Part 1
Using the database, find the words for 'ant' in the following 8 languages, from several different subgroups of TB:
- rGyalrong
- Anong
- Lahu
- Written Burmese (WB)
- Lohorong
- Written Tibetan (WT)
- Mishing
- Nishi
For quicker searching, all the language names may be entered in the language search field of the Lexicon page, separated by commas. Note that Written Burmese and Written Tibetan should be entered as Burmese, Written and Tibetan, Written:
| gloss |
language |
|---|
| ant |
rgyalrong,anong,lahu,burmese (written),lohorong,tibetan (written),mishing,nishi |
| Language |
'ant' |
|---|
| rGyalrong |
korok |
| Anong |
sərɔ |
| Lahu |
pú-g̈ɔ̂ʔ (= pú-ɣɔ̂ʔ ) |
| Written Burmese |
parwak |
| Lohorong |
khorok |
| Written Tibetan |
grog-ma |
| Mishing |
təruk |
| Nishi |
torub |
Results
Part 2
Which subgroups of Tibeto-Burman do these languages represent?
Hover your mouse over the language names on the lexicon page or look at the language group headings separating each group of lexical items.
| Language |
Subgroup |
|---|
| rGyalrong |
rGyalrongic |
| Anong |
Nungic |
| Lahu |
Central Loloish |
| Written Burmese |
Burmish |
| Lohorong |
Eastern Kiranti |
| Written Tibetan |
Tibetan |
| Mishing |
Tani |
| Nishi |
Tani |
Part 3
Group these 8 words into 4 classes according to their onsets.
Velars, labials, dentals, and /s-/.
| velars |
labials |
dentals |
/s-/ |
|---|
| korok (rGyalrong) |
parwak (WB) |
təruk (Mishing) |
sərɔ (Anong) |
| khorok (Lohorong) |
pú-ɣɔ̂ʔ (Lahu) |
torub (Nishi) |
| grog-ma (WT) |
Part 4
What part of all these words is virtually constant from language to language?
Examine the final syllables of each word.
Most of the words contain a syllable with a rhotic onset, /o/-like nucleus, and velar stop final.
Part 5
How would you reconstruct this constant part for Proto-TB?
- Written Burmese has the most conservative vocalism here. Parallel examples:
- ‘tooth’: WT so, WB swâ < PTB *swa
- ‘release’: WT glod, hlod, WB kywat, hlwat < PTB *g-lwat, *s-lwat
- The WT writing system uses voiced symbols for all syllable-final stops, although phonetically they are simply unreleased.
- How would you explain the voiced velar fricative in the Lahu form?
This syllable is best reconstructed as PTB *rwak, with PTB *r- yielding Lahu ɣ-.
Part 6
Prefixes in TB languages can sometimes be traced back to independent morphemes. The onsets of three of our forms may be explained as deriving either from the widespread PTB root for ‘animal’ (*sya) or the root for ‘insect’ (*bәw), Please reconstruct disyllabic prototypes for these forms.
Combine the PTB roots given for 'animal' and 'insect' with your answer from Part 5.
- *sya-rwak (> Anong sərɔ)
- *bәw-rwak (> WB parwak, Lahu pú-ɣɔ̂ʔ)
Part 7
There is a “velar animal prefix” (perhaps ultimately borrowed from Mon-Khmer) that shows up here and there in TB, especially in WB. Consider the following WB/Lahu comparisons:
| gloss |
WB |
Lahu |
|---|
| ‘tiger’ |
klâ ~ kyâ |
lâ |
| ‘leech’ |
krwat |
vèʔ |
| ‘rat’ |
krwak |
fâʔ |
| ‘cat’ |
krauŋ |
ɣɔ̀ |
| ‘chicken’ |
krak |
ɣâʔ |
How is this relevant to the present problem?
Note the Lahu cognates of WB r- and -k.
These pairs reveal that:
- Lahu ɣ is the regular reflex of PTB *r-.
- The high-stopped tone in Lahu (as in ɣâʔ 'chicken' and pú-g̈ɔ̂ʔ 'ant') derives from PTB final *-k.
Part 8
Two of the languages have a secondary prefix of obscure origin in their words for 'ant'. What are these languages?
Which forms for 'ant' have onsets that do not reflect PTB *k-, *sya, or *bәw?
Mishing (təruk), Nishi (torub).
Part 9
WT and WB are the two most anciently attested of the major TB languages. Compare the onsets of the WT and WB words for 'ant' with the following two cognate pairs:
| gloss |
WT |
WB |
|---|
| ‘ravine, chasm’ |
grog-po |
khyauk |
| ‘island/dry land’ |
gliŋ |
krañ |
How can we explain the difference between the WT/WB cognates for ANT and those for RAVINE and ISLAND?
RAVINE and ISLAND both begin with a genuine PTB velar + liquid cluster. On the other hand, the velar element in ANT is clearly prefixal, so that some languages reflect it while others do not.
Part 10
Isn’t TB comparative/historical linguistics awesome?
