[Tibeto-burman-linguistics] A question about numerals

Thu Dec 18 11:43:43 UTC 2014

In some Rgyalrongic languages and in Tangut, "one" as a free numeral and
"one" as a numeral prefix in classifiers are expressed by different roots:

Stau e-(fku) "one (year)" vs ru "one" (<*rik)
Tangut .a-(kjiw) "one (year)" vs lew "one"

In Tibetan we have *gang *"one" in the same kind of contexts as *bleng *in
Kurtöp. It is, in my view, derived from the verb *gang *'be full', the
anticausative of '*gengs*, *bkang *'to fill' (note also the adjective
*gang.po* "entire, complete')

A potential etymology for *bleng* would be along the same lines, a noun or
adjective meaning 'full, complete', then reanalyzed as a numeral "one" when
used with mass nouns (a bit like English hand > "a handfull"). There is in
Tibetan a possible cognate *byings.po* "complete", which comes from
*blyings, a shown by the word family relationship with *lings.po*
"complete", see :

https://www.academia.edu/2261557/The_laterals_in_Tibetan

Kurtöp -eng regulalry corresponds to Tibetan -ing in the inherited
vocabulary (this is the result of Dempsey's law, see:

http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/18336/1/Hill%202014%20Dempsey%20exceptions.pdf

Guillaume

2014-12-17 11:24 GMT+01:00 Gwendolyn Hyslop <gwendolyn.hyslop at gmail.com>:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Many thanks for such insightful responses! This is all very interesting
> and Norihiko-san and Randy's comments put an interesting spin on things and
> give me much to think about. If Randy -- or anyone else -- has more details
> about the systems or forms in other Tibeto-Burman languages I would be
> quite interested in references or details. I'm especially wondering if
> there there any cognates out there for *bleng* and *gwâ* (alternates with
> *gwak*, so probably the more original form would be *gwak*).
>
> Gwen
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 2:30 PM, HAYASHI NORIHIKO wrote:
>
> I should add some information on Japanese.
>
> After posting the last email, I realized my information is somewhat
> misleading.
> The Japanese originated classifiers usually co-occur with the Japanese
> numerals under 'four'.
> If you wish to say 'five bags' or 'six bags', we usually use Kango
> numerals like 'go-hukuro' [five<CH>-CLF<J>], 'rop-pukuro' [six<CH>-CLF<J>].
>
> So, the native numeral in Japanese can be considered to be in limited use.
>
> Norihiko
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* HAYASHI NORIHIKO <jinozu at yahoo.co.jp>
> *To:* Randy LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com>; Gwendolyn Lowes Hyslop <
> gwendolyn.hyslop at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* The Tibeto-Burman Discussion List Discussion List <
> tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date:* 2014/12/17, Wed 10:20
> *Subject:* Re: [Tibeto-burman-linguistics] A question about numerals
>
> Hello! Gwen-san and all!
>
> I think it is interesting to note that the numerals in Bhutanese languages
> also have
> two-way systems, one of which is borrowed from other language sources, as
> Prof. LaPolla said.
> In Modern Japanese, we generally use two-way system when counting from one
> to ten,
> and if the classifier is Japanese origin, the numeral should be also
> Japanese origin in general.
> If the classifier is Kango (Chinese) origin, the numeral should be also
> Chinese origin.
>
> 'one'  iti <CH>/ hito <J>
> 'two' ni <CH>/ huta  <J>
> 'three' san <CH>/ mi <J>
> .....
> 'ten' zyuu <CH>/ too <J>
>
> 'a piece of paper' iti-mai [one<CH>-CLF<CH>]
> 'a bag' hito-hukuro [one<J>-CLF<J>]
>
> Over 'ten', we generally use Kango originated numerals, though we used to
> have Japanese ones in former days.
>
> In Standard Thai, there are two kinds of 'one' and 'two', though their
> features are not similar to Japanese.
> The word for 'one' is nWng (Low tone) and for 'two' is sOOng (Rising tone).
> There are, however, the other words for 'one' and 'two', namely, et (Low
> tone) and yii (Falling tone) respectively.
> Et is used for 'twenty-one', 'thirty-one', ..., 'ninety-one', and yii is
> used for 'twenty', 'twenty-one', 'twenty-two', ... 'twenty-nine'.
> Both of them are Chinese origins as well as sOOng for 'two'.
>
> So, I think Kurtop system is somewhat similar to Japanese one rather than
> Thai.
>
> All the best,
>
> Norihiko
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Randy LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com>
> *To:* Gwendolyn Lowes Hyslop <gwendolyn.hyslop at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* The Tibeto-Burman Discussion List Discussion List <
> tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date:* 2014/12/17, Wed 09:21
> *Subject:* Re: [Tibeto-burman-linguistics] A question about numerals
>
> Hi Gwen,
> This is actually found in a number of languages in the family, though I
> don't have access to the information right now. It often implies there was
> a native system that was replaced by a borrowed one, as in Japanese and
> Thai.
>
> Randy
>
> On 17 Dec, 2014, at 7:08 am, Gwendolyn Hyslop <gwendolyn.hyslop at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Tibeto-Burmanists,
>
> In most languages of Bhutan I have looked at, I have found special forms
> of the numbers 'one' and 'two' for measurement contexts. For example,
> Kurtöp 'one' and 'two' are *thê* and *zon* unless counting things like
> containers (*bre, phuya, *etc.) of grain, points in archery, distance
> measured by fingers, hands, bodies, etc. In those contexts 'one' and 'two'
> are *bleng* and *gwâ*. I believe a similar system is also in Tibetan as
> well as in other Bhutanese languages, although the forms do not appear to
> be cognate (Dzongkha *g'ang* and *d'o, *for example)*.*  Although it is
> not exactly the same sort of system, I am also reminded of the difference
> between the two Mandarin words for 'two*'. (er2* and *liang3*)
>
> So, my question to you: how widespread is this? Is it just a
> Tibetan/Bhutan thing or is it more widespread than this?
>
> Cheers,
> Gwen
> _______________________________________________
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-burman-linguistics
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-burman-linguistics
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-burman-linguistics
>
>

-- 
Guillaume Jacques
CNRS (CRLAO) - INALCO
http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacques
http://himalco.hypotheses.org/
http://panchr.hypotheses.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/tibeto-burman-linguistics/attachments/20141218/3d39e143/attachment.htm>