Ngwi (Formerly Loloish) Branch of Burmic in the Tibeto-burman Family in China

Volume 4 Supplement iii-4

Rice and Language Across Asia: Crops, Motion, and Social Change

• Article
• Open up Access
• Published: 14 January 2012

Proto-Tibeto-Burman Grain Crops

Rice book 4,pages 134–141 (2011)Cite this commodity

• 1788 Accesses

• vi Citations

• 1 Altmetric

• Metrics details

Introduction

The Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages are spread over the entire Himalayan region, from Kashmir in the west, across northern South Asia, southwestern Mainland china and northern mainland Southeast Asia, in a wide variety of ecological zones from very loftier distance to tropical. They include over 200 languages falling into iv major subgroups (Western, Central, Sal, Eastern), with various additional smaller subgroups (Bradley 2002). Much ink has been spilled in the linguistic literature about the original homeland of the early Tibeto-Burman groups, simply information technology is clear that this must accept been somewhere south and west of the early Chinese civilization in the upper Yellow River valley. One frequent hypothesis is that the area of greatest genetic linguistic diverseness within a linguistic communication group is the point of origin; on this benchmark, this would be in the mountains of northeastern India, southeastern Tibet and northern Burma, where the 4 major subgroups meet and there are some boosted smaller subgroups as well. If this is so, nosotros would expect highland grain crops indigenous to this expanse to have been the staple, if agronomics was nowadays before the breakup of Proto-TB or Proto-Sino-Tibetan (ST).

The TB languages with the longest literary history include Tibetan (7th C. Advertisement), Burmese and Newari (both early 12th C. AD). Tibetan tradition lists six master crops including v grains plus beans. Burmese tradition has seven chief grain crops. Sagart (1999) has hypothesized that the Sinitic groups had five major crops: three grains, Setaria italica millet, Panicum miliaceum millet and rice, plus beans, and later wheat, introduced virtually 4000 years BP. The location and engagement of rice domestication(due south) is contested, as other speakers will certainly discuss.

Even for grains commencement domesticated elsewhere, it is not unreasonable for there to have been Proto-TB etyma (cognate words) if they were introduced early enough. This paper will explore some of the etyma that nosotros would await to find among TB groups for the grain crops domesticated in the expanse, including rice, millets including Setaria, Panicum and Eleusine coracana also every bit buckwheat, Job'south tears and older introduced crops such as sorghum, wheat and barley.

Results

The standard listing of the five basic crops of the Chinese is seen in Table i; this includes four grain crops discussed in Sagart (1999:176–183).

Table 1 Five Chinese crops

Total size table

In that location are six traditional basic crops in Tibet, including five grains, as shown in Tabular array 2. Tibetan forms are cited throughout in a transliteration of the Tibetan orthography; this presumably reflects pronunciation in the 8th to ninth century Advertizement.

Table 2 Six Tibetan crops

Full size table

Tibetan agronomics has adapted itself to an extreme loftier altitude environment, in much of which rice cannot exist grown; on the other mitt, Tibetans grow a highland barley variety and other highland crops such as buckwheat which are not staples amidst Chinese groups.

The vii basic grains of early on Burmese society are reported in Judson (1853/1966:357) as seen in Table 3. 12th century forms reflect the likely pronunciation at that time.

Table 3 Vii Burmese grain crops

Full size table

The Burmans arrived in the hot plains of upper Burma in approximately 832 Advert (Luce 1985:101–103) and would have adopted some lowland crops while abandoning upland crops non suitable for the new environment. Thus, unlike all closely related TB languages, Burmese has no cognate for 'buckwheat' but rather uses a Jinghpaw loan. Burmese also uses an Indic loan for 'wheat' and possibly another for 'barley'.

The word for the kickoff of the vii grains is said to exist a loan from Pali sāli (Myanmar Language Commission 1993:491), which may imply that the Burmans were unfamiliar with indica rice until they encountered it in cultivation in the irrigation arrangement they inherited from the TB groups of Upper Burma subsequently 832 AD. The 'barley' term may also exist borrowed from an Indic model, yáva. Five other grain terms are cognate with words in the most closely-related TB languages, as nosotros will see in Table 5 below. The general word for 'grain' in Burmese, especially the rice varieties, is , which is a Monday (Austroasiatic) loanword.

