 Yes All All All N/A All OK Good Good N/A Good OK OK Good N/A OK HEPK002 Yes All All All N/A All OK OK OK N/A OK OK OK OK N/A OK HEPK003 Yes Half Only a

little Half N/A Only a

little Good OK Good N/A OK Good N/A OK N/A N/A

HEPK004 No All Most N/A N/A N/A Good OK N/A N/A N/A OK Good N/A N/A N/A HEPK005 Yes Half Most Only a

little N/A Only a

little OK OK OK N/A OK OK OK OK N/A OK

HEPK006 No Half N/A All N/A N/A Good N/A Good N/A N/A Good N/A Good N/A N/A HEPK007 No All N/A All N/A N/A OK N/A Good N/A N/A Good N/A Good N/A N/A YAKJ001 Yes All All All N/A Only a

little OK OK OK N/A OK OK OK OK N/A OK

YAKJ002 Yes All N/A N/A N/A All Good N/A N/A N/A Good Good N/A N/A N/A Good YAKD002 No All Most All N/A N/A Good Good Good N/A N/A Good Good Good N/A N/A YAKD003 Yes Half n/r All N/A Only a

little Good OK Good N/A Not

good n/r n/r OK N/A n/r

YAKD004 Yes All All All N/A Most Good OK OK N/A OK Good Good OK N/A Good KERK010 Yes All All All All All Good OK Good Not

good Good Very

good Good OK OK Good

112

Sub # 42e Met Bar/Nyi

43a Underst Limi

43b Underst Muc

43c Underst Khang

43d Underst Hep/Yak

43e Underst Bar/Nyi

44a Like Limi

44b Like Muc

44c Like Khang

44d Like Hep/Yak

44e Like Bar/Nyi

45a Like habits Limi

45b Like habits Muc

45c Like habits Khang

45d Like habits Hep/Yak

45e Like habits Bar/Nyi

KERK012 Yes Most All All Most Half OK OK Good OK Not good

n/r Good Good n/r n/r

KERK013 Yes Most All All Only a little

Half Good Good OK Not good

Good Good Good OK Not good Good

KERK014 No N/A Only a little

All All N/A N/A Good Good OK N/A N/A OK OK OK N/A

KERK015 No Only a little

Only a little

Most N/A N/A Not good

Good Good N/A N/A Good Good Good N/A N/A

KERK016 Yes Only a little

Only a little

All Half Half OK OK OK OK OK OK n/r OK n/r n/r

KERJ001 Yes Most Most, they speak purely

All All Half OK Good Good OK OK Good OK OK Not good OK

KERJ002 No Half Half All Most N/A OK OK Good OK N/A OK OK Good Not good N/A KERJ003 Yes All All All All All Not

good Good OK Not

good Good Good Good OK Not good OK

KERJ004 Yes Most Most All Most Only a little

OK Good Good Good OK Good Good Good OK OK

KERJ005 No None Only a little

All Only a little

N/A Good Good Good Good N/A Good Good Good Good N/A

KERJ006 Yes Only a little

Only a little

All Half Only a little

OK Good Very good

OK Not good

OK OK Good OK Not good

113

Questions 46–52a Sub # 46 Lang.

w/ Humli Tib

47 Situations not MT

47a When 48 Met Purang

49 Purang L same

49a What L w/ Purang

49b Change L

50 Understand Purang 1st time

51 Understand Purang

52 MT best 52a Why

TILK02 Limi Yes With Nyimba people Yes No Tib Yes Yes All Til (or Jang/Halji)

N/A

TILK03 Limi lap No N/A Yes Yes n/r n/r Yes All Nori (near Purang), Til

Our language seems similar, they are Tib people,Buddhism came from that place

TILK04 Limi No If they don’t understand, he calls for help

Yes Yes Purang No Yes All No difference, the same

N/A

TILK05 Tilpi lap Yes Changes to Rongba people

Yes Yes Purang lap Yes Yes Only a little Purang Because it is at the border, have to buy stuff in Purang

TILK07 Limi, mimic Yak

No N/A Yes Yes Til lap Yes, sometimes try to mimic

No Half All the same

N/A

TILS01 Nep No N/A Yes Yes Tib N/A Yes Only a little Til n/r TILS02 Limi Yes If they don’t

understand Limi Yes No N/A, same

language Yes No All All 3

villages Exactly the same

TILS03 Limi No N/A Yes No N/A No Yes, but not well

Half 3 villages Same in 3 villages

TILS04 N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Limi No, the same

Yes Most Doesn’t know

N/A

TILS05 N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A No Yes All, for basic communication

Til N/A

TILS06 Limi No N/A Yes Yes N/A No Yes All 3 villages Exactly the same TILS07 Limi No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Til Very clear to

talk to anyone else (in Humla)

TILS08 Limi No N/A Yes No Limi No Yes Half Til Clear

114

Sub # 46 Lang. w/ Humli Tib

47 Situations not MT

47a When 48 Met Purang

49 Purang L same

49a What L w/ Purang

49b Change L

50 Understand Purang 1st time

51 Understand Purang

52 MT best 52a Why

MUCK01 Phote No N/A Yes No Phot No Yes All Muc Can speak with all the other villages

MUCK03 Poke No N/A Yes Yes Poke No Yes All Muc They speak exactly as I

MUCK04 Poke No N/A Yes Yes Poke No Yes All Yari All the same MUCK05 Muc No N/A Yes Yes Muc Yes Yes All Yari,

Tumkot Neighbours

MUCK06 Muc No N/A Yes Yes Muc Yes Yes All Muchu We live here, own place

MUCK07 Muc No N/A Yes Yes Muc Yes Yes All Tumkot, Yari

Because they are close

MUCS01 Muc w/ mixing

No N/A Yes Yes Muc Yes Yes All Purang Same language as here

MUCS02 Muc No N/A Yes No Muc Yes Yes Half Muchu I live there MUCS03 Muc No N/A Yes No Muc Yes No Half Muchu My own lang MUCS05 Orde lap No N/A Yes Yes Orde lap No Yes All Tumkot,

Yari Same as ours

MUCS06 Phot No N/A Yes No Phot No Yes All Yangar n/r BARK001 Try to

speak their variety

Yes Always Yes No Purang Yes Yes Only a little Our 4 villages

Close

BARK002 Photke No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Our 4 villages

n/r

BARK003 Lama No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Our 4 villages

Understand

BARK004 Lama No N/A Yes No Tib N/A Yes All Nimatang Their words are very clear

BARK005 Lama No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Torpa, Hutik

Close

BARK006 Lama No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Torpa, Nimatang

From before, is same language

115

Sub # 46 Lang. w/ Humli Tib

47 Situations not MT

47a When 48 Met Purang

49 Purang L same

49a What L w/ Purang

49b Change L

50 Understand Purang 1st time

51 Understand Purang

52 MT best 52a Why

BARK007 Lama No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Torpa n/r BARK008 Lama No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All the

same n/r

BARK009 Nyimbi No N/A Yes No Tib N/A Yes Most Our 4 villages

Own and it is the same

BARJ001 Kham Yes When they don’t understand my language

No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All same n/r

BARD002 Bar Tib No N/A Yes No Tib N/A Yes All Torpa, Nimatang

Mother’s and wife’s town

BARD003 Potkat No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Torpa, Nimatang

First villages

DOZK001 Bhote No N/A Yes No Bhote Yes No Only a little Bar Close DOZK002 Kham Yes Change to all other

varieties Yes No Purang,

Bhote Kham

Yes Yes Only a little Doz Everybody else speak different

DOZK003 Kham No N/A Yes No Purang Yes Yes Only a little Yekpa, Tangin

Short language

DOZK004 other’s language

Yes Always Yes No Purang N/A Yes Only a little Doz Only one

DOZK005 Kham No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Doz Really clear DOZK006 Lama Yes With all others, try to

speak their variety Yes No Purang Yes Yes None Doz Own

DOZK007 Lap No N/A Yes No Limi N/A Yes Only a little Burangse Own DOZJ002 Tib w Tib

people Yes Didn’t understand Q No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Doz Own

DOZJ003 Lama No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Doz Own DOZJ004 Kham No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Doz Own DOZD002 Changlap No N/A Yes No Tib N/A Yes Only a little Bar Easy to

understand DOZD003 Bhote Yes Speak language of

other person Yes No Purang N/A Yes Only a little Bar Understand well

116

Sub # 46 Lang. w/ Humli Tib

47 Situations not MT

47a When 48 Met Purang

49 Purang L same

49a What L w/ Purang

49b Change L

50 Understand Purang 1st time

51 Understand Purang

52 MT best 52a Why

HEPK001 Lama Yes When we haven’t met them, we speak Nep

Yes Yes Tib N/A Yes Most Tanggin Same as ours

HEPK002 Lap No N/A Yes Yes Lap No, the same

Yes All All same N/A

HEPK003 Lama No N/A Yes Yes Lama No, the same

Yes Half Dinga, Tangin

Close

HEPK004 Lama No N/A Yes Yes Lama Yes Yes Half Yakpa Own HEPK005 Lama No N/A Yes No Lama Yes Yes Half Tanggin All Lama people HEPK006 Lama No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yak Own HEPK007 Lama No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yak Own YAKJ001 Lama No N/A Yes No Lama Yes No Only a little All same N/A YAKJ002 Yak No N/A Yes No Yak Yes Yes Only a little Yak Own and speak

quickly YAKD002 Kham,

but change

No N/A Yes Yes Khas Tib N/A Yes All Dinga Same VDC

YAKD003 Bhote No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yak Own YAKD004 Lama No N/A Yes No Purangko N/A Yes Most Yakp,

Dinga, Tangin, Gadepuri

Our own VDC

KERK010 Ker No N/A Yes Yes Purang N/A Yes All Ker Understand all KERK012 Phot Yes If I don’t know the

person Yes Yes Purang N/A Yes Half Khang Same as ours

KERK013 Phot No N/A Yes Yes Purang N/A Yes All Yal, Yangar Understand KERK014 Phot No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ker Own KERK015 Lap No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ker Own KERK016 Potka No N/A Yes No Ask other

people to translate

N/A No None Ker Own language

117

Sub # 46 Lang. w/ Humli Tib

47 Situations not MT

47a When 48 Met Purang

49 Purang L same

49a What L w/ Purang

49b Change L

50 Understand Purang 1st time

51 Understand Purang

52 MT best 52a Why

KERJ001 Bhotka mixed with Tib

No N/A Yes No Bhotka mixed w/ Tib

Yes No Half Khang It’s near to us

KERJ002 Bhotka No N/A Yes No Bhotka Yes No Only a little Khang They’re near us and speak like us

KERJ003 Bhote Yes Sometimes they don’t understand my language

Yes Yes Lhasa Tib N/A Yes Half Chanwa [near Khang]

Their language is good

KERJ004 Bhotka Yes If they speak Nep, otherwise I speak Bhotka

Yes No Bhotka Yes Yes Half Everyone speaks well

N/A

KERJ005 I don’t speak with them

Yes N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Everywere is good

N/A

KERJ006 Bhotka No N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ker Own village

Questions 53–57a Sub # 53 MT worst 53a Why 54 Humla best 54a Why? 55 Humla worst 55a Why? 56

Read 56a In languages

57 Write

57a In languages

TILK02 No difference N/A Nyi A lot of people, 5 villages

Tsjalang Very far, few people Yes Tib Yes Tib

TILK03 If people live in KTM

n/r Til (everywhere the same)

N/A All are same, can’t decide

N/A Yes Tib Yes Tib

TILK04 N/A N/A Limi Limi language is very close to central Tib and that’s very useful

Yak, Sanrak, Sjangdang

Because of accent, sounds rude

Yes Tib Yes Tib

TILK05 Halji They don’t use respected form, sounds rude

Khang Use respected words and talk softly

Yak They don’t use respected words, fight, and quarrel, they are really bad

Yes Tib Yes Tib

TILK07 N/A N/A Tilwa Used to it Shangda It’s just strange No N/A No N/A

118

Sub # 53 MT worst 53a Why 54 Humla best 54a Why? 55 Humla worst 55a Why? 56 Read

56a In languages

57 Write

57a In languages

TILS01 N/A N/A Limiko N/A All are good. No bad ones.

