Английская Википедия:Gyalrongic languages
Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Infobox language family
The Gyalrongic languages (also known as Rgyalrongic or Jiarongic) constitute a branch of the Qiangic languages of Sino-Tibetan,[1] but some propose that it may be part of a larger Rung languages group and do not consider it to be particularly closely related to Qiangic but suggest that similarities between Gyalrongic and Qiangic may be from areal influence.[2] However, other work suggests that Qiangic as a whole may in fact be paraphyletic, with the only commonalities of the supposed "branch" being shared archaisms and areal features that were encouraged by language contact.[3] Jacques & Michaud (2011) propose that Qiangic including Gyalrongic may belong to a larger Burmo-Qiangic group based on some lexical innovations.[4]
Geographical distribution
The Gyalrongic languages are spoken in Sichuan in China, mainly in the autonomous Tibetan and Qiang prefectures of Karmdzes and Rngaba. These languages are distinguished by their conservative morphology and their phonological archaisms, which make them valuable for historical linguistics. Шаблон:Quote
Gyalrongic languages are spoken predominantly in the four counties of Ma'erkang, Li, Xiaojin, and Jinchuan in Aba Prefecture, western Sichuan.[5] Other Gyalrongic lects are spoken in neighboring Heishui, Rangtang, Baoxing, Danba, and Daofu counties.
Classification
The Gyalrongic languages share several features, notably in verbal morphology. More recent classifications such as Lai et al. (2020) split Gyalrongic into West and East branches:[6]
- Gyalrongic
- West Gyalrongic
- Khroskyabs (formerly known as Lavrung)
- Horpa (or Stau)
- Tangut[6]
- East Gyalrongic (or Gyalrong proper)
- West Gyalrongic
The Gyalrong languages in turn constitute four mutually unintelligible varieties: Eastern Gyalrong or Situ, Japhug, Tshobdun, and Zbu.
Khroskyabs and Horpa are classified by Lin (1993) as a "western dialect" of Gyalrong, along with Eastern Gyalrong and the "northwestern dialect" (Japhug, Tshobdun, and Zbu). Otherwise, the scholarly consensus deems the distance between Khroskyabs, Horpa, and the Gyalrong cluster is greater than that between the Gyalrong languages. For example, Ethnologue reports 75% lexical similarity between Situ and Japhug, 60% between Japhug and Tshobdun, but only 13% between Situ and Horpa.
Huang (2007:180)[7] found that Horpa (Rta’u) and Gyalrong (Cogrtse) share only 15.2% cognacy, with 242 cognates out of a total of 1,592 words.
The Khalong Tibetan language has a Gyalrongic substratum.[8]
The Chamdo languages (consisting of Lamo, Larong, and Drag-yab, a group of three closely related Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Chamdo, eastern Tibet) may or may not be Qiangic.[9][10][11]
Comparison with Tibetic
Gyalrongic languages are surrounded by Tibetic languages and have thus been in intense contact with them. However, there many major lexical and morphological differences between them. Gyalrongic tend to use prefixes such as *kə-, *tə-, etc., while Tibetic languages use suffixes such as -pa/-ba, -ma, -po/-bo, -mo, etc. Below is a table of comparing words in bTshanlha and Japhug that do not have cognates in Classical Tibetan.[12]
| Gloss | bTshanlha | Japhug | Classical Tibetan |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | təpa | lo | |
| brain | tərnok | tɯ-moʁ | klad pa |
| hail | tərmok | ser ba | |
| milk | təlu | ’o ma | |
| leg | tame | tɤmi | rkang pa |
| fish | tʃhəɣjo | qa-ɟy | nya |
| flower | tapat | me tog, men tog | |
| tongue | teʃme | lce | |
| red | kəwərne | kɯ-ɣɯmi | dmar po |
| yellow | kɯ-qarŋe | ser (po) | |
| sand | kəwek | bye ma | |
| sheep | kə-jo | qa-ʑo | lug |
| horse | mboro | mbro | rta |
References
- Duo Erji [多尔吉]. 1984. A study of Geshezha of Daofu County [道孚语格什扎话研究]. China Tibetan Studies Press [中国藏学出版社出版]. Шаблон:ISBN
- Gates, Jesse P. 2012. Situ in situ: towards a dialectology of Jiāróng (rGyalrong). M.A. thesis, Trinity Western University.
- Gates, Jesse P. 2014. Situ in Situ: Towards a Dialectology of Jiarong (rGyalrong). LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics 80. Munich: Lincom Europa. Шаблон:ISBN
External links
- rGyalrongic Languages Database (CLDF Dataset on Zenodo Шаблон:Doi)
- Proto-rGyalrong reconstruction Шаблон:Webarchive (Sino-Tibetan Branches Project)
Шаблон:Sino-Tibetan languages Шаблон:Na-Qiangic languages
- ↑ Matisoff, James. 2004. "Brightening" and the place of Xixia (Tangut) in the Qiangic subgroup of Tibeto-Burman
- ↑ LaPolla, Randy. 2003. "Overview of Sino-Tibetan Morphosyntax". In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages., 30. London: Routledge.
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Nagano, Yasuhiko and Marielle Prins. 2013. rGyalrongic languages database. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology (Minpaku).
- ↑ 6,0 6,1 Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Huang Bufan. 2007. Lawurongyu yanjiu (拉坞戎语研究) [A study of the Lavrung language]. Beijing: Minzu Press (民族出版社).
- ↑ Tournadre, Nicolas (2005). "L'aire linguistique tibétaine et ses divers dialectes." Lalies, 2005, n°25, p. 7–56.
- ↑ Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Tashi Nyima. 2018. Historical relationship among three non-Tibetic languages in Chamdo, TAR. Proceedings of the 51st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (2018). Kyoto: Kyoto University.
- ↑ Zhao, Haoliang. 2018. A brief introduction to Zlarong, a newly recognized language in Mdzo sgang, TAR. Proceedings of the 51st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (2018). Kyoto: Kyoto University.
- ↑ Jacques, Guillaumes. 2016. Les journées d'études sur les langues du Sichuan.
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