The third long-attested TB language is Newari, at present known to its speakers as Nepala Bhasa. Coincidentally, the first dated Newari inscription and the get-go dated Burmee inscription both come from 1112 Advert. The position of Newari in TB is a matter of debate; it does not fit closely with the Kiranti languages to its due east or with the W Bodish languages around it and to its westward. Long living in the fertile Kathmandu valley and with extremely strong Indosphere influences, the Newars have rice as their principal grain ingather, merely many of the usual TB crops are besides cultivated. Table 4 shows some of these, drawn from various sources (Jørgensen 1936; Bajracharya 1989/90; Kölver and Shreshthacharya 1994; Malla et al. 2000 and Manandhar 1986) and represented in transliteration.

Table 4 Newari grain crops

Total size table

As can be seen, 'barley' and 'buckwheat' are compounds containing the chwa 'wheat' etymon, and one millet type is an Indic Nepali loan. The identification of satiwā equally 'sorghum' is not certain; some sources give this for Panicum crus-galli instead or as well. Co-ordinate to Newar history, dusi millet was an important early on ingather alongside rice.

Discussion

In general, there is a lot of semantic shifting among etyma for grains: general terms for unhusked, husked and cooked grains may shift their principal grain referent when the chief grain crop changes, as from millet to rice among the early on Sinitic groups. Every bit we will see, bones grain terms may besides shift referents from one grain to another. Thus, intendance is needed in reconstructing the original referent of any term.

Rice (Oryza sativa varieties)

This grain is found in the Chinese, Tibetan and Burmese lists of basic grains and in Newari, fifty-fifty though information technology is non widely grown in upland Tibet. The Tibetan word for rice looks very like to the Austronesian root *bəras, though directly contact is highly unlikely. The oldest Burmese form appears to be related to the Chinese grade 穀 gǔ Karlgren 1226i 'grain', Baxter (2011) *[k]'ok. Of class it has besides been suggested that this etymon may have an Austroasiatic origin, particularly by those who posit an Austroasiatic origin of indica rice cultivation in mainland Southeast or northeastern South asia.

Millets

Sagart (1999) has suggested that Panicum miliaceum and Setaria italica cultivation was the footing of early Chinese agriculture in the upper Yellow River valley, earlier rice and later wheat. Some sources suggest domestication by equally early as 7K BP in the likely Sinitic homeland. Both millets also appear in the list of basic Burmese grains, but are somewhat dislocated in Tibetan and Newari. Many western sources also confuse the Setaria and Panicum millets. Eleusine coracana is likewise widely cultivated by TB groups in Southward Asia. As millet cultivation has greatly decreased with higher-yielding replacement crops, these terms may also be confounded or lost.

Buckwheat (Fagopyrum species)

Fagopyrum esculentum or sweet buckwheat and Fagopyrum tataricum or biting buckwheat are widely grown in upland areas where TB languages are spoken, and may accept get-go been domesticated there. It is in the Tibetan basic list and widespread in Burmic languages other than Burmese. There are cognate forms within parts of TB as nosotros volition encounter, but the Chinese term 荞 qiáo is only attested for less than two millennia (Sagart p.c.) and may be a loan from some Eastern TB language. Pulleyblank (1991:252) reconstructs *giaw for early on 7th century Advertizement Chinese, this is suspiciously similar to Eastern TB forms as we will meet.

Job's tears (Coix lacryma-jobi)

Two varieties of this ingather are grown every bit a food grain and for employ equally beads; in some languages, there are separate words for the grain in these two uses. It appears to be an early on crop, possibly first domesticated in the TB-speaking surface area, and at that place is some similarity betwixt the Chinese form 薏苡 yìyǐ (Baxter 2011 ) and the early Burmese form k-lit. Nonetheless, this Chinese form is only attested from the Qin Dynasty (2.2K years BP), and may, like the buckwheat term, be a loan from some Eastern TB linguistic communication.

