To Stephanie W.

Jamison
 Contents
Acknowledgements . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ix

Preface .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. xi

Brief overview of Tibetan Verb Morphology .. .. .. .. .. xv

Abbreviations .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. xxiii

Other Verb Lists Not Here Consulted .. .. .. .. .. .. xxv

Bibliography .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. xxvii

Lexicon .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

Index . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 311

vii
 Acknowledgments
For their academic oversight or assistance of many kinds I would like to thank the following
persons: Olivier Crabb, Christoph Cueppers, Toshitaka Ishiguchi, Stephanie W. Jamison,
Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp, Simon Wickham-Smith, Yudru Tsomu, Helga Uebach. In
particular I acknowledge here my gratitude to Sven Osterkamp and Philip Conquest (of
Kerrypress) for their assistance in typesetting this complicated work.

ix
 Preface
The various currently available Tibetan dictionaries regularly disagree about what the four
verbs stems of a particular Tibetan verb are. The dictionaries do not mention, let alone
account for these discrepancies. A first step toward clarifying the stem forms of Tibetan
verbs is to identify when and how such disagreements occur. Such is the goal of the present
work.

Tibetan verb morphology has been the most widely researched area of the Tibetan verbal
system, although few issues have been resolved (vide Li 1933, Shafer 1950-1951, Coblin
1976, Hahn 1994 and 1999, Zeisler 2004). One flaw of these studies has been to rely too
heavily upon Jäschke (1881) or a small number of other dictionaries.1 The compilation of
more reliable data will hopefully help clarify some of the outstanding problems. A
provisional description of Tibetan verb morphology is provided as part of these prefatory
materials.

This dictionary provides a systematic presentation of verb stems according to Tibetan

grammarians. I have compiled verb stems from eight indigenous sources favoring the oldest
and most authoritative. In addition, I have given the forms and definitions from Das’ (1902)
dictionary because of its widespread use.2

In the future these data will be compared with collations of textual citations to trace the
development of the Tibetan verbal system empirically. An understanding of the indigenous
presentation of verb stems in my view is a prerequisite for such empirical research, just as
Westergaard’s Radices (1841) was a prerequisite for Whitney’s Roots (1885).

For clarity of presentation and considerations of time I have not compiled from the more
recent indigenous verb lists nor the many western dictionaries. To have selected from more
would perhaps have been beneficial, but I believe that these nine sources give a good idea of
the problem areas and further compilation would have merely confused matters and added
little new data. However, a list of uncollated verb lists is provided for the convenience of
other researchers.

1
The most common other dictionaries used are Das (1902), Desgodins (1899), and Chos kyi grags
pa (1957), the first two of which rely directly upon Jäschke (1881).
2
I now regret this decision, because Jäschke’s dictionary is more carefully constructed than Das’
dictionary, but differs little from it in content. Initially I chose Das because of its greater size, but seeing
that he introduces many errors or ambiguities not present in his predecessor, my choice is unfortunate. By
the time I fully realized my mistake it was no longer feasible to correct it; however, whenever Das is
unclear in his intention I have consulted Jäschke and have added the same abbreviation that Das uses (Jä),
in some cases also making tacit improvements of a minor kind.

xi
 Tibetan Verb Dictionary

The lexicographical sources consulted for their presentation of the morphology of the
Tibetan verb stems are each abbreviated by two small capital letters (e.g. DS, TC etc). A
key to these abbreviations is found at the end of this preface.

The lemmata of the dictionary itself are organized alphabetically according to the present
stem; other stems may be sought in the index. The sources reporting any particular piece
of information appear directly after the forms they report. The abbreviations are given
chronologically. When a source gives a brief note about the verb this is included in small
type in parentheses directly after the two-letter abbreviation for the source. Any longer
comments or peculiarities are included in the notes section of the appropriate lemma.
Brackets [ ] indicate that the source implies the information but does not explicitly state
it, such as the past or future of a verb in DS marked with a nubla, which DS uses to denote
that all principle parts are identical. Accordingly, I assume that all verbs in DS have present,
past, and future, but make no assumption about the presence of an imperative. Parentheses
( ) indicate that the source has listed the particular form as an inferior, rare, or alternate
form. Text critical issues have been treated in the footnotes.

The terminology of ‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’ is not appropriate to the description of

Tibetan grammar (cf. Hill 2004). Transitivity is classically defined in reference to the
accusative case, a category which has no meaning in Tibetan. Even in the study of Indo-
European languages ‘transitivity’ as a category collapses and confuses valence, rection, and
occasionally also volition. The Tibetan indigenous grammatical tradition makes use of two
equally befuddling sets of terminology tha dad pa versus tha mi dad pa and byed ḥbrel las
tshig versus byed med las tshig. None of these categories is sufficiently nuanced or well
elaborated to adequately describe Tibetan syntax. However, it is in the nature of this work
to report the findings of previous work, whatever flaws may be contained therein. In this
dictionary sources which report a verb as ‘transitive,’ ‘active,’ tha dad pa, or byed ḥbrel las
tshig will be reported under the rubric ‘transitive,’ and sources which report a verb as
‘intransitive,’ ‘neutral,’ tha mi dad pa, or byed med las tshig will be reported as ‘intransitive.’

