of a Ladakh (Tibetan) Dialect
By Roy Andrew Miller, Tokio
Contents: 0. Data, — 1. Initials, — 2. Vowels, — 3. Finals, — 4. Con¬
clusion, — 5. Index Verborum, —
The ultimate relation of the Ladakh dialects to Central Tibetan, and
the connection of the Western Tibetan dialects in general with the Central
Tibetan speech area, have both been noticed in the literature as early at
least as the Relazione of Ippolito Desideri.^ The remarkable closeness of
Ladakh to Purik and Balti," and the ease of the comparison of these three
with Central Tibetan, makes the application of the comparative method
to this area attractive and rewarding; moreover, such an application, in
addition to clarifying the origins of certain anomalous features in the
synchronic structure of the Ladakh dialect which we here take as our
point of departure, wiQ assist us, in some degree, in that refinement in the
utilisation of the comparative method which must be the concern of all
workers in this particular field.
0. Data
The Ladakh dialect utilized here is that of a Tibetan speaker from
Leh;* its phonemic inventory is as follows: Vowels: a i u e o; Con¬
sonants :?Ykgkhqg.tdthnpbphmsd tsh ts tsh s z ti tSh
1 Cf. An account of Tibet, the travels of Ippolito Desideri of Pistoia, S.J.,
1712-1727, edited by Filippo de Filippi, with an introduction by C. Wes¬
sels, S.J. (London, 1937) [= Series: The Broadway Travellers] p. 75: "The
language of this region [i.e. Balti], although different from that spoken in
Third Tibet, is evidently derived from the same root;" ibid., p. 78: "The
language of this country [i.e. Ladakh] does not differ much from that of
Thud Tibet."
* According to my informant from Leh, a Ladakh speaker can understand
a Balti speaker the first time he hears the language, without any previous
training in it, and a Purik speaker can understand both Ladakh and Balti
speakers. Ladakh and Balti speakers oan also understand Pmik, but Baltis,
according to him, find Ladakh difficult to imderstand.
^ My work on this language has been carried out in Darjeeling, West
Bengal, India, in autumn of 1953, where I have been engaged in field study
of spoken Tibetan under a grant from the Board on Overseas Training &
Research of the Ford Foundation, New York, to whom acknowledgement ia
gratefully made.
)
346 Roy Andbew Milleb
s z 11 r f y Y.i All symbols here have their usual values, as for example
in the notation of the IPA; exceptions which may be noted are: y is
a voiced glottal spirant ; the voiceless equivalent of q ; s is IPA g, d
is IPA d, tsh is IPA tig', s and z are IPA q and ^, ts and t§h are tQ and
tq', i is i, r is J and f is its voiceless equivalent, as Y is the voiceless equivalent of y, i.e. of i.
For Purik and Balti we have used the published accounts of Bailey"
and Read,* reproducing their transcriptions as they printed them, and
^ It is to be noted in passing that the transcriptions of Ladakh, Central
Tibetan, and Lhasa employed in the present paper are phonemic, not
phonetic, which is to say that non-contrastive phonetic variants are not
recorded. Thus, in Central Tibetan for example, what is written here as the
phoneme jij, is realised, according to statable environments, as a considerable
variety of phones, including a high front muounded vowel [i:], a longer but
similar vowel, lowered somewhat [i^i], a lower-high front unrounded [I]
in both short [I] and long [I :] varieties, and the same in a backed variety,
[I"'], almost approaching the lower-mid central unrounded vowel [}]. But
all these phones are predictable according to their phonetic environment with
respect to the syllable structure, and hence are here subsumed under the
single phoneme jij. Only the phoneme is relevant in comparative grammar, as
indeed in any kind of linguistic investigation. The notations of Balti and
Pmik employed (see notes 2 and 3 infra) are not phonemic ; hence the variety
of variants recorded there which are without comparative significance. Note
also that in Central Tibetan and Lhasa the stop finals are written jgj and jbj:
these writings are in both cases to be interpreted as representing archi-
phonemes subsuming tho neutralizations, in syllable-final position, of all the velar and labial stops of each S5'8tem respectively. They are written with the
symbols for voiced stops only faute de mieux; in these languages the final
stops are usually voiced with low tones, voiceless with high tones, but in each
case imexploded, and hence not to be assigned to any phoneme found
initially. Their assignment here to archiphonemes is the most economical, as
well as the most realistic, solution. Similarly with our writing of Ladakh,
where however the final stops are noted jp t kf, since here they are always
voiceless and unexploded.
2 T. G. Bailey, Linguistic studies from the Himalayas, being studies in the
grammar of fifteen Himalayan dialects, [ = Asiatic society monographs,
vol. 18], London, 1920, pp. 1-45. Unless otherwise noted, all citations of
Purik are to be found s.v. in his pp. 34—45. Bailey gives, p. 1, the following account of the geographical setting of these languages: "[Pm-ik] is spoken
in the country drained by the Sürü and Dräs Rivers down to a little below the
junction of the Sürü with the Indus. One might put the limit at Khärmän,
below which the language is Bälti. From west to east it extends from Dräs
past Kärgil to the pass near Maulba Chamba on the way to Leh, a distance
of 65 mUes, while from north to south it extends from Khärmän past Kärgil
and Sürü to the Pense La, a distance of about 125 miles. This country
corresponds to the Tahsil of Kärgil, omitting Zäskär on the south."
^ A. F. C. Read, Balti gramrtuzr, [ = Royal asiatio society James G.
Forlung fimd, vol. 15] London, 1934. Unless otherwise notied, all citations of Balti are to be found s.v. in his pp. 89-108.
not attempting the always dangerous interpretation of their symbolization
to a system consistent with that employed for dialects with which we
have first-hand experience. If this means that the reader will have to
reconcUe several different sets of phonetic symbols, it also means that
the data is presented as it is available, and that there has been no
concealment of possible anomalous features due to any retranscription
or phonetic reinterpretation.
For Central Tibetan^ we employ a phonemic wTiting of a dialect
observed in Darjeeling, West Bengal; it has the following inventory:
Vowels: a i u ü e o ö; Consonants: ^hkkhgqpbphmtthd
n t th d n t th d ts dz tsh ts dz tsh s I 1 i r f y w." For special
symbols, see above, fi is IPAp; t th and d are approximately IPA c c' i.
This dialect has, in addition to these segmental phonemes, two supra¬
segmental features of tone: high ' and low', each of which subsumes
several nondistinctive phonetic tones.
The transcription of the Lhasa dialect* cited below introduces no new
^ My work on this dialect, with informants of the Darjeeling area, was
performed under the circumstances set forth in note 345 ^ supra.
' This dialect agrees to a considerable extent ui phonetic detail with that
published by P. M. Miller, The phonemes of Tibetan ( U- Tsang dialect) with
a practical orthography for Tibetan-speaking readers, Journal of the Asiatic
Society : Letters 17 : 3.191-216 (1951), but his analysis leaves him with
a much different result. This analysis I am forced to find largely unacceptable,
chiefly because (p. 192 and passim.) the conditions under which the voiced
stops he clearly records in initial position are found are never clearly stated,
and therefore his analysis of them as submembers of the voiceless phonemes
is unwarranted; and also because (p. 193£f.) his assignment of the 'Umlaut
vowels' to sequences of the order /Vt'/ makes far too much of symmetry,
reflects prior knowledge of the traditional script, and leads to insoluable
muddles on the morphological level. But his phonetic description reveals a
dialect much the same as that here caUed Central Tibetan, though the series
d t. th is hare without the ^ off-glide which he describes. In the palatal
series of the dialect used here, th is rather farther back, almost in the velar position, than either £ or d.
