CHAPTER 2

CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE

 CHAPTER 2
CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE

2.1 Genetic Classification:

The history of the language classification is older one and it can be traced back to

early thirteenth century attempts. Genetic classification is the classification of the

languages assuming that the languages have a common ancestor from which they

have diverged and belong to the same language family. A language family is a

group of languages that are related to their descendents from a common proto-

language. The evidence of relationship can be observed by those observable

features and characteristics, which are common, as the biological relationship can

be found by the genetic make up of the human. It has been observed that the

families of phylogenetic unit have a common ancestor.

The relationship of the language families can be assumed from those systejjnatic

differences and similarities that are observable. The languages have grown over a

period of time rather created suddenly. All natural languages of the world have

historical base. The boundary of linguistic ancestry is always not clear as the

languages come into contact with each other due to conquest or trade or through

other means and they tend to borrow the features from the languages with which

they do not have any historical relationship. The Creoles are one of the examples

41
of language contact situation. However, such cases are very rare when the

languages can not be classified into any family. The common ancestor of a

language family can be identified by the comparative and re-construction

methods. Since most of the languages have a relatively very short-recorded

history, such methods are always handy in establishing the genetic relationship.

The comparative and reconstruction methods were introduced by the 19 century

linguist August Schleicher. On these linguistic parameters the Indian languages

are grouped into four language families: Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman

and Austro-Asiatic.

2.1.1 Classification of Sino- Tibetan Language Family:

Tibeto-Burman is the sub-branch of Sino-Tibetan language family. The Sino-

Tibetan language family is the most populous language family in the world. Sino-

Tibetan language family consists of Chinese and Tibeto- Burman languages,

including many languages of East- Asia. The Sino- Tibetan languages share

similar features, as it is very common to have tones in these languages. At this

point of time the comparative method is necessary to find the genetic relations of

the languages. However, it goes without saying that such features also inter-mix

in a close contact situation. The Sino- Tibetan languages are found in China,

Nepal, and Myanmar, Northern parts of Thailand, Laos and Vietnam.

42
2.1.1.1 The classifications of Sino-Tibetan:

Benedict (1942) and Robert Shaffer (1955) made the classification of Sino-

Tibetan in 40s and 50.

The classification of Benedict of Sino- Tibetan (1942)

Sinitic Tibeto-Karen

r^—i
Karen Tibeto-Burman

Figure (ii)

Benedict classified the Sino- Tibetan languages into two branches i.e. Sinitic and

Tibeto- Karen. He again classified the Tibeto- Karen into two branches Karen and

Tibeto- Burman.

43
 The classification of Shaffer of Sino-Tibetan (1955)

Daic
Karenic 1 \ (Western China) Sinitic
and \ \ China, Thailand
(Central \ \ and parts of Burma
Southern Baric
Burma) (Assam) \ Bodic
\(Stretching from
\ Western Hima-
\ layas through
\ Nepal and into
Burmic Assam, Tibet and
Indo-Burma frontier, Western China)
Burma Indo-China
(East Tibet and South
and South West china)

Figure (iii)

Shaffer classified the Sino-Tibetan family into five main branches: Karenic,

Baric, Burmic, Bodic, Daic and Sinitic. The Karenic branch includes the areas of

central and Southern Burma and Assam. Burmic branch includes the areas of

Indo-Burma frontier, Burma Indo-China, East Tibet and South West china. Bodic

branch includes the areas of Western Himalayas through, Nepal and into Assam,

Tibet and Western China. The Daic branch includes the areas of Western China,

Thailand and part of Burma.

2.1.1.2 Classification of Tibeto- Burtnan Languages:

Sino-Tibetan has two major language families. Tibeto-Burman is one of them and

the other is the Sinitic (Chinese) languages. The Tibeto-Burman consists of

44
around 200-300 languages spoken in the following areas: (1) South East Asia and

Myanmar, (2) Vietnam in the east, (3) northern Pakistan in the west and (4) a

large group of population in the North Eastern part of India.