Linguistic research on the Tibetan verbal system has increasingly emphasized the category
of ‘volition,’ alternatively know as ‘control.’ This is a category unknown to the indigenous
grammatical tradition. When linguistic studies (esp. Hoshi 2003, and Tournadre and Dorje
2003) report a verb as ‘voluntary’ or ‘involuntary’ this is duly noted. Voluntary verbs have
an imperative stem whereas involuntary verbs do not. Therefore, when the traditional
sources report an imperative stem they can be understood as categorizing the verb as
voluntary, and when they fail to report an imperative stem they can be understood as
categorizing the verb as involuntary. Sources which report some verbs with and some verbs
without an imperative are interpreted in this fashion and are listed under the headings
‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ for each verb as appropriate. However, since DK and LZ give
an imperative for every verb I have not considered their testimony as evidence for volition.

xii
 Preface

The English definitions from CD and DK are given throughout, though I have taken the
liberty to correct obvious mistakes, change punctuation, and replace unnecessary ‘or’s with
commas. The definitions from DS are my own translations, as are most definitions from
TC. However, the translation of TC into English (Skorupski 2001) has been employed up
until the letter ñ.

As for the da drag, I list forms as they appear in my sources. It should be kept in mind that
only some sources give a da drag (KYN, ND, TD, LZ, DK). When the stem of a particular
verb is given by one of these sources as lacking a da drag, it should be understood that the
source in question claims that that verb stem lacks a da drag. Other sources never report a
da drag (KYT, CD, DS. TC). The evidence of these sources should be understood as in no
way remarking upon the question of whether a particular verb form originally had a da
drag. The failure of these sources to mark a da drag on a particular verb form is a
consequence of their failure to do so everywhere. Consequently rather than reporting that
a da drag is absent they should simply be taken as silent on the question of whether a verb
form originally had a da drag.

Syntactical information is taken from Tournadre and Dorje (2003) and Hackett (2003).
Rection is marked by putting the abbreviation for the case of noun appearing in a clause
first, followed by the abbreviation for the second noun to appear in the clause, e.g. [Erg.
Abs.] would mean the first noun is ergative and the second absolutive. For this purpose
the following abbreviations have been used: Erg. ergative, Abs. absolutive, Instr.
instrumental, Ela. elative, Abl. ablative, Obl. dative, Ass. associative. Due to the
idiosyncrasies of Hackett (2003) it has been necessary to reinterpret his system; for this,
as well as my own understanding of the case system and verb syntax, consult Hill (2004).

Hoshi (2003) and Tournadre and Dorje (2003) refer to the spoken language of Central
Tibet. However, because they are the most thorough and sophisticated works on Tibetan
syntax, I felt it was appropriate to include them here. It may be found that the syntax of a
particular verb will have changed from Classical Tibetan to the spoken language of Central
Tibet, but in most cases it will probably be the same. These studies will at least provide a
point of departure for syntactic research geared more specifically at Classical Tibetan.

The spelling of English has been regularized to confirm to American habits. This was
necessitated as much by the irksome interference of word processing software as by my
own desire for uniformity.

I compiled this dictionary between 2000 and 2004. Apart from minimal correction of
minor errors no changes have been made since 2004.

Nathan W. Hill - Senior Lector in Tibetan

University of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK

xiii
Tibetan Verb Dictionary

xiv
 Brief overview of Tibetan Verb Morphology
The dictionary in your hands is but a small stepping stone in the long path leading to a
complete description and analysis of Tibetan verb morphology. The goal of the dictionary
is to present morphological data as it is reported in the grammatical tradition in a systematic
way. A full digestion of these data and the subsequent comparison of them with forms
attested in texts is research which remains for the future. Until such work is undertaken
the best that I can do here is to present those facts which seem to have been relatively well
established based on the hitherto available data.

At first glance there seems to be almost no pattern to how Tibetan verbs form their stems,
however over the decades a number of researches have made progress in bringing order to
this madness. In particular, strides have been made by Li Fang-kuei (1933, 1959) and his
student W. S. Coblin (1976). The system I present is essentially that of W. S. Coblin. In
addition to changes of presentation, the analysis presented here incorporates a discovery
made by de Jong (1973) and a significant alteration put forward by Christopher Beckwith
(1996).

The internal reconstruction Coblin puts forward enables Tibetan verb stems to be derived
from a root through the application of a very small number of affixes. However, a number
of sound changes must be applied after the affixes. Presumably the Tibetan verbal system
was originally more regular than it is attested and these sound laws subsequently obscured
the system. The root of a verb is most easily visible by examining the future stem, and
removing a d-, g-, or b- prefix if there is one.

For clarity of presentation, I present the sound changes first and then discuss the
application of affixes, invoking the previously presented sound changes to account for
the difference between the regularly derived reconstructed form and the attested verb
stem.

