Classical Newari and Proto-Tibeto-Burman :

1. Classical Newariand Proto-Tibeto-Burman: A Tale of the Tail Presented by: Dr. Kamal P. Malla

2. Introduction • The presentation aims to show the relevance of the Newar Lexicographic resources for comparative linguistic studies in Tibeto-Burman in general and the STEDT Project in particular with the help of a single root : the tail.

3. The advances in Tibeto-Burman comparative studies were made in fits and starts till the monumental Kroeber Project headed by Robert Shafer in 1939-41. The results of the project had remained inaccessible till the 1960s, except for Shafer, 1966-73, before Matisoff salvaged it in the form of STC in 1972.

4. Among many brilliant insights, it contains a body of 491 reconstructed proto-Tibetan roots, and about 300 roots embedded in crowded notes and editorial notes.

5. It also contains an invaluable comparative data on some 325 proto-TB forms and Old Chinese etymons based on Karlgren, GSR, 1957.

6. Among these several roots, interestingly enough, one is the reconstructed PTB root for the tail.

7. For decades, Matisoff has been pleading for “the organic approach to language reconstruction and comparison”, against the utility of traditional Indo-European tools in general and lexicostatistics in particular for TB studies .

8. Although his new book (2005) is more mellow, it is not against looking for “sound laws” . However, it is at best agnostic between “the semantic domain” or organic approach and the syllabic/phonological approach of looking for sound correspondences by slots in the syllable.

9. If one scrutinizes the questionnaire circulated by the STEDT Project for the body parts, one notices several “cultural” assumptions , for example, relating to what is and what is not a part of the body.

10. These assumptions become evident as soon as one compares this list with, for example, the 92+ body-part terms contained in the classical Sanskrit lexicon, theAmarakosha, dated about 5-6th Century A.D. or with terms contained in the multilingual Lexicon, the Mahavyutpatti, comissioned by Ral-pa chen (murdered in A.D. 842)

11. How finely differentiated is the so-called tribal/primitive mind? Did our ancestors have only one word for one “body part”? Do all heads or tails of the living beings look alike?These are vexing questions for the comparativist.

12. Hunting for roots and proto-forms, particularly invariant proto-forms, some of these questions may be relevant. As we learn from the dialect continua of Tibetan, it is not always easy to choose a canonical form for comparison.

13. Newar/Newari/Nepala-Bhasa is a language now spoken by about 8,50, 000 in and around the Kathmandu valley, an ethnic, areal and typological crossroad of the Himalayas. Inheriting both Sinospheric and Indospheric features, Its written records go back to early 12th century.

14. Recently, two major dictionaries of the Classical Newari have been published– the first in the electronic form in the Internet (1995-98) and another in hard copies (2000). Between these materials, there are nearly 58,000 attested and dated lexical material dated between the 13th and 19th centuries —probably one of the largest in any TB language

15. As the genetic sub-classification of this “Bodish” or “Central Himalayish language ” is still debated, it might be worthwhile to compare some of its attested/dated roots with the currently available stock of Proto-Tibeto-Burman roots,-- approximately 1350(?)(.Matisoff, 2005: pp. 639-675).

16. In order to show the relevance of Newar materials, we would like to focus on just one root : the tail, PTB *ba; *may<>mey<>*me (according to Matisoff); *r-mey , (according to Benedict:1972:64, no 282) and *k-r-mei(according to Shafer, 1966:29).

17. Although they drew upon the same or almost the same set of comparanda, their proposals are not identical.

18. Among these contesting hypothetical forms of the root, which one may be canonized and why? This remains a key debatable question.

19. Newari may offer some solace in this issue: the Newari lexicon records several orthographic variants, mhe in and around A.D. 1380 and later nhi-pot, nhi-pvala, nhi-pona, and nhi-pa-- to cope with the development of the classifier system for specifying various semantic dimensions and shapes of the tail of various animals and birds, including the fish.

20. The Newari data shows that to late 14th century the language had still preserved two elements of the root: a bilabial nasal stop and a mid-front vowel. The aspiration or breathiness appears to have been a compensation for the loss of a prefixed *r-.

21. A whole series of body part terms, nhas (the nose), mhu-tu (the mouth), nhae-pon,(the ear) nhe-pu (the brain), nha-ku (side of the head), mhi-kha ? (eye) etc. still preserve this feature

22. If we look up the dictionaries of contemporary or colloquial Newar, the mhe-form for the tail was already out of use by the mid-16th century, displaced by nhi-pota, the form recorded by Shafer, 1967:159, 162). Assuming that the older the record the closer it is to the proto-language, how does one decide when there are no written records among a continuum of multiple dialects?

23. State the purpose of the discussion

24. Identify yourself

25. Topics of Discussion • State the main ideas you’ll be talking about

26. Topic One • Details about this topic • Supporting information and examples • How it relates to your audience

27. Topic Two • Details about this topic • Supporting information and examples • How it relates to your audience

28. Topic Three • Details about this topic • Supporting information and examples • How it relates to your audience

29. Real Life • Give an example or real life anecdote • Sympathize with the audience’s situation if appropriate

30. What this means? • Add a strong statement that summarizes how you feel or think about this topic • Summarize key points you want your audience to remember

31. Next Steps • Summarize any actions required of your audience • Summarize any follow up action items required of you

32. Thank you. • A Tale of the Tail –