* My work on this dialect, with a former Lhasa lay-official now resident
in Kalimpong, West Bengal, was performed under the conditions set forth
in. note 345^ supra. His dialect agrees well with that described by Y. R. Chao
in Yu Dawchyuan ^ ^ and Jaw Yuanrenn ® 7C fi > songs of
the sixth Dalai Lama Tshangs-dbyangs-rgya-mtsho, 7n fl^ 3^ ^ ^
^ ^ 'iW C ~ Academia Sinica, National research institute of
history and philology. Monographs, Series A No. 5], Peiping, 1930, with
the addition of the phoneme /f/, which did not happen to occur in Chao's
materials. Chao's careful notation of the tone patterns on the phonetic
level reveals the results of a special kind of 'sing-song' intonation pattern
used when reading texts such as he employed; normal speech has here, as in
Central Tibetan, its own, and different, pattern of tone sandhi. In the
348 Roy Andrew Miixbb
features ; it will be noted that it replaces the voiced stops of Central
Tibetan with their voiceless aspirated equivalents, and that the series
t th d of Central Tibetan corresponds to a Lhasa series t?, tsh, giving
the Lhasa inventory: Vowels: aiuüee oö; Consonants: ■? h A k kh
q p ph m t th n t th n ts tsh ts tsh t? tsh s i 1 i r f y w}
The conventional orthography of written Tibetan is here transcribed
literally, according to the usual or 'Indianist' interpretation of the
Sanskrit values of the sjrmbols of the writing-system ; the only innovation here is the distinguishing of the subscript y of the script, here transcribed j,
from the full-graph y of the script, here written y; thus, ^ is rendered
gj (e.g. under 1.1.1 below), and ^ is rendered gy (e.g. under 1.12.11
below). Such a distinction in transcription is essential in any historical
consideration of the Tibetan script, in order not to obscure what was
evidently a significant phonemic distinction in the sound-system of the
language which the script reflects. The Central Tibetan and Lhasa
dialects, for example, show a clear reflex of this distinction: Central
Tibetan and Lhasa yu. Written Tibetan gyu, 'turquoise', as against
Central Tibetan <Ji, Lhasa thi. Written Tibetan gji, 'sandhi variant of
the referent particle.'*
In general, the methodology below attempts to follow as a model
the overall scheme of Hall's reconstruction of proto-Romance,* although
the relatively restricted scope of our materials here makes all but
impossible the thorough synchronic analysis at each step of the recon¬
struction which there is an integral part of the technique.* In the point-
citations of Central Tibetan and Lhasa here this tone sandhi is, for the
purpose of simplifying the comparisons, ignored, and the tone written on each
syllable is that which would appear on that syhable when uttered in isolation.
1 Note that e and e, kept apart in Lhasa, have fallen together in Central Tibetan e.
' The series ^ ($ 5 is transcribed here c ch j (distinguish j !), leaving
open the question of the exact phonetic natme of the phonemes concerned;
whatever it may have been, we may note that the patterning of permitted
initial clusters in Written Tibetan permits us to analyze these, together with
n § and i, as clusters with ///, a phoneme of palatalization, thus : / tj th)
dj nj sj zjj. In this one case, our literal transcription of the writing system
results in a phonetic, and not a phonemic notation. Cf. my remarks in
Wennti p„^ 5:14-16 (November 1953).
' Cf. R. A. Hall Jr., The reconstruction oj proto-Ronumcc, Language:
Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 26:6-27 (1950).
* For a precise statement of the theory of the comparative method, see
H. M. Hoenigswald, The principal step in comparative grammar, Language
26:357-64 (1940). In the present paper the methodology has been to regard
as regular correspondences those appearing in the vast majority of the rather considerable number of items compared ; exceptions to these correspondences
by-point consideration of the sound-system of our Ladakh dialect which
foUows, we shall attempt, where cognates are available in sufficient
numbers, first of aU to reconstruct the proto-Western Tibetan form
which it is possible to postulate as the origin of the Ladakh form; this
proto-Western Tibetan is then compared with Central Tibetan and with
Lhasa, and finally, taken together with these two, with the form preserved
in the conventional Tibetan orthography (i.e. Written Tibetan [hereafter:
WT]). This last is utilized here only in default of being able at present
to make the ultimate comparison with proto-Tibetan, and is not to be
taken as signifying that WT is the same as proto-Tibetan, a manifest
impossibUity; nevertheless, at the present state of the field, the com¬
parison with WT forms is fruitful, so long as we keep its theoretical and
methodological limitations well in mind.^
All reconstructions are marked with *. Proto-Western Tibetan
(hereafter: PWT) reconstructions based on evidence from ah three
dialects, i.e. Ladakh (hereafter: L), Purik (hereafter: P), and Balti
(hereafter: B), are simply marked PWT * —. PWT forms based on
only two, L and P or L and B, are marked PWT * — (1). PWT forms
based only upon L and Central Tibetan (hereafter: CT) and Lhasa
(hereafter: Lh) are marked PWT * — ( ? ?).
J-\,- 1. Initials
1.1.1 L '>-, < PWT PWT *?a- : L ?atshe, P ache, B ashe. Cf.
CT, Lh ?a-tih^, WT Pa.che, 'elder sister' (P: 'sister [older than person
spoken of]'). Only the form PWT may be reconstructed here; the
correspondences for the rest of the form in PWT are irregular. PWT
are, in these materials, in such a minority that it is more realistic to treat
them as anomalies, and look for their origins in phonological processes, as is
done here, than it would be to set up new phonemes for proto-Western
Tibetan on their basis. This explains om treatment, for example, of such
an item aslsadakh derir), (cf. 1.3.21, 1.11.1, 2.4.3), cognate with Purik dirin,
Balti diring, Central Tibetan terig, Lhasa therii), 'today.' Here it would
perhaps be possible in theory to set up a proto-Western Tibetan phoneme *a
(thesymbolused would be relatively unimportant), and say that it represents
the correspondence of Ladakh e, Purik i, Balti i, in contrast with proto-
Western Tibetan *i, which would represent the correspondence Ladakh i,
Pmik i, Balti i, and proto-Western Tibetan *e, representing Ladakh e,
Purik e, Balti e, but as long as all irregular (by these standards, that is)
correspondences are noted, the treatment here adopted seems the most
workable. Cf. on this also Ladakh rtsa, 'grass,' 1.6.12, Idawa, 'moon,' 1.3.22, ditSes, 'write,' 1.5.2, tSuru, 'coral,' 1.6.4, skyetäes, 'be born,' 1.12.12, ftsetäes,
'dance,' 1.6.12, 1.12.12, and rdoa, 'stone,' 1.3.23.
1 See the discussion in my paper, A note to Karlgren's Phonologie, in The
0 Annual : Papers of the University of California oriental languages honor
society, vol. 3, Berkeley, June, 1952.
350 Roy Andeew Millee
*Pog- (? ?): L ?ok-gya. Cf. CT Pog-da, Lh ?6g-thä, WT ^og-rgja, 'beard.'
Cf. L12.13.
LL2 L Y-, < PWT *zg-. PWT *zgo: L yo, P zgö, B zgo. Cf. CT gö,
Kh khö, WT sgo, 'door' (B: 'single door'). Cf 2.5.1.
1.2.11 L k-, < PWT '*k-. PWT "»kar-: L karpo, P kärpo, B kärpo.
Cf. CT, Lh kär-po, WT dkar.po, 'white'. Cf. 1.4.11. PWT »kaq- : L kaqpa,
P kahma, B kangraa. Cf. CT, LH kaq-pä,, WT rkaq.pa, 'foot.' Cf. 2.1.2,
3.1.3. PWT *kusu ( 0: L kusu, P küshü. Cf. CT, Lh kü-sü, WT ku.gu,
'apple.' Cf. 1.9.1. PWT *k\iT (? ?): L kur. Cf. CT kür, Lh khür, WT gur,
'tent'. Cf. 2.3.2, 3.6.1.
1.2.12. L sk-, < PWT *sk-. PWT *skar-: L skarma, P skärma,
B skarma. Cf. CT, Lh kdr-mä, WT skar.ma, 'star.' Cf. 1.4.4. 2.1.2. PWT
■"skam-: L skampo, P. skambo, B skambo. Cf. CT, Lh kdm-pö, WT
skam.po, 'dry.' Cf. 3.2.2. PWT *skad- (?): L skat, B skat. Cf. CT k6,
Lh ks, WT skad, 'voice.' Cf. 3.3.1. PWT -"skol- (?): L skoltses, P. skolcas.
Cf. CT, Lh ko-wä, WT skol.ba, 'to cook, boh.' Cf. 1.12.12, 3.5.1.
1.2.21 L g-, < PWT *g-. PWT *ga: L starga, P stärga, B starga.
Cf. CT, Lh tar-ka, WT skar.ka, 'walnut.' (P: 'tree and fruit'). Cf. 1.3.12.