The classification of Benedict of Tibeto-Burman (1972)

Tibetan Kanauri Abor- miri-dafla Burmase Lolo Baric

Vayu Bahing Kuki Naga

Figure (iv)

Benedict classified the languages of Tibeto Burman into the following six groups,

(1) Tibetan Kanauri, (2) Bahing Vayu, (3) Abor- miri- dafla, (4) Burmase Lolo,

(5) Kuki Naga and (6) Baric.

45
The Classification of Tibeto-Burman by Needham, Robbinson, (1855) from

Paul. K. Benedict (1972)

Sino-Tibetan

Tibeto-Karen Chinese

Tibeto-Burman Karen

Lepcha
Bahing Yayu\Tibeto-Kanauri , Gyanrung
Newari-
Kachin Burmese-Lolo

Abor Miri Dafla Nung(ish)

Bodo-Garo, Trung
Konyak

Kuki-Naga
Mikir
Meitei
Mru

Figure (v)

Sino-Tibetan, considered as the greater branch, is divided into Tibeto-Karen and

Chinese. Tibeto-Karen is again divided into Tibeto-Burman and Karen. The

46
Tibeto-Burman is sub-divided into Tibeto-Kanauri. It has another branch called

Kachin, which has many sub-branches: Kuki Naga ( Mikir, Meitei and Mru),

Lepcha,, Bahing Vayu, Newari, Abor Miri Dafla, Bodo-Garo, Konyak, Gyanrung,

Burmese-Lolo, Nung(ish), Luish, Trung, Taman.

Bernard Comrie's (1990) Classification based on suggestions of Shaffer

(1966-73), Benedict (1972) and other scholars:

Higher- order Groupings within Tibeto-Burman

Tibeto-Burman

Bodic Baric Burmic Karen ic

Bodish East
Himalaya

LoloBurmic
Kamarupan Kachinic-Rung* Naxi
(Moso)

47
 Middle-Level relationships within Tibeto-Burman
Bodic

East Himalayan

Tibeto-Kanauri Gurung Newari Kham-Magar Kiranti

Tamang
Takhali

Baric

Kachinic

Abor- Mikir Kuki-Naga Bodo-Konyak Luish Jingphlo

Miri-Dafla Meitei

Kuki Chin Naga Konyak

48
 Lolo-Burmese

Gyanrong
Loloish Burmish
Nung Tangut (Moso)

Figure (vi)
According to Comrie (1990) the dotted line is the controversial relationship, or

the relationship, which is not certain.

49
The classification of Tibeto- Burman of Scot De Lancy (1987)
TibetOrChinese
Tibeto Burman

Tibeto- Himalayan North Assam AssamBurmese

Bhotia Himalayan Adi

Haiti Kinauki Nissi/ Dafla
Ladakhi Lepcha Mishmi
Lahauli Miri/ Mishing
Monpa
Sikkim Bhutii
Burmese Bodo Naga Kuki- Chin
Mogh Bode/ Bore Angami Manipuri
Lalung Sema Meitei
Dimasa Kheza Thado
Rabha Ao Paite
Mikir Lotha Hmar
Garo Chang Vaiphei
Koch Konyak Kuki
Tripuri Zeliang Lakher
Tangsa Lushai/
Sangtam Mizo
Wancho Pawi/
Yimchunger Pot
Khiemnungan Halam
Kabui
Mao
Tangkhul
Figure (vii) Nocte

50
Phom being the Naga group of languages can be placed under the Naga languages

along with Chang, Wancho, Nocte.

Another Genetic Classification of Tibeto- Burman language family of Scot De

Lancy (1989)

Tibeto- Burman

Bodic Baric Burmic Karenic

Bodish East Himalayan Kamarupan Kachinic Riyang Lolo Burmic

Abor- Miri- Mikir Cuki Naga Bodo Luish Jingphlo

Dafla Meitei Konyak

Kuki- Chin Naga Konyak Bodo Garo

Figure (viii)

Phom is a Naga language and can be placed under the Naga group of Languages

in Bodo Konyak sub-group.

