[Tibeto-burman-linguistics] A question about numerals

Sat Dec 20 17:37:18 UTC 2014

Hey all,
Just to add a note that Rawat (ISO code jnl) has diff roots for cardinal & ordinal 'one' and 'first' ... 

dã 'One'
dã  RT+RW num., adj., adv., pron. one, a, alone, single, only, it. RW: dã hawlo biy-ha-re, a fog is coming. (Also Raute (rau): dã-ha phwə-i le, only he has gone). [< ST *dan ‘one’; PTB *dan ‘single, one, whole, only’] 

ti- 'First' (of smthg)
ti RW adj. first (of smthg). ti-lya ãulya, first finger, fore-finger. [ti, < PTB *t(y)ik ‘one’].  

Also, note that Kavita Rastogi recorded Raji/Rawat ginta 'first' and Shree Krishnan recorded ginta 'before' and ginta-ko 'first'. 

I can't speak to Raji/Rawat ginta 'first' since I didn't record it... but comparatively, Raute has giŋ and this might correlate with Raji/Rawat 'first/before'  and/or items from Tibetan, Tangut, etc. being mentioned by others..

giŋ, gɛŋ RT n. long ago, before, past time, old (of things), ancient. Rautes talked about some stories being giŋ, meaning stories from long ago. [cf. ST *(s-)niŋ ‘in past time, formerly’; cf. also PTB *r-ga ‘old’]. see also ma-rey

Best,

Jana Fortier

On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:43 AM, Guillaume Jacques wrote:

> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics mailing list
> Tibeto-burman-linguistics at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/tibeto-burman-linguistics

Jana Fortier
Lecturer
Dept of Anthropology -0532
UCSD
La Jolla, CA 92093-0532

Jana Fortier
jxfortier at gmail.com
jfortier at ucsd.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/tibeto-burman-linguistics/attachments/20141220/8b48b6d8/attachment.htm>