Sino-Tibetan languages

Despite the great typological differences in the synitic and Tibetan-Burmese branches, as well as in the subgroups of Tibetan-Burmese languages, modern linguists in their works ( Benedict 1972, Hale 1982, van Driem 2001, Matisoff 2003, Thurgood 2003) confirm the kinship of Sino-Tibetan languages. Many Sino-Tibetan ancestors lend themselves to reconstruction. The general lexical material is extremely rich and more and more refined thanks to studies of an increasing number of languages ​​(see the table of lexical correspondences). In addition to lexical material, these languages ​​have many common features in phonology and grammar , confirming their kinship. For a detailed review of comparative material (both lexical and phonological), see Matisoff 2003.

Below are the general phonological, grammatical and lexical features of Sino-Tibetan languages.

Syllable and Phoneme Structure

Proto-Sino-Tibetan was a monosyllabic language. The reconstruction of its syllabic structure looks like this:

(C) - (C) - C (G) V (C) - (s) (C - consonant , V - vowel , G - approximant : / l, r, j, w /)

(brackets indicate additional sounds that may be present in these places). The first two consonants were originally meaningful " prefixes ", the root itself has the form C (G) V (C) , the final consonant is limited to the group / p, t, k, s, m, n, ŋ, l, r, w, j / , a vowel at the end of a syllable is rare. A vowel can be long and short; its longitude is phonemically significant. A reduced vowel / ə / ( seam ) can stand between prefixed consonants and the initial consonant. This initial structure of the syllable can be traced in classical Tibetan and in some modern West Tibetan and Gyalrong languages ​​(due to which these languages ​​are especially important for reconstruction), in a less complete form - in the Kachin language and the miso language . The polynomial combinations of consonants at the beginning of the syllable in many languages ​​have been reduced, and the Chinese language has lost most of the consonant consonants at the end of the syllable. Such a simplification of the structure, obviously, led to the appearance of a meaningful tonality .

According to Benedict 1972 and Matisoff 2003, the consonant set in Proto-Sino-Tibetan - which was fully used primarily for the initial root consonants - consisted of the following phonemes:

/ p, t, k; b, d, g; ts, dz; s, z, h; m, n, ŋ; l, r, w, j /.

In different language groups, as the initial consonants of the root of the word, these phonemes have the following sound correspondences:

The exceptions in these correspondences are, as a rule, secondary, aspiration appears only under certain conditions and is not phonemically significant. This table is compiled from Benedict 1972, where lexical comparisons are also given for these sound matches.

The Sino-Tibetan vowel system is being reconstructed as / a, o, u, i, e /. Vowels can be in the middle or at the end of a syllable, but not at the beginning. It should be noted that in the proto-language, all vowels, except / a /, are extremely rare to find at the end of the syllable. And the endings on / -Vw / and / -Vj / (where V is a vowel), on the contrary, are most common.

Word morphology

According to the general opinion of the proto-language researchers, classical syntactic morphology (as well as systemic morphological changes of nouns and verbs in such categories as case , number , time , person , voice , etc.) was not in it. Traced in modern Tibetan-Burmese languages, the syntactic morphology of nouns and verbs should be understood as an innovation, which they owe to the local influence of neighboring languages, as well as substrate languages. Due to the wide variety of such influences, completely different morphological types could be formed.

Nevertheless, it is safe to talk about the elements of word-formation morphology common to many Sino-Tibetan languages. Among them, one should highlight consonant prefixes and suffixes , as well as changes in allout that change the meaning of verbs and nouns. The existence of common derivational affixes and alternations in allaut , having the same or similar semantic effect in almost all groups of Sino-Tibetan languages, is a convincing sign of their genetic community (examples taken from Benedict 1972, Matisoff 2003 and Thurgood 2003; in transcribing words from German sources instead / j / used / y /).

Prefix s-

The prefix s- has a causative and denominative function, which initially corresponded to the directive value. For example:

· Ancient whale . myang "go away", smangs "lose", letters. “Let go” (causative)

· Ancient whale. mɘk “ink”, smɘk “black”; class. Tib. smag "dark" (causative)

· Ancient whale. tyuʔ “broom”, stuʔ “revenge” (denominative)

· Ancient whale. lyek “exchange”, slyeks “give” (directives)

· Class. Tib. grib “shadow”, sgrib- “shade, darken” (denominative)

· Class. Tib. gril "roller", sgril- "roll up, roll up" (denominative)

· Class. Tib. riŋ- “be long”, sriŋ- “lengthen” (causative)

Kachinsk . lot “be free”, slot “free” (causative)

Kachinsk. dam “get lost”, sɘdam “mislead” (causative)

Modeling nak “be straight”, nyak <* snak “straighten” (causative, metathesis sK> Ky, where K is consonant)