PWT ■►go (?): L go, B go. Cf. CT gö, Lh khö, WT mgo, 'head [body
part].' PWT '►su-gu (? ?): L sugu; cf. CT äü-gü, Lh §ü-khü, WT su.gu,
'paper.' Cf. 1.9.1, 1.12.13 and 1.12.14.
1.2.22 L rg-, < PWT *rg-. PWT *rgu: L rgu, P rgü, B rgu. Cf. CT gü,
Lk khü, WT dgu, 'nine.' Cf. 2.3.1.
1.2.23 L fg-, < PWT ■►fg-. PWT ■►fgun: L fgun, P rgün, B rgmi.
Cf. CT gun-düm, Lh khun-thüm, WT rgun.hbrum, 'grapes.' Cf. 2.3.2,
3.3.2.
1.2.3 L kh-, < PWT '►kh-. PWT '►kha: L kha, P khälpäq, B kha.
Cf. CT, Lh khd, WT kha, 'mouth.' (P: 'also hp'). Cf. 2.1.1. PWT '►khi:
Lkhi, Pkhi, B khi. Cf. CT, Lh thi, WT khji, 'dog.' Cf. 2.2.1. PWT ■►khogs:
L khoktses, P khokhshäs, B khok(s)pa. Cf. CT, Lh khög, WT khogs,
'cough.' Cf. 3.1.1. PWT ■►kha (?): L kha, B kha. Cf. CT khäri, Lh kh&g,
WTgaqs, 'snow.' It is to be noted here that whUe the PWT form seems
somehow cognate with those of CT, Lh and WT, the second group seems
to show some (morphological?) accretion in final position; one might
even postulate here a derivation process in CT etc. operative after the
isolation of PWT.
1.2.4 Lq-, < PWT ■►q- (? ?). PWT ■►qaq- (? ?): L qaqpa. Cf. CT, Lh
qäq-pÄ, WT qaq.pa, 'goose.' < PWT ■►Sq-. PWT ■►sqa-: L qaboq, P
^näboh, B siigang-o. Cf. CT, Lh qa-moq, WT rqa.moq, 'camel.' Only
the first element can here be reconstructed for PWT, the B form showing
a divergency in the formation of the final element, and all three differing
•significantly from CT, Lh and WT. < PWT -»sq- (?). PWT ■►sqa- (?):
L
lilisf
■ ;.fpi
^^iätk ' »
L qamo, P snamo. Cf. CT qd-tö, Lh q4-tshö, WT sqa.dro, 'morning.' CL
the remark immediately above, and 1.4.4.
1.2.5 L 9-, < PWT *^-. PWT '►^a: L ^a, P gä, B gä. Cf. CT, Lh qä,
WT Iqa, 'five.' Cf. 2.1.1 and under 4. below.
1.3.11 L t-. There are no examples of this phoneme in isolated initial
position in our comparative materials. Cf. the clusters immediately
below.
1.3.12 L St., < PWT *st-. PWT "»star-: cf. 1.2.21. PWT *stag (? ?):
L, stak. Cf. CT, Lh tag, WT stag, 'tiger.'
1.3.13 L ft-, < PMT *Tt-. PWT *fta: L rta, P stä, B hrta. Cf. CT, Lh
td, WT rta, 'horse.'
1.3.21 L d-, < PWT *d-. PWT ■►da- : L dalo, 'this year,' P dare, 'now,'
B darong, 'now [up to the present].' Cf. CT tändä, Lh thä, WT da.lta,
da, 'now.' Only the first element of the complex forms cited from PWT
is here to the point. PWT ■►dV- : L deriq, P dhih, B diring. Cf. CT tferhj.
Lh theriq, WT de.rh), 'today.' Cf. 2.4.3. The vocalisation correspondences (here simply noted in the reconstruction as ""V) are obscure for this first
element of the forms cited; cf. 1.11.1 below. Probably there has been
analogic change in P and B in the form of a regressive assimilation
"•-eCi- > -iCi- ; if so, the vowel should be reconstructed as PWT ■►e.
1.3.22 L Id-, < PWT ■►Iz-. PWT ■►IzV-: L Idawa, P Izaimo, B Izod.
Cf. CT dawa, Lh thäwä, WT zla.ba, 'moon.' Cf. 2.1.3. Here the vocal¬
isation correspondences are irregular and not to be explained in the
present state of our knowledge of these languages. The final consonant
of the B form is noteworthy, as is the apparent metathesis in the PWT
initial, all that can be reconstructed here with any certainty, as compared
with WT, i.e. ■►lz-/zl-. Cf. under 4. below.
1.3.23 L rd-, < PWT ■►bd-. PWT '►bdun: L rdun, P rdün, B bdun.
Cf. CT dun, Lh thun, WT bdun, 'seven.' Cf. 3.3.2. PWT ■►bdV-(?):
L rdoa, P rdoa. Cf. CT dö, Lh tho, WT rdo, 'stone.' Cf. 2.5.1. The vocal¬
isation is probably to be reconstructed as PWT ■►o, but the final -a in
L and -ä in P obscure the correspondences. The P form suspiciously
resembles that in P for 'grass,' cf. 1.6.12, where the -w- of WT may well
give a clue to its origin, but here, at any rate, no such semivowel is
preserved in the orthography. Cf. also L tsha, 'salt,' 1.6.21. < PWT
■"rd-. PWT ■►rduq-: L rduqtles, P rduhcas, B rdungma. Cf. CT düq-wä,
Lh thüq-wä, WT rduq.ba, 'to beat.' <PWT ■►yd-. PWT ■►ydoC: L rdon,
P rdon, B gdong. Cf. CT döq, Lh thöq, WT gdoq, 'face [body part].' Cf.
2.5.2, 3.3.2.
1.3.3 Lh th-, < PWT '►th- (?). PWT ■►thog (?): L thok, B thoq. Cf.
CT, Lh thog-khd, WT thog.kha, 'ceiling.' PWT ■►thod (? ?): L thot-pa.
Cf. CT, Lh tho-pä, WT thod.pa, 'forehead.' Cf. 3.3.1.
352 Roy Andrew Miller
1.3.4 L n-, < PWT *n-. PWT *iias: L nas, P nas, B nas. Cf. CT nfe,
Lh ne, WT nas, 'barley.' Cf. 3.4.1. PWT *nag: L nakpo, P. naqpo,
B näkpo. Cf. CT, Lh nag-pö, WT nag.po, 'black.' Cf. 2.1.2, 3.1.1, 1.4.11.
PWT '*naq(?): L naqmik, 'room,' B nang, 'house,' Cf. CT, Lh nä.q,
WT naq, 'house.' PWT '►nub (?): L nup, B nubkha. Cf. CT, Lh nub,
WT nub, 'west.' Cf. 2.3.2, 3.2.1. PWT "►naqs (?): L naqs, P näns. Cf.
CT, Lh näq, WT nags, 'day after tomorrow.' Cf. 3.1.4. PWT '►nanh] (?):
L nanii), B naning. Cf. CT, Lh nä-niq, WT na.niq, 'last year.' PWT *ne-
(? ?): L netso. Cf. CT, Lh nfentso, WT ne.tso, 'parrot.' Cf. 1.6.11. <PWT
*sn-. PWT *snam: L namtsul, P snämtshül, B snamsul. Cf. CT, Lh
na, WT ma, 'nose.' Cf. 3.2.2. The correspondence of the initial of the
second element here is irregular, especially in B, if this form has been
recorded correctly. PWT *snag- (? 1): L nagtsha. Cf. CT, Lh ndg-tshä,
WT snag.tsha, 'ink.' < PWT *xn-- PWT *xnam: L nam, P nam, B
khnam. Cf. CT, Lh ndm, WT gnam, 'sky.' Cf. 3.2.2, 1.12.15.
1.4.11 L P-, < PWT *p-. PWT '►poq-: L poqbu, B bongbu, P bohbü.
Cf. CT pöq-gü, elegant variant of more colloquial püq-gü, Lh phöq-khü,
phüq-khü, WT boq.gu, buq.gu, 'donkey.' Cf. 2.5.2; 3.1.3. PWT *pa-:
L palaq, P bä, B bang. Cf. CT pä, Lh phä, WT ba, 'cow.' Here we note
a variety of morphological accretions in PWT as compared with the
presumably original root in CT, Lh and WT. Cf. the note in 1.2.3. PWT
*pags- (?): L pakspa, B bakhspa. Cf. CT, Lh pdg-pa, WT pags.pa, 'skin.'