Sound laws
Coblin refers to a number of sound changes first proposed by Li (1933) by the cover term
‘deaspiration’. These sound changes are in fact superfluous. Aspiration is not a phonemic
contrast in Old Tibetan (Hill 2007). Consequently, aspiration can be safely ignored in the
analysis of Tibetan verb morphology. The remainder of this discussion will transliterate kh,
ch, th, and ph as simply k, c, t, and p.

Loss of prefixes (Coblin’s law)

Prefixes are lost when the resulting cluster is not phonotactically possible.

xv
 Tibetan Verb Dictionary

*ḥrk > rk, e.g. √rkam ‘long for’, present *ḥrkam > rkam
*ḥsky>sky, e.g. √skya ‘carry, convey’, present *ḥskya > skya
*ḥrṅa > rṅa, e.g. √rṅa ‘mow’, present *ḥrṅa > rṅa
*gzl > zl, e.g. √zla ‘say, speak’, present *gzlo > zlo
*gsk > sk, e.g. √skaṅ ‘fufill’, present *gskoṅ > skoṅ
*bb > b, e.g. √bya ‘do’, past *bbyas > byas
*bp > p, e.g. √pyag ‘bow’, past *bpyags, > pyags

Epenthesis after ḥ (Li Fang kuei’s law)

When an ḥ precedes a fricative, lateral, or r, a dental stop is inserted between ḥ and the
following consonant. For laterals this change is followed by metathesis (Simon’s law).

*ḥs > ḥts, e.g. √so ‘nourish’, present *ḥso > ḥtso
*ḥś > ḥc (=ḥtś), e.g. √śad ‘explain’, present *ḥśad >ḥcad
*ḥz > ḥdz, e.g. √zug ‘plant’, present *ḥzugd > ḥdzugs
*ḥź > ḥj (=ḥdź), e.g. źo ‘milk’, present *ḥźo > ḥjo
*ḥr > ḥdr, e.g. √ri ‘write’, present *ḥri > ḥdri
*ḥl > ḥdl > ld, e.g √lad ‘chew’, present *ḥlad > *ḥdlad > ldad
*ḥł > ḥtł > łt, e.g. √łuṅ ‘fall’, present *ḥłuṅ > *ḥtłuṅ> ltuṅ

Distribution of final -s and -d

In Old Tibetan -s and -d are in complementary distribution as finals of an Auslaut cluster,
-d appearing after n, r and l, and -s after g, b, and m. Formerly these two consonants were
distinct in these environments. The paradigm of verbs with open roots like √bya (present
byed, past byas, future bya, imperative byos) indicate that the suffix -d is typical of the
present stem and -s is typical of the past stem. In a verb like √sam (sems, bsams, bsam, soms)
the present was originally *semd and subsequently changed to sems.

s > d after n, r, and l, e.g. e.g. √ñan ‘listen’, past *bñans > mñand
d > s after g, b, and m, e.g. √zug ‘plant’, present *ḥzugd > ḥdzugs

Assimilation of b before nasals (Chang’s law)

Betty Chang (1971: 738) discovered that cluster initial b- assimilates to the labial nasal m
before nasals.

*bn > mn, e.g. √nan ‘suppress’, past *bnans > mnand
*bñ > mñ, e.g. √ñan ‘listen’, past *bñans > mñand

Loss of final ḥ
Roots ending in final -ḥ lose the -ḥ before a suffix -s.

xvi
 Brief overview of Tibetan Verb Morphology

*ḥs > s, e.g. √caḥ ‘make, prepare’, past *bcaḥs > bcas

Spelling conventions before voiceless laterals (de Jong’s rule)

The voiceless lateral /ł/ as a simple initial is spelled as <lh>. The prefix /g-/ is written as
<k-> before a voiceless lateral. In other cases no distinction in spelling is made between
the voiced and voiceless lateral, e.g. <bl> can represent /bl/ or /bł/. The four stems of the
verbal root √łag ‘read’ are thus spelled klog, blags, klag, lhogs but have the phonemic
interpretations /głog/, /błags/, /głag/, and /łogs/.

The ablauts a > e and u > i

The present suffix -d causes the following ablauts in the present stem.

*a(C)d > e(C)d, e.g. √bya ‘do’, present *byad > byed
*aṅd > end, e.g. √laṅ ‘take’, present *laṅd > lend
*uṅd > ind, e.g. √byuṅ ‘take out’, present *ḥbyuṅd > ḥbyind

The change ṅd>nd of the second rule does not take effect in roots beginning with a
velar, e.g. √gaṅ ‘fill’ present *ḥgaṅd > ḥgeṅs (and not *ḥgaṅd > *ḥgens as one might
expect).

The ablauts a>o

The present prefix g- causes this ablaut.

*g(C)Ca > g(C)Co, e.g. √sab ‘complete’, present *gsab > gsob

The same ablaut occurs unconditioned in the imperative stem. All roots with the vowel a
take the vowel o in the imperative, e.g. √rgal ‘step over,’ imperative rgol.

The future prefix d- > g-

The prefixes d- and g- for the future stem are in complementary distribution. We take d-
to be underlying since g- has already been used as a prefix for the present.

