TIBETO-BURMAN LANGUAGES OF THE INDO-MYANMAR BORDERLAND
31st South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable
14 May 2015
Scott DeLancey1
Krishna Boro1,2, Linda Konnerth1, Amos Teo1
1University of Oregon, 2Gauhati University
NE India:
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Nagaland
- Manipur
- Mizoram
Myanmar:
- Kachin
- Sagaing
- Chin
Assam
Mizoram
Manipur
Nagaland
Arunachal Pradesh
Google Maps, 2014
NE India & Myanmar
Chin
Sagaing
Kachin
Google Maps, 2014
JINGHPAW
NUNG MEYOR
N NAGA 1
N KUKI-CHIN
NW KUKI-CHIN
S KUKI-CHIN
C KUKI-CHIN
ZEME TANGKHUL
ANGAMI-POCHURI
AO
N NAGA 2
NE India & Myanmar
Hakhun Tangsa
Monsang Naga
Sumi Naga
Northwest Kuki-Chin
Around a dozen languages:
Monsang, Moyon, Lamkang, Aimol, Anal, Tarao, Koireng, Kom, Chothe, Mongmi Maring, Sorbung, etc?
Mostly Chandel District, Manipur
Monsang
Autonym: Si:rti
6 villages in Chandel District
~2,000 speakers
Collaborative Monsang grammar project with Koninglee Wanglar, PhD student at Manipur University
Phenomena
1. ‘Agreement words’
2. Postverbal and prefixal agreement
3. Inverse and hierarchical agreement
Show the…
1. Complexity of the phenomena
2. Antiquity of many morphemes
3. Innovation of constructions
‘Agreement words’
Intransitive si ‘go’: Imperfective Negative
1SG si niŋ si-ma:-ŋ (< si ma-iŋ) 1PL:EXCL si nuŋ si-ma:ʷ-ŋ (< si ma-uŋ) 1PL:INCL si menɘ si-ma mɘ 2SG si netʃɘ si-ma tʃɘ 2PL si netʃʷu si-ma tʃʷu 3SG si ne si-maʔ 3PL si hene ~
si nehe si-ma he
Diachronic morphological analysis
Intransitive si ‘go’: Imperfective Negative
1SG si n-ì-ŋ si-ma :- ŋ (< si ma-iŋ) 1PL:EXCL si n-u-ŋ si-ma:ʷ-ŋ (< si ma-uŋ) 1PL:INCL si me-nɘ si-ma mɘ 2SG si ne-tʃ-ɘ si-ma tʃ-ɘ 2PL si ne-tʃʷ-u si-ma tʃʷ-u 3SG si ne si-maʔ 3PL si he-ne ~
si ne-he si-ma he
Regularization of PFV for 1PL:INCL
Intransitive si ‘go’: Imperfective Perfective
1SG si niŋ si siŋ 1PL:EXCL si nuŋ si suŋ 1PL:INCL si menɘ si semɘ 2SG si netʃɘ si setʃɘ 2PL si netʃʷu si setʃʷu 3SG si ne si se 3PL si hene ~
si nehe si hese
Prefixal and postverbal AGR
Intransitive si ‘go’: Future Negative
1SG sivaŋ ki-te si-ma n-iŋ 1PL:EXCL sivaŋ kin-te (~kiŋte) si-ma n-uŋ 1PL:INCL [siva te-rʷu] si-ma me-nɘ 2SG sivaŋ na-te si-ma te-nɘ 2PL sivaŋ niŋ-te (~ninte) si-ma te-nʷu 3SG si va-te si-ma nɘ ~si-ma neʔ 3PL siva te-he si-ma he-nɘ
Prefixal agreement is…
possessive prefixes!
