Misplaced Pages

#689310

19-580: Benedict (1972) originally posited the Tibeto-Kanauri aka Bodish–Himalayish relationship, but had a more expansive conception of Himalayish than generally found today, including Qiangic , Magaric , and Lepcha . Within Benedict's conception, Tibeto-Kanauri is one of seven linguistic nuclei, or centers of gravity along a spectrum, within Tibeto-Burman languages . The center-most nucleus identified by Benedict

38-601: 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) found that Horpa (Rta’u) and Gyalrong (Cogrtse) share only 15.2% cognacy, with 242 cognates out of

57-460: A single branch. Yu (2012:218) notes that Ersuic and Naish languages share some forms that are not found in Lolo-Burmese or "core" Qiangic (Qiang, Prinmi , and Minyak ). As a result, "Southern Qiangic" (Ersuic, Namuyi , and Shixing ) may be closer to Naish than it is to "core" Qiangic. Together, Southern Qiangic and Naish could form a wider "Naic" group that has links to both Lolo-Burmese to

76-701: A third branch. He unites these at a higher level with Mahakiranti as Himalayish. Van Driem (2001) notes that the Bodish , West Himalayish , and Tamangic languages (but not Benedict's other families) appear to have a common origin. Bradley (1997) takes much the same approach but words things differently: he incorporates West Himalayish and Tamangic as branches within his "Bodish", which thus becomes close to Tibeto-Kanauri. This and his Himalayan family constitute his Bodic family. Qiangic languages Qiangic ( Ch'iang, Kyang, Tsiang , Chinese: 羌語支, " Qiang language group"; also Rmaic , formerly known as Dzorgaic )

95-663: A total of 1,592 words. The Khalong Tibetan language has a Gyalrongic substratum . 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. 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

114-503: 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 . Jacques & Michaud (2011) propose that Qiangic including Gyalrongic may belong to a larger Burmo-Qiangic group based on some lexical innovations . The Gyalrongic languages are spoken in Sichuan in China , mainly in

133-710: Is a group of related languages within the Sino-Tibetan language family . They are spoken mainly in Southwest China , including Sichuan and northern Yunnan . Most Qiangic languages are distributed in the prefectures of Ngawa , Garzê , Ya'an and Liangshan in Sichuan with some in Northern Yunnan as well. Qiangic speakers are variously classified as part of the Qiang , Tibetan , Pumi , Nakhi , and Mongol ethnic groups by

152-520: Is an additional branch: Matisoff (2004) describes Proto-Tibeto-Burman *-a > -i as a typical sound change in many Qiangic languages, and refers to this vowel heightening as "brightening." Yu (2012) also notes that "brightening" is a defining innovation in Proto-Ersuic, the reconstructed ancestor of the Ersuic languages . Thurgood and La Polla (2003) state that the inclusion of Qiang, Prinmi , and Muya

171-553: Is not addressed. However, Chirkova (2012) casts doubt on the validity of Qiangic as a coherent branch, instead considering Qiangic to be a diffusion area. She considers the following four languages to be part of four separate Tibeto-Burman branches: Both Shixing and Namuzi are both classified as Naic (Naxi) by Jacques & Michaud (2011), but Naic would not be a valid genetic unit in Chirkova's classification scheme since Shixing and Namuzi are considered by Chirkova to not be part of

190-952: Is the Jingpho language (including perhaps the Kachin–Luic and Tamangic languages ); other peripheral nuclei besides Tibeto-Kanauri include the Kiranti languages (Bahing–Vayu and perhaps the Newar language ); the Tani languages ; the Bodo–Garo languages and perhaps the Konyak languages ); the Kukish languages (Kuki–Naga plus perhaps the Karbi language , the Meitei language and the Mru language ); and

209-414: Is well supported, but that they do not follow Sun's argument for the inclusion of Tangut. Matisoff (2004), however, claims Tangut demonstrates a clear relationship. The unclassified language Baima may also be Qiangic or may retain a Qiangic substratum after speakers shifted to Tibetan. Some other lesser-known, unclassified Qiangic peoples and languages include the following: Sun Hongkai (2001) groups