51
 The Classification of Robbins Burling (1998)

Tibeto-Burman

Yacham-tengsa
Eastern Arear
Chungli-Ao
Mongsen- Ao
Northerr Lotha
Area
" Sangtam
-Yinchunger
Central Area
Ntenyi
Bodo -Meluri
Konyak -Pochury Angami
Luish -Sema
- Rengmg Chokri
Kheza

Mao
— Mzieme
— Zeme
'—Liangmai

— Nrunghmei Rongmei
_ Purion
— Maran
— khoirao

J Tangkhul
' — Maring

- Kuki
- Chin
— Mizo

Karbi
Figure (ix)
Meitei

52
According to Robbins Burling, (Linguistic of the Tibeto- Burman Area, Volume

21.2-Fall 1998),

The Tibeto- Burman languages that are often referred to as the

Northern Naga or Konyak languages are spoken along the
extreme north eastern border of India on both sides of the
boundary that divides the Indian states of Nagaland and
Arunachal Pradesh. From North to South, this group of
languages includes Tangsa, Nocte and wancho in Arunachal
Pradesh, and Konyak, Phom and Chang just to the South West in
Nagaland.

It appears that Robbins Burling's definition is purely geographical

There were many attempts to classify the Naga group of languages in the Tibeto-

Burman language family. The first attempt to classify Naga languages was made

by Nathan Brown, a Baptist missionary in Assam. He made a sincere effort to

classify Naga languages in 1851. Sreedhar (1974) has highlighted rightly:

He classified the languages into three groups that are Nocte,

Konyak and Ao. He found many differences between the
languages of the North and Angami in the South. G.Grierson's
Linguistic Survey of India is the exhaustive work on Naga
languages and their classification. Marrison (1967) has classified
the Naga languages in his work, Classification of Naga Languages
in North East India. R.Shaffer (1953), has classified the Northern
most Naga languages. Grierson (1903), has also made the claim
that Naga languages have dialects which differ from each other. He
also made the claim that the Naga dialects are connected with the
Bodo and Kuki- Chin languages in the south and in the west, with
the several dialects that they have are put together as the North
Assam group.

53
Now, it is well established that Phom belongs to the Tibeto-Burman family of

languages. According to the Census of India 1991, paper 1 of 1997- India and

States (Table C-7), the Phom language has been placed under Tibeto-Burmese

family of languages. G.A. Grierson has mentioned about the Phoms by the name

TAMLU or CHINGMENGNU in the Linguistic Survey of India, vol. Ill, part II.

He said:

Immediately to the east of the Aos, in the extreme north-east of the

districts of the Naga Hills, where it meets the Sibsagar District we
come upon two tribes living together, the Tamlu or Chingmengnu
and Tableng or Angwankhu.

He places the language in the Eastern sub-group. According to Grierson,

Chingmengnu called themselves as 'Dikpa KatS'and the name Tamlu was given

to the tribe by the English people. According to Grierson, "the languages and

Tamlu was ceasing to be agglutinative and was becoming more synthetic."

Grierson (1903) claimed:

Naga group of languages comprise a long series of dialects, which

mutually differ much from each other. They are on the whole more
closely related to the Tibetan than to the Burmese.

He further made the claim:

In the south and in the west, the Naga dialects are connected with
the Bodo and Kuki-Chin languages by means of several dialects,
which have been put together as the North Assam group.

54
Grierson's Classification (1901):

Grierson (1901) has classified the Naga group of languages into three groups:

a) Western Group
b) Central Group
c) Eastern Group

Western Group

Angami \ "Rengma Kheza

Sema

Central Group

Ao \ \ ~^ others
Lotha Yimchunger

Eastern Group

AngwSffiichu
or
Tableng / Chang \ \ \ \ ^ \ Tan^sa
(Konyak) / or \ \ \ \ \^(Shangge)
Mamjungl \Mutonis
Chingmengnu \ \ \. Moshang
or Banpara Mohangia \(Mohangia)
Tamlu (Wancho) (Nocte)
(Phom) Assiringia
Figure (x)

The Western group consists of Angami, Sema, Rengma and Kheza. The Central

group consists of Ao, Lotha, Yimchunger and some other languages and the

55
Eastern group comprises the Angwankhu or Tableng (Konyak), Chingmengnu

or Tamlu (Phom), Chang or Mamjung and some other spoken languages are

spoken outside the Naga hills like Banpara (Wancho), Mohangia (Nocte),

Mutonia, Assiringia, Moshang (Mohangia) and Tangsa (Shangge).