With da:r ‘thigh’ 1SG ke -da:r 1PL:EXCL kin-da :r 1PL:INCL ì-da :r 2SG na-da:r 2PL niŋ-da :r 3SG a-da:r 3PL n -da:r
> a-
Pronouns and possessive prefixes
Pronouns Possessive prefixes
1SG kɘ ke- ~ ki- 1PL:EXCL kinnʷu kiŋ- ~ kin- ~ kim- 1PL:INCL inɘ i- ~ e- (free variation) 2SG naŋ na- 2PL niŋnʷu niŋ- (~ nin-) 3SG ama ~ama a- 3PL m menɘ~mmenɘ ŋ - ~ n - ~ m -
Transitive bin ‘beat’: Imperfective
A O 1SG 1PL.EXCL 1PL.INCL 2SG 2PL 3SG 3PL
1SG -------- ---------
------- ki-bin na tʃɘ
ki-bin na tʃʷu
ki-bin naʔ
ki-bin naʔ
1PL. EXCL
-------- ------- -------- kim-bin na tʃɘ
kim-bin na tʃʷu
kim-bin naʔ
kim-bin naʔ
1PL. INCL
---------
------- ------- ------- ------- i-bin naʔ
i-bin naʔ
2SG m -bin na tʃɘ
m -bin na tʃɘ
------- ---- -------- na-bin naʔ
na-bin naʔ
2PL m -bin na tʃʷu
m -bin na tʃʷu
-------- -------- -------- niŋ-bin naʔ
niŋ-bin naʔ
3SG m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
a-bin naʔ
a-bin naʔ
3PL m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
a-bin na(-he)
a-bin na-he
Inverse m - (? < *mi ‘person’)
A O 1SG 1PL.EXCL 1PL.INCL 2SG 2PL 3SG 3PL
1SG -------- ---------
------- ki-bin na tʃɘ
ki-bin na tʃʷu
ki-bin naʔ
ki-bin naʔ
1PL. EXCL
-------- ------- -------- kim-bin na tʃɘ
kim-bin na tʃʷu
kim-bin naʔ
kim-bin naʔ
1PL. INCL
---------
------- ------- ------- ------- i-bin naʔ
i-bin naʔ
2SG m -bin na tʃɘ
m -bin na tʃɘ
------- ---- -------- na-bin naʔ
na-bin naʔ
2PL m -bin na tʃʷu
m -bin na tʃʷu
-------- -------- -------- niŋ-bin naʔ
niŋ-bin naʔ
3SG m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
a-bin naʔ
a-bin naʔ
3PL m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
a-bin na(-he)
a-bin na-he
Hierarchical indexation of 2nd ps
A O 1SG 1PL.EXCL 1PL.INCL 2SG 2PL 3SG 3PL
1SG -------- ---------
------- ki-bin na tʃɘ
ki-bin na tʃʷu
ki-bin naʔ
ki-bin naʔ
1PL. EXCL
-------- ------- -------- kim-bin na tʃɘ
kim-bin na tʃʷu
kim-bin naʔ
kim-bin naʔ
1PL. INCL
---------
------- ------- ------- ------- i-bin naʔ
i-bin naʔ
2SG m -bin na tʃɘ
m -bin na tʃɘ
------- ---- -------- na-bin naʔ
na-bin naʔ
2PL m -bin na tʃʷu
m -bin na tʃʷu
-------- -------- -------- niŋ-bin naʔ
niŋ-bin naʔ
3SG m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
m -bin naʔ
a-bin naʔ
a-bin naʔ
3PL m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
m -bin na-he
a-bin na(-he)
a-bin na-he
Negative transitive: Inverse i-
A O 1SG 1PL.EXCL 1PL.INCL 2SG 2PL 3SG 3PL
1SG ----------
------- ------- bin ma:ŋ tʃɘ
bin ma:ŋ tʃʷu
bin ma:ŋ
bin ma h-iŋ
1PL. EXCL
----------
------- -------- bin ma:ʷŋ tʃʷu
bin ma:ʷŋ tʃʷu
bin ma:ʷŋ
bin ma:ʷŋ
1PL. INCL
----------
------- ---------
-------------
------------- bin ma mɘ (/ mʷu)
bin maʔ (he) mʷu
2SG ì-bin ma tʃɘ
ì-bin ma tʃʷu
---------
---- ------------- bin ma tʃɘ
bin ma tʃɘ
2PL ì-bin ma tʃʷu
ì-bin ma tʃʷu
---------
-------------
------------- bin ma tʃʷu
bin ma (he) tʃʷu
3SG ì-bin maʔ
ì-bin maʔ
ì-bin maʔ
ì-bin maʔ ì-bin maʔ bin maʔ bin maʔ (he)
3PL ì-bin maʔ (he)
ì-bin maʔ (he)
ì-bin maʔ (he)