N/A Yes Tib, Eng Yes Tib, Eng

TILS02 N/A N/A Limi Limi is very close to Tib Lang; closest inside Humla

Darapori, Majagau Nep people; the way they speak is bad and different

Yes Tib Yes Tib

TILS03 N/A N/A Limi Similar to Tib Nep Don’t understand No N/A No N/A TILS04 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A No N/A TILS05 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A No N/A TILS06 Halji It’s not as clear way

of speaking Til Very clear and old

language Yak Rude way of

speaking; not interesting or nice

No N/A No N/A

TILS07 Halji Not clear Limi Speaks with respect and is smooth

Muc The way they speak is rude, not nice

No N/A No N/A

TILS08 Halji Not clear Til Clear Yak Talk too loud, rude, start fights

No N/A No N/A

MUCK01 La Yakpa After drinking, “kura thulo chha”

Muc Can speak with all the other villages

La Yakpa After drinking, “kura thulo chha”

No N/A No N/A

MUCK03 Yak Very different Muc Because they speak exactly as I do

Yak, Brojde (Nyi) Not a good language No N/A No N/A

MUCK04 Ker Don’t know Muc Just so Yak Just so No N/A No N/A MUCK05 Nyi Far away Yari Close to hear, a little

bit the same Nyi Far away Yes Tib, Nep,

Eng Yes Tib, Nep,

Eng MUCK06 Yak They speak short

short Muc We live here Every language OK N/A Yes Tib, Nep Yes Tib, Nep

MUCK07 Yak Customs/habits are a bit different

Muc Own language, born Yak Customs/habits are a bit different

Yes Nep Yes Nep

MUCS01 Yak It doesn’t match well Muc Small village, family Yak It’s not the same No N/A No N/A MUCS02 Yak Pronunciation is not

good Muc I live there Yak Pronunciation is not

good No N/A Yes Tib

MUCS03 Hep Not just like our own language

Muc My own L Hep Not just like our own language

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

119

Sub # 53 MT worst 53a Why 54 Humla best 54a Why? 55 Humla worst 55a Why? 56 Read

56a In languages

57 Write

57a In languages

MUCS05 Doz It is a bit different, doesn’t match

All the Bhote people speak well

N/A Near Doz, Nimbai Not the same No N/A No N/A

MUCS06 All is good n/r Not asked Not asked Not asked Not asked No N/A No N/A BARK001 Doz They came later to

this valley Bar My own Biansi Don’t understand No N/A No N/A

BARK002 n/r n/r Bar Understand most All okay n/r No N/A No N/A BARK003 Burangse Pronunciation is

different Bar I speak it Hep/Limi Different Yes Nep, Eng Yes Nep, Eng

BARK004 Every village OK

n/r Bar Understand well Doz Speak roughly Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

BARK005 Burangse A bit far Bar Own language Doz They have their own language and culture, and I don’t like it

Yes Nep, Eng, Hin

Yes Nep, Eng, Hin

BARK006 Doz Different, from before

Bar Own Don’t know Not been there No N/A No N/A

BARK007 Don’t know n/r Bar n/r Burangse n/r Yes Nep, Eng Yes Nep, Eng BARK008 Some low caste

in Bar They don’t understand much of our language

Burangse Own Doz They speak badly No N/A No N/A

BARK009 n/r n/r Taklakot “Mati” language n/r n/r Yes Nep Yes Nep BARJ001 n/r n/r Good

everywhere n/r n/r n/r No N/A Yes Nep

BARD002 Doz Don’t marry, don’t go there

Ker Close by, close to Simikot

Yak, Doz, Limi Far away Yes Tib, Nep, Eng, Hin

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng, Hin

BARD003 Thehe “derai chaso gardena” Don’t know, everyone likes own language

N/A Don’t know N/A Yes Nep, Eng Yes Nep, Eng

DOZK001 Limi Far away and different

Doz Our own Muc Far away Yes Nep Yes Nep

DOZK002 Bar, Nimatang, Torpa

Don’t speak well Limi [near Purang]

It is good Saathe river [near Yak]

Different Yes Nep Yes Nep

120

Sub # 53 MT worst 53a Why 54 Humla best 54a Why? 55 Humla worst 55a Why? 56 Read

56a In languages

57 Write

57a In languages

DOZK003 Khang n/r Bar, Limatang, Doz

Neighbours Near Muc, Kolchhi Mix of Nep and Kham

Yes Nep Yes Nep

DOZK004 Don’t know N/A Hep, Tangin Easy communication Khang/Challa/near Muc

Because I don’t understand

No N/A No N/A

DOZK005 Only Nep people

n/r Doz Really clear All are good n/r No N/A No N/A

DOZK006 People who learned Doz lang

N/A Doz Own Hep, Tanggin Very different No N/A No N/A

DOZK007 Doz Loudly, speak hard Limi Speak slowly, good food

Hep Fighting No N/A No N/A

DOZJ002 Yak Don’t understand some of it

Doz Own Limi It’s different No N/A No N/A

DOZJ003 Bar We don’t understand it

Burangse Good people, good language

Tal - between Bar and Doz

They aren’t good No N/A No N/A

DOZJ004 Nowhere N/A Doz Other areas speak their language well, and we speak ours well

Nowhere I haven’t met anyone that doesn’t speak their language well

No N/A No N/A

DOZD002 None N/A Limi Good people All good N/A Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

DOZD003 Thehe Don’t understand Doz Easy to understand Karpurath VDC Speak badly Yes Nep Yes Nep HEPK001 Burangse They speak a lot of

Nep Yak Own Khang They are on the

other side of the valley

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

HEPK002 All same N/A All same N/A All same N/A No N/A No N/A HEPK003 Khang, Muc Different All same N/A All same N/A No N/A No N/A HEPK004 Limi Just Yak own Limi, Purang just No N/A No N/A HEPK005 Ker Different Yak own Bar Different Yes Nep Yes Nep HEPK006 Limi Don’t understand all Khang Understand well Bar Don’t understand Yes Nep Yes Nep HEPK007 Kolchhi n/r Muc n/r Tjaduk n/r Yes Nep Yes Nep

121

Sub # 53 MT worst 53a Why 54 Humla best 54a Why? 55 Humla worst 55a Why? 56 Read

56a In languages

57 Write

57a In languages

YAKJ001 Yak When people fight, their language isn’t good

Ker, Yak All things are good n/r N/A No N/A No N/A

YAKJ002 Darapuyal It’s unclear Yak It’s our own lg and our hearts understand it

Dinga It isn’t good No N/A No N/A

YAKD002 None N/A Hep, Yak Good village None N/A Yes Nep, Eng, Hin

Yes Nep, Eng, Hin

YAKD003 Doz/Bar Does not understand Yak Own Humli Kyampa Does not understand Yes Nep Yes Nep YAKD004 Khang, Kholsi Speak slowly Hep VDC Own VDC Doz Mixed language and

caste No N/A No N/A

KERK010 Yak A bit different Ker Own, we understand all others

Yak A lot of alcohol Yes Tib, Nep Yes Tib, Nep

KERK012 Burangse Very far, not the same language

Ker Own Burangse They speak a lot with Nep mix

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

Yes Tib, Nep, Eng

KERK013 Yakpa Different Ker Own Yak Different Yes Nep Yes Nep KERK014 Not any Same All good N/A All good N/A Yes Nep Yes Nep KERK015 All others n/r Ker Own All others n/r No N/A No N/A KERK016 Purang/Limi Don’t know Ker Own Don’t know N/A No N/A No N/A KERJ001 Bar It’s far from us Limi Their lan is pure -

unmixed; ours mixes w/ other langs

Hep Their dialect is totally different

Yes Tib, Nep Yes Tib, Nep

KERJ002 Bar They’re far from us and not like us

Ker It’s our lang and our village, we meet people from many places

Chyaduk Their village is ‘in the middle’ and they don’t speak well

Yes Nep Yes Nep

KERJ003 Yak They speak their dialect quickly

Ker It’s from Tib Yak Their language is different/separate

Yes Nep Yes Nep

KERJ004 Bar We can’t understand them

Our language we’re Bhotka Khampa We don’t understand it

No N/A No N/A

KERJ005 Nowhere is bad N/A Everywhere is good

N/A Nowhere is bad N/A No N/A No N/A

KERJ006 Bar They speak Nep, don’t speak our lang

Ker Own village Bar Don’t meet often, don’t speak our lang

Yes Nep Yes Nep

122

Questions 58–60a Sub # 58 Lang like

to read 59 Read books in MT

60 Langeasiest

60a Why? Sub # 58 Lang like to read

59 Read books in MT

60 Lang easiest

60a Why?

TILK02 Chi Yes N/A N/A DOZK001 Nep No N/A N/A TILK03 Tib (prayer) Yes N/A N/A DOZK002 Nep Yes N/A N/A TILK04 Nep Yes N/A N/A DOZK003 Nep Yes N/A N/A TILK05 Eng Yes N/A N/A DOZK004 Nep Yes N/A N/A TILK07 Eng Yes N/A N/A DOZK005 Nep Yes N/A N/A TILS01 Tib Yes Tib Learned with Lama DOZK006 n/r Yes N/A N/A TILS02 Tib Yes Tib Only language he can

read DOZK007 Nep Yes N/A N/A

TILS03 Tib (for prayer)

Yes N/A N/A DOZJ002 Own Lang Yes N/A N/A

TILS04 Doesn’t know No N/A N/A DOZJ003 Nep Yes N/A N/A TILS05 Tib (for

prayer) No N/A N/A DOZJ004 Nep Yes N/A N/A

TILS06 Tib Yes N/A N/A DOZD002 Eng Yes Tib Learned in school TILS07 Tib Yes N/A N/A DOZD003 Bhote,

Changba Yes N/A N/A

TILS08 Tib Yes N/A N/A HEPK001 Lama Yes Nep Learned in school MUCK01 Lamako gjen n/r Gyen It’s good HEPK002 Own Lang Yes N/A N/A MUCK03 Our village L No N/A N/A HEPK003 Own Lang Yes N/A N/A MUCK04 Nep Yes N/A N/A HEPK004 Nep Yes N/A N/A MUCK05 Tib, Nep Yes Tib Learned it since young

age HEPK005 Nep Yes N/A N/A

MUCK06 Eng, more Nep, Tib, Chi

Yes Tib Language of religion HEPK006 Nep Yes N/A N/A

MUCK07 Eng Yes N/A N/A HEPK007 Nep Yes N/A N/A MUCS01 Eng Yes N/A N/A YAKJ001 Lama Yes N/A N/A MUCS02 Tib Yes N/A N/A YAKJ002 Yak Yes N/A N/A MUCS03 Eng Yes Nep National language YAKD002 Eng Yes Nep Learned in school

123

Sub # 58 Lang like to read

59 Read books in MT

60 Langeasiest

60a Why? Sub # 58 Lang like to read

59 Read books in MT

60 Lang easiest

60a Why?

MUCS05 Orde lap Yes N/A N/A YAKD003 Nep Yes Nep Living in Nepal MUCS06 Phote Yes N/A N/A YAKD004 Nep Yes N/A N/A BARK001 n/r No N/A N/A KERK010 I’m too old Yes Tib Knows Gyen BARK002 n/r No N/A N/A KERK012 Eng Yes Tib Already know/learned BARK003 Nep, Eng Yes Nep Learned first KERK013 Nep, Hin Yes N/A N/A BARK004 Eng Yes Tib Was in Tib school in KTM KERK014 Nep Yes N/A N/A BARK005 Eng Yes Nep Learned first KERK015 Nep No N/A N/A BARK006 n/r No N/A N/A KERK016 Eng Yes N/A N/A BARK007 Nep Yes Nep Learned most KERJ001 Eng, Tib Yes Nep Learned in school BARK008 Bar Yes N/A N/A KERJ002 Tib Yes N/A N/A BARK009 No need Yes N/A N/A KERJ003 Nep Yes Nep Easier than Tib BARJ001 Nep Yes Nep Our national L KERJ004 Eng Yes N/A N/A BARD002 None Yes Eng Eng spelling is easiest KERJ005 Bhotka Yes N/A N/A BARD003 Eng Yes Nep Learned it since young

age KERJ006 Eng, Nep Yes Nep National language

124

Appendix D: Recorded Story Questions (RSQ)

D.1 Recorded Story Questions schedule

Interview Number: Date: Place: Interviewer’s Name: Story: 1. How much of the story did you understand?

यो कथा कती ब�नभयो? � allपरा � half आध

� most एउटा दईटा करा ब�नभएन � less than half आधीको कम

2. How did you like his/her speech? उहाल बोलको भाषा क�तो ला�यो?

� good रामरो � fine �ठक � bad नरामरो

3. Why? (What is / is not good about it?) �कन होला? (क रामरो छ / छन?)

4. Which village do you think the storyteller is from? यो कथा भ� मा�छको गाउ कन हो होला?

5. Is the language in this story the same, a little different, or very different from the language spoken here? यहा बोलएको भाषा कथामा उ�त छ �क आ�लआ�ल फरक छ, वा धर फरक छ?

� same उ�तछ � a little different आ�लआ�ल फरक छ � very different धर फरक छ

5a. (If different) In what way is it different? (य�द “फरक” भन)कमा फरक छ? (उ�ार, श�द, बो�न तिरका)

� pronunciation उ�ारण � words श�द � style बो�न तिरका

6. Did you hear any mixing with another language? यो कथामा तपाईल कन अक� भाषासग �मसाएको करा (श�दहर) स�भयो?

� Yes � No

7. If yes, which languages? कन कन भाषाहर? 8. How would you feel if your son or daughter married someone who spoke

like that? Why? �य�तो भाषा बो�नसग, तपाईको छोरा वा छोरील �बह गर, तपाईलाई क�तो ला�छ होला? �कन?

� good रामरो � fine �ठक � bad नरामरो

125

D.2 Recorded Story participants’ biodata

Except for the 12 respondents from Jang, the biographical data for the respondents of the RSQ are found in the informal interview data Appendix A. The metadata for Jang is as follows:

Metadata: Jang Informed consent Yes Dates of data collection June 14–24 2013 VDC Limi District, Zone Humla, Karnali GPS coordinates N 30˚14.255,E 81˚35.437 Interviewer David (D) Language used Nepali

Here you will find the biographical data of the 12 respondents from Jang.

Sub # JAND 001

JAND 003

JAND 008

JAND 013

JAND 015

JAND 016

JAND 017

JAND 018

JAND 019

JAND 020

JAND 021

JAND 023

08 Sex M M F F M M F M F F M M 10 Age 45 35 22 33 25 16 45 31 48 50 17 65

11 Mother tongue

Bhotia, pöpa

Limi lap Limi Limi

Tib, Limi lap

Limi lap

Limi lap

Phepa, Limi lap

Limi Limi lap

Limi lap Limi

12 Birth place

Bhotia/Limiya Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang KTM Jang Jang Jang Jang

13 Live now Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang

14 How long All life 30 yrs All

life 20 yrs

0–10 last 7 mo

14 yrs All life 5 mo All life All life All life All life

15 +1 year No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No

15a Where N/A KTM N/A KTM KTM KTM N/A KTM N/A N/A N/A N/A

15b When N/A 2000–2005 N/A 1 yr

ago Age 11–25

8 yrs ago N/A 30 yrs N/A N/A N/A N/A

15c How long N/A 5 yrs N/A 3 yrs About

15 yrs 2 yrs N/A 5 mo ago N/A N/A N/A N/A

15d Scr Cri #1 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes yes Yes Yes

16 Where father Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang

17 MT father Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi

18 Where mother Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang Jang

19 MT mother Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi

20 Lang as a child

Not asked Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi

21 1st language

Not asked Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi Limi

21a Scr Cri #2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

21b Scr Cri #3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

126

D.3 Til Story data

English Translation of the Til story – June 19, 2012 – (TILK01)

I went down. Then I saw a snow leopard biting the goats. Way over there. After that I couldn’t sleep at night. Then that night I wasn’t leaving the other goats. Then I saw the leopard again at night. I shooed it away with stones. I kept on doing that, I couldn’t do anything else. Again at night, when I was a little bit away, two goats were killed. Then it became morning after 4 hours.