The devoicing prefix *X (Beckwith’s prefix)

In the past and imperative of some verbs a devoicing prefix *X devoices the initial of the
root. This prefix causes the same dental epenthesis before fricatives as ḥ.

*Xg > k, e.g. √gag ‘block’, past *bXgag > bkag, imperative *Xgogs > kogs
*Xd > t, e.g. √dud ‘bow to’, past *bXdud > btud, imperative *Xduds > tuds
*Xb > p, e.g. √byuṅ, ‘take out’ past *bXbyuṅ > pyuṅ, imperative *Xbyuṅs >
pyuṅs
*Xź > Xdź > c (=tś), e.g. √źal ‘measure’, past *bXźald > bcald

xvii
 Tibetan Verb Dictionary

*Xz > Xdz > ts, e.g. √zug ‘plant’, past *bXzugs > btsugs, imperative *Xzugs >
tsugs

Paradigms
Coblin classifies those Tibetan verbs with four separate stems into eight paradigms.

Paradigm 1: ḥ—, b—s, b—, —s

Paradigm 2: ḥ—d, b—s, b—, —s
Paradigm 3: —d, b—s, b—, —s
Paradigm 4: g—, b—s, b—, —s
Paradigm 5: g—, b—, d—, —s
Paradigm 6: ḥ—d, b—, d—, —s
Paradigm 7: ḥ—, b—s, d—, —s
Paradigm 8: ḥ—d, b—s, d—, —s

Beyer divides all verbs into ‘intransitive’ and ‘transitives’ and offers one paradigm for the
intransitives and four for the transitives. Beyer believes that ‘intransitive’ verbs has not
future or imperative stem.

‘intransitives’
Class 1: ḥ—, —s
‘transitives’
Class 1: ḥ—, b—s, b—, —s
Class 2: ḥ—, b—s, d—, —s
Class 3: g—, b—s, b—, —s
Class 4: g—, b—s, d—, —s

Beyer’s inclusion of verbs which do not have a b- prefix in the past is a welcome addition.
However, no study has established that there is a relationship between verbal morphology
and verbal syntax. The division of Tibetan verbs into two syntactic categories is not
sufficiently precise, and the terms ‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’ are wholly inappropriate in
the description of Tibetan grammar, because the traditional definition of these terms relies
on the notion of the ‘accusative’ and no category of Tibetan case grammar can coherently
be labeled ‘accusative’ (cf. Hill 2004). I propose that verbs which do not take a b- in their
past stem be called ‘weak’ verbs and verbs which do be called ‘strong’ verbs.
I rather doubt that all of the weak verbs can be subsumed under Beyer’s single
conjugation category, and whether they indeed lack future and imperative stems. However,
since the weak verbs have never been the subject of peculiar study, Beyer’s suggestion is
the only point of departure.
Beyer’s classification of the strong verbs simply ignores the present suffix -d and
the fact that some verbs lack a present prefix altogether. His version is in no way an

xviii
 Brief overview of Tibetan Verb Morphology

improvement on Coblin’s analysis. However, Coblin’s eight paradigms are themselves not
sufficiently nuanced. Coblin made his classification before Beckwith demonstrated that
voicing alternation within verb paradigms is due to a lost prefix X-. Adding Beckwith’s
prefix X- to Coblin’s paradigms results in a total of eleven paradigms for strong verbs.

Weak Verbs
Paradigm: ḥ—, —s

Strong Verbs
Paradigm 1: ḥ—, b—s, b—, —s
Paradigm 2: ḥ—d, b—s, b—, —s
Paradigm 3: —d, b—s, b—, —s
Paradigm 4: g—, b—s, b—, —s
Paradigm 5: g—, b—, d—, —s
Paradigm 6: ḥ—d, b—, d—, —s
Paradigm 7: ḥ—d, b—s, d—, —s
Paradigm 8: ḥ—, bX—s, b—, X—s
Paradigm 9: ḥ—, bX—s, d—, X—s
Paradigm 10: ḥ—d, bX—, d—, X—s
Paradigm 11: ḥ—d, bX—s, d—, X—s

These paradigms can be exhibited, each with one example, as follows.

Weak Verbs

Paradigm: ḥ—, —s
√byon ‘arrive’, ḥbyon, *byons > byond ‘go’
√laṅ ‘arise’, *ḥlaṅ > ldaṅ, laṅs

Strong Verbs

Paradigm 1: ḥ—, b—s, b—, —s

√kal ‘spin’, ḥkal, bkal, bkal, kol ‘spin’
√rṅan ‘reward’, *ḥrṅan > rṅan, *brṅans > brṅand, brṅan, *rṅons > rṅond

