The Southwestern Tai or Thai languages are a branch of the Tai languages of Southeast Asia . Its languages include Central Thai (Siamese) , Northern Thai (Lanna) , Lao (including Isan ), Shan and others.
31-483: The internal classification of the Southwestern Tai dialects is still not well agreed on. Chamberlain (1975) divides Southwestern Tai into 4 branches. Chamberlain based his classification on the following phonological patterns. ( Note: For an explanation of the notation system for Tai tones, see Proto-Tai language#Tones .) The Tai Muong Vat of Yen Chau , Vietnam is a PH-type language like Lao , even though it
62-466: A Northern Tai language. Proto-Tai language#Tones Proto-Tai is the reconstructed proto-language (common ancestor) of all the Tai languages , including modern Lao , Shan , Tai Lü , Tai Dam , Ahom , Northern Thai , Standard Thai , Bouyei , and Zhuang . The Proto-Tai language is not directly attested by any surviving texts, but has been reconstructed using the comparative method . It
93-470: A root in the proto-language is reconstructed is a reflex . More generally, a reflex is the known derivative of an earlier form, which may be either attested or reconstructed. A reflex that is predictable from the reconstructed history of the language is a 'regular' reflex. Reflexes of the same source are cognates . First, languages that are thought to have arisen from a common proto-language must meet certain criteria in order to be grouped together; this
124-693: A SVO ( subject–verb–object ) word order like Chinese and almost all modern Tai languages . Its syntax was heavily influenced by Chinese. Examples of Kra-Hlai-Tai isoglosses as identified by Norquest (2021): Examples of Hlai-Be-Tai isoglosses as identified by Norquest (2021): Examples of Be-Tai isoglosses as identified by Norquest (2021): Ostapirat (2023) notes that as in Proto-Hmong–Mien , prenasalized consonant initials in Proto-Tai often correspond with prenasalized consonant initials in Old Chinese (with
155-484: A preliminary reconstruction of Proto-Southern Kra-Dai, which is ancestral to the Hlai languages , Ong Be language , and Tai languages . There are 28 consonants, 5–7 vowels, 9 closed rimes (not including vowel length), and at least 1 diphthong , *ɯa(C). Proto-Southern Kra-Dai medial consonants also include: Proto-Southern Kra-Dai also includes the diphthong *ɯa(C). Unlike its modern-day monosyllabic descendants, Proto-Tai
186-581: A separate Northwestern Tai branch with Southwestern Tai as a sister branch. Luo claims that the Northwestern Tai branch has many Northern Tai and Central Tai features that are not found in Southwestern Tai. His proposed tree for the Tai branch is as follows. According to Pittayaporn (2009:301), Southwestern Tai (his subgroup Q) is defined by a phonological shift of *kr- → *ʰr-. Pittayaporn (2014) also suggests that Southwestern Tai began to disperse southward after
217-406: Is a process called subgrouping. Since this grouping is based purely on linguistics, manuscripts and other historical documentation should be analyzed to accomplish this step. However, the assumption that the delineations of linguistics always align with those of culture and ethnicity must not be made. One of the criteria is that the grouped languages usually exemplify shared innovation. This means that
248-575: Is a total of 20 possible slots in what is known as the Gedney's Tone Box . Proto-Tai tones correspond regularly to Middle Chinese tones . (Note that Old Chinese did not have tones.) The following tonal correspondences are from Luo (2008). Note that Proto-Tai tone *B corresponds to Middle Chinese tone C, and vice versa. Gedney (1972) also included a list of diagnostic words to determine tonal values, splits, and mergers for particular Tai languages. At least three diagnostic words are needed for each cell of
279-507: Is a total of 33–36 consonants, 10–11 consonantal syllable codas and 25–26 tautosyllabic consonant clusters. Tai languages have many fewer possible consonants in coda position than in initial position. Li (and most other researchers) construct a Proto-Tai coda inventory that is identical with the system in modern Thai. Pittayaporn's Proto-Tai reconstructed consonantal syllable codas also include *-l, *-c, and possibly *-ɲ, which are not included in most prior reconstructions of Proto-Tai. Below
310-468: Is a total of 7 vowels with length contrast and 5 diphthongs . The diphthongs from Pittayaporn (2009) are: Proto-Tai had three contrasting tones on syllables ending with sonorant finals ("live syllables"), and no tone contrast on syllables with obstruent finals ("dead syllables"). This is very similar to the situation in Middle Chinese . For convenience in tracking historical outcomes, Proto-Tai