Classification of Shaffer (1953) of Naga group of languages:

According to Shaffer (1953) Konyak and other Naga languages including Chang,

Phom, Wancho, Nocte, Tangsa, etc. can be grouped with Boro languages and

Kachin. He has grouped all the other Naga languages under the Kuki group.

Marrison's Classification (1967):

According to Marrison (1967), the Naga group of languages can be classified on

the basis of types that are the typological comparisons at the level of phonology,

morphology and syntax. At the phonological level, the syllabic patterns are sub-

divided into the word-initial, word-medial and word-final positions. He grouped

the Naga family into three and arranged them from north-east to south-west.

Marrison has put Phom in Type A.2 along with Konyak and Chang. These

divisions are stated under:

TYPE A. 1 consists of Tangsen (yogli), Tangsa (Moshang) Nocte and Wancho.

These languages are spoken in the Tirap sub-division of Arunachal Pradesh, the

extreme north Tuensang district of Nagaland and contiguous parts of Lakhimpur

district of Assam and also across Patkoi Range in Burma.

56
TYPE A.2 consists of Konyak, Phom, and Chang, spoken in the northern part of

the Tuensang district of Nagaland.

TYPE B. 1 consists of Yacham- Tangsa, Ao (Chungli), Ao (Mongsen) and

Sangtam spoken in the northern part of Mokokchung district and the central and

the southern parts of Tuensang district.

TYPE B. 2 consists of Lotha, Yimchunger, Ntenyi and Meluri, spoken in the

southern parts of Mokokchung and Tuensang districts and in the south- east part

of Kohima district. The Sema who occupied the present territory in comparatively

recent times separates Lotha and Nteyni from Yimchunger and Meluri in the east.

TYPE B. 3 consists of Tangkhul and Marring, spoken in north and east Manipur

and in the Somra tract in Burma.

TYPE C. 1 consists of Sema, Angami (Kohima), Angami (Khonoma) Chokri,

Kezhama and Mao, spoken in the southern part of the Mokokchung district,

Kohima district and the extreme north of Manipur.

TYPE C. 2 consists of Rengma, Maram, Khoirao, Mzieme, Zeme, Liangmai,

Puiron and Nruanghmei. Rengma is spoken in the northern part of Kohima

district. The remaining languages are spoken in one continuous tract in the Upper

Barak Valley and in the Barail range in the eastern part of Kachar, south-west

Kohima district and north-west Manipur (Sreedhar, 1974).

57
2.2 Typological Classification:

Here attempt has been made to identify the typological characteristic of Phom,

based on the model suggested by K.V. Subbarao. It is interesting to note that his

model is based on the study of thirty Tibeto-Burman languages. His work shows

the common characteristics, which are present in almost all the languages of the

Tibeto-Burman family. It provides a model on which the other languages of the

Tibeto-Burman family can be tested for the absence and presence of features.

Phom, as one of the Tibeto-Burman languages, shows the typical characteristics

as exhibited by other languages of the family.

2.2.1 Typological Characteristics of Phom Language:

1. Phom exhibits the SOV word order pattern, i.e. it is a verb final language

as other Tibeto-Burman languages.

(i) gai nig e-pei^

I you see Rm Past

T saw you.'

(ii) r)ai aSoye ha''-jia

I mango eat Dec

T eat mango.'

58
(iii)pijiuj SAin-ai leitei

she home-Poss went

'She went home.'

2. Indirect object precedes direct object in the unmarked word order in

Phom.

(i) gai papa-km lai Su''-pei''

I him to book give- Rm Past

'I gave a book to him.'

(ii) gai lai haLta -lei tu^ - pei'

I book table on keep-Rm Past

'I kept the book on the table.'

(iii) r)ai meri- km cui Su'-pei''

I Mary to rose give- Rm Past

'I gave a rose to Mary.'

3. Phom has post-positions like other verb final languages.

(i) haLta Sagai

table on

'on the table.'

59
(ii)piu t'^Uoai

tree under

'under the tree.'

(iii) tUr) mogai

room inside

'inside the room.'

4. Genitive precedes the governing noun in Phom.

(i) jon-ai lai

John- poss book

'John's book.'

