Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax

At the earliest reconstructable stage of the development of the Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family, possibly as much as six thousand years ago (Thurgood 1994),1 the proto-language was monosyllabic. Matisoff (2014) reconstructs the syllable canon as *(P²) (P¹) Ci (G¹) (G²) V (ː) (w/y) (Cf) (s).2 It...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: LaPolla, Randy J.
Other Authors: Thurgood, Graham
Format: Book Chapter
Language:English
Published: Routledge 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10356/145805
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Nanyang Technological University
Language: English
id sg-ntu-dr.10356-145805
record_format dspace
spelling sg-ntu-dr.10356-1458052023-03-11T20:04:35Z Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax LaPolla, Randy J. Thurgood, Graham LaPolla, Randy J. School of Humanities Humanities::Linguistics Sino-Tibetan Morphosyntax Linguistics At the earliest reconstructable stage of the development of the Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family, possibly as much as six thousand years ago (Thurgood 1994),1 the proto-language was monosyllabic. Matisoff (2014) reconstructs the syllable canon as *(P²) (P¹) Ci (G¹) (G²) V (ː) (w/y) (Cf) (s).2 It is not clear whether the prefixes in some or all cases entailed a vocalic element. If so, the structure might have been sesquisyllabic (e.g. as in the name təә̌rùng ‘T’rung/Dulong’, the vocalic element of the təә̌- prefix is very slight). There was no relational morphology (LaPolla 1990, 1992a,b, 1994b, 1995a,b, 2004), but there was derivational morphology in the form of prefixes, suffixes, and voicing alternations of the initial consonants (Wolfenden 1928, 1929; Benedict 1972; Pulleyblank 1962–3, 1972, 1973a,b, 1977–8, 1991, 2000; Bodman 1980; Mei 1980, 1988, 1989, 2012; LaPolla 1994c; Sagart 1999, Sagart & Baxter 2010, 2012; Jin 2008a-b; Gong 2000; Matisoff 2003; Handel 2012). In §1.1 are examples of several types of derivational morphology.3 Sections 1.2-1.5 discuss other aspects of morphosyntax common to all of Sino-Tibetan. Following that are sections that discuss aspects of the morphosyntax unique to Sinitic or Tibeto-Burman. Accepted version 2021-01-08T07:44:54Z 2021-01-08T07:44:54Z 2017 Book Chapter LaPolla, R. J. (2017). Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In G. Thurgood 杜冠明, & R. J. Lapolla 罗仁地 (Eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Second edition (pp. 40-69). London & New York: Routledge. 978-1-138-78332-4 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/145805 40 69 en The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Second Edition © 2017 Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla for selection and editorial matter; individual chapters, the contributors. All rights reserved. application/pdf Routledge
institution Nanyang Technological University
building NTU Library
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider NTU Library
collection DR-NTU
language English
topic Humanities::Linguistics
Sino-Tibetan Morphosyntax
Linguistics
spellingShingle Humanities::Linguistics
Sino-Tibetan Morphosyntax
Linguistics
LaPolla, Randy J.
Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax
description At the earliest reconstructable stage of the development of the Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family, possibly as much as six thousand years ago (Thurgood 1994),1 the proto-language was monosyllabic. Matisoff (2014) reconstructs the syllable canon as *(P²) (P¹) Ci (G¹) (G²) V (ː) (w/y) (Cf) (s).2 It is not clear whether the prefixes in some or all cases entailed a vocalic element. If so, the structure might have been sesquisyllabic (e.g. as in the name təә̌rùng ‘T’rung/Dulong’, the vocalic element of the təә̌- prefix is very slight). There was no relational morphology (LaPolla 1990, 1992a,b, 1994b, 1995a,b, 2004), but there was derivational morphology in the form of prefixes, suffixes, and voicing alternations of the initial consonants (Wolfenden 1928, 1929; Benedict 1972; Pulleyblank 1962–3, 1972, 1973a,b, 1977–8, 1991, 2000; Bodman 1980; Mei 1980, 1988, 1989, 2012; LaPolla 1994c; Sagart 1999, Sagart & Baxter 2010, 2012; Jin 2008a-b; Gong 2000; Matisoff 2003; Handel 2012). In §1.1 are examples of several types of derivational morphology.3 Sections 1.2-1.5 discuss other aspects of morphosyntax common to all of Sino-Tibetan. Following that are sections that discuss aspects of the morphosyntax unique to Sinitic or Tibeto-Burman.
author2 Thurgood, Graham
author_facet Thurgood, Graham
LaPolla, Randy J.
format Book Chapter
author LaPolla, Randy J.
author_sort LaPolla, Randy J.
title Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax
title_short Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax
title_full Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax
title_fullStr Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax
title_full_unstemmed Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax
title_sort overview of sino-tibetan morphosyntax
publisher Routledge
publishDate 2021
url https://hdl.handle.net/10356/145805
_version_ 1761781825915584512