Abstract
AbstractThis paper reviews the evidence and arguments for reconstructing a person–number agreement paradigm for the Proto-Trans-Himalayan (=Sino-Tibetan) verb, and assesses the counter-arguments which have been presented in the literature. We demonstrate the cognacy of verb agreement paradigms across the family, and show that there is no plausible subclassification of the family which would place all the attesting languages in a single branch of the family, and no case for a “Rung” branch. The agreement systems of Jinghpaw and Northern Naga and the archaic postverbal paradigms of South Central/Kuki-Chin are demonstrably cognate to those of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti, and these languages have no common ancestor more recent than PTH.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference109 articles.
1. The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman;DeLancey;Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area,1981
2. Lamkang verb conjugation
3. The conjugation of the Tangut verb;Kepping;Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,1994
4. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman: evidence of Sapir's ‘drift’;LaPolla;Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area,1994