Responses to the RSQ of the Til story are included in the following chart:

Subject # RSQ Til 1

RSQ Til 2 RSQ Til 3 RSQ Til 4 RSQ Til 5 RSQ Til 5a RSQ

Til 6 RSQ Til 7 RSQ Til 8 RSQ Til 8a

MUCK03 All Good Just good Limi A little different

Pronunciation No N/A Yes Same Lama caste

MUCK04 All Good Understand, that’s why

Limi A little different

Pronunciation No N/A Yes She likes the language

MUCK05 All Fine Not exactly same as Muche

Khamba A little different

Pronunciation No N/A No Different caste

MUCK06 All Good Really normal language

Gorapani A little different

Style No N/A Yes It’s the same language, it works

MUCK07 All Fine Speaks his own

language without mixing

Limi A little different

Pronunciation No N/A Yes Depends on the child

MUCS01 All Good Words are good, it is good

Tagalkot, Purang

A little different

Pronunciation No N/A Yes Not asked

MUCS02 All Good I understand it all Limi A little different

Pronunciation, style

No N/A No Very far away

MUCS03 Most Good Mixes with our language

Muche A little different

Pronunciation, style

Yes Purang Yes Like ours

MUCS05 All Good Matches Limi Same N/A No N/A Yes Same

MUCS06 All Good Nice, sounds good

Limi A little different

Style No N/A No Far away

YALK01 All Good Good language, sounds pure

Limi A little different

Pronunciation No N/A Yes Language good

127

Subject # RSQ Til 1

RSQ Til 2 RSQ Til 3 RSQ Til 4 RSQ Til 5 RSQ Til 5a RSQ

Til 6 RSQ Til 7 RSQ Til 8 RSQ Til 8a

YALK02 Half Fine Doesn’t fit completely

Limi A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A No But depends on what child wants

YALK03 All Fine Language okay, but story scary

Don’t know A little different

Words, style No N/A Yes n/r

YALK04 All Good Good Muche A little different

Words, style Yes Humla Kyampa

No Doesn’t fit language

YALS01 All Good Matches Muche A little different

Style Yes Khampa Yes If children want

YALS02 All Good Same Yari Same N/A No N/A Yes Same

YALS03 All Good Speaks well Muche A little different

Pronunciation, style

No N/A Yes Same

YALS04 All Good Our language Limi A little different

Pronunciation, style

No N/A Yes Whatever the child wants

YALS05 All Fine Our own Khamba (nomad)

A little different

Words No N/A No A little different, too far away

YALS06 All Good My own Muche Same N/A No N/A Yes Same

KERK01 All Good Some words are different

Limi A little different

Words, style No N/A No It’s habit

KERK02 All Good Not lies Limi A little different

Style No N/A Yes Understand everything

KERK03 All Good Same language Limi A little different

Style No N/A No Too far, not good

KERK04 <Half Fine Just OK Limi A little different

Style No N/A No But if they like

KERS01 All Fine Like mine Limi A little different

Pronunciation, style

No N/A No Very far away

KERS02 Half Fine It’s a little different

Limi A little different

Not asked Not asked

Not asked No Not asked

KERS03 All Good Same language Limi A little different

Words, style No N/A No From place where I’m born is better

KERS04 All Good Quick to understand

Limi A little different

Words, style No N/A Yes AllOK to marry

128

Subject # RSQ Til 1

RSQ Til 2 RSQ Til 3 RSQ Til 4 RSQ Til 5 RSQ Til 5a RSQ

Til 6 RSQ Til 7 RSQ Til 8 RSQ Til 8a

KERS05 Half Good Our own, but a little different

Limi A little different

Words, style No N/A No Far away

KERS06 <Half Good Not asked Yari/Yal A little different

Words, style No N/A Yes Not asked

BARK001 All Fine Not own lg Kermi A little different

Words No N/A Bad No tradition to marry with them

BARK002 Half Fine Different Khangalgaun A little different

Style No N/A Bad Different

BARK003 Half Fine Understand just a little bit

Limi A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Bad Different culture and environment

BARK004 All Good Their own words and lg

Limi A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A fine Not related with Limi

BARK005 <Half Bad Different culture Limi very different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A good If literate, it’s good

BARK006 <Half Good Their own lg Upper Humla

Very different

Style No N/A Bad Different village

BARK007 <Half Bad Don’t understand Burangse Very different

Words, style No N/A Bad n/r

BARK008 All Good Like the lg Above Very different

Words, style No N/A Bad Not own ethnic group, we both think we’re better

BARK009 All Good Understand Upper Humla

A little different

Words, style No N/A Bad Language and caste different

BARJ001 Half Good A little different Not sure A little different

Style No N/A fine It’s OK

BARD002 All Fine A bit like our

language, but not completely

Khangalgaun Very different

Words, style No N/A Bad Don’t understand and that gives trouble

BARD003 <Half Fine A bit far away Dojam A little different

Words, style No N/A Bad Not our way

DOZK001 All Good Close Nimatang Same N/A No N/A Good Close

DOZK002 Most Fine Different Muche Very different

Words, style No N/A Fine Different

DOZK003 Most Good Own Yepka, Tangin

A little different

Style No N/A Good Aafno jaat milchha (own caste matches)

129

Subject # RSQ Til 1

RSQ Til 2 RSQ Til 3 RSQ Til 4 RSQ Til 5 RSQ Til 5a RSQ

Til 6 RSQ Til 7 RSQ Til 8 RSQ Til 8a

DOZK004 All Good Understand Above A little different

Style No N/A Bad Far, mildaina (doesn’t match)

DOZK005 Half Fine A little different Burangse A little different

Words No N/A Good Just a little different [Hepka people very different]

DOZK006 <Half Bad Understand really badly

Limi Very different

Style No N/A Bad Don’t understand

DOZK007 All Fine Speaks fast, but clearly

Saati Khola A little different

Style No N/A Bad Doesn’t match

DOZJ002 All Fine n/r Limi A little different

n/r No N/A Fine It’s far away and their lg is a little different

DOZJ003 Half Fine I didn’t understand

Dinga Very different

Words No N/A Bad I don’t understand their lg

DOZJ004 Half Fine ‘Bhat-ko kura’ I don’t know Very different

Words No N/A Good Their language is good

DOZD002 Most Fine Likes style Hepka Very different

Style No N/A Fine Same caste, matches

DOZD003

<Half Fine I couldn’t understand it well

Limi/above Very different

It’s a different lg and we can’t understand it

Yes Nep, Limi, our Bhote lg all mixed

Bad It would be hard because their lg doesn’t match with ours

HEPK001 All Good Understand everything

Limi A little different

Style No N/A Good Lama matches

HEPK002 All Good n/r Limi A little different

Words No N/A Good Same

HEPK003 All Good Quickly talk, I like

Burangse A little different

Words, style No N/A Fine If they like

HEPK004 All Good Like it Khangelgaun A little different

Style No N/A Good I like

HEPK005 All Good I like Limi A little different

Words, style No N/A Good I like

HEPK006 All Good I like Limi Same N/A No N/A Good I like

HEPK007 All Good Because Lama language

Limi A little different

Style No N/A Good All Lama is good

130

Subject # RSQ Til 1

RSQ Til 2 RSQ Til 3 RSQ Til 4 RSQ Til 5 RSQ Til 5a RSQ

Til 6 RSQ Til 7 RSQ Til 8 RSQ Til 8a

YAKJ001

All Fine Many things were good, but some words were not good

Limi A little different

Style No N/A Good I’m happy if she marries

YAKJ002 All Good Our language is similar to theirs

Limi A little different

Words No N/A Good Our language all matches with theirs

YAKD002 All Good Kham and Purang Yalbang

gombu A little different

Style Yes Purangko and Tib, Kham

Good Understand language

YAKD003 All Good Understood Barungse A little

different Words, style Yes Yakpa

and Dinga

Good Language/customs go together

YAKD004 All Good Understood Jang, Limi A little different

Words No N/A Fine Own desire

KERK010 All Good Language is good Limi A little different

Words, style No N/A Good Enough language

KERK012 All Fine Not that nice language

Limi A little different

Style No N/A Bad Don’t like

KERK013 All Good Good language Limi A little different

Style No N/A Good Language matches

KERK014 All Fine n/r Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good n/r

KERK015 Half Good Good language Limi Very different

Style No N/A Good Language bit the same

KERK016 All Fine Good language Nyimba Same N/A No N/A Good Good language

KERJ001 All Good No mix of languages, pure

Limi Same N/A No N/A Fine Our women haven’t gone there yet

KERJ002 All Fine Couldn’t understand all

Limi Same N/A No N/A Bad We don’t match with them

KERJ003

All Good Recognized the words and understood the story

Limi A little different

Language is same, dialect different; style

No N/A Bad Their language is so different

131

Subject # RSQ Til 1

RSQ Til 2 RSQ Til 3 RSQ Til 4 RSQ Til 5 RSQ Til 5a RSQ

Til 6 RSQ Til 7 RSQ Til 8 RSQ Til 8a

KERJ004 All Good From Limi Limi A little different

Style No N/A Fine To their own desires

KERJ005 All Good Spoke well Limi A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Good Good if my daughter marries

KERJ006

All Fine It’s good he didn’t speak any Nep, but spoke a little differently from us

Yari A little different

Style No N/A Bad They are Bhote, but their village is far away

JAND001 All Good Own language Til Same N/A No N/A Good Same

JAND003 All Good Own Til Same N/A No N/A Not good

He knows the speaker

JAND008 All Good Spoke Limi Til Same N/A No N/A Good Spoke Limi JAND013 All Good Our language Til Same N/A No N/A Bad He knows the speaker JAND015 All Good Our lg Limi, Jang Same N/A No N/A Good Own lg JAND016 All Good Limi Til Same N/A No N/A n/r n/r JAND017 All Good Limiko lap Limi Same N/A No N/A Good n/r

JAND018 All Bad Language bad Til Same N/A Yes Limi, Kermi

Bad Doesn’t speak well

JAND019 All Good Understand Til Same N/A No N/A Bad Don’t like the person JAND020 All Good Own Til Same N/A No N/A Bad Not good to marry with Til

JAND021 All Good Same as our village

Til Same N/A No N/A Good Our lg is same, all same

JAND023 All Good Our lamgiage Til Same N/A No N/A Good Same

132

D.4 Yalbang Story data

English Translation Story Yalbang – June 26, 2012 – (YALD01)

One day I came along the path. I met a bear. I had an encounter with the bear. The bear thought I would run, but I thought he would run. We both stood our ground. I wanted to scream, but no sound came because I was so afraid. Later the bear ran away. But I couldn’t, because I needed to go to my own village and another one. Later I was still afraid, because the bear came again to attack. I followed the bear, going up and down the footpath. Later the bear went down and I threw stones and the bear, being hit, made the ‘dooing gooing’ sound. After the bear was gone I smoked a cigarette. Half a pack, because I was afraid and I smoked quickly. When I came home I was still shaking. My wife asked, ‘What happened!?’ I met a bear and he almost ate me. God protected me and the bear ran away. And I was still shaking.

