Browse results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 3,681 items for :

  • Languages and Linguistics x
  • Languages of Continental South-East Asia x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
Significant O/P works of reference that complement the focus of the Languages of Asia series that seeks to redress the balance of underrepresentation in Western scholarship of the following language families and isolates: Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Koryak, Itel'men (Kamchadal), Tungustic, Yukaghir, Ainu, Nivx, Japonic (Japanese and Ryukyuan), Korean, Mongolic, Turkic, the Tibeto-Burman languages found in Central Asia (e.g. Tibetan or Tangut), Yeniseian, Burushaski and Uralic.
In: Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale

Abstract

In 1853, Brian Houghton Hodgson published linguistic data for Rma (< Trans-Himalayan) under the label ‘Thochu’. Nonetheless, his work has not been fully considered in the study of Rma historical linguistics. Recent advances in the study of Rma phonology allow for us to more confidently identify the position of the variety described by Hodgson as well as isoglosses between Thochu and other Rma varieties. This present article gives an analysis of the Rma forms given by Hodgson and discusses their implications for the historical phonology of Rma.

Full Access
In: Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale
Authors: and

Abstract

This study examines the use of various types of disposal constructions in the Chenghai dialect of Chaoshan Southern Min. Based on the distinction between head-marking and dependent-marking grammar, we identify four types of disposal constructions, depending on the position of the marker. We performed the fruit cart task to elicit disposal constructions from 30 native speakers of this dialect. Our results indicate that zero-marking is the most dominant construction type, where topicalization represents the most common subtype; this observation is in line with Southern Min’s strong tendency towards topicalized structures. Nonetheless, despite its dominance at present, the frequency of this construction type increases with age, which suggests that it may be losing ground. Notably, according to our preliminary observation, another topicalized structure in Chenghai Southern Min also seems falling into disfavour, suggesting that the declining use of topicalization in this Chaoshan dialect may be systemic.

Full Access
In: Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale
Free access
In: Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale
Author:

Abstract

Because most Sino-Tibetan languages with a literary tradition use Indic derived scripts and those that do not are each sui generis, there are advantages to transcribing these languages also along Indic lines. In particular, this article proposes an Indological transcription for Middle Chinese.

Open Access
In: Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale
Author:

Abstract

Gyalrongic languages exhibit a series of non-trivial nasal-plosive (or approximant) correspondences, which so far lack an explanation. Some nasal consonants, mainly found in West Gyalrongic languages, correspond to plosives or approximants in their East Gyalrongic cognates. Long considered irregular, these correspondences have never been studied with the comparative method. This paper tackles these seeming correspondences and makes the first attempt to reconstruct them. I propose a series of voiceless nasals to account for their modern reflexes with various articulation manners, and analyse the plausibility of this reconstruction. I discuss the forms in question vis-à-vis their cognates in other Sino-Tibetan languages that exhibit a nasal. I also compare alternative solutions with the voiceless nasal hypothesis.

Full Access
In: Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale

Abstract

The article discusses Bhāviveka’s Prajñāpradīpavṛtti and Avalokitavrata’s Prajñāpradīpaṭīkā commentaries on the “not without a cause” (nāpy ahetutaḥ) alternative of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1ab, from which it emerges that at least two distinct theories of causality can be attributed to the Lokāyata school. The first one is a physicalist theory that confines all causal relations within the sphere of material elements and is assimilated to accidentalism. The second one is a naturalist theory that attributes causal power to inner nature (svabhāva). The paper discusses the theoretical differences between these two approaches, considers Bhāviveka’s and Avalokitavrata’s counter-arguments and concludes that some of the conjectures that modern scholars have put forward on the relation between svabhāvavāda, accidentalism and Lokāyata should be revised.

Full Access
In: Indo-Iranian Journal
Free access
In: Indo-Iranian Journal
In: Indo-Iranian Journal