Paradigm 2: ḥ—d, b—s, b—, —s

√kru ‘bathe’, ḥkrud, bkrus, bkru, krus
√tso ‘cook’, ḥtsod, btsos, btso, tsos

Paradigm 3: —d, b—s, b—, —s

√bya ‘do’, *byad > byed, *bbyas >byas, *bbya > bya, byos
√sam ‘think’, *samd > sems, bsams, bsam, soms

xix
 Tibetan Verb Dictionary

Paradigm 4: g—, b—s, b—, —s

√sab ‘complete, fill’, gsob, bsabs, bsab, sobs
√myaṅ ‘taste’, *gmyaṅ > myoṅ, *bmyaṅs > myaṅs, *bmyaṅ > myaṅ, myoṅs

Paradigm 5: g—, b—, d—, —s

√taṅ ‘give, send’, *gtaṅ >gtoṅ, btaṅ, *dtaṅ>gtaṅ, toṅs
√nan ‘suppress’, *gnan >gnon, *bnan>mnan, *dnan>gnan, nond

Paradigm 6: ḥ—d, b—, d—, —s

√zuṅ ‘take’, *ḥzuṅd >ḥdzind, bzuṅ, *dzuṅ >gzuṅ, zuṅs

Paradigm 7: ḥ—d, b—s, d—, —s

√draṅ ‘take’, ḥdraṅd > ḥdrend, *bdraṅs > draṅs, *ddraṅ > draṅ, droṅs

Paradigm 8: ḥ—, bX—s, b—, X—s

√dud ‘bow to’, ḥdud, *bXduds >btud, bdud, *Xduds > tud

Paradigm 9: ḥ—, bX—s, d—, X—s

√gum ‘kill’, ḥgum, *bXgums > bkums, dgum, *Xgums > kums

Paradigm 10: ḥ—d, bX—, d—, X-o-s

√byuṅ ‘remove’, *ḥbyuṅd>ḥbyind, *bXbyuṅ>pyuṅ, dbyuṅ, *Xbyuṅs >pyuṅs
√gag ‘obstruct’, *ḥgagd>ḥgegs, *bXgag>bkag, dgag, *Xgag >kogs

Paradigm 11: ḥ—d, bX—s, d—, X-o-s

√bu ‘blow’, ḥbud, *bXbus >pus, dbu, *Xbus >pus
√zug ‘plant’, *ḥzugd >ḥdzugs, *bXzugs >btsugs, *dzug>gzug, *Xzugs>tsugs

Irregular verbs
Some verbs, such as √za ‘eat’ (za, bzas / zos, bzaḥ, zos), have conjugations which are sui
generis and must be considered as part of a class of frequently used irregular verbs, as one
would expect with any language. Other verbs, such as √źig ‘destroy’ (ḥjig, bśig, gźig, śigs),
although they do not belong to any of the foregoing eleven paradigms are more likely to
be misunderstood than insufficiently classified. Research on a small number of verbs, such
as √łag ‘read’ (klog, blags, klag, lhogs, cf. de Jong 1973) and √ri ‘write’ (ḥdri, bris, bri, ris, cf.
Hill 2005), has shown that their Old Tibetan paradigms are not what the standard
dictionaries of Classical Tibetan report. Further research into individual verbs based on
early textual attestations is the direction that future work on Tibetan verb morphology
must take. Verb roots beginning with laterals or r are likely to continue to be fruitful.
Another phenomenon which has not been studied but may have far reaching ramifications

xx
 Brief overview of Tibetan Verb Morphology

for Tibeto-Burman historical linguistics in addition to an understanding Tibetan verbal

morphology is the presence in Old Tibetan of the cluster sts- where Classical Tibetan simply
has s-, e.g. gstsan / gsan ‘listen’, stsogs / sogs ‘gather’, stsel / sel ‘clear’. The system outlined
above is as far as the classification based on dictionary entries can be taken. Philological
study of verbs as used in Old Tibetan texts will doubtless refine this analysis extensively.

It may even be necessary to abandon the grammatical tradition’s classification of four stems.
It seems as a working hypothesis reasonable to assume that each morpheme found in a verb
paradigm has a specific meaning. The reason why some verbs take their present in g- while
others take their present in ḥ- most probably has to do with a compatibility between the
significance of those morphemes and the syntax and semantics of the verbal stems they
prefix. The way to resolve conflicting reports in the dictionaries about the use of a present
prefix g- or ḥ- may be to establish both forms as separate stems with separate meanings
rather than to judge one to be erroneous.

