Kho-Bwa languages
| Kho-Bwa | |
|---|---|
| Kamengic Bugunish |
|
| Geographic distribution: |
Arunachal Pradesh |
| Linguistic classification: | possibly Sino-Tibetan |
| Glottolog: | khob1235[1] |
The Kho-Bwa languages, also known as Bugunish and Kamengic, are a small family of languages spoken in Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India. The name Kho-Bwa is due to Van Driem (2001). It is based on the reconstructed words *kho ("fire") and *bwa ("water"). Blench (2011) suggests the name Kamengic, from the Kameng area of Arunachal Pradesh, or alternatively Bugun–Mey, after its two main members.
Both Van Driem and Blench group the Bugun (or Khowa), the Mey (or Sherdukpen), and the Lishpa (or Lish) languages. The Puroik (or Sulung) language is included in the group by Van Driem but treated as a language isolate with no genetic relation to Kamengic by Blench.
These languages have traditionally been placed in the Tibeto-Burman group by the Linguistic Survey of India, but the justification of this is open to question.[citation needed] The languages have certainly been strongly influenced by the neighboring Sino-Tibetan languages, but this does not necessarily imply genetic unity and may possibly be a purely areal effect.[2]
The entire language family has about 15,000 speakers (including Puroik) or about 10,000 speakers (excluding Puroik), according to estimates made during the 2000s.
Classification[edit]
The internal structure of the Kamengic group of languages is as follows.
- Bugun (Khowa)
- Mey–Sartang
- Sherdukpen (Mey, Ngnok), divided into two varieties:
- Shergaon
- Rupa
- Sartang (Bootpa, But Monpa, But Pa, Matchopa), 50%–60% lexical similarity with Mey.
- Sherdukpen (Mey, Ngnok), divided into two varieties:
- Chug–Lish
- (possibly Sulung (Puroik); affiliation doubtful)
Vocabulary[edit]
The following table of Kho-Bwa basic vocabulary items is from Blench (2015)[3]
| Gloss | Mey (Shergaon) | Mey (Rupa) | Sartang (Jergaon) | Sartang (Rahung) | Lish (Khispi) | Chug (Duhumbi) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One | hǎn | han | hèn | hân | hin | hin |
| Two | ɲǐt | ɲik | nìk | ně | ɲes | niʃ |
| Three | ùŋ | uŋ | ùŋ | ùún | ʔum | om |
| Four | pʰʃì | bsi | sì | psì | pʰəhi | psi |
| Five | kʰù | kʰu | kʰù | kʰu | kʰa | kʰa |
| Six | ʧùk | kit | ʧìk | ʨěy | ʧʰuʔ | ʧyk |
| Seven | ʃìt | sit | sìk | sǐ, sě | ʃis | his |
| Eight | sàʤát | sarʤat | sàrgè | sàrʤɛ́ | saɾgeʔ | saɾgeʔ |
| Nine | tʰkʰí | dʰikʰi | tʰkʰì | tɛ̀kʰɯ́ | ṱʰikʰu | ṱʰikʰu |
| Ten | sɔ̀ ̃ | sõ | sã̀ | sɔ | ʃan | ʃan |
| Head | kʰruk | kʰruk | kʰrǔk | kʰruʔ | kʰoloʔ | kʰloʔ |
| Nose | nupʰuŋ | nəfuŋ | nfùŋ | apʰuŋ | hempoŋ | heŋpʰoŋ |
| Eye | khibi | kivi | kábì | kʰaʔby | kʰumu | kʰum |
| Ear | kʰtùŋ | gtʰiŋ | gtʰìŋ | ktèíŋ | kʰutʰuŋ | kʰutʰuŋ |
| Tongue | laphõ | lapon | ? | le | loi | loi |
| Tooth | nuthuŋ | tokʧe | mísìŋ | nitʰiŋ | ʃiŋtuŋ | hintuŋ |
| Arm | ik | ik | ìk | ik | hu | hut |
| Leg | là | lapon | lɛ̌ | lɛ̌ | lei | lai |
| Belly | ʃrìŋ | sliŋ | srìŋ | sriŋ | hiɲiŋ | hiliŋ |
| Bone | skìk | skik | àhík | skik | ʃukuʃ | ʃukuʃ |
| Blood | hà | ha(a) | hɛ̀ | ha | hoi | hoi |
| Face | dòŋpù | bo | mi | zə̀í | doʔ | doŋpa |
| Tooth | ntùŋ | tokʧe | mísìŋ | ptə̀íŋ | ʃiŋtuŋ | hintuŋ |
| Stomach | àlà | karbu | ʧàk | phriŋ | hiɲiŋ | hiliŋ |
| Mouth | ʧàw | nəʧaw | so | ʨʨǒ | hoʧok | kʰoʧu |
| Rain | ʧuuma | nimi | nʧʰù | ʧuʧuba | namu | namu |
References[edit]
- ^ Nordhoff, Sebastian; Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2013). "Kho-Bwa". Glottolog. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
- ^ Blench (2011): "Certainly, the phonology and morphology of Arunachali languages looks superficially like Tibeto-Burman, which explains their placing in the Linguistic Survey of India. Unfortunately, this is rather where matters have remained [... this paper] proposes we should take seriously the underlying presumption probably implied in Konow's statement in Linguistic Survey of India. Volume III, 1, Tibeto-Burman family, Calcutta (1909:572)], that these languages may not be Sino-Tibetan but simply have been influenced by it; that they are language isolates."
- ^ Blench, Roger. 2015. The Mey languages and their classification. Presentation given at the University of Sydney.
- George van Driem (2001) Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. Brill.
- Blench, Roger. 2011. (De)classifying Arunachal languages: Reconsidering the evidence
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