341-478: Is geographically surrounded by Black Tai ( Theraphan 2003; Chamberlain 1984). Edmondson & Solnit (1997) divide the Southwestern Tai dialects into two major subgroups. According to this classification, Dehong Tai and Khamti are the first languages to have split off from the Southwestern Tai branch. A transition zone between the Northern and Southern groups occurs among the Tai languages (including Tai Mau) around
SECTION 10
#1732847596566372-512: Is not clear where they belong in the classification above. Ethnologue also lists under Tai, without further classification, Kuan (Laos), Tai Do (Viet Nam), Tai Pao (Laos), and Tay Khang (Laos). Geographically these would all appear to be Southwestern. Ethnologue also includes Tày Sa Pa (Sapa) of Vietnam, which Pittayaporn excludes from Southwestern Tai but classifies as the most closely related language outside of that group. Pittayaporn also includes Yoy , which Ethnologue classifies as
403-537: Is often posited to be the most divergent; it seems to retain regular reflexes of early tonal developments that were obscured in the other (Central–Eastern) languages. The reconstructed language is called Proto-Thai ; cf. Proto-Tai , which is the ancestor of all of the Tai languages . The following tree follows that of Ethnologue According to Ethnologue , other Southwestern dialects are Tai Ya (China), Pu Ko (Laos), Pa Di (China), Tai Thanh (Vietnam), Tai Long (Laos), Tai Hongjin (China), Yong (Thailand). It
434-554: Is the consonantal syllabic coda inventory: Norquest (2021) reconstructs the voiceless retroflex stop /ʈ/ for Proto-Tai. Examples of voiceless retroflex stops in Proto-Tai: Norquest (2021) also reconstructs a series of breathy voiced initials (*bʱ, *dʱ, *ɡʱ, *ɢʱ) for Proto-Tai. Examples of breathy voiced initials in Proto-Tai: Some sound correspondences among Proto-Tai, Proto-Northern Tai, and Proto-Southern Tai (i.e.,
465-423: Is the observation that if a cognate set displays a certain pattern (such as a repeating letter in specific positions within a word), it is likely that this pattern was retained from its mother language. The Most Natural Development Principle states that some alterations in languages, diachronically speaking, are more common than others. There are four key tendencies: The Majority Principle is applied in identifying
496-554: Is usually described as having four tones, namely *A, *B, *C, and *D, where *D is a non-phonemic tone automatically assumed by all dead syllables. These tones can be further split into a voiceless (*A1 [1], *B1 [3], *C1 [5], *D1 [7]) and voiced (*A2 [2], *B2 [4], *C2 [6], *D2 [8]) series. The *D tone can also be split into the *DS (short vowel) and *DL (long vowel) tones. With voicing contrast, these would be *DS1 [7], *DS2 [8], *DL1 [9], and *DL2 [10]. Other Kra–Dai languages are transcribed with analogous conventions. The following table of
527-402: The 7th century C.E. but before the 11th century C.E. (between 700 and 1000 C.E., during the late Tang dynasty or early Song dynasty ), as evidenced by loanwords from Late Middle Chinese . Pittayaporn (2018) recognizes two branches within Southwestern Tai, namely Eastern and Western . The Eastern branch consists of the closely related languages Black Tai , White Tai , and Red Tai , while
558-532: The Burma-China border region of Mangshi, Namhkam, and Mu-se near Ruili . This bipartite division of Southwestern Tai is argued for by Edward Robinson in his paper "Features of Proto-Nüa-Khamti" (1994). The following features set off the Nüa-Khamti group from all the other Southwestern Tai dialects. Luo Yongxian (2001) also recognizes the uniqueness of Dehong Tai (Tai Nuea), but argues for that it should be placed in
589-589: The Gedney Box. The diagnostic words preceding the semicolons are from Gedney (1972), and the ones following the semicolons are from Somsonge (2012) and Jackson, et al. (2012). Standard Thai (Siamese) words are given below, with italicised transliterations. Note that the diagnostic words listed above cannot all be used for other Tai-Kadai branches such as Kam–Sui , since tones in other branches may differ. The table below illustrates these differences among Tai and Kam–Sui etyma . In 2007, Peter K. Norquest undertook
620-536: The Old Chinese reconstructions below from Baxter & Sagart 2014 ). Dictionaries Linguistic reconstruction Linguistic reconstruction is the practice of establishing the features of an unattested ancestor language of one or more given languages. There are two kinds of reconstruction: Texts discussing linguistic reconstruction commonly preface reconstructed forms with an asterisk (*) to distinguish them from attested forms. An attested word from which