Responses of the RSQ to the Yalbang story are included in the following chart:

Subject # RSQ

Yalbang 1

RSQ Yalbang

2

RSQ Yalbang 3

RSQ Yalbang 4

RSQ Yalbang

5

RSQ Yalbang 5a

RSQ Yalbang

6

RSQ Yalbang 7

RSQ Yalbang

8

RSQ Yalbang 8a

KERK01 All Good A bit the same as our language

Yalbang Same N/A No N/A No Don’t have the habit

KERK02 All Good Not lies Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Yes Like our lg

KERK03 All Good Speaks well Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Yes Near to us

KERK04 All Good Like our language

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Yes If they like

KERS01 All Good Same, like ours

Yalbang A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Yes Understand

KERS02 All Good Understand Yalbang A little different

Not asked Not asked

Not asked Yes Don’t ask parents anymore. If the kid likes, they go

KERS03 All Good Same language, understood all

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Yes It is OK

KERS04 All Good Same as our language

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Yes It all matches

KERS05 All Good Same Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Yes Matches

133

Subject # RSQ

Yalbang 1

RSQ Yalbang

2

RSQ Yalbang 3

RSQ Yalbang 4

RSQ Yalbang

5

RSQ Yalbang 5a

RSQ Yalbang

6

RSQ Yalbang 7

RSQ Yalbang

8

RSQ Yalbang 8a

KERS06 Half Good Not asked Don’t know A little different

Style No N/A Yes Not asked

BARK001 All Fine Ours is good, theirs is OK

Khangalgaun A little different

Words No N/A Good Since long

BARK002 All Bad Different Sati Khola A little different

Style No N/A Bad Different

BARK003 Most Good Understand a lot

Khangalgaun A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Bad Different

BARK004 Most Fine I don’t know some words really well

Hepka A little different

Words No N/A Fine Not related with them

BARK005 Half Fine Doesn’t understand some things

Hepka A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Good If they want

BARK006 <Half Bad Don’t under-stand and know the lang

From up Very different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Bad Just

BARK007 <Half Fine n/r Don’t know A little different

Style No N/A Bad n/r

BARK008 All Good His language is long/slow

Above [Kermi, Khangalgaun]

A little different

Style No N/A Bad Not own ethnic group, we both think we’re better

BARK009 All Good Understand Yalbang, Sangga

A little different

Words, style No N/A Bad Language doesn’t match

BARJ001 All Good It sounded good

Yakpa, near here,Muchu VDC

A little different

Style No N/A Fine Own desire

BARD002 All Fine Understand all, but not our own lg

Sati Khola, Muchu, Yalbang

A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Bad Don’t understand and that gives trouble

BARD003 All Good LanguageOK Small village down towards Dojam

Very different

Words, style No N/A Bad Does not work

134

Subject # RSQ

Yalbang 1

RSQ Yalbang

2

RSQ Yalbang 3

RSQ Yalbang 4

RSQ Yalbang

5

RSQ Yalbang 5a

RSQ Yalbang

6

RSQ Yalbang 7

RSQ Yalbang

8

RSQ Yalbang 8a

DOZK001 Half Fine A bit far Burangse A little different

Words, style No N/A Good From far

DOZK002 All Fine A little different

Limi Very different

Words, style No N/A Fine Not met, if done before then OK

DOZK003 <Half Fine A bit different Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good Language is good

DOZK004 All Good Same language

Above Very different

Words, style No N/A Fine Just

DOZK005 <Half Fine Don’t understand everything

Khangalgaun Very different

Words No N/A Bad Different lg

DOZK006 All Good Same language

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good Matches

DOZK007 All Fine Own language are OK

Khangalgaun very different

Style No N/A Bad Doesn’t match

DOZJ002 All Fine It’s like our language

Khangalgaun A little different

Style No N/A Fine It’s hard on the legs to go there

DOZJ003 Half Fine Didn’t understand it at all

Tangin, Yakpa

Very different

Words No N/A Fine Same caste but I couldn’t understand his lg

DOZJ004 All Fine I understood it well

Yakpa maybe A little different

Between our language& Bargaun

No N/A Good I’m happy if she marries

DOZD002 All Fine understand a bit

Tangin A little different

Style No N/A Fine Also Lama

DOZD003 Most Fine doesn’t match ours

Yakpa/mati very different

Style No N/A Fine Doesn’t match, not same

HEPK001 All Good Same language

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good Same ethnicity and language

HEPK002 All Fine Same Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good If they like

HEPK003 All Good I like Khangalgaun A little different

Words, style No N/A Good Same ethnicity

135

Subject # RSQ

Yalbang 1

RSQ Yalbang

2

RSQ Yalbang 3

RSQ Yalbang 4

RSQ Yalbang

5

RSQ Yalbang 5a

RSQ Yalbang

6

RSQ Yalbang 7

RSQ Yalbang

8

RSQ Yalbang 8a

HEPK004 All Good Like it Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good Just

HEPK005 All Good I like Khangalgaun A little different

Words, style No N/A Good I like

HEPK006 All Good I like Khangalgaun Same N/A No N/A Good Like language HEPK007 All Good Lama

language Khangalgaun A little

different Style No N/A Good Lama caste

YAKJ001 All Good Only a little different from our language - just like ours, really

Khangalgaun A little different

Style No N/A Fine It doesn’t matter where she marries from

YAKJ002 Half Fine I understood a little, but not everything

Khangalgaun A little different

Words No N/A Fine Language is different

YAKD002 All Good It’s Kham Muchu VDC A little different

Style Yes Kham, Tibetan

Good Speaks Kham lg

YAKD003 All Good Understood Chyaduk, Khangelgaun

A little different

Style Yes Tunbu, Muchu

Fine Different village

YAKD004 All Good Understand Yalbang A little different

Words, style No N/A Fine Own desire

KERK010 All Good Good language

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good Above, good lg

KERK012 All Fine Not that nice/good

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Bad I don’t like them

KERK013 All Good Good language

Yalbang Same N/A No N/A Good Language matches

KERK014 Half Good n/r Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good n/r

KERK015 Half Good Same as us Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Bad The way they speak is not nice

KERK016 All Good Good language

Yalbang A little different

Words, style No N/A Good Good language

136

Subject # RSQ

Yalbang 1

RSQ Yalbang

2

RSQ Yalbang 3

RSQ Yalbang 4

RSQ Yalbang

5

RSQ Yalbang 5a

RSQ Yalbang

6

RSQ Yalbang 7

RSQ Yalbang

8

RSQ Yalbang 8a

KERJ001 All Fine Mixed Tibetan words

Yalbang, knows the storyteller

Same N/A Yes 1 Tibetan word

Good We marry with them

KERJ002 Half Fine I didn’t understand all of his lg

Yalbang Same N/A No N/A Fine Their culture isn’t good

KERJ003 All Good He spoke like we do

Yalbang Same N/A No N/A Good Their language matches with ours

KERJ004 All Good I understood it all

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good We go there together

KERJ005 All Good His speech comes to me

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good I need a son

KERJ006 All Good Their language is almost exactly same as ours

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Good Only 1 hour away

JAND001 Most Good Own Khangal gabisu

A little different

Style No N/A Bad Going to another caste

JAND003 All Good Good story Bargaun A little different

Style No N/A Good Language good

JAND008 Half Good Like ours but a bit different

Nyimba A little different

Style No N/A n/r n/r

JAND013 <Half Fine Didn’t understand

Don’t know Don’t know

N/A No N/A n/r n/r

JAND015 Half Good This language like a friend’s language who is from Bargaun

Bargaun A little different

Pronunciation No N/A Fine Languages not too different

JAND016 <Half Fine A little different from Limi

n/r A little different

Style No N/A n/r n/r

JAND017 Most Good Like our language

Nyimba A little different

Style No N/A Good Speaks well and understood

137

Subject # RSQ

Yalbang 1

RSQ Yalbang

2

RSQ Yalbang 3

RSQ Yalbang 4

RSQ Yalbang

5

RSQ Yalbang 5a

RSQ Yalbang

6

RSQ Yalbang 7

RSQ Yalbang

8

RSQ Yalbang 8a

JAND018 All Good n/r Kermi A little different

Pronunciation/words/style Yes Kermi+Limi Bad Village is difficult

JAND019 Half Fine Half understood

Sarak – Kermi

A little different

Style No N/A Bad Other town not good

JAND020 <Half Bad Not understood way of speaking

Kermi – Sarak

A little different

Style No N/A Bad Rongba and Limi don’t marry

JAND021 All Good Like our lg Yakpa – Sarale

A little different

Style Yes Limi+Sarale Fine Language and culture similar

JAND023 All Good Understand Kermi A little different

Style No N/A Bad Different culture

138

D.5 Bargaun Story data

English Translation of the Bargaun Story – October 15, 2012 – (BARD001)

We two went through the jungle. While going, we met a bear. Meeting the bear, we became very afraid and we climbed a tree. While climbing the tree, a little bit up, the bear jumped. He jumped half way up the tree. Jumped, couldn’t hold on and then fell. The bear was looking and waiting for us for half an hour. After the bear left, after half an hour, we waited half an hour and then came down. We ran for 1.5 hours and completely sweaty arrived in the village. Then we were relieved and happy.

Responses of the RSQ to the Bargaun story are included in the following chart:

Subject # RSQ

Bargaun 1

RSQ Bargaun

2

RSQ Bargaun 3

RSQ Bargaun 4

RSQ Bargaun 5

RSQ Bargaun 5a

RSQ Bargaun

6

RSQ Bargaun

7

RSQ Bargaun

8

RSQ Bargaun 8a

DOZK001 Half Good Close Bargaun Same N/A No N/A Good Close

DOZK002 All Good Understand Bargaun A little different

Words, style Yes Nepali Good Just a little different, not a lot

DOZK003 All Good Good language Bargaun Same N/A No N/A Good Close DOZK004 All Good Same lg and town Burangse Same N/A No N/A Good Good

DOZK005 Half Good From Bargaun Bargaun A little different

Words No N/A Good We already do that

DOZK006

All Good Speak well Burangse Very different [they don’t understand us]

Words, style No N/A Good When we marry, we change our language

DOZK007 All Fine Voice is a bit loud

Bargaun Very different

Style No N/A Good Good people

DOZJ002

All Good Couldn’t stop smiling and repeating the story…‘it’s our language’

Bargaun Same N/A No N/A Good It’s our language and caste

DOZJ003 All Good Language is good Burangse A little

different Words Yes Mix with

our language

Good Our lgs mix [match]

DOZJ004 All Good It’s our own Dukpu kura [lg]

Bargaun A little different

Pronunciation No N/A Good It’s our language and caste

139

Subject # RSQ

Bargaun 1

RSQ Bargaun

2

RSQ Bargaun 3

RSQ Bargaun 4

RSQ Bargaun 5

RSQ Bargaun 5a

RSQ Bargaun

6

RSQ Bargaun

7

RSQ Bargaun

8

RSQ Bargaun 8a

DOZD002 All Fine It’s Bargaun Bargaun A little different

Style No N/A Fine Matches

DOZD003 All Good I understand his language

Bargaun Very different

Style No N/A Fine Their language isn’t the same

HEPK001 All Good Good language Burangse A little different

Style No N/A Good Lama matches

HEPK002 All Good Understand Burangse A little different

Words No N/A Good If they like

HEPK003 All Fine Good language Burangse A little different

Style No N/A Good If they like

HEPK004 All Good Like it Bargaun A little different

Words, style No N/A Bad We don’t do

HEPK005 All Good I like Muchu A little different

Words No N/A Good I like

HEPK006 All Good I like Limi A little different

Style No N/A Good I like

HEPK007 All Good Good things/speech

Kermi A little different

Style No N/A Good n/r

YAKJ001 All Good Like our language Bargaun A little different

Pronunciation No N/A Fine It isn’t good or bad

YAKJ002 All Good Understood and liked the story

Nyimba, Bargaun

A little different

Words No N/A Good Our language matches with theirs

YAKD002

All Good Own village Torpa, Burangse, Nimatang, Dojam

A little different

Pronunciation, style

Yes Kham and Tibetan

Good OK caste

YAKD003 All Good Understood all Burangse, Bargaun

A little different

Style Yes with Yakpa

Bad Rongba and different

YAKD004 All Good Understood Bargaun A little different

Words No N/A fine Own desire

KERK010 All Good n/r Bargaun A little different

Words, style No N/A Good Good language

140

Subject # RSQ

Bargaun 1

RSQ Bargaun

2

RSQ Bargaun 3

RSQ Bargaun 4

RSQ Bargaun 5

RSQ Bargaun 5a

RSQ Bargaun

6

RSQ Bargaun

7

RSQ Bargaun

8

RSQ Bargaun 8a

KERK012 All Fine Not that nice language

Burangse Very different

Style No N/A Bad Don’t like

KERK013 All Good Good language Bargaun Same N/A No N/A Good Language matches

KERK014 <Half Fine n/r Limi Very different

Words No N/A Bad n/r

KERK015 Half Good Own language Nyimba, Bargaun

Very different

Style No N/A Good Own language

KERK016 <Half Fine Understand a little bit

Burangse A little different

Style No N/A Fine If she understands

KERJ001 All Fine I understood it,

but not when he spoke quickly

Bargaun Same N/A No N/A Fine I couldn’t understand when he spoke quickly in the middle

KERJ002 All Fine It wasn’t all good Bargaun Same N/A No N/A Bad I couldn’t understand their language well

KERJ003 All Good He spoke well, his lang was good

Bargaun A little different

Style Yes Nepali, Tibetan

Good It’s good for them

KERJ004 Half Fine I understood a little

Bargaun A little different

Style No N/A Good According to own interest

KERJ005 All Good Dangerous story and good

Nyimba, Burangse

Very different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Bad I don’t like them

KERJ006 All Fine It doesn’t totally match with our lg

Yalbang A little different

Style No N/A Fine They’re also bhote

JAND001 All Good Understood all Nimatang A little different

Style No N/A Bad Caste different

JAND003 Half Good Like our language Khangalgaun A little different

Style No N/A Fine n/r

JAND008 <Half Fine Only a little understood

Don’t know A little different

Style No N/A n/r n/r

JAND013 <Half Fine Like Limi Rongba A little different

Style No N/A n/r n/r

JAND015 <Half Good Humla things/speech

Nyimba Very different

Style No N/A Fine Little same

141

Subject # RSQ

Bargaun 1

RSQ Bargaun

2

RSQ Bargaun 3

RSQ Bargaun 4

RSQ Bargaun 5

RSQ Bargaun 5a

RSQ Bargaun

6

RSQ Bargaun

7

RSQ Bargaun

8

RSQ Bargaun 8a

JAND016 <Half Fine Way of speaking fine

n/r Very different

Pronunciation n/r N/A n/r n/r

JAND017 All Good Understand Nyimba A little different

Style No N/A Good Speaks well and understood

JAND018 Half Good n/r Tanshet A little different

Pronunciation, words, style

No N/A Good Language similar

JAND019 Half Good A liitle understood

Nyimba A little different

Style No N/A Bad Wouldn’t work

JAND020 <Half Good A little like Limi Yakpa A little different

Style No N/A Bad Won’t work

JAND021 All Good Like our language Yakpa A little different

Style No N/A fine Language and culture similar

JAND023 All Good Like Limi Burangse A little different

Style No N/A Bad Different song/culture

142

D.6 Kermi Story data

English Translation of the Kermi Story – June 27, 2012 – (KERS01)

On the road I met a ghost/demon. I was going to the store ‘pasal’, but then went on a different road. Then I arrived at the pasal. In the sleeping place, there was a snake! I was very scared! The important lama gave me something holy to protect me. And that was good and helped.