Cf. 3.1.2. PWT *-po: L skampo, 'dry,' cf. 1.2.12. PWT *-pa: cf. L
ftsikpa, 'waU,' 1.6.12; L lakpa, 'hand,' 1.10.1; PWT "►-po: cf. L karpo,
'white,' 1.2.11; L nakpo, 'black,' 1.3.4; L marpo, 'red,' 1.4.4; L serpo,
'yellow,' 1.7.1; PWT '►-po (? ?): cL L zukspo, 'the body,' 1.7.2. Cf. also
L t§harpa, 'rain', 1.8.2.
1.4.12 L sp-, < PWT -"Cp- (? ?): L spetsha. Cf. CT, Lh pe-tsha, WT
dpe.cha, 'book.' Cf. 2.4.1. Lacking further PWT evidence, the first
member of the original consonant cluster here cannot be reconstructed in
more detail than to note its existence as '*C.
1.4.2 L b-, < PWT i-b-. PWT '*-bu: (??) cf. L. poqbu, 'donkey,'
1.4.11 above. PWT "►bila: L bila, P bild, B bila, 'cat.' This is an Indie
loan-word into PWT, and CT, Lh and WT cognates are lacking. But the
borrowing into PWT is old enough for the form to follow regular cor¬
respondences for PWT, cf. 1.10.1, and hence it may be cited here, even
though it does not eventually go back to any Tibetan root.
1.4.3 L ph-. There are no examples of this L phoneme in our com¬
parative materials, although it is well attested in the dialect itself. Its
historical origins are accordingly at present obscure.
1.4.4 L m-, < PWT *m-. PWT '►mi: L mi, P mi, B mi. Cf. CT, Lh mi,
WT mi, 'man.' Cf. 2.2.1. PWT '►me: L me, P mg(h) [sic!] B me. Cf. CT,
Lh me, WT me, 'fire.' Cf. 2.4.1. PWT '►mig: L mik, P mik', B mik. Cf.
CT, Lh mig, WT mig, 'eye.' Cf. 2.2.2, 3.1.1. PWT '►mir): L mh), P mih,
B ming. Cf. CT, Lh miq, WT mh), 'name.' Cf. 2.2.2; 3.1.3. PWT '►mar:
L mar, P märh, B mär. Cf. CT, Lh mär, WT mar, 'butter.' Cf. 3.6.1.
PWT '►mar-: L marpo, P marpo, B märpo. Cf. CT, Lh mapo, marpo,
WT dmar.po, 'red.'. Cf. 1.4.11.The two CT forms are in free variation;
so also in Lh. PWT '►-ma: cf. L skarma, 'star,' 1.2.12; L nyima, 'sun,'
1.12.15. PWT '►-mo (1): cf. L qamo, 'mornmg,' 1.2.4. PWT '►sm- (?):
PWT '►sman (?): L man, B sman. Cf. CT m6n, Lh men, WT sman,
'medicine.' Cf. 3.3.2. <iPWT'►sm-.PWT *8mul: Lmul, P ^imul, Bkhmul.
Cf. CT, Lh qii, WT dqul, 'silver, money.' Cf. 3.5.1.
1.5.1 L S-, < PWT '►spr- (?). PWT '►sprin (?): L sin, P sprin. Cf.
CT tlm-pa, Lh tslm-pa, WT sprin.pa, 'cloud.' Cf. 3.3.2. The morpho-
phonemic shift n > m before -pä is regular in CT and Lh. < PWT
*skr- (? ?). PWT '►skra (? ?): L sa. Cf. CT tä, Lh tsa, WT skra, 'hair of
the head.'
1.5.2 L d-, < PWT ■►tr-. PWT ■►trug: L duk, P truk', B truk. Cf. CT
tug, Lh tshüg, WI drug, 'six.' Cf. 3.1.1. < PWT ■►br-. PWT ■►brug:
L duk, P. brük, B bruk. Cf. CT düg-ke, Lh tshüg-ks, WT hbrug.skad,
'thunder.' PWT ■►bras: L das, P bras, B bras. Cf. CT de, Lh tshe, WT
hbras, 'rice.' Cf. 3.4.1. PWT '►bri-: L ditles, P zbricas, B rbya. Cf. CT
ti-pä, Lh tshi-pa, WT bris. pa, 'to write.' This reconstruction assumes
that a) the initial z- of the P form is some sort of late prefix in P, not
original in PWT, and now in P extended, probably by analogy, to all
forms of the root (cf. Bailey, op. cit., p. 23); and b) the B form is the
result of a metathesis within B, again a process without comparative
significance, giving rbya < '►brya < '►bri-a. On this last postulated form,
«f. the 'simple past tense' form cited by Read, op. cit., p. 41: rbis. Cf
1.9.21. < PWT ■►gr- (?): PWT *gro (1): L do, B khro. Cf. CT tö, Lh t?hö,
WT gro, '.wheat.'
1.5.3 L tsh-, < PWT '►khr-. PWT ■►khrag : L tshak, P khraq, B khraq.
Cf. CT thdg, Lh tshag, WT khrag, 'blood.' < PWT '►phr-. PWT ■►phru:
L tsugu, P phrü, B phru. Cf. CT thü-gü (elegant locution equivalent to
vulgar pü-gü), Lh tshü-khü, WT phru.gu, 'boy.' PWT ■►phrug (??):
Ii tshuk. Cf. CT thug, Lh tshüg, WT phrug, 'young of animals.' An element
cognate to both is common in CT gö-thüg, Lh khfe-tshüg, WT dge.phrug,
'disciple.'
1.6.11 L ts-, < PWT ■►ts- (?): PWT ■►tsad (?): L tsat, B tsatpa.
Cf. CI tshe-pa, Lh tshe-pä, WT tshad.pa, 'fever.' Cf. 3.3.1. < PWT
■►dz-( ?): PWT ■►dzu (?): L tsugu, P zü(h). Cf. CT dzü-gü, Lh tshü-khü,
WT indzu.gu, 'finger.' PWT '►-tso (? ?): cf. L netso, 'parrot,' 1.3.4.
1.6.12 L fts-, < PWT •►fts-. PWT '►ftswa: L ftsa, P Msoa,, B hrtswa.
24 ZDMG 106/2
354 Roy Andrew Miller
Cf. CT, Lh tsä, WT rtswa, 'grass.' Cf. 2.1.3. Cf. the note to L rdoa,
'stone,' 1.3.23. PWT '►ftsag: L ftsaksik, P ^tsaqshik', B ngishu hrtsa(q)-
chik. Cf. CT, Lh nisü-tsä-tgig, WT ni.gu.rtsa.gcig, 'twenty one.' < PWT
■►rtsig (?): L ftsikpa, P rtsikpa. Cf. CT, Lh tsig-pa, WT rtsig.pa, 'wall.'
Cf. 1.4.11. < PWT *-Ctsi (1): L raqsftsi, B zbyang-rtsi. Cf. CT daq-tsi,
Lh tsäq-tsi, WT sbraq.rtsi, 'honey.' Cf. 3.1.4, 1.11.1. The PWT evidence
here is not sufficient for a more exact reconstruction of the initial cluster.
PWT '►CtsV- : L ftsetges, P stsecas, B hrtsya, 'dance.' The lack of CT, Lh
and WT cognates, together with the difficulties imposed by the initial
of the P form, and the vocalisation of B, make any more precise recon¬
struction unwarranted. The PWT vowel may well have been ""e, however :
cf. B hrtsen onged, '[he] comes dancing.' (Read, op. cit., p. 39.)
1.6.21 L tsh-, < PWT *tsh- (?). PWT '►tsha (?): L tsha, P tsha.
Cf. CT, Lh tshä, WT tshwa, 'salt.' On the WT -w-, cf. the note at 1.3.32.