Sorghum (Sorghum vulgare)

It is said that sorghum was first domesticated in Africa; the engagement of its introduction to this area is unclear, simply the absence of an ST root and of a TB root means that it is fairly tardily. The Chinese term 高粱 gāoliang 'high grain' is evidently a compound, and this class is very ofttimes borrowed into a wide range of TB languages in the Sinosphere.

Wheat (Triticum aestivum), barley (Hordeum vulgare, including a highland variety) and oats (Avena sativa)

These three crops are clearly introduced, and some are less suitable for the probable highland habitat of the early on TB speakers. All the same, wheat and barley have go fundamental crops for some TB groups. Given that the Chinese form 麥 mài appears to exist a loan from Indo-European, possibly via Turkic, there can exist no ST etymon; fifty-fifty inside TB, there are diverse forms, every bit discussed in 3.2.half-dozen below.

Maize (Zea mays)

Obviously this new earth crop can only have been introduced less than 500 years ago, so it is incommunicable for there to be a TB etymon, other than by semantic shift of an existing etymon or due to borrowing of an outside give-and-take which came with the crop. Well-nigh words for maize in TB languages and in Sinitic are compounds of existing words, such every bit Chinese 玉米 yùmǐ 'jade rice' and 包穀 bāogǔ 'wrapped grain', Burmese /pyaun⁴² bu⁴²/ 'sorghum-gourd', Black Lahu 'wheat-big', Xanthous Lahu Lisu both 'rice-wheat'. If similar words are found across languages, this implies that the languages separated less than 500 years ago (as in the case of the syllable /du³³/ in Hani ceildu/ts^heastward⁵⁵ du³³/'paddy-maize' and Akha a ⁵ du 'maize', Bradley 1997), or had contact less than 500 years ago, fifty-fifty though they are not at present in contact (every bit in the case of Yellow Lahu and Lisu); conversely, the deviation between Blackness Lahu and Yellow Lahu may imply that these two languages separated more than 500 years ago, earlier the introduction of maize in the area.

Other evidence for early agriculture includes cognate terms for agricultural activities such as planting, terms for stages of grain production such equally unhusked grain/husked grain/cooked grain, terms for agronomical implements such as dibbling sticks, and terms for foods fabricated from grains. Over again, one must be cautious, as some such words would doubtless have existed in hunter-gatherer societies, such as tools and activities associated with gathering, processing and eating wild grains, and some words may have shifted their referents. However, that is the topic of some other paper.

Proto-TB grains?

The all-time candidates for early TB agriculture are the millets Setaria and Panicum, which were too the bones grains in the earliest Chinese agriculture. Rice was likewise early, but perhaps non quite early enough. At that place are various etyma for other grain crops which are found in sure subgroups of TB, but non beyond all; such shared forms may let usa to date either the last contact or the earliest split appointment within the subgroups thus defined.

In my opinion information technology is much safer to reconstruct internally within each co-operative of Tibeto-Burman with solid and clear phonological correspondences, rather than launching straight into broader comparing. Thus, for example, within Burmic we can reconstruct the etyma seen in Table 5, revised from Bradley (1997).

Table v Proto-Burmic grain crop Etyma

Total size table

The Burmic languages are one of the major components of the Eastern TB group. Burmese represents the Burmish subgroup, while Lisu, Sani and Lahu represent subparts of the Central Ngwi (Loloish, Yi Branch, Yipho) subgroup, Nosu represents Northern Ngwi and Akha represents Southern Ngwi. Since we know that the fourth dimension depth of divergence among these Burmic languages is probably less than two millennia, this illustrates how substantially the organization of an private language tin can change. Using the reconstruction schema of Bradley (1979), we reconstruct the forms seen in the rightmost column.