Responses of the RSQ to the Kermi story are included in the following chart:

01 Sub # RSQ Kermi 1

RSQ Kermi 2

RSQ Kermi 3

RSQ Kermi 4

RSQ Kermi 5

RSQ Kermi 5a

RSQ Kermi 6

RSQ Kermi 7

RSQ Kermi 8

RSQ Kermi 8a

JAND001 All Good Little different

from Limi/Rongba

Yalbang A little different

Pronunciation, style

No N/A Bad Different place

JAND003 All Good Good story Nyinba A little different

Style No N/A Fine Language good, but have not seen

JAND008 Half Good Like Limi Nyinba A little different

Style No N/A n/r n/r

JAND013 Half Fine Like Limi lap Sarak-Kermi Same N/A No N/A Bad Far away

JAND015 Half Good Understood half Yakpa A little different

Style No N/A Fine Only half same

JAND016 <Half Good Like Limi Not sure Very different

Style n/r N/A n/r n/r

JAND017 All Good Like Limi Kermi (Sarak)

A little different

Style No N/A Good Understand

JAND018 All Good n/r Kermi A little different

Style No N/A Bad Village difficult

JAND019 <Half Fine Not understood Yakpa Very different

Pronunciation, style

No N/A Bad Not good to marry outside Limi

JAND020 Half Good Like Limi Nyinba A little different

Style No N/A Bad Rules and regulations are different

JAND021 All Good Like our language

Yakpa A little different

Style Yes Yakpa, Limi

Fine Similar language/culture

JAND023 All Good Like Limi Nyinba A little different

Style No N/A Bad Different culture

143

Appendix E: Observation Schedule

E.1 Observation schedule

1. To what degree is the mother tongue being passed on to the next generation? What language are children speaking? What language are parents using with their children?

2. What languages are used in various domains of life? Parents to children Children to children Old people to old people Men to men Women to women Men to women Women to men Old people to younger people Younger people to old people

3. Is there an internal or external recognition of the language community as separate and unique within the broader society? Is there material or non-material evidence of such a distinction? e.g., clothing

distinction/jewelry?

4. What kinds of music and musical instruments do we hear and are being played?

5. How do the villages look like physically? How many houses are there? How are they grouped? What do they look like? Are there clear

village boundaries? How many people live in one house(hold)?

6. Do people read and write? (in villages and in homes) Are there books around, besides schoolbooks? What kinds of books? In which language(s)?

Do people write? In which language? And for what reason? Who reads and writes?

7. What evidence of communication technology is found in the village? Electricity, batteries, mobile phones, radios, TVs, CD and DVD players, etc.

8. Are there any places of worship found in the village? How many, type, size, number of people living in the village, etc.

9. How does healthcare look like in the village? Health posts, generally how healthy do people look?

10. What are the different occupations in the village? What kinds of work do we see people doing?

144

E.2 Observation schedule data

MUCHU – during fieldwork June 2012

1. We saw an 11 or 12 year old girl in the house using the mother tongue with her family. We didn’t see other children. David saw a mother in a field scolding her children—not in Nepali—assuming it was in the MT.

Heard children talking to each other in Nepali and a Tibetan language. Always heard parents using the MT with children. Children sang to David in Nepali, not MT, when he asked them to sing. Maybe because of school? All the adults that we heard spoke to children in the MT.

2. We heard them always using MT unless they were talking to us. Adults speak the MT with each other. 3. Seems similar to the other lama sites. Maybe dress was a bit more traditional, but we only

saw a few people. Children didn’t wear traditional dress. Women over 45 wear chuba (traditional garment); under 45 they don’t seem to. 4. Didn’t hear or see any music being played. The children were singing Nepali songs and were dancing. The bahini (young girl) was

singing a Tibetan song. 5. This village is much greener. Level spaces. Fruit trees. It had a sort of an orchard feel to it.

Homes seemed bigger, maybe, but all built similar to the other villages. Seemed a bit more spread out—more space between homes. The village was pretty empty when we were there.

The fruit trees were mostly apricot trees. The village is divided in two parts, one near the police station. Approaching from Yalbang there are several (maybe 5) small stores or restaurants.

6. We saw one Tibetan NT in the home we stayed. Didn’t see other things. The pillars of the house (inside) had English and Tibetan writing on them.

Writing on the walls in English and Nepali. 7. Electricity (hydro electric plant), but it has been nonfunctioning for 1 month. There was a TV

in the place we stayed and a DVD player. Satellite dishes were on almost every house! New Bollywood movies were seen. No phones seen.

There is a phone, but it was broken at the time. 8. David heard about one, but we didn’t see it. The broken-down gompa, being rebuilt. 9. Children looked healthy. We didn’t see a clinic. Healthcare training/workshop was held in the health clinic in Muchu (but we didn’t see it).

There were Tumkot people who told us. 10. Fieldwork (women), pasal work, herders (but didn’t see, we were told about it). There is a lama. There was a 3-day rotation, 3 groups from Muchu working on the gompa.

TIL – during fieldwork June 2012

1. It’s all Limi language spoken here. 2. Ritual prayer in Tibetan/reading/monk. For puja (worship) they mostly seem to use the Til

language. Talking among each other in the village is all in Limi. 3. The houses look different than in the other Humla villages we went through. The women

sometimes wear a red Tibetan-style dress that we haven’t seen elsewhere. The village follows the Kagyu sect here, instead of the Nyingma.

4. Drum and bells are used during puja. A lot of singing almost everywhere; in the house, during momo-making, in the field.

5. The path to the village was made clear by stones along the edges of the path. That was the first we saw like that. The toilets are inside the house, but the houses don’t have doors inside, including the toilets. All houses are made of stone. Most are three storeys. The one where we had all our meals is the only one with four storeys. With the river running through this valley, it’s really green. There are a lot of fields. We walked past them for twenty minutes before reaching the houses. The storeys are connected by solid ladders made out of one piece of wood/tree. All ground floor areas are for animals or a workplace for furniture-making.

145

Houses are built really close to each other. We see a lot of pieces of meat hanging to dry both inside and outside the houses. Many doors have a yak skull hanging above them. A lot of roofs have open places. There are 30 families, maybe less buildings? An extended family lives in one. There is a helipad outside the village. All the fields are separated from the houses/village. There are no animals in the village right now. There seem to be a sophisticated irrigation system in place. There are two community halls, for village gatherings or puja.

6. No, people don’t read and write, unless they studied in KTM or India. The children in school learn a little bit. We saw Tibetan scripture in a house plus heard reciting during puja. A lot of writing in Tibetan on the walls and doors, in and around the village. One place had a ‘Guesthouse’ sign.

7. Solar for the whole village + hydro-electricity (6–9 p.m.). We saw TVs and DVDs. The SAT phone is coming in a week from the time of writing. We saw batteries lying around in the village. Pemba was distributing copied DVD’s to many villagers. Some had mobile phones, mostly to listen to music.

8. A gompa was just outside the village and also one in the village. Some older people lived near the gompa outside the village. In front of our door was a puja-oven where they burned incense every morning. The community hall was also used as a puja place. There were mani walls as we came into the village and prayer flags before we came down to the village. The village seems a lot more religious than all the other places we were.

9. No medicines were available, only what people personally bring from outside. Pemba gave some medicines plus instructions. We saw some Chinese herbal medicines. We also saw Dalai Lama medicine that is prohibited in Nepal.

10. Farming, herding, trade, furniture-making, lama, religious occupations, teacher.

YALBANG – during fieldwork June 2012

1. The MT is passed on: The Yalbang language is spoken by the children and spoken by parents to children.

2. Domain: With outsiders, not from lama/Tibetan areas, Nepali is used. With those from lama/Tibetan areas, some form of Yalbang is used.

3. Butter salt tea. Meat drying from the ceiling. Younger women wore salwar-kamise or a sweatsuit-type outfit with Tibetan style jewelry. Older women wore the chuba.

4. Little flutes were played at the hostel. Drum heard at hostel, Old McDonald played on flute. David saw children with drums and flute walking on the road in front of the guesthouse. 5. There is a cluster of homes lower down. Other homes spread around above the cluster. They

are made out of stone with wooden beams and flat roofs. There was lots of construction. Older homes had mud plastered over the stones. The household where we stayed had 3 generations; grandma with daughters and grandchildren, stepdaughter also there. Grandfather and husband of daughter were away. The grandfather had 3 wives.

Three generations seemed to be in adjoining homes. Grandparents were in one with the daughter and her family in the next one.

6. Didn’t see any evidence of books/reading/writing. We saw English and Nepali on the walls of some hotels. 7. Power from the hydro plant in Yangar. Solar also. TV, Satellite dish for TV (DTH). Radio.

SATphone. 8. Big gompa (monks live there), stupa, prayer flags, small mani wall (near Yangar). 9. Generally looked healthy. Heard about health post but did not see it. 10. People working in the fields, carrying wood, monk.

146

KERMI – During fieldwork June 2012

1. Children NOT speaking Nepali with each other. Did not observe child parent interaction. 2. The lodge owner didn’t use Nepali with passersby. The husband and wife at the lodge used

some form of local Tibetan (the husband was from Kermi and his wife from Dhingga). The lodge owner and a man from Chynduk spoke to each other in local Tibetan.

Used Tibetan varieties with each other and with those from other Tibetan areas. Used Nepali with Nepalis.

3. Jewelry changed between Nepali area and the beginning of Lama (Tibetan) area. But one man who helped with the wordlist wore a Nepali topi(traditional, men’s hat).

Lower areas grow different crops. There was wheat harvesting here but not in the upper places.

4. Did not hear any songs or music played. 5. Homes: mostly stone with wooden support beams. The buildings mostly have flat roofs. One

main grouping of homes and then separate houses scattered around. There do not seem to be clear village boundaries. Fields are usually below the homes; stone walls divide at least some of the field areas.

It seems like a large village with stacked homes. The flat roof is used for work. There is not much space between most homes. There are hot springs in the hills above the village. The fields consist of man-made terraces.

6. The man helping with the wordlist could read the roman script on the wordlist. Tsering (the lodge owner) wrote the bill in Nepali. We did not see books.

During the use of the Participatory Methods tools, many young men wrote in Nepali. Some read English. The lodge sign is in Nepali and English.

7. There is solar power but only for lights. We saw a calculator. There was a phone a few minutes from the lodge. 8. Prayer flags. Heard that there were about two gompas plus mani walls. 9. Heard about a health post: Nepal Trust. Did not see the health post; people looked generally healthy. 10. People in the fields, farming. Women picking berries. Trade outside village (lodge owner to

Yari). Lodge ownership. Animal ownership (for trade, for milk).

BARGAUN – During fieldwork October 2012

1. Parents use mostly their MT in speaking with children. In one instance, two children didn’t use Nepali with each other.

2. MT seems to be used a lot. Nepali is used with outsiders. People say Dalits learn to speak the lama language. The people come up to Bargaun to help with work on the field. Bargaun functions as an economic center. Some Nepali was used between some kids of school age. Not much, just some words, while playing. In relating to their mother, they use MT. Certain words they don’t have a local word, so a Nepali word is used. Maybe some more words Nepali = used instead of MT.

3. The traditional Tibetan clothes for women aren’t worn much. But the jewelry seemed quite common, such as the big silver bracelet, the blue/green stones.

4. For religious purposes, they use a drum, while people ‘dance’ around it. Nurpu witnessed this in a Nyimba village.

5. There are around 52 houses. There is space around the homes, but they are still clustered close together. There is a clear entrance into Bargaun from Simikot. The ground floor is a stable, the second floor is for people, the kitchen and sleeping and the top floor is for puja. The Dalit homes were just 1 or 2 stories, so clearly different. See Kailash Mandala (Lama 2012) for more details. The extended family stays in 1 home, three generations in one household. They have a little bit of ground around the home for vegetables, apple trees, etc., but the big fields are beyond the cluster of houses. All houses have a hole in the kitchen roof to the rooftop that brought in just enough light for cooking.

6. Karpu wrote the bill in Nepali. In our room there were Tibetan prayer books and a dictionary. Some English was on the wall. There were just a couple of mani stones with

147

Tibetan prayers. Mostly young men write some Nepali. Doing the use of Participatory Methods, everybody wrote, only Karpu’s father did not.

7. There were five hours of hydro electricity a day. We saw some TVs, a satellite connection, and mobile phones. We didn’t see DVDs or CDs. We heard a radio playing. Seems like they have to go to Simikot to get such things as batteries and radios.

8. Torpa has one gompa, a little bit further up. There is also a shaman temple, used by Dalit and Lama people alike. In Bargaun we don’t know if there is a gompa.

9. They are building a health post in Bargaun. It is not finished yet. Nurpu said: they don’t look so healthy. Many people in the household complain about pains.

10. Agriculture. Animal husbandry (taking care of animals and breeding), cutting grass for the winter. Business people.

DOJAM – During fieldwork October 2012

1. They use the MT with each other and parents speak the MT with their children. A boy of 10 spoke Nepali with us, but his MT with friends.

2. With the policeman or others from outside, they speak Nepali. But with everyone else, they speak the MT. At school, the children learn and speak Nepali.

3. The women wear their Tibetan jewelry, like they do in Bargaun. 4. Did not hear any songs or music played. 5. All the houses seem to have dogs. In Bargaun, they had none. Dojam is at the end of the

valley. People don’t travel through their village, so contact with Nepali is very little. Fifty-eight houses (see KIQ). At the center of the village, the houses are built very close to each other, but toward the northern end they are more spread out. Houses look different from Bargaun out. They have lean-to type roofs instead of flat ones. The stables are on the ground floor, the kitchen on the second. But the houses can be entered from all three levels because of being built against a hill and the closeness of the houses. The kitchen seemed a lot darker, maybe smaller than in Bargaun, with less ventilation. The sun, of course, comes later over the mountain ridge. There is an entrance to the village. An extended family lives in each house. There were about 7 or 8 people in the house we stayed.

