Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Morphologies of Asia and Africa (review)

Morphologies of Asia and Africa (review) 354 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 51 NO. 3—4 The final chapter on Tibetan is that by Karl A. Peet (pp. 225—46); it treats a phonetic topic (labial place assimilation) in yet another variety, Amdo Tibetan. Peet carefully compares the situation in four Amdo dialects, and relates variation to sociolinguistic factors–the nomadic varieties tending to be more conservative (p. 225). Tamangic is reasonably closely related to Tibetan, but comparisons with Written Tibetan are not brought in by Isao Honda (pp. 97—118), who deals with plural markers in Thakali, and how they may to be related to the Seke enlitic ¤ca (pp. 100—101) and the demonstratives in Risiangku Tamang. Reading this, I wondered what is the status of Proto-Tamangic, and how rigorously it has been reconstructed. Boyd Michailovsky (pp. 189—202) presents some important observations on the ordering of compounds, using Limbu (a Kiranti language, somewhat more distant from Tibetan) to expound his argument. The prefix ku¤ is a third person possessive affix, which is part of a paradigm, but there are some words, such as color terms (p. 192), that do not occur with first and second person forms, even when they have a first or second person possessor. One curious datum that http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Anthropological Linguistics University of Nebraska Press

Morphologies of Asia and Africa (review)

Kroeber, Paul D.
Anthropological Linguistics , Volume 51 (3) – Oct 15, 2010
Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-nebraska-press/morphologies-of-asia-and-africa-review-z4vyFsoEqM

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Nebraska Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Trustees of Indiana University
ISSN
1944-6527

Abstract

354 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 51 NO. 3—4 The final chapter on Tibetan is that by Karl A. Peet (pp. 225—46); it treats a phonetic topic (labial place assimilation) in yet another variety, Amdo Tibetan. Peet carefully compares the situation in four Amdo dialects, and relates variation to sociolinguistic factors–the nomadic varieties tending to be more conservative (p. 225). Tamangic is reasonably closely related to Tibetan, but comparisons with Written Tibetan are not brought in by Isao Honda (pp. 97—118), who deals with plural markers in Thakali, and how they may to be related to the Seke enlitic ¤ca (pp. 100—101) and the demonstratives in Risiangku Tamang. Reading this, I wondered what is the status of Proto-Tamangic, and how rigorously it has been reconstructed. Boyd Michailovsky (pp. 189—202) presents some important observations on the ordering of compounds, using Limbu (a Kiranti language, somewhat more distant from Tibetan) to expound his argument. The prefix ku¤ is a third person possessive affix, which is part of a paradigm, but there are some words, such as color terms (p. 192), that do not occur with first and second person forms, even when they have a first or second person possessor. One curious datum that

Journal

Anthropological Linguistics – University of Nebraska Press

Published: Oct 15, 2010

There are no references for this article.