Apart from various forms lost or replaced by loanwords, hither we encounter some semantic shifts, such every bit the Lahu form 'wheat' generalized from the 'barley' etymon, the Akha form 'barley' from the Panicum etymon, the Akha 'edible Chore's tears' from the Setaria etymon, and the Lahu form 'Job's tears' from the 'cowrie' etymon; the hard-grained multifariousness of this last crop is widely used for beads, as are cowrie shells. We likewise see the replaced Lahu cognate for 'wheat' equally the starting time syllable of 'maize', also equally the kickoff syllable of Akha chemical compound forms for Setaria and 'sorghum', and the etymon for 'rice grain' preserved as the first syllable of Lisu 'maize', where the 2nd syllable is the 'wheat' etymon. Note also the innovative Burmese words for 'barley' and 'cooked rice', and the variety of terms and combinations even for a relatively widespread and old crop such every bit 'Job'southward tears'; the *g-lit ^H etymon is seen in Burmese, the offset syllable in Sani and the first syllable in Akha 'inedible Job's tears'; the *ku ^one etymon is seen in second syllables in Lisu and Sani; and the *laŋ ¹ etymon is seen as a first syllable in Lisu and Akha, but in forms with different meanings. Thus the semantics of some etyma is less than certain, and more comparison with forms in related languages is required.

Similarly, if we compare within Tibetan and closely-related Bodish groups equally a representative of Western TB, we find the range of forms seen in Table 6.

Table six Bodish grain crops

Full size table

Within Tibetan itself, Balti is the westernmost variety, spoken in northern Kashmir since 737 AD and isolated since conversion to Islam in 783 Ad. Ladakhi and Dzongkha are spoken in separate political entities in northeastern Kashmir and in Kingdom of bhutan, but maintain contact with standard literary Tibetan. Chantyal is included equally a typical West Bodish language of Nepal; Kurtöp is included equally a typical Bumthang/Due east Bodish language of Bhutan. Every bit can be seen, West Bodish grain ingather terminology is mainly singled-out; East Bodish is much closer to Tibetan simply replaces one of the 'millet' etyma with the Tibetan 'edible bean' etymon. It is of course likely that with directly contact betwixt Tibetan and other Bodish languages, some Tibetan words may have been borrowed in place of the regular cognates. If the data is authentic, many Bodish languages have merged the 'millet' etyma, eliminating one or the other. At that place are articulate and widespread forms for 'wheat', 'barley', 'buckwheat' and 'rice', and two sporadically-maintained etyma for types of millet. Other than the Panicum form of Tibetan and the generalized millet grade of Ladakhi, none of these is similar to the Burmic etyma discussed above. Various loanword sources have been proposed for the Tibetan 'rice' term.

Table 7 compares Burmic, Bodish represented by Tibetan, Newari and Sinitic.

Tabular array seven ST and TB grains

Total size tabular array

In Bradley (1997) I speculated that there is a relationship between the Burmic Setaria and Sinitic Panicum forms, and there are Tibetan and Newari candidates for cognacy besides. Ane could also speculate that the Sinitic 'rice' course, the Burmese Panicum form and the first syllable of the Newari Setaria form are related, with diverse semantic shifts and affixes. Matisoff (2003:163) proposed a Ngwi (Loloish) etymon *g-ra for 'buckwheat', which might tempt one to reconstruct a TB etymon linking the Tibetan, Burmic and Newari forms, simply this is based on an incorrect initial reconstruction for Ngwi; the resemblance is mainly in the rhyme, which is not enough. We accept too seen that there is a likely link between the Sinitic 'grain' and the Burmic 'japonica rice' terms, perhaps with a full general significant 'grain'.

Looking beyond Burmic, Bodish and Newari to run across how grain crop terms are distributed within the major branches of TB, we detect interesting patterns which tend to support the classification of TB proposed in Bradley (2002), but which besides raise many questions requiring further enquiry.

Rice

Firstly, it should be said that terms for grains at different stages of employ (seed/unhusked grain, plant, husked grain, cooked grain) can readily shift referents from one grain to some other, so information technology is unwise to attribute them uniquely to ane grain. Secondly, in almost modern TB societies rice is the principal grain, and so the semantic shift if any is likely to have been toward rice-related referents. Thirdly, if it is correct that rice was non get-go domesticated by speakers of Proto-ST or Proto-TB, one would non look to find a universal reconstructable term. Finally, such words are subject to sociolinguistic change, whereby culturally-important words may have a series of honorific replacements through time, and there may be breezy and baby-talk alternatives equally well.