6. The father where we stayed wrote for business. During Participatory Methods, a number of participants wrote in Nepali. In one house, we saw an ABC chart for English. The teacher from outside wrote a lot.

7. There was a radio and solar panels for every house and a lot of solar panels for the school. There were some mobile phones, but they only get reception if they climb way up. In the houses, people listened to the radio a lot. We didn’t see any CDs, DVDs or TVs.

8. We didn’t see any worship places. The closest gompa is probably the Rawling Gompa, towards Nimatang.

9. There was no health post or health care. People need a lot of health care. Problems include: gastric problems, eye problems, toothache, coughing a lot (respiratory issues), headaches, and probably arthritis. Sanitation is a big issue. There are no toilets. Cleanliness: In general, children looked very dirty.

10. Agriculture, animal husbandry, business (what they harvest they sell somewhere else). Honey. Keeping bees in Baisepadi.

HEPKA – During fieldwork October 2012

1. MT transfer is strong. We once saw a great grandmother singing to her grandchild in Nepali, counting 1 to 20 in song, but got stuck at 18 and jumped to 20. Also, witnessed a grandfather singing to his grandchild in the MT.

2. MT use is strong. Some students speak Nepali to each other. This was not observed, but one man said he uses Nepali with anyone he doesn’t know and switches to MT if they do (Nepali may have prestige here). Overall, there is low bilingualism in Nepali, but those that speak it (usually young men) are proud of speaking Nepali, some English also, but only isolated words or phrases.

148

3. They are different from Nepalis, but not from other Lama people. They have different jewelry (coral and turquoise), home design, clean homes, Tibetan butter tea churn, food (e.g., thukpa, [butter tea]), drinking from small bowls (instead of cups).

4. The MT is used to sing to a child. Nepali numbers are sung to a child. Nepali songs on the radio at a late night party.

5. There are 90 houses, mostly grouped together with small walkways (some of which are covered in a colonnade), many have a courtyard. The entrance to the second floor is reached by an outside ladder, unless the weather is bad, then they use an inside ladder. There is no village gate, but there’s a chorten and a walnut tree at the entrance to the village. Fields create a village boundary, a clear difference (where the boundary is created by jungle) between fields of lakpa and Nepali villages. There are 7 or 8 people per household. The first group of houses and the hospital as we entered the village were like a ghost town – no one was seen or heard. Then we came into the densely populated part of the village after the walnut tree. There were many working water taps (at least 4). No toilets.

6. We saw Tibetan scriptures and some calendars and books in Nepali. There was Tibetan on the tea kettle.

7. There were a broken SAT phone, mobile phones, small solar panels, some larger, a radio, LED lights, car batteries and a charger for use with the solar panels. There were no TVs, CDs, or DVD players observed.

8. There is a gompa. We met a Buddhist nun. There are Tibetan prayer wheels, flags, and prayer beads. The older people are very religious. Grandmother prayed over the food. Older people were going to pujas. A young man was seen with the Tibetan scriptures.

9. Closed hospital (large building with all its windows broken and some wooden shutters knocked out). No doctors or medicine. No toilets (well, 3 or 4 locked up at the school). Lots of trash and animal/human waste in the streets. Don’t look very healthy. Eye problems. Arthritis for older people. Better kitchen size (larger) and with ventilation (at least where we stayed).

10. Agriculture, animal husbandry, business (e.g., yarsangambu (worms), phuru (wooden bowls), satnwa (an herb).

KERMI Additional – During fieldwork October 2012

1. Parents with children use the MT. Children use the MT, but have more education than other areas. Thus they know more Nepali and English than in other areas.

2. Most above age 30 are not comfortable with Nepali. Above 35/40, many are (essentially) monolingual. Many under 30 speak Nepali well. Some under 30 even speak a fair amount of English. Village leaders at a meeting (both old and young) spoke the MT with each other.

3. The regular… jewelry, housing, food, tea, religious items, etc. 4. Did not hear any songs or music played. 5. Big flat roofs. Big group of houses and a smaller group of houses. On the north side of village,

there is a big chorten marking the entrance. Homes are more spread out than in other villages on Trip #2 (Muchu is even more spread out though). Household size seemed smaller than in other villages.

6. Several young men could read the interview sheet. Only younger men wrote during Participatory Methods, they wrote in Devanagari script. Most of the older people we met were illiterate.

7. There was some electricity and phones, but the phones were not working. There were radios, but no TVs, CDs, DVDs, or batteries seen. There was a micro hydro power plant nearby.

8. An old gompa nearby is in disrepair. Repairing it was #2 priority expressed during PM (AI). 9. We didn’t see a health post, but maybe there is one in Yalbang (1 hour away). Overall, the

people were healthier and cleaner than in any other village on this trip. There was at least 1 toilet.

10. Agriculture, animal husbandry, businessmen well organized. NGO work (one man we met). Lodge owner. Micro hydro power.

149

Appendix F: Participatory Methods (PM)

F.1 Dialect-Mapping method

The purpose of this tool is to assist speakers of a specific dialect in discussing information they already know about the dialects and levels of comprehension between dialects. Another purpose is to encourage them to think about which varieties of their language could use a single set of written or oral materials.

Outline

1. What is the name of your language? What is the name of your people? (Write all the language names on one piece of paper and all the names of the people on another.) [If there is more than one name for the people or language, then ask:] Which name is the one you prefer?

2. Please name all the districts/villages where [L1] is spoken. (Write each on a separate piece of paper.) {In some situations, rather than district or village, one could ask for the names of all the dialects, clans, rivers, or other features where [L1] is spoken.}

3. Place these papers on the ground to show which dialects/municipalities/districts are next to each other.

4. You have just shown the places where the different varieties of [L1] are spoken. We now want to think about languages that are just a little different from your own language. What other languages are so similar to [L1] that, when they speak, you can understand at least some words? (Write the names of these languages on pieces of paper and add them to the “map” on the ground.)

5. Do any groups of villages all speak [L1] in the same way? If so, place a small loop of string around each such group.

6. Which variety do you understand best? Second best? (Place the appropriate number written on cardboard next to each municipality, language or group of municipalities.)

7. Now we want to show which of these varieties you understand completely, which you understand most, which you understand about half, and which you only understand a little. In which of these villages can you understand the way they speak completely? (Place the Key with complete, most, half, a little. Show them the smiley faces and explain the meaning of each. Have them place the faces for “completely” first. Repeat for each other category of comprehension.)

8. Now we want to think about what you and the people from these places speak to each other. (Show the key for “we each speak our own variety”, “we use ours; they use another variety” “We use another variety, but they use their own” and “we each use another variety”. Use a different color or coin to symbolize each usage pattern.)

9. Some people have said they want to start writing books* in [L1]. If books were written in [L1], which villages would be able to use those books? (Have them put a long string around those varieties) (*If they do not think books can or should be written in their language, then you may suggest they might want to start making CDs using [L1].)

10. Out of all these you have grouped together, which variety should be used as the one for writing (or recording) [L1] so that all the others will understand it well? (Have them place letter A.) If that one could not be used, then which one? (Use B and C written on cards.)

This tool should be adapted to the local geographic terms such as municipality and district. Labels should usually refer to “[L1] spoken in [place name]”. Some aspects of this tool may seem redundant, but each step contributes to a fuller picture of the local perception of the language situation.

150

F.2 Dialect-Mapping data

Below are the combined observation and facilitation forms for the Dialect Mapping method done in six villages: Til, Muchu, Kermi, Yakpa, Bargaun, and Dojam.

TIL – June 21, 2012

Facilitator: David

Facilitator Summary:

The group decided that the variety spoken in Purang is the same as that spoken in Til, Halji and Jang; they are “chikpa”=one (but they commented that there are some differences between these four places). The group decided that the varieties spoken in the Nyimba villages are so different that they should not be on the map. The preferred language name is Tilwi lap “language of Til”, and the preferred people name is Tilwa “Til people”. They decided that all the places mentioned could use Limi/Purang materials. The first choice is that materials should be in Purang variety, second choice; Limi variety and third choice: Yari, Muchu, Yalbang variety.

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

One Lama man who takes care of the monastery seemed to dominate. Six people were present at the beginning (4 men+2 women), but 1 man and 2 women left before the end. A few others were bystanders both younger and older people. At first the group only labeled the Limi villages (Til, Jang, Halji) as the same. Only later did they decide that Purang should be put together with Limi, but it seemed that there was some disagreement about Purang being the same as the Limi villages. At one point, they said that Til, Halji, and Jang are the same, but Purang was a little different. But later they put all four in one group. I was surprised that they decided to include Purang in the same language group with the Limi villages. The Limi villages are all within a few hours of each other, but Purang is 2 days away. I was surprised that they said that people from Purang were the best people to produce materials. I think this is more a statement of identity and prestige rather than language similarity. I think it also might be a statement about learned intelligibility rather than mutual intelligibility when people meet for the first time.

Observer: Nurpu

Setting: They sat in a circle and there was a little bit of noise.

Time: 6.35 p.m., before meal.

Attendees: 3 men, 2 women. A little literate or non-literate, 25–40 years of age. All are Buddhist. 1 man + 2 women left in the middle of the tool. The translator was also from Til.

Bystanders: Men + women from Til village came and went. Children were also there. A 12-year-old girl stayed the whole time. Women came, looked and went. Men also came and went.

Facilitators: The facilitator was in the circle with the other people, and the translator was with him.

Discussion notes:

In the beginning, there was an argument about the name of the language, but in the end it was agreed on Tilmi-lap.

Other notes: In Til village, there were just a few literate people, so it was very difficult for participation. And those who came, they went out and came back in between.

151

MUCHU – June 26, 2012

Facilitator: Nurpu

Facilitator Summary:

Their language is understood and spoken in many villages. And in some villages they speak the language completely/speak the language really well. Most villages understand their language. But they are only slightly different. The far-away villages only understand a little. Finally, from this PM we learned that, if books or materials are made, people from other villages can also use them.

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

In the house, the people were sitting in a circle. They mostly spoke Nepali. There were 3 women and 2 men. Among them 1 woman, who is a teacher, played a bigger role. I hadn’t expected that.

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Inside, near fire (warm), the Muchu people sat in a line facing the observer and the facilitator in a large sitting room. There was the sound of food cooking.

Time: Morning 8:00 a.m., after tea, before meal.

Attendees: Three women that are 35+, 1 man who is 35, 1 boy of 15 years, 2 small children. About half were literate, half illiterate, all Buddhist, all Muchuwa. The man, 1 woman, and her 15 year old son dominated. These were the 3 most educated people.

Bystanders: 1 Nepali, 2 foreigners, all sitting listening, 2 Muchu bystanders (1 girl 14, 1 woman 35+)

Discussion notes:

There were no major arguments.

Other notes: Phöpu for people and Phöke for the language were mentioned, but the group did not write them down. These names have been mentioned in other contexts. “Changba”= Dojam was also mentioned, but then they decided it was similar to or the same as Nyimba.

KERMI – June 28, 2012

Facilitator: Nurpu

Facilitator Summary:

Often the language of lama-people is understood by all. But their way of speaking is slightly different. And when they speak the Purang language they change their way of speaking to be like Purang.

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

There was no disagreement. Youth and elderly people were among the participants. But there were no women.

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Outside, on the roof of a house, slight wind, cool (not hot not cold), sound of birds, people sitting in semi circle facing the facilitator and observer.

Time: After breakfast

Attendees: From the beginning 5 younger men 20–35, 1 older man about 40. Later, another older man came, about 40–50. Later 1 younger man left (and came back) + 1 boy about 15 came.

Bystanders: 2 foreigners, plus 1 old woman working with wheat, another few young men sat down to watch near the end.

152

Discussion notes:

Most important point: unity of Tibetan language in Humla.

Other notes: Some pictures were taken before changes were made on the ground. Accurate pictures are the latest ones. They said that the Purang people don’t understand their language but they decided that the Purang people can use their materials. One man said Dojam/Changba is like the Mugom language.

BARGAUN - October 16, 2012

Facilitator: Nurpu

Facilitator Summary:

After the discussion, they agreed their village language is the best. But the Limi language, of which they understand half, came from Tibet. Books and recordings should be in Limi, because their speech is the clearest and most natural. Any songs are to be made and recorded in the Limi language. It would be better when it’s published in the Limi language: it was observed that they all agreed.

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

Generally there was some disagreement on the grouping of the language, but often a mature person expressed his thought which was agreed on. All people had participated.

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Inside, kitchen/main room, sitting in a semi-circle around the stove. Noises: cooking sounds in the kitchen

Time: Evening. Some people had eaten, others had not eaten.

Attendees: 8 adults present (5 men), Buddhist, some young and some old (3 older, 2 younger). One older man was dominating a bit, but other men participated.

Bystanders: 1 man, sitting and watching; 2 women, cooking.

Discussion notes:

When the facilitator asked about how well Bargaun people understand people from neighboring areas, he asked the question in a way that led the participants to think that each group had to have a different level of understanding, so one group had to be ‘understand everything’ and then another group had to be ‘understood most’, one ‘half’, and one ‘a little’. When asking about each group a second time the group did not change the labels (only one group had each label). But the answer might have been different if the question were asked in a more open way. Generally the facilitator seemed to lead a bit towards a few options rather than leaving things more open.

Other notes: Tibetan, Bhote, Kham, Potkat were all names people used for their language during the discussion. The literature on the Bargaun area suggests that they are called ‘Nyimba’, but this was not an ethnic name mentioned in the discussion. It was interesting that they said they understood only half of the Limi variety, but they said that written and oral materials should be based on Limi. The dialect groups seemed to follow VDC boundaries pretty closely.