xxi
 Abbreviations
KYT A kya yoṅs ḥdzin dbyaṅs can dgaḥ baḥi blo gros. “Rtags kyi ḥjug paḥi dkaḥ gnas
bdag gźan daṅ bya byed las gsum gyi khyad par źib tu phye ba ñuṅ gsal ḥphrul gyi
lde mig.” Tillemans: 39-60 [a critical edition of The Collected Works of: 434-446 and
Sde Srid: 223-233]
KYN ———— “Rnam dbye brgya daṅ ṅa bya bye las sogs kyi khyad par mdo tsam brjod
pa dkaḥ gnad gsal baḥi me loṅ” The Collected Works of [C] 447-460 and Sde srid [Z]
209-222.
TD Ṅag dbaṅ Bstan dar lha rams pa. “Sum cu pa daṅ rtags ḥjug gi don go sla bar bsdus
paḥi bśad pa skal ldan yid kyi pa dam ḥbyed paḥi snaṅ paḥi mdod bya ba.” Collected
gSung ‘bum of Bstan-dar lha-ram of a-lag-sha vol. Kha. New Delhi: Lama Guru Deva,
1971. 155-214.
LZ Blo bzaṅ tshul khrims rgya mtsho. “Bya byed las gsum dus gsum daṅ bcas dper
brjod.” Bod kyi brdaḥ sprod sum cu pa daṅ rtags kyi ḥjug paḥi mchan ḥgrel mdor bsdus
te brjod ba do mtshar ḥphrul gyi lde mig. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ, 1957. 192-
249.
CD Das, Sarat Chandra. A Tibetan English Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms. Eds.
Graham Sandberg and A. William Hyde. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depôt,
1902.
ND Ḥjigs med nam mkhaḥi rdo rje. “Bod kyi sprod brda dus gsum skul tshig reḥu mig
ḥdzad med rig paḥi mdzod chen.” Bod kyi brda skad [A]: 223-258 and Phuntshok
[B]: 81-108.
DK Kharto, Dorrje Wangchuk / Mkhar stod, Rdo rje dbaṅ phyug. Thumi dgongs gter:
the complete Tibetan verb forms / Dus gsum reḥu mig Thu-miḥi dgoṅs gter. Delhi: C.T.
Charto, 1979.
DS Bsam gtan. Dag yig gsar bsgrigs. Xining: Mtsho sṅon mi rigs dpe skrun khan, 1979.
TC Zhang Yisun. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo / Zang Han Da Cidian. Beijing: Mi rigs
dpe skrun kaṅ / Minzu Chubanshe, 1985.

xxiii
 Other Verb Lists Not Here Consulted
Desgodins, Auguste (1899). Dictionnaire thibetain-latin-français, par les missionnaires
catholiques du Thibet. Hong Kong: Impr. de la Société des Missions étrangères.
Don grub phun tshogs ed (1981). Bod yig gi dus gsum rnam gźag. Lhasa: Bod ljoṅs mi dmaṅs
dpe skrun khaṅ.
Dpaḥ ris saṅs rgyas (1987). “On tshan gsum pa: bya baḥi miṅ gi yig gzugs ḥgyur lugs.”
Brda sprod gsal byed ṅag sgron. Lanzhou: Kan suḥu mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ, 1987.
[Also Xining: Mtsho sṅon mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ, 1998: 266-280].
Dpal ḥbar dge bśes luṅ rtogs ñi ma (1980). “Dus gsum rnam dbye bya ḥdas gzugs gcig.”
Yul gaṅs can paḥi thog maḥi śes bya miṅ gi brda dag ka sphreṅ glog gi sgron me. Yol
mo: Dge rgyas ri khrod. 266-272.
“Dus gsum reḥu mig som ñiḥi dra gcod paḥi ral gri.” India: 1964 [Cited by Goldstein 2001,
but I have been unable to locate this text.]
Gould, Basil and Hugh Edward Richardson (1949). Tibetan Verb Roots. Kalimpong: Tibet
Mirror Press.
de Körös, Alexander Csoma (1834). A grammar of the Tibetan Language. Calcutta: Baptist
Mission Press.
Phun tshogs dbaṅ rgyal (1972). Rtags kyi jug paḥi dper brjod reḥu mig gsar buḥi gces nor.
Sṅa-tog.
Semichov, B.V. et al. (1962). Kratkii Tibetsko-Russkii slovar / Bod ḥu ru su miṅ mdzod.
Moskva: Buriatskii kompleksnyi nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut. 549-581.
Stobs rgyas (2000). “Rgyun mkhoḥi dus gsum dper brjod.” Bod yig brda sprod skyar sbyoṅ
dri ba daṅ dri lan. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skruṅ khaṅ.