If we take the Burmic terms in Tabular array 5 above as a starting point, unhusked japonica paddy was , husked rice was *čan ¹ , and cooked rice was more variable, *dza ⁱ , *haŋ ² or *maŋ ^two . Nosotros tin probably dismiss *haŋ ⁱⁱ , equally in Burmese the cognate haŋ ⁴² /hĩ⁴²/ actually refers not to cooked rice only rather to cooked dishes eaten with rice; the Ngwi cognates are restricted to Southern and some Key Ngwi languages in any case. Nevertheless, there is besides a possible Na (transitional between Qiangic and Burmic) cognate form seen in Shixing and Naxi and significant 'cooked rice'. The *maŋ ² form is clearly secondary; it is seen with a prefixed syllable in Burmese t ^h amaŋ ⁴²/t^həmĩ⁴²/ and also in Gong /maŋ³³/, but not elsewhere. It is likely that the *dza ⁱ etymon is a doublet form of the near-universal Proto-TB verb form *dza 'swallow', though the latter comes out with a unlike tone in Burmic: *dza ² . This leaves us with no candidate term for cooked rice to trace further back from Eastern TB toward Proto-TB.

Cognates of the 'grain' term are fairly widespread, non just in Burmese but also in many other Burmish and other TB languages besides as in Sinitic. If this term has the Austroasiatic origin sometimes proposed (Diffloth 2005:78 'rice' for example), it must be an extremely early on loan. Its distribution within ST is not restricted to Sinitic and Eastern TB, which would have been closest to the early Austroasiatic area; in addition to Qiangic languages such every bit Tangut/Xixia, Qiang, Guiqiong, Zhaba, Daofu, Luzu and rGyalrung, possible cognates are also establish in Bai, Digarish and Mijuish Mishmi and in Tshangla. This puts it also in parts of Central and Western TB, though not in the Sal branch. I might chronicle various Western TB 'cooked rice' forms such equally West Bodish forms reflecting *kan and Bantawa (Kiranti) kok in addition to the apparent East Bodic Tshangla cognate.

The *čan ^one etymon is found throughout Burmic, as well in a nasal-prefixed course in Na languages and in many Qiangic languages. I also finds like forms with a final velar nasal in some Kuki-Chin languages, from Ao in the north to Mkaang, Thadou and Meithei in the due south.

We may as well consider the widely-proposed Proto-TB 'cooked rice' etymon *mai or *ma, seen in Sal languages such equally Bodo-Garo and Karenic *mai, as well *ma in Tani languages, Bai me, Karenic *me ³ and metathesised forms such as Nungish *am, Sak (Luish) aŋ and so on; we also observe forms reflecting *mama as a infant talk alternative in a number of Ngwi languages and in Qiang, as well as the general Jinghpaw term mam for 'grain'. In that location may exist a connection here with the Sinitic 米 etymon '(rice) grain', and a Tani *mi etymon with the meaning 'millet' at that place, noting the semantic shifts and the rhyme problem.

Millets

As nosotros have seen, Burmic has 2 solid millet etyma, Setaria millet *tsap and Panicum millet *lu ² . The former is near-universal among Burmish and Ngwi languages, the latter is less widely attested. As is often the case for Burmic etyma, we observe likely cognates for *tsap in a variety of Na and Qiangic languages, including Shixing, Guqiong and Qiang, and in Nungish languages such every bit Dulong, Anong and Rawang, so this is clearly an Eastern TB etymon. It is tempting to relate this to Tibetan tse, Newari dusi and farther to Sinitic (Baxter/Sagart 2011) *tsa[t]due south with a semantic shift. Blench (2009) proposes a Proto-ST Setaria etymon *tsɔk based on a unlike Chinese form (GSR 0337c in Table 1 above).