DOJAM - October 18, 2012

Facilitator: Nurpu

Facilitator Summary:

All agreed that their own language was good. But because other people did not understand their village’s language, if any books or songs are made, they should be made in the language of Bargaun. And they agreed that books should be understood by all people, not only their village. This was surprising.

153

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

All participated and there was no disagreement regarding places or languages.

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Outside, on roof, sitting in semi-circle, sun was hot, sound of river and some bugs, windy, chaff was flying through the air. Participants formed a semi-circle. Facilitator and observer were on the other side facing the semi-circle.

Time: About 2:30 p.m. (after eating)

Attendees: 4 men (above 35) 1 woman (above 35) – some literate/some illiterate – Buddhist – all lama jaat – 2 young males came later – total: 6 men + 1 woman = 7 participants

Bystanders: About 10 children standing around – observers watching from a higher roof – 1 Nepali man – other observers (men and women came after we began)

Discussion notes:

Only two villages speak the Dojam variety: Dojam + Baisi Bada. It is interesting that they lumped three VDCs together: Muchu, Khangalgaun, and Hepka. Burangse was listed with Bargaun VDC group, but they said it was a bit different from other Bargaun VDC languages. Green was used for “each person speaks the language of the other person”. So Dojam people said they always switch to the variety of the others. Blue was used for each person speaking their own language. The large orange string was only put around the Dojam variety and the Bargaun VDC variety. Only they could use the same recordings, books.

Other notes: It is interesting that they identified their ethnic group as separate from other Humla groups “Changba”, but the language term is basically the same as others “Potket”, “Bhote Bhasa”.

YAKPA - October 23, 2012

Facilitator: Nurpu

Facilitator Summary:

They said the best language was their own, the2nd best was the Limi language, and the 3rd was Kholsi/Khangalgaun. That was the conclusion. They agreed that all lama people would understand if books and songs were made in their village language. They had a somewhat negative attitude towards the people of Dingga, because they call them Rongba. Dingga, Tangin, and Darapori; these villages speak their own (the same) language.

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

There was a little discussion on arranging villages in the Dingga area. Finally one leader explained to them which villages would come under that area. They then were able to arrange the other lama villages easily. Although all the people participated, one person played a bigger role.

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Inside, main cooking/eating/sleeping room. Sitting in a circle around the fire/stove. Cold, snowing outside. Sounds of children and cleaning up after lunch.

Time: About 11.00 a.m. (after eating)

Attendees: 4 older men, 2 older women, 1 young woman/girl. All were Buddhist, mostly illiterate. The male head of the household dominated (lots of help from young girl sitting next to him). Young woman arrived later; 1 young man came later.

Bystanders: 2-year-old boy and another boy (7–8 years).

154

Discussion notes:

Interesting that some villages of Khangalgaun VDC were in same variety as Yakpa but other were separate. – They said the language they understood best was Limi: this was a surprise. There seemed to be a clear distinction between the Nyimba-Dojam group and all the other groups in relation to level of understanding and what language variety is used. Initially they said the Nyimba people would not understand Yakpa songs, but when they put the orange circle around all the places that could use Yakpa materials they put the orange rope around all the villages mentioned.

Other notes: Blue was used for: we speak our own and they speak their own (neither changes). Red was used for: they speak our language and we speak our language.

155

The following photos were taken at the end of the Dialect Mapping facilitation.

TIL

MUCHU

156

KERMI

BARGAUN

157

DOJAM

YAKPA (HEPKA)

158

Below is the summary of all Dialect Mapping facilitations in one image19. In section 3.1.3 of the report, you can see how this looks on map 9 of Humla District.

19 Note that Dojam is spelled Dojam in the rest of this report.

159

F.3 Appreciative Inquiry method

The purpose of this tool is to allow members of the community to dream about what might be possible in their language and then to begin to make plans for some of those dreams to happen. This shows us what they see as most important and what they want to work on.

OUTLINE

(1) Describe something you saw, heard or did that made you proud of your first language [L1] or your culture or that made you happy to see [L1] used in that way.(After each experience is shared, someone in the group should write a summary label about each good thing. Place it under the label “good things”.)

(2) Wow, you have many good things happening. How can you build on these good things and make them even better? How can you improve them? What are your dreams for your language? (If the group is large invite them to share in groups of 3, give them time – allow any dreams – even impossible ones!)

(3) Let’s come back to the big group and listen to the dreams of each small group. Who will write the dreams for the group? Write one dream per paper. (Everyone can help to summarize each dream in 3 or4 words. Place each dream under the heading Dreams or Hopes.)

(4) As you think about your dreams, some may seem to be ones that could be done soon, while others may take some time. Please put the Hopes in order from the ones that ‘Can be done soon’ to the one that ‘Will take some time’. (Put down these two labels, then let the participants sort the dreams along a continuum.)

(5) Some of these dreams may be more important than others. I have some plastic markers/pieces.Place one of these on each of the 5 dreams that you feel are most important. (Let them place the markers. Take a photo if possible!)

(6) Now you have the chance to begin making plans to make these dreams come true. Which of the dreams do you want to begin making plans for right now? Take the written dream and form a group. (Allow them to form groups. Encourage everyone to join a group.)

(7) As you make your plans, think about 1) the steps you need to take, 2) what other people could be involved, and 3) the things you need to begin making this dream happen. (Give them paper and markers to write their plans. Let them write in big letters so the group can see.)

(8) We would like each group to share their plans with all the others. Who would like to share first?

160

F.4 Appreciative Inquiry data

Below are the combined observation and facilitation forms for the Appreciative Inquiry Method done in six different villages; Bargaun, Dojam, Yakpa, Kermi, Jang, and Yalbang.

BARGAUN – October 16, 2012

Facilitator: Nurpu

Aspirations: Normally the emphasis is given for other development. Some thought came up regarding the language also, especially the need to publish books in their language and record their songs in their language.

Facilitator Summary:

They were taking pride in their own language. Even more so, they were talking about their customs, songs, and dances. Also talking about development.

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

All people took part in the discussion, but there was one mature person, who had put forward his opinion. He seemed to be someone that knew more and worked closely with other organizations. It seemed that other people had to agree with his ideas.

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Inside, kitchen/main room, sitting in semi-circle around stove. Noises: cooking sounds in kitchen.

Time: Evening, some people had eaten, others had not eaten.

Attendees: 8 adults present (5 men), Buddhist, some young and some old (3 older, 2 younger). One older man (TC) was dominating a bit, but other men participated.

Bystanders: 1 man, sitting and watching; 2 women, cooking.

Discussion notes:

They seemed to have trouble thinking of language development hopes. Norbu had to give them lots of suggestions/examples.

Other notes: The group did not always discuss suggestions before writing them down. Instead, each person wrote down their own ideas and added them to the list. Labels about importance and how long things take were decided after discussion in the group.

DOJAM - October 18, 2012

Facilitator: Nurpu

Aspirations: Mostly here development things other than language were emphasized. It was realized there’s a need for a book in their own language and a teacher.

Facilitator Summary:

It seemed they were not taking pride in their language, mostly because their language is not spoken in other villages, and they were compelled to speak the language of others.

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

All people are fully involved. They agreed to build a toilet, because they don’t have a toilet.

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Outside, on roof, the sun was hot, sound of river and some bugs, windy, chaff flying through the air. The participants sat in a semi-circle. The facilitator and observer were on the other side facing the semi-circle.

Time: 3:30 p.m. (after eating).

161

Attendees: 7 men (4 older, 3 younger), literate, Buddhist, Lama jaat.

Bystanders: 1 old man (smoking, sitting), 8 boys (children) (playing).

Discussion notes:

When discussing the length of time activities take, one person said that the people in the village do not need outside help for the things that take a little time, but they do need outside help for things that take a long time. Most important hope: electricity; 2nd most important hope: English teacher.

Other notes: The facilitator generally introduced both happy and hopeful topics. He did not limit the discussion to language issues. But for hopes, he did ask about language-related hopes after giving them a chance to mention general hopes first.

YAKPA - October 23, 2012

Facilitator: Nurpu

Aspirations: It was found they also give emphasis to development and also requested help for making a book in their language and songs and stories.

Facilitator Summary:

They took pride in their language, and the lama language was claimed to be best understood.

Facilitator Observation/ Notes:

Everybody took part, but one mature person played a bigger role and others agreed with him.

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Inside, main cooking/eating/sleeping room. Sitting in circle around fire/stove. Except the observer was behind the facilitator on a bench. Cold, snowing outside.

Time: About 12.00 noon (after Dialect Mapping which happened after eating).

Attendees: 4 older men, 2 older women, 1 young woman/girl. All Buddhist, mostly illiterate.

Bystanders: 2-year-old boy and a boy of 7 or 8 years old.

Other notes: They mentioned the hospital as a happy thing, but it should be noted that the building was abandoned with all the windows broken when we were there. They had a SAT Phone and mentioned it as a ‘happy thing’, but it was broken at the time we were there. The facilitator first asked about happy things and hopes in general. But for hopes he asked specifically about language soon after asking about hopes generally.

KERMI – October 25, 2012

Facilitator: Local guide and John Eppele

Facilitator Summary:

Mentioned that the gompa helps protect their language. The school helps them learn many languages, including their MT. They’re happy we’re doing this research, as it helps protect their language.

Observer: Klaas de Vries

Setting: Outside on roof. Sunny, but cold.

Time: After doing the Domains of Language Use (DoLU) tool, + 11.40 a.m.

Attendees: 8 men; 3 older extra and 1 younger less (than during DoLU).1 girl. Older men don’t write. Later some other men joined.

Bystanders: 1 grandmother sat a bit outside the group. Some children on a higher roof.

162

Discussion notes:

They would like a teacher that knows Tibetan, Nepali, and English to teach in their village.

Other notes: In the end, 7 men and 2 boys still remained.

JANG – June 21, 2013

Facilitator: David Greninger

Observer: Local guide

Setting: Started in evening, about six p.m. Took place at the home of PD’s parents, on the roof. We sat in a circle. The men and young people sat close to the facilitator (and the primary recorder). The old women sat further back from main recorder. A second recorder was placed in the middle of the group closer to the older women. Altogether the facilitation lasted about an hour.

Participation: The men and younger people dominated, especially the more educated young people who have spent considerable time outside the village, in Kathmandu and India. Sixteen adult participants plus 2 young children (1 girl and 1 boy). 1 female observer. Of the participants, 7 were men and 9 were women. All were from Jang except 1 man was from Til. Language was a mixture of Limi, Nepali, and English, but mainly Limi and Nepali. It was clear over time that the older women became less and less involved. It was difficult to include them because they sat further away and could not read. I tried to make sure written input was read aloud for everyone but this did not seem to be enough. Another challenge was that at least some of the women had to go home to fix dinner.

Discussion: Many happy things and hopes focused on development goals such as transportation and business. But other simple things like being happy about having parties were also mentioned. No happy things related to language were mentioned and I did not ask specifically. For the hopes, at first nothing related to language/culture was mentioned. But then I asked specifically about language development goals. They mention having recording of Limi songs and a book about Limi culture. I asked what language it should be in, and the consensus was Tibetan. I asked about using Limi. But they did not seem to think this was possible. At one point, someone said Tibetan and Limi are “the same” even though during both tools they were talked about as different languages.

YALBANG – June 30, 2013

Facilitator: Local guide

Observer: David Greninger

Setting: Started in the evening, about 8:00 p.m. before eating. Tea and juice were served. Took place in the kitchen/dining area of the “white mountain” hotel where we stayed. Most participants sat in a row on a bench with the facilitators sitting at right angles to the participants. The recorder sat on the table in front of facilitators facing the participants.

Participation: Six women and one man participated. Of the six women, 3 were older (over 40) and 3 were younger (30–40). The man was between 30 and 40. The participation was pretty even. No one really dominated. One of the younger women did all the writing.

Discussion: This tool was done quickly because everyone needed to go home to eat. So there was very little discussion. The question about happy things and hopes was first posed generally and then asked specifically in relation to language development. The participants did not specifically come up with many happy things on their own. They needed some examples to get them going and some reminders of all the good things

163

they have in their village. In relation to language development hopes, the facilitator gave the participants the example of making a book in their language. They agreed that this was good and wrote it as a hope. But no language development hope made it to the top three. However, it was clear that people in Yalbang were more open to having books in their language than in Limi. However, there was no discussion about how to make books in the local language (what script should be used, who would do it, etc.).

Below are tables with the ‘happy things’ in the left column and the ‘hopes/desires’ in the right columns.

Jang – Happy Things Jang – Hopes/Desires Til – Hope/Desire

When we have transportation Wish to develop village into a town

Transportation – Road to Til village from Hilsa for Yaks and horses

Party or celebration Business

Service from China Houses of cement and tin

Water without payment

To have a good transportation facility

Firewood without payment

Booklets about Limi (VDC’s) tradition and culture

Communication: telephone

To develop school: furniture, uniforms, stationery, etc.

*There is only one known organization that promotes the culture of the local people, and the name is ‘Limi Youth Society’. Their focus is primarily cultural and educational. They arranged for Til village to have a phone to be able to call relatives in Kathmandu.