651-591: The Western branch is much more internally diverse. The Western branch also contains a Southern group consisting of Thai and Lao . Pittayaporn, et al. (2018) note that following sound changes from Proto-Southwestern Tai (PSWT) to the Tai varieties represented in the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya inscriptions, and conclude that the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya inscriptions in fact represent the same language. Southern Thai (Pak Thai)
SECTION 20
#1732847596566682-516: The ancestor of the Central and Southwestern Tai languages) uvular initials given in Ostapirat (2023) are as follows. Initial velar correspondences, on the other hand, are identical. Li (1977) reconstructs the following initial clusters: Pittayaporn (2009) reconstructs two types of complex onsets for Proto-Tai: Tautosyllabic consonant clusters from Pittayaporn are given below, some of which have
713-423: The consonantal phonemes of Pittayawat Pittayaporn's reconstruction of Proto-Tai. Some of the differences are simply different interpretations of Li's consonants: the palatal consonants are interpreted as stops, rather than affricates, and the glottalized consonants are described using symbols for implosive consonants . However, Pittayaporn's Proto-Tai reconstruction has a number of real differences from Li: There
744-411: The languages must show common changes made throughout history. In addition, most grouped languages have shared retention. This is similar to the first criterion, but instead of changes, they are features that have stayed the same in both languages. Because linguistics, as in other scientific areas, seeks to reflect simplicity, an important principle in the linguistic reconstruction process is to generate
775-481: The least possible number of phonemes that correspond to available data. This principle is again reflected when choosing the sound quality of phonemes, as the one which results in the fewest changes (with respect to the data) is preferred. Comparative Reconstruction makes use of two rather general principles: The Majority Principle and the Most Natural Development Principle. The Majority Principle
806-429: The medials *-r-, *-l-, and *-w-. Pittayaporn's Proto-Tai reconstruction also has sesquisyllabic consonant clusters . Michel Ferlus (1990) had also previously proposed sesquisyllables for Proto-Thai-Yay . The larger Tai-Kadai family is reconstructed with disyllabic words that ultimately collapsed to monosyllabic words in the modern Tai languages. However, irregular correspondences among certain words (especially in
837-670: The minority non-Southwestern-Tai languages) suggest to Pittayaporn that Proto-Tai had only reached the sesquisyllabic stage (with a main monosyllable and optional preceding minor syllable ). The subsequent reduction to monosyllables occurred independently in different branches, with the resulting apparent irregularities in synchronic languages reflecting Proto-Tai sesquisyllables. Examples of sesquisyllables include: Other clusters include *r.t-, *t.h-, *q.s-, *m.p-, *s.c-, *z.ɟ-, *g.r-, *m.n-; *gm̩.r-, *ɟm̩ .r-, *c.pl-, *g.lw-; etc. Below are Proto-Tai vowels from Pittayaporn. Unlike Li's system, Pittayaporn's system has vowel length contrast. There
868-402: The most likely pronunciation of the predicted etymon, the original word from which the cognates originated. The Most Natural Development Principle describes the general directions in which languages appear to change and so one can search for those indicators. For example, from the words cantar (Spanish) and chanter (French), one may argue that because phonetic stops generally become fricatives,
899-424: The phonetic characteristics of Proto-Tai tones was adapted from Pittayaporn. Note that *B and *D are phonetically similar. Proto-Tai tones take on various tone values and contours in modern Tai languages . These tonal splits are determined by the following conditions: In addition, William J. Gedney developed a "tone-box" method to help determine historical tonal splits and mergers in modern Tai languages. There
930-480: Was a sesquisyllabic language (Pittayaporn 2009). Below are some possible Proto-Tai syllable shapes from Pittayaporn. Legend : During the evolution from Proto-Tai to modern Tai languages, monosyllabification involved a series of five steps. Robert M. W. Dixon (1998) suggests that the Proto-Tai language was fusional in its morphology because of related sets of words among the language's descendants that appear to be related through ablaut . Proto-Tai had
961-485: Was reconstructed in 1977 by Li Fang-Kuei and by Pittayawat Pittayaporn in 2009. The following table shows the consonants of Proto-Tai according to Li Fang-Kuei 's A Handbook of Comparative Tai (1977), considered the standard reference in the field. Li does not indicate the exact quality of the consonants denoted here as [ tɕ , tɕʰ and dʑ ], which are indicated in his work as [č, čh, ž] and described merely as palatal affricate consonants . The table below lists