The Panicum millet etymon *lu is less widespread outside Eastern TB, simply in Western TB we find forms like lis, lik or rik in some Kiranti languages (Dumi, Hayu, Thulung, Limbu) and in Chepang. This may also be where the Tibetan forms derived from khre fit, along with West Bodish forms such equally Gurung and the second syllable of Thakali raŋre. More commonly encountered are forms reflecting *si seen in various Sal languages including Northern Naga (Konyak, Phom) and Bodo-Garo *maisi. In Western TB, some possible cognates are seen in Kiranti languages such as Thulung sər, not to mention the 2d syllable of Newari dusi; also in Bai se ²¹ , Tangut/Xixia so, and in Karen languages such every bit Kayan swì. Possible cognates related to *si are thus represented in Western, Sal and diverse smaller subgroups of TB, but not in Key or core Eastern TB. Some Cardinal TB languages support a form *yaŋ as seen in Digarish Mishmi, Mijuish Mishmi and Tshangla; this is maybe related to Tani *yak, Chin *θaaŋ, Jinghpaw ya and the get-go syllable of Thakali raŋre. Tangkhul has hanshi and rəŋ, the former reflecting *si and the latter peradventure indicating a link between *yaŋ and *lu. Note also the Sinitic 'rice' form and the kickoff syllable of the Newari Setaria class as possible cognates.

In general, much more than piece of work is needed to distinguish types of millet in many TB languages. Additional internal reconstruction within branches of TB other than Burmic is as well necessary before making further advances in reconstructing back to the Proto-TB stage.

Buckwheat

The Burmic reconstructed 'buckwheat' etymon *ŋga ^two is fairly widespread in Eastern TB languages. This includes forms in Qiangic languages such as Tangut/Xixia, Guiqiong and Ersu, in the Na languages such equally Naxi, in Bai and then on. Forms connected with Tibetan bra are too adequately widespread in a variety of Western TB languages, with an alternative form *bra-ma in Kiranti and in Eastward Bodish. Forms similar to bra are likewise seen in some Central TB languages such every bit the Tani group, Mijuish Mishmi, Digarish Mishmi and in some northern Qiangic languages such every bit Qiang, Daofu and Ergong which are in contact with Tibetan. We can also discern evidence for possibly related forms like *pawa in Nungish (Rawang, Dulong, Anong) and *s-ra in Sal languages such as Jinghpaw and some Qiangic languages. In addition to the two primary competing TB etyma, there is also bear witness for *šok in rGyalrung, *kyok in some non-Burmese Burmish languages and so on. More work inside diverse subgroups of TB is required to solidify these very tentative etyma. 1 should not exist misled by the frequent inclusion of the well-nigh-universal Proto-TB etymon *ka 'bitter' in many compounds for buckwheat, specially Fagopyrum tataricum which may have been the before cultivar in this area.

Job's tears

Relatively few sources contain this word at all, then the Burmic reconstructions *g-lit ^H , *ku ⁱ and *laŋ ^ane can inappreciably exist documented elsewhere, other than the possible loan in Chinese noted above. Mail service (2011) suggests a Tani group etymon , but cognates are not found outside this group. There appears also to be a Karenic etymon with an initial voiced bilabial stop. It is likely that with better information, a clearer motion picture would emerge.

Sorghum

Equally we accept seen, Burmic suggests a reconstructed form *p-loŋ ⁱⁱ for this etymon, but information technology is hardly represented in TB outside Burmish and Ngwi. We might compare the prefix to the etymon *bri found in Kiranti and parts of Northern Qiangic. Thus this ingather must exist relatively recent, and no TB etymon is reconstructable.

Wheat and barley

At that place are three main 'wheat' etyma suggested from TB data, including the Burmic *ša ³ course, forms related to the Tibetan gro form, and some Western and Sal forms suggesting *gom/goŋ: *gom in Bodo-Garo, *g-hoŋ in Chepang, Baram and Luish. The most widespread is the *ša ³ form, seen in many Qiangic languages (Ersu, Luzu, Pumi, Zhaba etc.), in Namuyi, in Nungish and throughout Ngwi and Burmish. Thus, this appears to be an Eastern TB etymon with diffusion into Nungish.

The Burmic 'barley' etymon *zu ³ is widely represented in some Qiangic languages (Ersu, Luzu, Pumi, Choyo, Daofu, Ergong, rGyalrung, etc.) with a voiceless initial, and in others (Muya, Qiang) with a voiced initial. In Na languages (Shixing, Na, Naxi) and in Bai, forms take a voiced initial, and in Nungish languages it varies. Cognates are widespread in Northern and Central Ngwi only less and then in Southern Ngwi. The Burmese form may be a loan from an Indic source, yáva. Equally in the example of *ša ^three 'wheat', the *zu ³ 'barley' etymon appears to be restricted to Eastern TB. The Tibetan nas grade is restricted to Bodic, including East Bodic Tshangla, and is occasionally borrowed into other TB languages.