Yalbang – Happy Things Yalbang – Hopes/Desires

Water tap Doctor

Light Road for cars to come

Giri House (place for an ascetic, wandering monk)

Giri House (place for an ascetic, wandering monk)

Toilet Language book

Gomba/monastery

Hospital

Kermi – Happy Things Kermi – Hopes/Desires

Bidyalaya (school/university) road

Drinking water Gombakobibak

Light Irrigation

Hospital Road repair and maintenance

Toilet Teaching about language

Gomba

Local language importance

164

Yakpa – Happy Things Yakpa – Hopes/Desires Classes 1 to 8 News in own language

Takragombabhayko Songs in own language

Hospital Books in own language

Drinking water Lights from water energy

Solar power

Watermill

Telephone

Stove

Road made nearby

Dojam – Happy Things Dojam – Hopes/Desires Language spoken in the village is good Electricity for lights

Governmentschool Health post

Changla Himal Language promotion

Herbs Toilet facilities

Walnuts Mother-tongue school teacher

Well water Refined herbs facility

Bargaun – Happy Things Bargaun – Hopes/Desires Losar Cultural preservation and promotion by FM radio

Mani stones Help in developing our language

Motorbike road Development

School News in own language

Light Religious language preservation, for example, through writing a book

Drinking water

Healthpost

Veterinarian

Post office

Watermill

Irrigation

165

Appendix G: Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

G.1 Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) introduction

The following section is quoted from Eberhard, Simons, and Fennig (2020):

The EGIDS consists of 13 levels with each higher number on the scale representing a greater level of disruption to the intergenerational transmission of the language.

...The EGIDS levels are designed to largely coincide with Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale, or GIDS (Fishman 1991). We refer users to Fishman’s work for an orientation to this approach to evaluating endangerment and to the original work on EGIDS (Lewis and Simons 2010a) for the rationale behind the development of the expanded framework. The descriptions of the levels presented here have been adjusted to take into account significant feedback on the scale that has been received since its initial development. Most notably, the EGIDS level descriptions have been reworded to take into account signed languages (Bickford et al. 2014). Like the GIDS, the EGIDS at its core measures the level of disruption of intergenerational transmission. Therefore, stronger, more vital languages have lower numbers on the scale and weaker, more endangered languages have higher numbers.

In comparison to GIDS, the EGIDS includes some additional factors at both the stronger and weaker levels of the scale and thus adds some levels not included in the original scale. As a result, the EGIDS can be applied to all of the languages of the world. In addition, two of the levels in the GIDS (6 and 8) have been split (6a, 6b, 8a, 8b) in the EGIDS in order to allow for a finer-grained description of the state of intergenerational transmission in the presence of language shift (or revitalization). The EGIDS uses letters to distinguish these divided levels in order to maintain numbering alignment with Fishman’s better-known GIDS. Each number on the EGIDS has also been assigned a one or two word label that summarizes the state of development or vitality of the language. (Eberhard, Simons, and Fennig (2020)

The following sections provide a more detailed description of the EGIDS levels.

166

G.2 EGIDS scale and description

Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (adapted from Fishman 1991)* LEVEL LABEL DESCRIPTION UNESCO

0 International The language is widely used between nations in trade, knowledge exchange, and international policy. Safe

1 National The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government at the nationwide level. Safe

2 Regional The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government within officially recognized regions of a nation. Safe

3 Trade The language is used in work and mass media without official status to transcend language differences across a region. Safe

4 Educational The language is vigorous and literacy in the language is being transmitted sustainably through a system of public education. Safe

5 Written The language is vigorous and is effectively used in written form in parts of the community though literacy is not yet sustainable.

Safe

6a Vigorous The language is used orally by all generations and is normally learned by children as their first language. Safe

6b Threatened

The language is still used orally within all generations but there is a significant threat to sustainability, particularly a break in transmission to the next generation by a significant portion of the child-bearing generation.

Vulnerable

7 Shifting The child-bearing generation can use the language among themselves but they do not normally transmit it to their children.

Definitely Endangered

8a Moribund The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation.

Severely Endangered

8b Nearly Extinct The only remaining speakers of the language are elderly and have little opportunity to use the language.

Critically Endangered

9 Dormant There are no proficient speakers, but some symbolic use remains as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community.

Extinct

10 Extinct No one retains a sense of ethnic identity associated with the language, even for symbolic purposes. Extinct

167

0. International For this level, we are taking the United Nations as the authority. There are six languages that are recognized as official for this body—Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish—and these are the languages we place in this category. Other languages used across a number of countries (like Portuguese) are classed as a national language in multiple countries.

1. National The primary component of Level 1 status is that the written language is used to conduct the business of the national government. This need not take the form of being declared “official” in law. A language that is used nationally for oral communication, but which is not used in writing the record of the laws of the land or the decisions of the courts, is classed as Level 3.

2. Regional As with Level 1, the key defining characteristics for this level is use in written form to conduct the business of government. At Level 2, the government in focus is not the national government, but the government of an officially recognized administrative subdivision of the country (for instance, a province or state).

3. Trade At Level 3, the language lacks such recognition as a language for conducting the written business of government. It is still “vehicular”, however, and used by native speakers of other languages across a region for purposes of work or mass media. The general pattern in the EGIDS is that each level adds to what is true in the next lower level; this is the one point where an exception is possible. It is not a requirement of Level 3 that it also be used in formal education as in Level 4. The key component here is vehicularity (that is, being used widely by people who speak different first languages). The original logic of the GIDS as defined by Fishman is that successively higher levels are stronger and less susceptible to language shift. Clearly an unwritten trade language with millions of speakers is in a stronger position than a written local language with only thousands of speakers, even if the latter has achieved formal support in public education.

4. Educational A Level 4 language is one that is vigorous and non-vehicular and has achieved sustainable literacy. The fact of educational use of the written language is not enough to qualify it as Level 4 (as was implied in the definition in the published paper). Rather, all five of the FAMED conditions as spelled out in the Sustainable Use Model should be in evidence:

• Adequate vernacular literature exists in the domains for which vernacular writing is desired. • Vernacular literacy is being taught by trained teachers under the auspices of a sustainable

institution. • Members of the language community perceive the economic, social, religious and

identificational benefits of reading and writing in the local language. • Official government policy calls for the cultivation of this language and cultural identity and

the government has put this policy into practice by sanctioning an official orthography and using its educational institutions to transmit local language literacy.

• Members of the language community have a set of shared norms as to when to use the local language in writing versus when to use a more dominant language.

If there is a significant lack of any of these conditions such that removing the government support for education in the language would likely lead to the immediate disuse of literacy, then literacy should still be viewed as incipient and the language should be classified as Level 5.

5. Written A Level 5 language is a vigorous language in which literacy is incipient. The mere fact that somebody has devised a writing system or even produced a piece of printed literature is not enough to lift a language from Level 6a to Level 5. Rather, the definition requires that some segment of the language community is effectively using literacy in the language. If this is true, but oral language use is significantly threatened, then the language should be classified as Level 6b. That is, if by ignoring the factor of literacy, it is clear that the language would be classified as Level 6b rather than 6a, then the overall assessment should be 6b since the language cannot be considered vigorous.

168

6a. Vigorous A Level 6a language is an oral language that is maintaining sustainable oral use among all generations in the home domain. The most salient indicator of this level is the fact that the language is being transmitted to all children in the home. By “all” children we do not mean literally 100 percent, but that it is the societal norm and it is typically followed. A few exceptional cases are not seen as a threat to sustainability, but when a significant number of exceptions emerge such that the community becomes aware that the norm is eroding, then there is a threat to sustainability and the language should be classified as Level 6b. While unbroken intergenerational transmission is the primary indicator of Level 6a, it is not sufficient by itself. Rather, all five of the FAMED conditions of the Sustainable Use Model should be in evidence:

• Adequate oral use exists in every domain for which oral use is desired. • There is full oral transmission of the vernacular language to all children in the home. • Members of the language community perceive the economic, social, religious, and

identificational benefits of using their language orally. • Official government policy affirms the oral use of the language. • Members of the language community have a set of shared norms as to when to use the local

language orally versus when to use a more dominant language.

If there is a significant lack of any of these five conditions, then sustained oral use is under threat and the language should be classified as Level 6b. For instance, if the community perceives so little value to using their local language that they would immediately begin transmitting the more dominant language if only they could learn it, then ongoing language use is not sustainable and the language should be classified as Level 6b. Or, if the official government policy is hostile toward ethnolinguistic diversity and calls for the elimination or suppression of this language, then ongoing language use is not sustainable and the language should be classified as Level 6b.

6b. Threatened A Level 6b language is one that has started tipping away from sustainability. If an effort can be made to address any of the above conditions that are undermining the local language, then it may be possible to pull the language back toward sustainability; however, in the absence of such efforts, the community will be likely to continue shifting toward greater use of the more dominant language.

7. Shifting A Level 7 language is teetering on the tipping point of sustainability. It is no longer the norm for parents to transmit the language to their children, but the parents still know the language, so it would be possible for intergenerational transmission to resume if the community could be convinced of the value of their language. Level 7 does not mean that transmission to children has completely stopped, but that it is now exceptional. Full transmission happens so infrequently that children who are learning the language will have difficulty finding peers to speak the language with (including a spouse) when they are adults.

8a. Moribund A Level 8a language is still in everyday use in some homes, but only among those who are beyond childbearing age. Thus, the normal cycle of intergenerational transmission has been broken. There may be younger adults who know the language at least somewhat, but they do not regularly speak it with their peers and are not fully proficient.

8b. Nearly extinct A Level 8b language is no longer used in any home. Those who can still speak the language no longer have a spouse who can speak the language and find little opportunity to use it since there are so few other speakers.

9. Dormant A Level 9 language is no longer the first language of any living individual. However, it is still the recognized heritage language of an ethnic community and it still serves as a marker of ethnic identity. Some vestiges of the language remain and are passed on within the community to strengthen the heritage identity. This could include names of cultural objects, local place names,

169

traditional greetings, formulaic use of the language in traditional rituals, or even the continuing use of ancient scriptures within in a faith community.

10. Extinct At this level the language is known only through the historical records. There is no living community that still looks to the language as a marker of its heritage identity.

170

G.3 EGIDS diagnostic tree

171

G.4 FAMED conditions applied to EGIDS

Using this table, it should be a simple task to score a language after a survey in the FAMED conditions. Using the FAMED scores, an overall EGIDS score can be assigned. Remember that in order to be at any of the sustainable levels in EGIDS, the score must be at or above the sustainable level in all FAMED conditions.

172

References

Bickford, J., Melvyn Lewis, and Gary Simons. 2014. Rating the vitality of sign languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35:1–15.

Blair, Frank. 1990. Survey on a shoestring. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In: Bradley, David (Ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No. 14: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, 1–72. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics, Series A-86.

Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University. 2008. LinSuN Proposal. Ms.

Central Bureau of Statistics. 2014. National population and housing census 2011, Vol. 5, Part II. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.

Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2020. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Twenty-third edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.

Eppele, John W. 2003. Bantawa: A sociolinguistic survey. Unpublished manuscript. Nepal National Languages Preservation Institute.

Eppele, John W., Loren Maggard, and Barbara Waugh. 2000. Garhwali : A sociolinguistic survey. Kathmandu: South Asia Group.

Eppele, John W., et al. 2012. Ethnologue: Languages of Nepal. Kirtipur, Kathmandu: SIL International and Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University.

Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Fürer-Haimendorf, Christoph von. 1988. Himalayan traders: Life in highland Nepal. (1st ed. 1975). New Delhi: Time Books International.

Goldstein, Melvyn C. 1975. A report on Limi Panchayat, Humla District; Karnali Zone. Contributions to Nepalese Studies II.2:89–101.

Gurung, Harka 1979. Vignettes of Nepal. Kathmandu: Sajha Prakashan.

Hovden, Astrid. 2016. Between village and monastery: A historical ethnography of a Tibetan Buddhist community in north-western Nepal. PhD thesis. University of Oslo. Doi:10.4000/emscat.2963.

Lama, Tshewang. 2012. Kailash mandala: A pilgrim’s trekking guide. 2nd ed. Teku, Kathmandu: Bani Offset Mudranalaya.

Levine, Nancy E. 1982. Social structure, fertility and the value of children in northwesternNepal. Contributions to Nepalese Studies IX.1–2:1–20.

Levine, Nancy E. 1988. The dynamics of polyandry: Kinship, domesticity, and population on the Tibetan border. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, M. Paul (ed.) 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 16th ed. Dallas, TX: SILInternational.

Lewis, M. Paul. 2011. The Sustainable Use Model for language development. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL, 26–29 March 2011.http://www.sil.org/~simonsg/presentatioN/Applying%20the%20SUM.pdf.

Lewis, M. Paul, and Gary F. Simons. 2010a. Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 55(2):103–120.

Lewis, M. Paul, and Gary F. Simons. 2010b. Strategy formulation model for language development. Unpublished manuscript.http://surveywiki.info/index.php/EGIDS#Sustainable_Use_Model.

Limi Youth Club. no date. Limi: The hidden valley, Humla. Unpublished manuscript.

173

Pritchard-Jones, Sian, and Bob Gibbons. 2007. The Mount Kailash trek: Tibet’s sacred mountain and western Tibet. Cumbria, UK: Cicerone.

Radloff, Carla F. 1993. Post-RTT [Recorded Text Test] questions for interpreting RTT scores. International Language Assessment Conference, June 2‒9, 1993, Horsleys Green England: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Rauber, Hanna. 1980. The Humli-Khyampas of far western Nepal: A study in ethno-genesis. Contributions to Nepalese Studies VIII.1:57–79.

Ross, J. L. 1983. Adaptation to a changing salt trade: The view from Humla. Contributions to Nepalese Studies X.1–2:43–49.

Saxer, Martin. 2013. Between China and Nepal: Trans-Himalayan trade and the second life of development in Upper Humla. Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review. E-Journal No. 8 (September 2013). (http://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/e-journal/issue-8).

van Driem, George. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnographic handbook of the greater Himalayan region, containing an introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of language. Volume Two. Leiden: Brill.

Wilde, Christopher Pekka. 2001. Preliminary phonological analysis of the Limi dialect of Humla Bhotia. MA thesis, University of Helsinki.