(ii) galei atVn

I- poss cap

'My cap.'

(iii) jia-lei lai

sister-poss book

'Sister's book.'

5. The marker of comparison follows the standard of comparison in Phom

like other Tibeto-Burman languages (see 6.1.1).

60
(i)jon pol-ma luSi jiike''

John paul-than tall -er

'John is taller than Paul.'

(ii) pol jon-s' t'^alakSi jiike^

Paul John-than smart -er

'Paul is smarter than John.'

6. Time adverbials (TA) precede Place Adverbials (PA) in Tibeto-Burman

and also in Phom.
(i)r)ai gijii'' nirj-miu p*'eilei^ SUqai pogtai-hAn

I tomorrow you- with market place meet FUT

'I shall meet you tomorrow in the market.'

(ii)pigm Slnjii'' iskolei tai-hAn

she today school to go FUT

'She will go to school today.'

7. Time Adverbials and Place Adverbials occur in descending order in Phom.

(i) An- paci ya oktobar-Anpmali jii''-hacajiimui jiAt

ten-o'clock night October 14 day 2000 7

'At ten o'clock at night on the 14th October in the year 2007.'

' -ma and -a are the markers of standard of comparison but it alternates when it is
preceded by a nasal consonant.

61
8. Adjectives can follow or precede the head noun i.e. modified in Tibeto-

Burman languages and also in Phom.

(i) nala maipa

gir) beautiful/good

'Beautiful girl.'

or

maips nala

beautiful/good girl

'Beautiful girl.'

(ii) kUnko^pa paha

clever boy

'Clever boy. 9

or
paha kUnko V^

boy clever

'clever boy.'

(iii) maipa pe

beautiful/good garden

'beautiful garden.'

Or

62
pe maips

garden good/ beautiful

'Beautiful garden.'

9. In Phom, numerals follow the head noun like other Tibeto-Burman

languages (see 6.1.5.2).

(1) pa An

man ten

'ten men.'

(ii) pa hik

man one

'one man.'

(ii) aSoye Anpmni

mango twelve

'twelve mangoes.'

The numerals can also precede the head nouns.

(i) Anpmjii aSoye

twelve mangoes

'Twelve mangoes.'

63
(ii) h i k jiuiha

one girl

'one girl.'

10. Determiners follow the head noun in the unmarked word order. It may

also precede the head noun as in Manipuri, Chang and Rongmei. In Phom

determiners precede the head noun.

(i) hapa §Ijiak

this man

'This man.'

(ii) ha Sljiak

that man

'That man.'

11. Tibeto-Burman languages have split determiner system, where the

determiner precedes as well as follows the noun phrases.

(i) hapa Sljiak hapa

this man this

'this man.'

(ii) ha' Sljiak ha

that man that

'that man.'

64
In Phom, the split determiners are identical as /liapa/ and /ha/ occur both at the

beginning and also at the end.

12. The negative particles occur post-verbally in most of the Tibeto-Burman

languages and in some languages, the negative particles occur pre-verbally.

This characteristic is also found in Phom.

(i) papa-i aSoye na-1 i mjiui

he- Nom mango not like

'He does not like mangoes.'

(ii) qai nig na-limjiiu

I you not like

'I do not like you.'

13. The question particles or wh- constituents occur pre-verbally in Phom.

language.

(i)nir)-i manag na-jia

you Nom what like do

'What do you like?'

(ii)niq-i manag §ak-jia

you Nom what buy do

'What did you buy?'

65
The question word occurs in its place and it cannot be moved to otlier positions in
the sentence.

14. In yes/no questions, the question particles or the helping verbs occur

post- verbally.

(i)njr)-i kofi limjim-la

you Nom coffee like - Q.P

'Do you like Coffee?'

(ii)pijiu] p'^ai-yur)§Ir|ai tai-la

she price- selling place go -Q.P

'Did she go to the market?'

(iii) papa -i pintu limjim-la

he Nom her like Q.P

'Does he like her?'

15. Phom has relative clause but relative pronoun is absent and the

determiners sometime serve the purpose of relative pronouns.

(i) antelai ipa-paha yogSi jimpa -paha r)a-lai -cei

there that boy standing place boy/man I-poss brother elder

'The boy who is standing there is my elder brother.'