Determination

Grain-growing agriculture was the footing of early Sinitic and every large early on TB order; however, the actual words for these grain crops do not prove articulate and regular cognates beyond the full range of ST and TB languages. The best hypothesis appears to be that gathering and and then cultivation of ii millets *lu Panicum and *tsap Setaria was very early, but with full etymological evidence obscured by semantic shifts every bit Sinitic and TB groups acquired alternative grain crops and moved into new ecological zones. Rice was after only likewise early, however the etymological evidence for the cognacy of rice-related lexicon in some branches of TB is less clear; the etymon may have been used for grain in general and later for rice in some languages, and the etymon *mai may have originally been used for cooked grain, later shifting to cooked rice in some TB languages. Van Driem (2009, 2011) suggests that the first domesticators of rice were speakers of Hmong-Mien languages in southeastern Red china. Other locally-domesticated crops such as buckwheat and Job's tears announced to have adult much later, possibly spreading from the Eastern TB area into Sinitic. Introduced crops, some of them quite early on such every bit wheat and barley, have also played an important function, and etyma for the earliest of these can be reconstructed dorsum to various intermediate stages, peculiarly for Eastern TB where available information is most detailed, but not to Proto-TB. Fifty-fifty more than recently-introduced crops like maize or others such as chillies, tomato plant, eggplant and white potato tin be revealing nigh recent contact and carve up phenomena. Genetic and contact linguistic relationships of more than contempo date can be traced through the distribution of words for these secondary crops as well equally some primary crops in some languages.

Methods

The comparative method in linguistics has been developed over the last 2 centuries. It was initially applied to Indo-European languages and subsequently to many other language families. Information technology involves identifying and comparing bones vocabulary to decide regular patterns of audio similarity and thus identifying cognates (historically related words). These similarities are not necessarily identity. For example, when comparison the number 'two' in various Indo-European languages, we observe initial t in English language, z (pronounced [ts]) in High german, d in Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and so on; such patterns are repeated in many cognates; see for case '10', 'tooth' and so on.

The comparative method allows for reasonable change in the pregnant of cognates in some languages; information technology also facilitates the identification of contact vocabulary (loanwords) which do not follow the regular patterns of audio similarity, but rather reverberate the word as it enters from another language; for example, all the English language words with meanings related to '2' which contain borrowed duo- with initial d.

In applying the comparative method, we may detect some faux negative results, cases in which the cognate word has disappeared from some or most related languages. If loanwords are non properly identified, there may as well initially be some false positive results, similar words which accept been borrowed.

The cognate words and their meanings allow the reconstruction of a great deal of information nearly the earlier culture of the speakers of the languages within the family; then, for example, if all words for 'rice' are cognate across a family and the word is not borrowed, we can infer that the ancestral group had rice or some similar establish.

Even the borrowed words are interesting in several means; firstly, they prove the management of cultural improvidence, for example the discussion for 'wheat' in Chinese as discussed above. They also reflect changes within the borrowing language after the borrowing. To give an English instance over again, the Latin plural ending –i in words such as alumni is now unremarkably pronounced with the sound [ai] according to a sound change which took place in English around 1600 AD. This ways that we can approximately date both the fourth dimension of borrowing and the diverse audio changes within a language prior to and afterward the borrowing.

While all piece of work within the comparative method is necessarily hypothetical, in a large language family like Sino-Tibetan or its component parts Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman we can discover a keen bargain about earlier stages of human social club through its use. This includes its agronomical practices and crops.

References

• Bajracharya AR. N.Southward. 2046. Namaste Discussion-book (Nepali, Newari, Hindi, English). Kathmandu: writer 1989–90.

• Baxter WA. Personal communication. 2011.

• Baxter WA, Sagart 50. Baxter-Sagart Sometime Chinese Reconstruction (version 1.00). http://world wide web.crlao.ehess.fr/document.php?id=1217 Accessed 1 September 2011. (n.d.).

