The Tibeto-Kanauri languages, also called Bodic, Bodish–Himalayish, and Western Tibeto-Burman, are a proposed intermediate level of classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages, centered on the Tibetic languages and the Kinnauri dialect cluster. The conception of the relationship, or if it is even a valid group, varies between researchers.
| Tibeto-Kanauri | |
|---|---|
| Bodic, Bodish–Himalayish Western Tibeto-Burman | |
| Geographic distribution | Nepal, Tibet, and neighboring areas |
| Linguistic classification | Sino-Tibetan
|
| Subdivisions | |
| Glottolog | bodi1256 |
Conceptions of Tibeto-Kanauri
![Western Tibeto-Burman languages, largely following Thurgood and La Polla (2003).[1]](https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/File:SinoTibetanTree.svg)
Benedict (1972) originally posited the Tibeto-Kanauri aka Bodish–Himalayish relationship, but had a more expansive conception of Himalayish than generally found today, including Qiangic, Magaric, and Lepcha. Within Benedict's conception, Tibeto-Kanauri is one of seven linguistic nuclei, or centers of gravity along a spectrum, within Tibeto-Burman languages. The center-most nucleus identified by Benedict is the Jingpho language (including perhaps the Kachin–Luic and Tamangic languages); other peripheral nuclei besides Tibeto-Kanauri include the Kiranti languages (Bahing–Vayu and perhaps the Newar language); the Tani languages; the Bodo–Garo languages and perhaps the Konyak languages); the Kukish languages (Kuki–Naga plus perhaps the Karbi language, the Meitei language and the Mru language); and the Burmish languages (Lolo-Burmese languages, perhaps also the Nung language and Trung).[2]
Matisoff (1978, 2003) largely follows Benedict's scheme, stressing the teleological value of identifying related characteristics over mapping detailed family trees in the study of Tibeto-Burman and Sino-Tibetan languages. Matisoff includes Bodish and West Himalayish with the Lepcha language as a third branch. He unites these at a higher level with Mahakiranti as Himalayish.[3][4]
Van Driem (2001) notes that the Bodish, West Himalayish, and Tamangic languages (but not Benedict's other families) appear to have a common origin.[5]
Bradley (1997) takes much the same approach but words things differently: he incorporates West Himalayish and Tamangic as branches within his "Bodish", which thus becomes close to Tibeto-Kanauri. This and his Himalayan family[same as Mahakiranti?] constitute his Bodic family.[6]
References
Further reading
- Bradley, David (2002). "The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman". In Christopher I. Beckwith (ed.). Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages: proceedings of a symposium held in Leiden, June 26, 2000, at the 9th Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies. Brill's Tibetan studies library. Vol. 1. BRILL. pp. 73–112. ISBN 978-90-04-12424-0.
- Hale, Austin (1982). "Review of Research". Research on Tibeto-Burman languages. Trends in Linguistics. Vol. 14. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 30–49 passim. ISBN 978-90-279-3379-9.
- Singh, Rajendra (2009). Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics: 2009. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs. Vol. 222. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 154–161. ISBN 978-3-11-022559-4.