PWT ■►tshan (?): L tshan, B tshan. Cf. CT tshen, Lh taUn, WT mtshan,
'night.' Cf. 3.3.2. PWT *tsho (?): L tsho, B tsho. Cf. CT, Lh tsho, WT
mtsho, 'lake.' PWT ■►tsha- (? ?): L tshawo. Cf. CT, Lh tshä-wö, WT
tsha.bo, 'nephew.' PWT '►-tsha (? ?): L nagtsha, 'ink,' cf. 1.3.4. PWT
*-tsho (? ?): L. gyartsho. Cf. CTdäm-tshö, Lh thäm-tshö, WT rgja.mtsho,
'ocean.' Cf. 1.12.13.
1.6.22 L itsh-, < PWT "^itsh- (? ?). PWT *itshaqs (? ?): L itshaqs.po.
Cf. CT, Lh tsäq-p6, WT gtsaq.po, 'river.' Cf. 3.1.4.
1.7.1 L S-, < PWT *s-. PWT "^sa: L sa, P sä, B sa. Cf. CT, Lh sä,
WT sa, 'ground.' Cf. 2.1.1. PWT *so: L so, P so(h), B so. Cf. CT, Lh
SÖ, WT so, 'tooth.' Cf. 2.5.1. PWT '►ser- (?): L serpo, B serpo. Cf. CT, Lh
sörpö, WT ser.po, 'yellow.' Cf. 2.4.2, 1.4.11. PWT '►sems (1 ?): L sems;
cf. CT, Lh sem, WT sems, 'mind.' Cf. 2.4.2; 3.2.3. < PWT »^s-. PWT
■►xser: L ser, P ser, B khser. Cf. CT, Lh s6r, WT gser, 'gold.' Cf. 2.4.2,
3.6.1. Cf. L serpo, 'yellow,' immediately above. PWT "►^sum: L sum,
P sum B khsum. Cf. CT, Lh sum, WT gsum, 'three.' Cf. 3.2.2, 1.12.12.
1.7.2 L Z-, < PWT *z-. PWT '►za-: L zatges, P zacas, B za. Cf. CT,
Lh. sä-wä, WT za.ba, 'eat.' PWT '►zugs- (? ?): L zukspo. Cf. CT, Lh
süg-pö, WT gzugs.po, 'the body'. Cf. 3.1.2, 1.4.11.
1.8.11 L tg-, < PWT '►tg-. PWT ■►tga: L tga, P cä, B cha. Cf. CT
tSa, Lh tghä, WT Ja, 'tea.' Read's notation 'from the Urdu' is un¬
warranted. PWT ■►tgig: L tgik, P cik', B chik. Cf. CT, Lh tsig, WT gcig,
'one.' PWT '►tgiq- (?): L tgiqba, B jingmo. Cf.CT dziq-pa, Lh tghh]-pa,
WT mjiq.pa, 'neck.' (CT: 'back of the neck'). < PWT *by-: PWT
■►bya: L tga, P bia phrü, B byaphru. Cf. CT tgä, Lh tihä, WT bja, 'bhd.'
(P: 'chicken'). PWT '►tsaq (??): L tiaq. Cf. CT tsäq, Lh tshaq, WT
bjaq, 'north.' PWT ■►byV- (? ?): L tguru, cf. CT tgl-rü, Lh tghi-rü, WT
bji.ru, 'coral.' Cf. 2.3.3. The L form seems to show assimüation in
voicing *iCu > uCu, but the lack of PWT cognates makes the problem difficult. Cf. 1.11.1.
1.8.12 L rts-, < PWT *Stg-. PWT *gtsu: L rtsu, P dicii, B phchü.
Cf. CT, Lh tsü-thäm-pd, WT bcu.tham.pa, 'ten.' Cf. 2.3.1.
1.8.13 L itä-, < PWT ■►its-. PWT ■►itse: L itie, P llce(h), B hlche.
Cf. CT, Lh tie, WT Ice, 'tongue.' Cf. 2.4.1. PWT ■►itiags (?): L itsaks,
B hlchaq. Cf. CT, Lh tsag, WT Icags, 'non.' Cf. 3.1.2.
1.8.2 L täh-, < PWT ■►täh-. PWT i-tihu: L tihu, P chü, B chhu. Cf.
CT, Lh tihü, WT chu, 'water.' Cf. 2.3.1. PWT ■►tlhar: L tiharpa, P
charpa, B charpha. Cf. CT, Lh tshar-pa, WT char.pa, 'rain.' The B form
has two irregular features: the usual correspondence should be B t§h.
Read's 'chh' (here a printing error?); also, the pha is anomalous. PWT
*tihar) (?): L tähaq, B chhang. Cf. CT, Lh t§har), WT chaq, 'alcohohc
drink prepared by fermentation of barley, hops and water.' (B: 'beer
[Buddhist]'). PWT ■►tShos (?): L tshos, B chhos. Cf. CT, Lh tsho, WT
chos, 'rehgion.' Cf. 3.4.1. PWT *-tsha (??): cf. L. spetiha, 'book,'
1.4.12.
1.9.1 L S-, < PWT ■►iar: L §ar, P shärsa, B sharka. Cf. CT, Lh Sdr,
"WT gar, 'east.' PWT *-^u: L nyisu, P nyidiü, nishü, B iigishu. Cf. CT,
Lh ni-gü, WT ni.gu, 'twenty.' Cf. 1.12.15. PWT ■►ga (?): L ga, B sha.
Cf. CT, Lh gd, WT ga, 'meat.' PWT ■►-gu (?): L kugu, 'apple,' cf. 1.12.11
above. PWT '►gu-: L §ugu, 'paper,' cf. 1.2.21.
1.9.21 L Z-, < PWT ■►z-. PWT ■►zhj: L zig, P zhih, B jing. Cf. CT, Lh
giq-khd, WT zhj.kha, 'field.' PWT '►za- (? ?): L zala. Cf. CT, Lh g&-ld,
WT za.la, 'floor.' Cf. 1.10.1. < PWT ■►zbz-. PWT ■►zbzi: L zi, P zbzhi,
B bji. Cf. CT, Lh gl, WT bzi, 'four.' Or perhaps one might here consider
the initial z- of P to be a later accretion, cf. 1.5.2, and so simphfy the
PWT cluster.
1.10.1 L 1-, < PWT *1-. PWT '►lo: L lo, P lö, B lo. Cf. CT, Lh lö,
WT lo, 'y«ftr.' Cf. 2.5.1. PWT '►lud: L lut, P lüt, B lut. Cf. CT, Lh lu,
WT lud, 'manure.' Cf. 3.3.1. PWT ■►lag: L lakpa, P laqpa, B laqpa. Cf.
CT, Lh lag-pa, WT lag.pa, 'hand.' Cf. 1.4.11. PWT ■►lug: L Ink, P lük(h),
B lu. Cf. CT, Lh lüg, WT lug, 'sheep.' The B form is not a regular cor-
respondence, and is perhaps a printing error. < PWT ■►^l-- PWT ■►j^laq-:
L laqpotghe, P Uahphoce, B khlangpocho. Cf. CT, Lh ldq-pö-tsh6, WT
glaq.po.che, 'elephant.' Correspondences between other morphemes in
this expression are difficult. The word is an important one for the history
of Tibetan ; cf . the citations of Sapib and his critic in my review in The
Far Eastern Quarterly, 12:1.64-8 (1952). PWT ■►-la: L bila, 'cat,' cf.
1.4.2. PWT ■►-la( ? ?): L zala, 'floor,' cf. 1.9.21.
1.10.2 L i, < PWT '►i-. PWT ■►iog: L iok, P lloq, B hloq. Cf. CT, Lh
log, WT glog, 'lightening.' Cf. 2.5.2; 3.1.1. PWT ■►hiqs- (?): L iuqspo,
24*
356 Roy Andrew Miller
B hiung. Cf. CT, Lh lüq, WT rluq, 'wind.' Cf. 3.1.4. PWT *lo (? ?):
L lo. Cf. CT, Lh iö, WI Iho, 'south.'
1.11.1 L r-, < PWT *r-. PWT ■*-rh|: L derh), 'today,' cf. 1.3.21.
PWT '►ra- : L rama, P räskyes, B rawäq. Cf. CT, Lh rä,, WT ra, 'goat.'
PWT ■►ri(?): L ri, B ri. Cf. CT, Lh ri, W ri, 'mountains.' Cf. 2.2.1. < PWT
■►yb-. PWT ■►ybrul: L rui, P zbrül, B gbul. Cf. CT du, Lh tshÜ, WT sbrul,
'snake.' Cf. 3.5.1. PWT ■►raqs- (?): L raqsrtsi, 'honey,' cf. 3.1.4, 1.6.12.
