舍朱奔語支 ,也稱為 卡門語支 (Kamengic),是西藏藏南地區使用的一小類語言。Kho-Bwa 這個名字最初是由 George van Driem(2001)提出的。它基於重建的單詞 *kho(「水」)和 *bwa(「火」)。Blench(2011)建議將用卡門 Kameng 地區命名為卡門語支(Kamengic)。另外,Anderson(2014)[2]將舍朱奔語支稱為北卡門語支(Northeast Kamengic)。
Quick Facts 舍朱奔語支, 地理分佈 ...
Close
Van Driem 和 Blench 都將舍朱奔語(Sherdukpen 或 Mey)、利西語(Lishpa 或 Khispi)、楚格語(Chug 或 Duhumbi)和 薩爾當語(Sartang)語言歸為一類。它們形成了一個語組,並且明顯相關。Van Driem (2001)將蘇龍語(Sulung 或 Puroik)和布貢語(Bugun 或 Khowa)語言納入該語支,但 Blench (2023) 暫時將其視為獨立的語言,與卡門語支沒有證明的關係。[3]
這些語言傳統上被歸入藏緬語族,但其合理性有待商榷。這些語言受到鄰近的漢藏語系的強烈影響,可能是純粹的區域效應。[4]
根據2000年的估計,整個語系約有15,000人(包括蘇龍語)或大約10,000人(不包括蘇龍語)。
Abraham等人(2018)也對舍朱奔語支的語言進行了詞彙表和社會語言學調查。
舍朱奔語支的內部結構如下。
- 舍朱奔語支
- 蘇龍語(Sulung 或布瑞語 Puroik)
- 布貢語(Bugun 或 科瓦語 Khowa)
- 西舍朱奔語支
- 梅伊-薩爾當語組 Mey–Sartang
- 舍朱奔語 (Mey, Ngnok), 分為兩個方言:
- 薩爾當語 (Bootpa, But Monpa, But Pa, Matchopa),與 Mey 的詞彙相似度為 50%–60%。
- 楚格-利什語組 Chug–Lish
- 利西語 (Lish)
- 楚格語 (Chug Monpa, Chugpa, Monpa), 接近 Lish
Lieberherr & Bodt (2017)[5] 認為布瑞語是一種舍朱奔語支語言,並將舍朱奔語支分類如下:
- 舍朱奔語支
- 布瑞語
- 布貢語
- 西舍朱奔語支
- 舍朱奔語, 薩爾當語
- 楚格語 (Duhumbi), 利西語 (Khispi)
根據Tresoldi等人(2022)的計算系統發育分析,舍朱奔語支的系統發育樹大致如下:[6]
- 舍朱奔語支
- 西分支
- 杜洪比–基斯皮語組(Duhumbi–Khispi 或 Chug–Lish):杜洪比語(Chug),基斯皮語(Lish)
- 梅伊–薩爾當語組:謝爾岡 Shergaon,魯帕 Rupa,傑里加翁 Jerigaon,科伊納 Khoina,拉洪 Rahung,科伊塔姆 Khoitam
- 布貢語
- A分支
- 布魯 Bulu,拉瓦 Rawa,科喬 Kojo,羅喬 Rojo
- 薩里奧薩里亞 Sario Saria,拉蘇姆帕特 Lasumpatte,查揚塔喬 Chayangtajo
- B分支
- 納姆弗里 Namphri,卡斯皮 Kaspi
- 旺霍 Wangho,迪克揚 Dikhyang
- 辛查昂 Singchaung,比喬姆 Bichom
下表的舍朱奔語支基本詞彙項目來自Blench (2015)。[7]
More information Gloss, 舍朱奔語 (謝爾岡) ...
Gloss
|
舍朱奔語 (謝爾岡)
|
舍朱奔語 (魯帕)
|
薩爾當語 (傑里加翁)
|
薩爾當語 (拉洪)
|
利西語 (基斯皮)
|
楚格語 (杜洪比)
|
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
|
Close
- Ismail Lieberherr and Timotheus Adrianus Bodt. (2017) Sub-grouping Kho-Bwa based on shared core vocabulary. Himalayan Linguistics 16(2). 26–63. Paper (CLDF Dataset on Zenodo doi:10.5281/zenodo.2553234)
- Binny Abraham, Kara Sako, Elina Kinny, Isapdaile Zeliang (2018). Sociolinguistic Research among Selected Groups in Western Arunachal Pradesh: Highlighting Monpa. SIL Electronic Survey Reports 2018–009. (CLDF Dataset on Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3537601)
- Bodt, T. and J.-M. List (2019). Testing the predictive strength of the comparative method: An ongoing experiment on unattested words in Western Kho-Bwa languages. Papers in Historical Phonology 4.1. 22–44. doi:10.2218/pihph.4.2019.3037 (CLDF Dataset on Zenodo doi:10.5281/zenodo.3537604)
- Bodt, Timotheus A.; List, Johann-Mattis. Reflex prediction: A case study of Western Kho-Bwa. Diachronica. 2021. doi:10.1075/dia.20009.bod
.
Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin; Bank, Sebastian (編). Kho-Bwa. Glottolog 2.7. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. 2016.
Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2014. On the classification of the Hruso (Aka) language. Paper presented at the 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
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."
Tiago Tresoldi; Christoph Rzymski; Robert Forkel; Simon J. Greenhill; Johann-Mattis List; Russell D. Gray. Managing Historical Linguistic Data for Computational Phylogenetics and Computer-Assisted Language Comparison. The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management. The MIT Press. 2022: 345–354. ISBN 978-0-262-36607-6. doi:10.7551/mitpress/12200.003.0033.