ì-bin maʔ (he)
ì-bin maʔ (he)
bin maʔ (he)
bin maʔ (he)
Hierarchical indexation of 2nd pers
A O 1SG 1PL.EXCL 1PL.INCL 2SG 2PL 3SG 3PL
1SG ----------
------- ------- bin ma:ŋ tʃɘ
bin ma :ŋ tʃʷu
bin ma:ŋ
bin ma h-iŋ
1PL. EXCL
----------
------- -------- bin ma:ʷŋ tʃʷu
bin ma:ʷŋ tʃʷu
bin ma:ʷŋ
bin ma:ʷŋ
1PL. INCL
----------
------- ---------
-------------
------------- bin ma mɘ (/ mʷu)
bin maʔ (he) mʷu
2SG ì-bin ma tʃɘ
ì-bin ma tʃʷu
---------
---- ------------- bin ma tʃɘ
bin ma tʃɘ
2PL ì-bin ma tʃʷu
ì-bin ma tʃʷu
---------
-------------
------------- bin ma tʃʷu
bin ma (he) tʃʷu
3SG ì-bin maʔ
ì-bin maʔ
ì-bin maʔ
ì-bin maʔ ì-bin maʔ bin maʔ bin maʔ (he)
3PL ì-bin maʔ (he)
ì-bin maʔ (he)
ì-bin maʔ (he)
ì-bin maʔ (he)
ì-bin maʔ (he)
bin maʔ (he)
bin maʔ (he)
Genetic affiliation of Tangsa
Bodo-Konyak-Jingphaw
Bodo-Koch Konyak Jinghpaw-Luish
Khiamngan Chang Phom Konyak Wancho Tangsa Nocte
Tangsa Varieties
Tangsa groups found only in India
Gaji Gaja Halang Hawoi Joglei Katoi
Kochong Longchang Lungphi Moklum Nokya Ponthai
Ronrang Tikhak Yongkuk
Tangsa groups found in both India and Burma
Bongtai Chamchang Cholim Dunghi Galun Hakhun
Khalak Lakkai Lungkhe Longri Lochhang Mosang
Maitai Mungray Ngaimong Ringkhu Shangte Shangwal
Shechhyoe Thamphang
Agreement words
1. i²bə¹ sip²pʰan¹ lu³lɤik² ŋa¹ k-i¹.
that story history say PRES-1PL
‘We are going to tell that folk tale.’ (NR-006-1.1)
2. … zu³be¹-tɤ¹ haʔ²soŋ² mɤ³tʰe¹ dɤ¹ t-aʔ².
… ghost-family village one COP PAST-3
‘There was a family of ghosts.’ (NR-006-1.2)
3. miʔ² i²rə¹bə¹ haʔ²soŋ² mɤ³tʰe¹ dɤ¹ t-aʔ².
man that village one COP PAST-3
‘There was a village of man.’ (NR-006-1.3)
Agreement word onsets
- Marks different categories, such as TAM, Polarity, Deixis, Inverse, etc.
4. və¹kʰa² kə¹mə¹ ta¹-ʒa¹-buʔ² m-aʔ².
crow ERG be.able-fall-hit NEG-3
‘The crow could not drop it.’ (NR-006_1.37)
5. ....... i²ʒuŋ² twe³ keʔ² r-u¹ na¹.
...... ready take go PROX-2SG PERF
‘(We) are ready, bring it.’ (NR-007_4.53)
Agreement word rhymes
- Marks agreement with an argument of a clause.
Singular Plural
1st -ɤ⁽ˀ⁾ e/-i⁽ˀ⁾
2nd -o⁽ˀ⁾/-u⁽ˀ⁾ -an/-at
3rd -a⁽ˀ⁾
Agreement word paradigm (intr.)
Present Past Future Negation
1SG k-ɤ t-ɤˀ ɤ m-ɤˀ
1PL k-i t-iˀ e m-iˀ
2SG k-o / k-u t-oˀ/ t-uˀ o / u m-oˀ/ m-uˀ
2PL k-an t-at an m-at
3 k-a t-aˀ a m-aˀ
6. ŋa akʷam ri k-ɤ.
I walk AUX PRES-1SG
‘I am walking.’
7. nuʔrum ʒip t-at.
2PL sleep PAST-2PL
‘You slept.’
8. ativa ka a.
he go 3
‘He will go.’
Agreement word paradigm (tr.)
Three different agreement patterns
Hierarchical agreement
“Neutral” agreement
Subject agreement
Pragmatically marked
Hierarchical agreement
- Direct configuration paradigm: Subject is higher than or equal to the Object in person hierarchy.
A > P Present Past Future Negation
1SG > 2 & 3 k-ɤ t-ɤˀ ɤ m-ɤˀ
1PL > 2 & 3 k-i t-iˀ e m-iˀ
2SG > 3 k-o/k-u t-oˀ/t-uˀ o/u m-oˀ/m-uˀ
2PL > 3 k-an t-at an m-at
3 > 3 k-a t-aˀ a m-aˀ
9. ŋa-bə ati rʷezɤ lan k-ɤ.
I-ERG he always beat PRES-1SG
‘I always hit him.’
10. ŋa-bə nɤ lan t-ɤˀ.