PWT ■►-ru (? ?): L tsuru, 'coral,' cf. 1.8.11, 1.12.14.
1.11.21 L f-. There are no examples of this phoneme in isolated
initial position in our comparative materials. Cf. the clusters cited
immediately below.
1.11.22 L fg-. L fgun, 'grapes,' cf. 1.2.23.
1.11.23 L ft-. L fta, 'horse,' cf. 1.3.13.
1.11.24 L fts-. L ftsa, 'grass,' L ftsaksik, 'twenty one,' L ftsikpa,
'wah' [cf. 1.4.11], L raijsftsi, 'honey,' [cf. 1.11.1], aU cf. 1.6.12.
1.12.11 L y-, < PWT ■►y-. PWT ■►yag: L yak, P yäq, B hyaq. Cf. CT,
Lh yäg, WT gyag, 'yak.'
1.12.12 L sky-, < PWT "»sky-. PWT '►skyV-: L skyetäes, P skyecas,
B skya. Cf. CT, Lh t6-wä, WT skje.ba, 'be born.' The B vocalisation here
is not a regular correspondence, and seems to have been refashioned
analogically, or perhaps morphologically, in the same fashion as the B
cognate of L rtsetses, 'dance,' for which cf. 1.6.12. The exact correspon¬
dence in vocahsation here would be some such form as B ske, 'present
genitive infinitive,' cf. Read, op. cit., p. 38, but here the semivowel
PWT *y, weh attested, is missing. Cf. 1.2.12, 1.7.1.
1.12.13 L gy-, < PWT *Tgj-. PWT ■►rgyal: L gyaltges, P rgyälcäs,
B rgyalba. Cf. CT dh-wk, Lh the-wa, 'conquer.' Cf. 3.5.1. PWT ■►rgya-
(??): L gyartsho. Cf. CT däm-tshö, Lh thäm-tshö, WT rgja.mtsho,
'ocean.' Cf. 3.6.1, 1.6.21. Lack of PWT cognates makes comparative
treatment of the L-r- impossible ; it seems to point to a process in PWT
rather different from that which in CT and Lh has resulted in morphs
of the shape of tham-, best analysed in these languages as the morpho¬
logically determined combining forms of a basic morph tha. PWT
■►-rgya: L ?okgya, 'beard,' cf. 1.1.1, 1.2.21.
1.12.14 L rgy-, < PWT ■►bgy-. PWT ■►bgyad: L rgyat, P rgyat,
B bgyad. Cf. CT de, Lh th^, WT brgjad, 'eight,' cf. 3.3.1, 1.2.21, 1.11.1.
1.12.15 L ny-, < PWT *&-. PWT ■►ha: L nya, P hnyä(h), B iJgya,
nya. Cf. CT, Lh fia, WT na, 'fish.' Cf. under 4. below. PWT '►hi: L nyima,
P nima, B figima. Cf. CT, Lh ni-ma, WT ni.ma, 'sun.' Cf. 1.4.4. PWT
■►nis: L nyis, P nyis, B iigis. Cf. CT, Lh nl, WT gnis, 'two.' Cf. 2.2.2;
3.4.1. PWT ■►ni: cf. L nyi-lu, 'twenty,' 1.9.1. < PWT ■►sn-. PWT ■►siiiq:
L nyii), P shin, B suing. Cf. CT, Lh nlq, WT snii), 'heart.' Cf. 1.3.4.
1.12.2 L Y-, < PWT *Y- (? ?). PWT *Yu (? ?): L Yu. Cf. CT, Lh yii, WT gyu, 'turquoise.' Data here is insufficient to refine this formulation further.
2. Vowels^
2.1.1 L -a, < PWT ■►-a. Cf. L kha, 'mouth,' 1.2.3; Lg.a, 'five,' 1.2.5;
L sa, 'earth,' 1.7.1.
2.1.2 L -aC. .., < PWT '►aC. ... Cf. L kaqpa, 'foot,' 1.2.11; L skarma, 'star,' 1.2.12; L nakpo, 'black,' 1.3.4.
2.1.3 Difficult or obscure correspondences involving L -a are: L ftsa,
'grass,' 1.6.12, 1.6.21, 1.3.23; L Idawa, 'moon,' 1.3.22.
2.2.1 L -i, < PWT '*-i. Cf. L khi, 'dog,' 1.2.3; mi, 'man,' 1.4.4; L ri,
'mountain,' 1.11.1.
2.2.2 L -iC. .., < PWT '►-iC. ... Cf. L mik, 'eye,' 1.4.4; L miq, 'name,' 1.4.4; L nyis, 'two,' 1.12.15.
2.2.3 Difficult or obscure correspondences involving L -i are: L ditSes,
'write,' 1.5.2.
2.3.1 L -u, < PWT * -u. Cf. L rgu, 'nine,' 1.2.22; L tShu, 'water,'
1.8.2; L rtlu, 'ten,' 1.8.12.
2.3.2 L -uC..., < PWT ■►uC... Cf. L kur, 'tent,' 1.2.11; L fgun,
'grapes,' 1.2.23; L nup, 'west,' 1.3.4.
2.3.3. Difficult or obscure correspondences involving L -u are: L tsuru,
'coral,' 1.8.11.
2.4.1 L -e, < PWT '►e. Cf. L. spetsha, 'book,' 1.4.12; L me, 'fire,'
1.4.4; Litse, 'tongue,' 1.8.13.
2.4.2 L -eC..., < PWT ■*eC.... Cf. L ser, 'gold,' 1.7.1; L serpo,
'yellow,' 1.7.1, L sems, 'mind,' 1.7.1.
2.4.3 Difficult or obscure correspondences involving L -e are: L deriq,
'today,' 1.3.21; L skyeties, 'be born,' 1.12.12; 1.6.12; L ftsetses, 'dance,' 1.6.12, 1,12.12.
2.5.1 L -o, < PWT * -o. Cf. L yo, 'door,' 1.1.2; L so, 'tooth,' 1.7.1;
L lo, 'year,' 1.10.1.
2.5.2 L -oC..., < PWT ■►-oC... Cf. L rdon, 'face,' 1.3.23, 3.3.2;
L poqbu, 'donkey,' 1.4.11; Llok, 'lightening,' 1.10.2.
2.5.3 Difficult or obscure correspondences involving L -o are : L rdoa,
'stone,' 1.3.23, 1.6.12,1.6.21.
^ Since the majority of the vowel correspondences in om materials are
perfectly regular, we give here only three examples of each type of correspon¬
dence; these are typical of all the rest of the materials, the vowel correspon¬
dences of which may be verified under L But note that all difficult correspon¬
dences are listed under 2. The various vowel quantities recorded for Pmik
and Balti are, as discussed above, clearly non-contrastive sub-phonemic
variants, and hence without comparative significance.
3ö8 Ro Y Andrew Miller
3. Finalsi
3.1.1^ L -k, < PWT * -g. Cf. L nakpo, 'black,' 1.3.4; L mik, 'eye,'
1.4.4; L duk, 'six,' 1.5.2; Liok, 'lightening,' 1.10.2; L khokties, 'cough,'
1.2.3, appears to be the result of syncope before the verbal ending L -ties,
and thus actually to be < PWT ""-gs, cf. immediately below.
3.1.2 L -ks, < PWT '►-gs. Cf. L pakspa, 'skin,' 1.4.11; L. itiaks,
'iron,' 1.8.13; L zukspo, 'the body,' 1.7.2.
3.P.3 L -q, < PWT -»-q. Cf. L kaqpa, 'foot,' 1.2.11; L mhj, 'name,'
1.4.4; L poqbu, 'donkey,' 1.4.11.
3.1.4 L -qs, < PWT "»-qs. Cf. L raqsftsi, 'honey,' 1.6.12, 1.11.1;
Lnaqs, 'day after tomorrow,' 1.3.4; Liuqspo, 'wind,' 1.10.2; Litshaqspo,
'river,' 1.6.22.
3.2.1 L -p, < PWT *-h. Cf. L nup, 'west,' 1.3.4.
3.2.2 L -m, < PWT '►-m. Cf. L nam, 'sky,' 1.3.4, L skampo. 'dry,'
1.2.12, L namtsul, 'nose,' 1.3.4, [N.B. B irregularities]; L sum, 'three,'
1.7.1.