• Cringe R. If agriculture cannot exist reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan what are the consequences? Paper presented at the 42nd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Chiangmai, Thailand, ii–4 Nov 2009. 2009.

• Bradley D. Proto-Loloish. London: Curzon Press; 1979.

  Google Scholar

• Bradley D. What did they eat? Grain crops of the Burmic groups. Mon-Central khmer Stud. 1997;27:161–lxx.

  Google Scholar

• Bradley D. The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In: Beckwith CI, editor. Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages. Leiden: Brill; 2002. p. 73–112.

  Google Scholar

• Diffloth G. The contribution of linguistic paleontology to the homeland of Proto-Austroastiatic. In: Sagart L, Cringe R, Sanchez-Mazas A, editors. The Peopling of East Asia: putting together the archaeology. London: RoutledgeCurzon; 2005. p. 77–80.

  Chapter  Google Scholar

• Hamid A. Ladakhi-English-Urdu Dictionary. Leh: Melong Publications; 1998.

  Google Scholar

• Hyslop G. Personal communication. 2011.

• Jäschke HÄ. A Tibetan-English Dictionary. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1881.

  Google Scholar

• Jørgensen H. A Dictionary of Classical Newari. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard; 1936.

  Google Scholar

• Judson, A. Judson's Burmese-English language Dictionary, revised and enlarged by Robert C. Stevenson and F. H. Eveleth. Rangoon: Baptist Board of Publications. 1853/1966.

• Kölver U, Shreshtacharya I. A Dictionary of Contemporary Newari, Newari-English. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag; 1994.

  Google Scholar

• Luce GH. Phases of pre-Infidel Burma, languages and history. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985.

  Google Scholar

• Malla KP, et al. A Lexicon of Classical Newari, compiled from manuscript sources. Kathmandu: Cwāsā Pāsā. 2000.

• Manandhar TL. Newari-English Dictionary, modern language of Kathmandu valley. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. A Vergati (editor); 1986.

• Matisoff JA. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. University of California Publications in Linguistics 135. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2003.

• Myanmar Linguistic communication Commission. [Myanmar-English language Dictionary]. Yangon: Myanmar Language Commission, Ministry of Pedagogy; 1993.

• Noonan M. Chantyal Lexicon and Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 1999.

  Google Scholar

• Mail service M. Personal communication. 2011.

• Pulleyblank EG. Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in Early on Middle Chinese, Tardily Middle Chinese and Early Standard mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press; 1991.

  Google Scholar

• Sagart Fifty. The roots of Quondam Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1999.

  Book  Google Scholar

• Sprigg RK. Balti-English English-Balti Dictionary. London: RoutledgeCurzon; 2002.

  Google Scholar

• Tshering K. Personal communication. 2011.

• van Driem G. Rice and the Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien homelands. Paper presented at 4th International Briefing on Austroasiatic Linguistics, Mahidol U; 2009.

• van Driem K. The ethnolinguistic identity of the domesticators of Asian rice. Ms; 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very pleased to acknowledge data and suggestions from William A. Baxter, Franklin Southworth, Gwen Hyslop, Ken Manson, Mark Post, Laurent Sagart, Karma Tshering and diverse participants in the Cornell symposium; of course they are not responsible for any conclusions I take drawn. Data not otherwise attributed is from my field notes and/or the STEDT database.

Author data

Affiliations

1. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe Academy, Melbourne, Australia

   David Bradley

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Bradley.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed nether the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution ii.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ii.0 ), which permits unrestricted employ, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original piece of work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this commodity

Cite this article

Bradley, D. Proto-Tibeto-Burman Grain Crops. Rice four, 134–141 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12284-011-9074-y

Download citation

• Received: 09 Oct 2011

• Accustomed: 06 December 2011

• Published: fourteen January 2012

• Issue Engagement: Dec 2011

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12284-011-9074-y

Keywords

• Panicum Miliaceum
• Naxi
• Yellow River Valley
• Chinese Grade
• Fagopyrum Tataricum

petchyhationly.blogspot.com

Source: https://thericejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s12284-011-9074-y

Share this post