I-ERG you beat PAST-1SG
‘I beat you.’
11. nɤ-bə ati lan k-o.
you-ERG he beat PRES-2SG
‘You beat him.’
Hierarchical agreement
- Inverse configuration paradigm: Object is higher than the Subject in person hierarchy.
A > P Present Past Future Negation
2SG & 3 SG/PL > 1SG
r-ɤ tʰ-ɤˀ r-ɤ m-ɤˀ
2 & 3 > 1PL r-i tʰ-iˀ r-i m-iˀ
3 > 2SG r-u tʰ-uˀ r-u m-oˀ
3 > 2PL r-an tʰ-at r-an m-at
12. nɤ-bə ŋa lan r-ɤ.
you-ERG I beat PRES.INV-1SG
‘You beat me.’
13. ati kəmə nɤ lan r-u.
he ERG you beat PRES.INV-2SG
‘He beats you.’
14. ati kəmə ŋa lap kʰi tʰ-ɤ.
he ERG I get see PAST.INV-1SG
‘He saw me.’
Inverse marking
- Two (partially) different sets of onsets for the two configurations in hierarchical agreement pattern.
Present Past Future Negation
Direct config. k t ZERO m
Inverse config. r tʰ r m
15. ŋa¹-bə³ a²ti¹ lan¹ k-ɤ¹. (direct)
I-ERG 3SG beat PRES-1SG
‘I beat you.’
16 a²ti¹ kə¹mə¹ ŋa¹ lan¹ r-ɤ¹. (inverse)
3SG ERG I beat PRES.INV-1SG
‘He beats me.’
17 ŋa¹-bə³ a²ti¹ ləp²kʰi¹ t-ɤʔ¹. (direct)
I-ERG 3SG see PAST-1SG
‘I saw him.
18 a²ti¹ kə¹mə¹ ŋa¹ ləp²kʰi¹ tʰ-ɤ¹. (inverse)
3SG ERG I see PAST.INV-1SG
‘He saw me.’
“Neutral” agreement
- Verb agrees with none of the arguments
- Found in the following configurations
Present Past Future Negation
1SG > 2SG (Direct)
k-i t-iˀ e m-iˀ
1SG > 2PL (Direct)
k-i/k-a t-iˀ/t-aˀ e/a m-aˀ
2PL > 1SG (Inverse)
r-a tʰ-aˀ r-a m-aˀ
19. ŋa-bə nɤ lapkʰi k-i.
I-ERG you see PRES-1PL
‘I can see you.’
20. ŋa-bə nuʔrum lan k-a.
I-ERG 2PL beat PRES-3
‘I hit you.’
21. nuʔrum kəmə ŋa lan r-a.
2PL ERG I beat PRES.INV-3
‘You hit me.’
Subject agreement
- A subject agreement is always possible irrespective of the configuration type.
- Subject agreement is pragmatically marked
in inverse configuration
in “neutral” agreement configuration
- Subject agreement in inverse configuration
22. ati kəmə ŋa lan k-a.
s/he ERG I beat PRES-3
‘He beats me.’
23. ati kəmə ŋa lap kʰi t-aˀ.
he ERG I get see PAST-3
‘He saw me.’
- Subject agreement in “neutral” agreement configuration
24. ŋa-bə nɤ lan k-ɤ.
I-ERG you beat PRES-1SG
‘I beat you.’
Summary
- The agreement system is primarily hierarchical in that the argument which is higher is marked on the verb complex irrespective of its grammatical role.
- Inverse is marked when the argument that the verb agrees with is an Object argument.
- The verb can always agree with the subject argument, although it is pragmatically marked when we use subject agreement instead of hierarchical or neutral agreement.
The languages of Nagaland
Spoken in the hills
Languages have very little paradigmatic morphology
- no verbal agreement
- typically transparent morphology
Nagaland - Land area: 16, 579 km2
- Population: 1.98 million
- 16 main tribes
- English (official language)
- Nagamese (Assamese-based creole - unofficial lingua franca)
Google Maps, 2014
‘Naga’ languages
Burling (2003) gives 5 main groups:
- Angami-Pochuri - Ao - Tangkhul - Zeme
- Konyak
Google Maps, 2014
Sumi - 242,000 speakers based on 2001 census (Lewis 2009)
- spoken mainly in the Zunheboto district, but also in all neighbouring districts
- many new villages in Assam, east and northeast of Dimapur
Google Maps, 2014
Morphosyntactic features
Some features of Sumi:
Lack of argument indexation on verbs
Pragmatically / semantically motivated argument marking
Mainly regular & transparent morphology
Valence changing morphology
TAM marking
Argument Indexation
Lack of argument indexation on verbs
(2) Noye züva. nò=je ʒɨ-ve-a
2SG=TOP sleep-VM-PRF ‘You have slept.’