3.2.3. L -ms, < PWT * ms. Cf. L sems, 'mind', 1.7.1.
3.3.1 L -t, < PWT *.d. Cf. L rgyat, 'eight,' 1.12.14; L skat, 'voice,'
1.2.12; L tsat, 'fever,' 1.6.11; L lut, 'manure,' 1.10.1; L thotpa, 'fore¬
head,' 1.3.3.
3.3.2 L -n, < PWT *-n. Cf. L rdun, 'seven,' 1.3.23; L fgun, 'grapes,'
1.2.23; L man, 'medicine,' 1.4.4; L tshan, 'night,' 1.6.21; L sin, 'cloud,' 1.5.1. L rdon, 'face,' 1.3.23, 2.5.2, seems to show progressive assimilation in position of articulation : ""-dVq > -dVn.
3.4.1 L -s, < PWT '►-s. Cf. L nas, 'barley,' 1.3.4; L das, 'rice,' 1.5.2;
L nyis, 'two,' 1.12.15; L tihos, 'religion,' 1.8.2.
3.5.1 L -1, < PWT *-l. Cf. L gyaltges, 'conquer,' 1.12.13; L mul,
'silver,' 1.4.4; L rul, 'snake,' 1.11.1; L namtsul, 'nose,' 1.3.4 [N.B. B
irregularities]; L skoMes, 'cook, boh,' 1.2.12.
3.6.P L -r, < PWT '►-r. Cf. L mar, 'butter,' 1.4.4; L kur, 'tent,'
1.2.11; L ser, 'gold,' 1.7.1. The exact correspondences of the -r- in L
gyartsho, 'ocean,' are obscure; cf. 1.6.21, 1.12.13.
4. Conclusion
Thus it is possible to sketch, with tolerable completeness and precision,
the phonological history of a given dialect from the Tibetan area, and
^ Here again for Pmik and Balti we have regarded the variety of phonetic
variants of the stop finals which the authors record as non-contrastive. Cf.
note 346' supra, on the important consideration of the stop finals in these
languages as archiphonemes of neutralization.
^ In 3. the data are complete, except in sections 3.1.1, 3.1.3, and 3.6.1,
where there are a large number of regular correspondences, and only a
selection is given; full details are available under 1.
to consider it in relation both to its immediate connections on the one
hand, and to its more distant ones on the other. In the process, we can
see the development responsible for the curiously skewed system of the
dialect selected here as point of departm'c, in which, as we may note
above, the series Js d tsh/ structurally parallels the more conventional
series /k g kh p b ph t d th/. But in addition, there are several other points
involved in these comparisons which deserve to be remarked upon here.
First of all, we cannot fail to note what we may term the 'ease' of
comparison in this area. In this it resembles the Chinese and Thai areas
to a considerable extent, for here also we find a considerable number of
divergent dialects, but all still so closely related that the comparisons
which are to be made are generahy quite obvious.^ One may only
speculate upon what would have been the course and the degree of
development of the science of comparative grammar had the masters
of the 19 th century had as grist for their mills data from one of these
language families of the Far East, instead of the far more divergent and
different Indo-European data. Such speculation is profitable, probably,
only for specialists in the history of science, but it is fascinating, none
the less.
Second, we have here considerable evidence on the theoretical diffi¬
culties inherent in any methodology which assumes that the orthography
of Written Tibetan may safely be taken as identical with proto-Tibetan.*
Comparisons with the forms preserved in the Tibetan script should and
must be made in the course of all comparative work involving Tibetan,
but we must never lose sight of its exact röle or of the fact that it is only
a clue to the solution of our problems, and not by any means the solution
itself. Only with the eventual reconstruction, which our generation should
1 The eventual investigation of these language families in terms of a
linguistic dating system set up on the basis of assumptions concerning
morpheme dtecay is an interesting prospect. See R. B. Lees, The basis of
glottochronology. Language 29:113-127 (1953), with a bibliography.
' Actually, each set of comparisons made above is to the point here, but
especially to be noted are Ladakh kha, 'snow,' (1.2.3) :: Written Tibetan
gags (cf. Ladakh nags, 'day after tomorrow' [1.3.4, 3.1.4], :: Written Tibetan
nags); Ladakh ragsftsi, 'honey,' (1.11.1, 1.6.12, 3.1.4) :: Written Tibetan
sbrag.rtsi; and Ladakh lugspo, 'wind,' (1.10.2, 3.1.4); :: Written Tibetan rlug.
On this last, we may here slightly anticipate what follows immediately
below, and note that the difficult rime in the Shih ching |^ ^ of ACh "p'ug
'wind,' with ACh *s*am 'heart,' is considerably clarified if we compare
with these forms the proto-Western Tibetan forms *lugs 'wind' and *8ems
'mind,' which we have reconstructed above, which clarification would hardly
obtain from a comparison of the Written Tibetan forms alone. For the Chinese
data here cited, see R. A. D. Fobbest, The Chinese language (London, 1948),
p. 114.
360 Roy Andrew Miller
see, of the origins of all the major regions of spoken Tibetan, and this on
the basis of the present-day dialects of these areas, and the subsequent
reconstruction, on the basis of these preliminary reconstructions, of
proto-Tibetan, can the exact historical value of the script be fully and
accurately assessed.
This leads us directly to our last point here, which is to stress that
it is also at least worth considering as a possible methodology a new
approach to the long discussed problem of the so-called 'Sino-Tibetan,'
which assumes the necessity of the prior reconstruction of proto-Tibetan
by methods similar to the above before comparisons are to be made with
any Chinese forms, modern or reconstructed. The random comparison
of Written Tibetan forms with Karlgren's reconstructions has for some
time been recognized as a risky business, but the comparison of 'word-
families,' which has come into vogue largely as a reaction against the
excesses of the former method,^ has left us a philological embarras de
richesse: large lists of supposedly cognate forms, without any means
of determining which specific forms are cognate, and hence no possibility
of formulating sound laws or of performing even the most routine re¬
constructions. Even within the materials adduced above, we may in this
connection note the developments of PWT ""na, 'fish' (1.12.15) and *g^a,
'five,' (1.2.5; 2.1.1), and compare with these, on the one hand, Chinese
""qiwo, 'fish,' and 5! "'quo, 'five';* on the other, Burmese qä, 'fish,'
and qä, 'five,'^ Professor Pelliot long ago pointed out the importance
for comparative grammar of the *^ in Chinese 'fish,' which is here
demonstrated in a striking fashion. FinaUy, though it is for the time
being a most difficult form, Balti Izod, 'moon' (1.3.22; 2.1.3) brings us
much closer to the final and the vocahsation of Chinese /j ""qiwjjt,
'moon,' than either the PWT reconstruction, incomplete as it is, or the
Written Tibetan form.
^ See the summary of the literatme in R. A. D. Forrest, op. cit., p. 25
and passim. Examples of the 'word-family' method of comparison at its best
are the two papers of S. N. Wolfenden, On certain alternations between
dental finals in Tibetan and Chinese, JRAS 1936:401-416, and Concerning
the variations of final consonants in the word-families of Tibetan, Kachin and Chinese," JRAS 1937:625-656.
* The ancient Chinese reconstruction are those of Karlgren, cited after
R. A. D. Forrest, op. cit.
^ The Burmese forms are cited from W. Cornyn, Outline of Burmese
grammar, [ — Ling. soc. Amer. language dissertation, no. 38], Baltimore, 1944.