SECTION 10

#1732855765690

228-544: The Burmish languages ( Lolo-Burmese languages , perhaps also the Nung language and Trung ). Matisoff (1978, 2003) largely follows Benedict's scheme, stressing the teleological value of identifying related characteristics over mapping detailed family trees in the study of Tibeto-Burman and Sino-Tibetan languages . Matisoff includes Bodish and West Himalayish with the Lepcha language as

247-693: The People's Republic of China . The extinct Tangut language of the Western Xia is considered to be Qiangic by some linguists, including Matisoff (2004). The undeciphered Nam language of China may possibly be related to Qiangic. Lamo , Larong and Drag-yab , or the Chamdo languages , a group of three closely related Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Chamdo , Eastern Tibet , may or may not be Qiangic. Sun Hongkai (1983) proposes two branches, northern and southern: Sun groups other, poorly described Qiangic languages as: Matisoff (2004) states that Jiarongic

266-526: The Qiangic languages are follows. Guillaume Jacques & Alexis Michaud (2011) argue for a Na–Qiangic branch which itself forms a Burmo-Qiangic branch together with Lolo–Burmese . Na–Qiangic comprises three primary branches, which are Ersuish (or Ersuic), Naic (or Naxish), and [core] Qiangic. Similarly, David Bradley (2008) also proposed an Eastern Tibeto-Burman branch that includes Burmic ( a.k.a. Lolo-Burmese ) and Qiangic. The position of Guiqiong

285-690: 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 . The cluster of languages variously referred to as Stau, Ergong or Horpa in the literature are spoken over a large area from Ndzamthang county (in Chinese Rangtang 壤塘县) in Rngaba prefecture (Aba 阿坝州) to Rtau county (Dawu 道孚) in Dkarmdzes prefecture (Ganzi 甘孜州), in Sichuan province, China. At

304-593: The following watersheds (riverine systems) and the respective Qiangic languages spoken there. Jiarongic languages The Gyalrongic languages (also known as Rgyalrongic or Jiarongic ) constitute a branch of the Qiangic languages of Sino-Tibetan , 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. However, other work suggests that Qiangic as

323-547: The label "Dzorgaic" may be used for Qiang proper. Hsi-fan (Xifan) is an ethnic name, meaning essentially 'Tibetan'; the people speak Qiangic or Jiarongic languages such as Qiang, Ergong/Horpa, Ersu, Guiqiong, Shixing, Zhaba, Namuyi, Muya/Minyak, and Jiarong, but not Naxi/Moso, Pumi, or Tangut. The term has not been much used since language surveys of the 1980s resulted in sufficient data for classification. Qiangic languages are spoken mainly in western Sichuan and northwestern Yunnan provinces of China. Sun Hongkai (2013) lists

342-1243: The moment of writing, it is still unclear how many unintelligible varieties belong to this group, but at least three must be distinguished: the language of Rtau county (referred as ‘Stau’ in this paper), the Dgebshes language (Geshizha 格什扎话) spoken in Rongbrag county (Danba 丹巴), and the Stodsde language (Shangzhai 上寨) in Ndzamthang. Gyalrongic languages are spoken predominantly in the four counties of Ma'erkang , Li , Xiaojin , and Jinchuan in Aba Prefecture , western Sichuan . Other Gyalrongic lects are spoken in neighboring Heishui, Rangtang, Baoxing, Danba, and Daofu counties. 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: 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

361-457: The south and other Qiangic languages to the north. Shafer (1955) and other accounts of the Dzorgaic/Ch'iang branch preserve the names Dzorgai, Kortsè, Thochu, Outer/Outside Man-tze, Pingfang from the turn of the century. The first three were Northern Qiang, and Outside Mantse was Southern Qiang. When Jiarongic is included as a branch of Qiangic, but distinct from the non-Jiarongic languages,

#689310