(1) Niye züva. nì=je ʒɨ-ve-a
1SG=TOP sleep-VM-PRF ‘I have slept.’
(3) Paye züva. pa=je ʒɨ-ve-a
3SG=TOP sleep-VM-PRF ‘He has slept.’
Argument Indexation
Pronominal Ps realized as proclitics on verb
Proclitics are regular, have same form as genitive prefixes, e.g. i- ‘my’ o- ‘your’
(7) Pano ohe. pa=nò ò=hè
3SG=AGT 2SG=hit ‘He hit you.’
(4) Nono ihe. nò=nò ì=hè
2SG=AGT 1SG=hit ‘You hit me.’
Argument Marking
Pragmatically / semantically motivated alignment, e.g. no /no/ and ye /je/
(10) Akükau no azah tsüve.
à-kɨká-ù=nò à-ʒà tʃɨ-ve
NRL-chief-DEF=AGT NRL-command give-VM
‘The chief gave a command.’
(11) Akükau ye azah tsüve.
à-kɨká-ù=je à-ʒà tʃɨ-ve
NRL-chief-DEF=TOP NRL-command give-VM
‘The chief gave a command.’ (but no one listened to him)
Argument Marking
Pragmatically / semantically motivated alignment, e.g. no /no/ and ye /je/
(12) Paza ye Sümi.
pa-ʒá=je ʃɨmì
3SG-mother=TOP Sumi
‘His mother is Sumi.’
(13) Paza no Sümi.
pa-ʒá=nò ʃɨmì
3SG-mother=FOC Sumi
‘His mother is Sumi.’ (not his father)
Argument Marking
Pragmatically / semantically motivated alignment – typical of other T-B languages spoken in the valleys
Found in other (non-Konyak) languages of Nagaland, e.g. Mongsen Ao
Coupe (2011): may represent a stage prior to syntactic ergative / absolutive alignment of Chang (Konyak group)
Regular morphology
Mainly regular & transparent morphology
Valence changing morphology:
Reciprocal: -kile (12) Angaqo no hekile ani.
a-ŋá=qó=nò hè-kile à-ni
NRL-child=PL=AGT hit=RECIP PROG-PRES
‘The children are hitting each other.’
But: Angaqo no kihele ani also possible (ki-he-le)
Cf. Kohima Angami kə- ‘ RECIP’
Regular morphology
Mainly regular & transparent morphology
TAM marking
some clearly grammaticalized from lexical verbs, e.g. a- ‘EXIST’ > ‘PROG’
che- ‘to walk’ > ‘HAB’
but some derive from older forms
e.g. -ni (old copula?)
Morphosyntactic features
By this measure, Sumi (and other languages of Nagaland) have far less morphological complexity than other languages of the hills
Look more like languages spoken in the valleys
Can we account for this lack of morphology by appealing to social / historical factors?
Socio-historical context
Rapid recent expansion of Sumi territory
Intense contact with speakers of Ao languages (Sangtam, Ao, Lotha, etc.)
Relative social instability
Rapid expansion
Fairly large no. of speakers for a ‘hill’ language
Spoken across a wide geographic range
Hutton’s (1921) account:
Sumis pushed Aos further north, cut off Sangtam groups to the east
would have continued if not for British intervention
Contact with Ao languages
Toponymic evidence
River names in Zunheboto district often end in -ki (‘water’ in Sangtam)
Some Sumi village names reported to have Ao / Lotha / Sangtam origins
e.g. Litami village < Lungtang
Contact with Ao languages
‘Tukomi’ Sumis said to have Sangtam origin
Genealogical trees collected by Hutton
Sangtam wives brought into family
Sumi word for ‘older sister’ afo /a fo/ likely borrowing from Sangtam
Contact with Ao languages
Sumi expansion:
not necessarily accompanied by killing
but involved incorporation into community
Lack of stability
Traditionally viewed as ‘war-like’ and ‘bloodthirsty’ but warfare was organized
Social organization favors village fission:
“It is still the custom, wherever circumstances permit, for the elder sons of a Sema chief to leave the paternal village and make villages of their own.” (Hutton, 1921)
Some caveats
Sumis: possibly extreme example of expansionists
But we have evidence of general south-north migration of Naga groups
‘Naga’ languages
Migration patterns described by Hutton (1921) suggest South to North migration from present-day Manipur
Angamis reported frequent incursions from South
Google Maps, 2014
Top Related