6. Index verborum
animals, young of see young of fingers, 1.6.11
animals fire, 1.4.4, 2.4.1
apple, 1.2.11, 1.9.1 fish, 1.12.15
barley, 1.3.4, 3.4.1 five, 1.2.5, 2.1.1.
beard, 1.1.1, 1.12.13 floor, 1.9.21, 1.10.1
beat, to 1.3.23 foot, 1.2.11, 2.1.2, 3.1.3
beer, 1.8.2 forehead, 1.3.3, 3.3.1
bird, 1.8.11 four, 1.9.21
black, 1.3.4, 2.1.2, 3.1.1 goat, 1.11.1
blood, 1.5.3 gold, 1.7.1, 2.4.2, 3.6.1
body, the, 1.7.2, 3.1.2 goose, 1.2.4
boil see cook grapes, 1.2.23, 2.3.2, 3.3.2
book, 1.4.12, 2.4.1 grass, 1.3.23, 1.6.12, 1.6.21, 2.1.3
born, be 1.12.12, 1.6.12 ground, 1.7.1, 2.1.1
boy, 1.5.3 hair of the head, 1.5.1
butter, 1.4.4, 3.6.1 hand, 1.10.1, 1.4.11
camel, 1.2.4 head, 1.2.21
cat, 1.4.2, 1.10.1 heart, 1.12.15
ceiling, 1.3.3 honey, 1.6.12, 1.11.1, 3.1.4
cloud, 1.5.1, 3.3.2 horse, 1.3.13
conquer, 1.12.13, 3.5.1 ink, 1.3.4, 1.6.21
cook, boil, to, 1.2.12, 3.5.1 iron, 1.8.13, 3.1.2
coral, 1.8.11, 1.11.1, 2.3.3. lake, 1.6.21
cough, 1.2.3, 3.1.1 last year, 1.3.4
cow, 1.4.11 lightening, 1.10.2, 2.5.2, 3.1.1
dance, 1.6.12, 1.12.12 man, 1.4.4, 2.2.1
day after tomorrow, 1.3.4, 3.1.4 manure, 1.10.1, 3.3.1
dog, 1.2.3, 2.2.1 meat, 1.9.1
donkey, 1.4.11, 2.5.2, 3.1.3 medicine, 1.4.4, 3.3.2
door, 1.1.2, 2.5.1 mind, 1.7.1, 2.4.2, 3.2.3
dry, 1.2.12, 3.2.2. moon 1.3.22, 2.1.3
east, 1.9.1 morning, 1.2.4, 1.4.4
eat, 1.7.2 mountains, 1.11.1, 2.2.1
eight, 1.12.14, 3.3.1 mouth, 1.2.3, 2.1.1
elder sister, 1.1.1 name, 1.4.4, 2.2.2, 3.1.3
elephant, 1.10.1 neck, 1.8.11
eye, 1.4.4, 2.2.2, 3.1.1 nephew, 1.6.21
face, 1.3.23, 2.5.2, 3.3.2 night, 1.6.21, 3.3.2
fever, 1.6.11, 3.3.1 nme, 1.2.22, 2.3.1
fields, 1.9.21 north, 1.8.11
362 Roy Andrew Miller, Segmental Diachromic Phonology
nose, 1.3.4, 3.2.2 now, 1.3.21
ocean, 1.6.21, 1.12,13, 3.6.1 one, 1.8.11
paper, 1.2.21, 1.9.1 parrot, 1.3.4, 1.6.11 rain, 1.8.2
red, 1.4.11, 1.4.4 religion, 1.8.2, 3.4.1 rice, 1.5.2, 3.4.1 river, 1.6.22, 3.1.4 room, 1.3.4 salt, 1.6.21
seven, 1.3.23, 3.3.2 sheep, 1.10.1 silver, 1.4.4, 3.5.1 sister, elder see elder sister six, 1.5.2, 3.1.1
skin, 1.4.11, 3.1.2 sky, 1.3.4, 3.2.2 snake, 1.11.1, 3.5,1 snow, 1.2.3 south, 1.10.2
star, 1.2.12, 1.4.4, 2.1.2 stone, 1.3.23,1.6.12,1.6.21,2.5.1 sun, 1.12.15, 1.4.4 tea, 1.8.11
ten, 1.8.12, 2.3.1
tent, 1.2.11, 2.3.2, 3.6.1 three, 1.7.1, 3.2.2 thunder, 1.5.2 tiger 1.3.12
today, 1.3.21, 1.11.1, 2.4.3
tomorrow, day after see day after
tomorrow
tongue, 1.8.13, 2.4.1 tooth, 1.7.1, 2.5.1 turquoise, 1.12.2 twenty, 1.9.1, 1.12.15 twenty-one, 1.6.12, 1.11.24 two, 1.12.15, 2.2.2, 3.4.1 voice, 1.2.12, 3.3.1
waU, 1.11.24, 1.4.11, 1.6.12 walnut, 1.2.21
water, 1.8.2, 2.3.1 west, 1.3.4, 2.3.2, 3.2.1 wheat, 1.5.2
white, 1.2.11, 1.4.11 wind, 1.10.2, 3.1.4 write, to 1.5.2 yak, 1.12.11 year, 1.10.1, 2.5.1 year, last see last year yellow, 1.7.1, 1.4.11, 2.4.2
young of animals, 1.5.3
Sra Alan Gabdineb: The Ramesseum Papyri. Oxford 1955. 18 S. 64 Taf.
Fol. 3 £, 5./—
Im Jahre 1896 fand J. E. QmBELL in einem vmter den Magazinen des
Ramessemn gelegenen Grabe des späteren MR einen hölzernen Kasten, zu
einem Drittel mit Papyri gefüllt. Der Besitzer des Grabes, offensichtlich ein
zauberkundiger Magier, hatte einen Teil der für seinen Beruf benötigten
Bücher mit ins Grab genommen. Freilich war der Erhaltungszustand der
Papyri so schlecht, daß Teile schon bei bloßer Berührung zerfielen. Der Fund
wurde zunächst nach England gebracht, später ein Teil nach Berlin. Hier
und in England bemühte sich Hugo Ibscher mit seiner einzigartigen Kunst¬
fertigkeit um die Erhaltung des fragUen Materials.
Seit Beginn des Jahrhunderts befaßte sich Alan Gabdineb mit der Ver¬
öffentlichung des Schatzes, der offensichtlich eine Sammlimg recht ver¬
schiedenartiger Texte darstellte. Früh wurde ein als P. Ram. III gekenn¬
zeichneter medizinischer Pap. erkannt, die ,, Reden des Sisobk" (P. Ram. I.), die verlorenen Anfänge der ,, Bauerngeschichte" und des ,,Sinühe" und der
von Sethe publizierte ,, Dramatische Ramesseumspapyrus". Aber die so¬
wohl in London wie in Berlin ungünstigen Zeitumstände verhinderten immer
wieder eine kontinuierliche Arbeit an der großen Aufgabe der Veröffent¬
lichung; hinzu kamen unvorhergesehene Unglücksfälle wie der vorzeitige
Tod Paul Smithebs, dem die Veröffentlichung der ,,Semna Dispatches"
verdankt wird. Gabdineb selbst nahm in seine „Ancient Egyptian Ono¬
mastica" das „Ramesseum Onomasticon" auf. Dieser schwierige und einiger¬
maßen komplizierte Stand der Dinge bewog Sib Alan Gabdineb als ein¬
zigen von Beginn an mit dem Fund befaßten Ägyptologen, nun eine Ge¬
schichte des Fundes sowie einen Überblick über die veröffentlichten Teile
ixad — last not least — die Faksimile-Veröffentlichung des noch Unpubli¬
zierten vorzidegen in einem Buche, das dem verstorbenen Mitarbeiter an
dieser Aufgäbe, Hugo Ibscheb, gewidmet ist. Jeder Fachgenosse, besonders
der jüngeren Generation, wird Gardiner dankbar sein für diese Arbeit,
auch wenn er selbst vielleicht die Form der Publikation nur als einen Not¬
behelf ansieht.
Zunächst führt Gardiner die bereits veröffentlichten Papyri auf, die mit
den Zusatzbuchstaben A bis E gekennzeichnet sind (,, Bauerngeschichte"
und „Sinuhe"; Dramatischer Ramesseumspapyrus, als ,,very cryptic, but
nevertheless extremely valuable" bezeiclmet; Semna Dispatches; Rames¬
seum Onomasticon; Begräbnisliturgie, die von R. Caminos im kommenden
Band des Joumal of Egyptian Archeology publiziert werden wird). Die Ver¬
öffentlichung der mit den Ziffern I bis V bezeichneten Papyri hat Dr. J.Barns
übernommen ; von ihnen bringt Gardiners Buch nur Textproben.
Vollständig enthalten sind hier die Papjrri VI bis XVIII, C verso und
B verso. Als die photographischen Tafeln dieser Texte schon fertiggestellt
waren, konnte Gardiner noch einige Seiten in Umschrift hinzufügen, die