xxv
 Bibliography
A kya Yoṅs ḥdzin dbyaṅs can dgaḥ baḥi blo gros (1971). The Collected Works of A-kya
Yongs-’dzin. New Delhi: Lama Guru Deva.
A kya Yoṅs ḥdzin dbyaṅs can dgaḥ baḥi blo gros (1989). “Rtags kyi ḥjug paḥi dkaḥ gnas
bdag gźan daṅ bya byed las gsum gyi khyad par źib tu phye ba nyuṅ gsal ḥphrul gyi lde
mig.” Tillemans and Herforth 1989: 39-60. [a critical edition of The Collected Works of
A-kya Yongs-’dzin: 434-446 and Sde Srid 223-233].
A kya Yoṅs ḥdzin dbyaṅs can dgaḥ baḥi blo gros. “Rnam dbye brgya daṅ ṅa bya bye las
sogs kyi khyad par mdo tsam brjod pa dkaḥ gnad gsal baḥi me loṅ.” [C]: The Collected
Works of A-kya Yongs-’dzin 447-460. [Z]: Sde srid 209-222.
Bacot, Jacques, F. W. Thomas, and C. Toussaint (1940). Documents de Touen-houang relatifs
à l’histoire du Tibet. (Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliothque d’Etudes 51). Paris: Li-
brairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthener.
Bacot, Jacques (1945). Grammaire du tibétain littéraire. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Ori-
ent.
Beckh, Hermann (1908). “Beiträge zur Tibetischen Grammatik, Lexikographie, Stilistik
und Metrik.” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Berlin: Verlag der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Beckwith, Christopher I. (1996). “The Morphological Argument for the Existence of Sino-
Tibetan.” Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on
Languages and Linguistics, January 8-10, 1996. Vol. III. Bangkok, 1996. 812-826.
Benedict, Paul (1972). Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. Cambridge: at the University Press,
1972. [Reviewed: Bodman, N. Linguistics: An International Review 149. (1975): 89-97.
Chang, Kun. Journal of Asian Studies 32. (1973): 335-337. Coblin, W. South. Monumenta
Serica 30. (1972-3): 635-642. Haudricourt, A. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris
68.2 (1973): 494-495. Lehman, F. K. Language 51. (1975): 215-219. Matisoff, James.
“Benedict’s Sino-Tibetan: A Rejection of Millers’ Conspectus Inspection.” Linguistics
of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2.1 (1975): 155-172. Miller, Roy Andrew. “Sino-Tibetan: In-
spection of a Conspectus.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94. (1974): 195-209.
Sedláček, Kamil. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 124. (1974):
205-206. Sprigg, W. K. Asia Major 19.1 (1973): 100-106].
Beyer, Stephen (1992). The Classical Tibetan Language. Albany: State University of New
York Press. [Reviewed: Behr, Wolfgang. Oriens 34 (1994): 557-564. Davidson, Ronald
M. Philosophy East and West 46.1 (1996): 119-122. Miller, Roy Andrew. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 114.1. (1994): 67-76. LaPolla, Randy J. 1994. Language 70.1:
195-196].
Bielmeier, Roland (1988). “The Reconstruction of the Stop Series and the Verbal System
in Tibetan.” Languages and History in East Asia: Festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida on the Oc-
casion of his 60th Birthday. Kyoto: Shokado. 15-27.
Bielmeier, Roland (2004). “Shafer’s proto-West Bodish hypothesis and the formation of
the Tibetan verb paradigms.” Himalayan Languages. Ed. Anju Saxena. (Trends in Lin-

xxvii
 Tibetan Verb Dictionary

guistics. Studies and Monographs 149). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 395-412.

Bodman, Nicholas C (1969). “Tibetan sdud ‘Folds of a Garment,’ the Character 卒 , and
the *ST-hypothesis.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 39.2: 327-345.
Böhtlingk, Otto and Rudolph Roth (1855-1875). Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg:
Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Blo bzaṅ tshul khrims rgya mtsho (1957). “Bya byed las gsum dus gsum daṅ bcas dper
brjod.” Bod kyi brdaḥ sprod sum cu pa daṅ rtags kyi ḥjug paḥi mchan ḥgrel mdor bsdus te
brjod ba do mtshar ḥphrul gyi lde mig. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ. 192-249.
Byams pa rdo rje (1996). “‘Bcib’ daṅ ‘bźon’ źes pa byed med las tshig yin paḥi skor rags
stam gloṅ ba [Remarks concerning ‘bcib’ and ‘bźon’ as intransitive verbs].” Mtsho sṅon
slob gso 4: 53-54.
Bsam gtan (1979). Dag yig gsar bsgrigs. Xining: Mtsho sṅon mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ.
Bzod pa rgya mtsho, ed. (1994). Mdzaṅs blun źes bya ba theg pa chen poḥi mdo. Xining:
mtsho sṅon mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ.
Chang, Betty Shefts (1971). “The Tibetan Causative phonology.” Bulletin of the Institute of
History and Philology 42: 623-765.
Chang, Kun and Betty Shefts Chang (1984). “The Spoken Tibetan verb kvp.” Tibetan and
Buddhist Studies Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma
de Körös. Ed. L. Ligeti. Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó. Vol I. 131-142.
Chos kyi grags pa (1957). Brda dag miṅ tshig gsal ba bźugs. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ.
Cin buṅ [Jin Peng 金鵬] (1988). “Bod yig gi bya tshig gzugs ḥgyur baḥi rnams pa nas gzug
mi ḥgyur can baḥi rnam pa can du ḥgyur tshul skor gleṅ ba [On the evolution of verbs
in Tibetan Language from the inflectional to the agglutinative form].” Kruṅ goḥi bod kyi
śes rig / 中國藏學 Zhongguo Zang Xue / China Tibetology 1.1: 97-108.
Coblin, W. South (1976). “Notes on Tibetan verbal morphology.” T’oung Pao 62: 45-60.
Coblin, W. South (1986). A sinologist’s handlist of Sino-Tibetan lexical comparisons. Nettetal:
Steyler Verlag.
Das, Sarat Chandra (1902). A Tibetan English Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms, Eds. Gra-
ham Sandberg and A. William Hyde. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depôt, 1902.
DeLancy, Scott Cameron (1980). “Deictic Categories in the Tibeto-Burman Verb.” Diss.
of Indiana University.
Denwood, Phillip (1991). “Some Rare Words in Tibetan Documents of the Early Period.”
Tibetan History & Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Géza on his Seventieth Birthday.
Ed. Ernst Steinkellner. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 26). Vi-
enna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien. 129-136.
Desgodins, Auguste (1899). Dictionnaire thibetain-latin-français, par les missionaires
catholiques du Thibet. Hong Kong: Impr. de la Société des Missions étrangères.
Eimer, Helmut (1987). “Eine alttibetische Perfektbildung.” Indo-Iranian Journal 30: 213-
214.
Emmerick, R. E. (1978). “Some lexical Items from the rgyud-bzhi.” Proceedings of the
Csoma de Körös Memorial Symposium. Ed. Luis Ligeti. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 101-
108.
Emmerick, R. E. (1983). “Some Lexical Items from the Siddhasāra.” Contributions on Ti-
betan Language, History and Culture. Eds. Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher.