In other Tibetan-Burmese languages ​​(for example, Burmese, Loloyan and Lahu languages ), the prefix s- disappeared, but its influence on the change in the initial consonants or tonal differences remained. In the case of weak initial consonants, the prefix s- can be distinguished also in these languages, for example:

· Burma . ʔip “sleep”, sip “put to sleep”

· Burma. waŋ “enter”, swaŋ “deposit”

Changes in allout

Almost all Sino-Tibetan languages ​​have pairs of semantically related words that differ in their sound only from the voiced or deafness of the initial consonant. The sonorous option, as a rule, has a transient meaning, and the deaf one is intransitive . There is a theory that changes in the annouta are caused by the prefix * h that once existed - a non-syllable pharyngeal transient sound (Edwin G. Pulleyblank 2000).

Examples:

· Ancient whale. kens “see”, gens “be visible”

· Ancient whale. prats to win, brats to be defeated

Tib. kril- “to wrap”, gril- “to be wrapped”

· Baching kuk “bend”, guk “be bent”

· Bodo pheŋ “straighten”, beŋ “be straight”

Suffix -n

The suffix -n (as well as / -m /) performs a primarily nominalizing, and sometimes collective, function. Examples:

· Class. Tib. rgyu "flow", rgyun "flow"

· Class. Tib. gtsi pee, gtsin pee

· Class. Tib. rku “steal”, rkun-ma “thief” (nominalization is enhanced by the ending -ma )

· Class. Tib. nye "(to be) close", nyen "relative"

Lepcha zo “eat”, azom “food” (the rating is amplified by the sound / a- / in allout)

· Lepcha bu "carry", abun " wagon "

Suffix -s

The suffix -s also has a predominantly nominalizing function, as well as a direction changing function. Examples:

· Class. Tib. grang - “count”, grangs “number”

· Class. Tib. thag- “weave”, thags “fabric”; this word is related

· Ancient whale. tyɘk “weave”, tyɘks “woven shawl”

· Ancient whale. mreʔ “buy”, mres “sell”

· Ancient whale. dyuʔ to receive, dyus to give

Other derivational suffixes

In addition to those mentioned, there are also other derivational suffixes postulated for Sino-Tibetan languages, for example, / -t /, / -y / and / -k /. However, their functions do not lend themselves to a satisfactory description, which would confirm at least some commonality in Sino-Tibetan languages. See LaPolla (cited in Thurgood 2003) and Matisoff 2003 for more details.

General vocabulary

The following lexical comparisons are only a small part of the reliable etymologies established as a result of research conducted since 1940 , and they most clearly represent the genetic kinship of Sino-Tibetan languages. Their basis is Peiros research - Starostin 1996, Matisoff 2003 and the Starostin network database. The selection of words was made in accordance with Dolgopolsky’s list of “stable etymologies” and was supplemented with several words from the Swadesh list , thereby excluding borrowed words and onomatopoeia from their number. Each of the words is represented in several languages ​​or linguistic communities of up to seven: ancient Chinese or proto-synitic ( Starostin reconstruction), classical Tibetan , classical Burmese , Kachin , miso (Lushi), lepcha , proto-chiranti ( Starostin reconstruction), proto- Tibeto Burmese (Matisoff 2003) and Proto-Sino-Tibetan (Starostin 1989, Matisoff 2003).

Sino-Tibetan lexical comparisons:

Possession

Possessiveness (possessiveness) in Sino-Tibetan languages ​​is expressed with the help of possessive postpositions ( particles ) standing after the defined word. For Tibetan and Burmese, the coincidence of these particles is one of the manifestations of their distant kinship.

Chinese

Office word 的 (de).

Example:

• 我 的 书 (vode shu) - My book.

Tibetan

An indicator of possessiveness is a particle of a dreldra (yi, gyi, gi, kyi). In grammars oriented to the Indian tradition, possessiveness was described as a genitive case .

Example:

• Ngarang gi dip - My book.

Burmese

An indicator of possessiveness is either a special symbol-particle pinhmuvibe   ( Burmese. And), or the symbol of a short tone aukamin .

Example:

• Chenno and saou - "My book."

Another form of expression of possessiveness without a noun in Burmese is particle ha . Example: Chennaha is “mine.”

• Swadesh Lists for Sino-Tibetan Languages

• Starostin S.A. A comparative vocabulary of five Sino-Tibetian languages ( shared with I.I. Peyros, 1996).
• Benedict PK Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus . JA Matisoff (Ed.). Cambridge: The University Press, 1972. ISBN 0-521-08175-0 .
• Coblin WS A Sinologist's Handlist of Sino-Tibetan Lexical Comparisons . Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 18. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1986. ISBN 3-87787-208-5
• Shafer R. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan (Part 1-5). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966-1974.
• Thurgood G., LaPolla RJ (Eds.) Sino-Tibetan Languages . Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0-7007-1129-5