66
(ii) hajiui hakla sari t u''si jiuipa hajim rja-lai ojiui

that lady red sari wearing place that lady I-poss mother

'The lady who is wearing red sari is my mother.'

(iii) ha-pen antelei hi Si jimpa-yiu ga-lai

that pen there lying place is I-poss

'The pen which is lying there is mine.'

The relative clause is external in Phom and it is pre-nominal.

16. There is polymorphemic anaphor in Phom and it has local binding.

(i) gai gai- nirj e-pei""

I I - self see-Rm Past

'He saw himself.'

(ii) paps pspa-nir) e-pei'

he he - self see Rm Past

'He saw himself.'

(iii) cUmp'^or) niq-i lin-pei''

they selfnom make Rm Past

'They made themselves.'

67
17. Like most of the Tibeto-Burman languages, Phom has final

complementizers.

(i) papa-i qai-kui papa mUgmogai k^\ Sai e-pei''

he Norn me to he sad Emp that (Comp) tell Rm Past

'He told me that he was sad,'

(ii)jon-i meri maiarjke Sai e-tike

John Nom meri ace good looking that (Comp) say Pr Perf

'John said that Mary looks good.'

(iii) opa-lei gai-kui morjoqai k*^! Sai e-pei^

father Poss me to happy Emp that(Comp) tell RmPast

'My father told me that he is happy.'

18. Indirect object precedes the direct object in the unmarked word order

and sometimes it may also follow.

(i) gai lai haLta-lei tu''pei''

I book table on keep Rm Past

'I kept the book on the table.'

(ii)nir)-i meri-kui cm Su''pei''

You Nom Mary to flower give Rm Past

'You give a flower to Mary.'

68
19. In Phom, there is externally headed relative clause. The head noun occurs

to the left of the embedded clause.

(i) hajiiu hakla Sari t u Si jiiups hajiui qai-lei ojim

lady red sari wearing place that lady I Poss mother

'The lady who is wearing red sari is my mother.'

20. Phom is a pro-drop language as other verb-final languages.

(i) gai ha''-hAn

0 ha""- hAn

eat FUT

'will eat'

(ii)nir) e-pei*"

you see Rm Past

0 epei''

see Rm Past

'Saw'

21. Verb subject agreement is absent in phom language.

(i) qai aSoye ha''-pei''

mango eat Rm Past

'1 ate mango.'

69
(ii) paps aSoye ha''-pei''

he mango eat Rm past

'He ate mango.'

(iii)pijim aSoye ha''-pei^

she mango eat Rm past

'She ate mango.'

22. In Phom, adverbs can be re-duplicated as other South-Asian and Tibeto-

Burman languages.

Re-duplication of Adverbs

(i) lomi lomi 'quickly'

quickly quickly

(ii) jiita jiita 'laughingly'

laughingly laughingly

23. Phom languages have echo-words like other Tibeto-Burman languages.

(i) wom yom 'Stomach and the alike'

Stomach

(ii)ki''p3 yi'^pa 'thief and the alike'

thief

70
2.3 Morphological Classification:

Morphologically languages can be classified into:

(1) Isolating

(2) Agglutinative

(3) Synthetic or

(4) Polysynthetic language.

Phom is an agglutinative language as other Tibeto-Burman languages; but at the

same time, it is Isolating as some of the languages i.e. Liangmai, Phom is partly

isolating and partly agglutinating.

In Agglutinating languages, one word contains more than one morpheme, which

shows different morphological categories, but each morpheme can be segmented.

The morphemes can be segmented from the adjacent morphemes and one

morpheme can also represent one word. In Isolating type, each word consists of

just one morpheme.

(a) Agglutinative

(i) pV kt^'u^-t'^or)

shirt ear

'collar'

71
 (ii) p^i-lei SUqai

cost in place

'market'

(iii) gom-km tUrjptu

stomach- to pain

'stomachache'

(b) Isolating

(i) pa hik

man one
'One man'

(ii) hakla pVktV'

red shirt

'red shirt'

(iii) doktar An

doctor ten

'ten doctors'

(iv) maipa pe

good garden

'beautiful garden'

72