xxviii
 Bibliography

(Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 10). Vienna: Arbeitskreis für
Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien; Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pub-
lishers Private Limited, 1995. 61-68.
Giorgi, Antonio (2001). Alphabetum Tibetanum, Teil 1. Trans. Peter Lindegger.
Rikon/Zürich: Tibet-Institut.
Goldstein, Melvyn (1991). Essentials of Modern Literary Tibetan. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Goldstein, Melvyn (2001). The New Tibetan-English Dictionary of Modern Tibetan. Berke-
ley: University of California Press. [Reviewed: Christopher Beckwith. Anthropological
Linguistics 43.3. (2001): 395-398.]
Grünwedel, Albert (1933). Die Legende des Nāropa, des Hauptvertreteres des Nekromanten-
und Hexentums: Nach einer alten tibetischen Handschrift als Beweis für die Beeinflussung
des nördlichen Buddhismus durch die Geheimlehre der Manichäer. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Gyurme, Kesang (1992) (= Skal bzaṅ ḥgyur med). Le clair miroir: grammaire tibetaine.
Trans. Heather Stoddard and Nicolas Tournadre. Arvillard: Editions Prajña. [Translation
of Skal bzaṅ ḥgyur-med 1981].
Haarh, Erik (1969). The Yar-luṅ Dynasty. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad’s Forlag.
Hackett, Paul G (2003). A Tibetan Verb Lexicon: Verbs, Classes and Syntactic Frames. Ithaca,
Snow Lion. [Reviewed: Hill, Nathan (2004). Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 6: 78-98. Zeisler,
Bettina (2005): “On the utility of the Tibetan grammatical tradition.” The Tibet Journal
30.2: 69-92.]
Hahn, Michael (1973). “Grundfragen der tibetischen Morphologie.” Zentralasiatische Stu-
dien 7: 425-442. [Schlüssel zum Lehrbuch der Klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache und
Beiträge zur tibetischen Wortkunde (Miscellanea etymologica tibetica I - VI). (Indica et Ti-
betica 10a). Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2003: 75-94.]
Hahn, Michael (1974). Lehrbuch der Klassischen Tibetischen Schriftsprache. (Indica et Tibetica
10). Bonn: Michael Hahn; Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1994.
Hahn, Michael (1994). “On some rare particles, words and auxiliaries in classical Tibetan.”
Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the Sixth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan
Studies. Fagernes 1992. Ed. Per Kværne. Vol. 1.2. Oslo: Institute for Comparative Re-
search in Human Culture. 288-294. [Schlüssel zum Lehrbuch der Klassischen tibetischen
Schriftsprache und Beiträge zur tibetischen Wortkunde (Miscellanea etymologica tibetica I
- VI). (Indica et Tibetica 10a). Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2003: 119-130]
Hahn, Michael (1997). “A propos the term gtsug-lag.” Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the
International Association for Tibetan Studies. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wis-
senschaften. 341-348. [Schlüssel zum Lehrbuch der Klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache
und Beiträge zur tibetischen Wortkunde (Miscellanea etymologica tibetica I - VI). (Indica
et Tibetica 10a). Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2003: 131]
Hahn, Michael (1999). “Blags und Verwandtes (Miscellanea etymologica tibetica, VI).” Stu-
dia Tibetica et Mongolica (Festschrift Manfred Taube). Eds. Helmut Eimer et al. (Indica
et Tibetica 34). Swisttal-Odendorf, Indica et Tibetica Verlag. 123-125. [Schlüssel zum
Lehrbuch der Klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache und Beiträge zur tibetischen Wortkunde
(Miscellanea etymologica tibetica I - VI). (Indica et Tibetica 10a). Marburg: Indica et Ti-
betica Verlag, 2003: 144-147]

xxix
 Tibetan Verb Dictionary

Hill, Nathan W. (2004). “Compte rendu” (of Hackett 2003). Revue d’études tibétaines 6:
78-98.
Hill, Nathan W. (2005): “The verb ‘bri ‘to write’ in Old Tibetan.” アジア・アフリカ言語
文化研究 Ajia Afurika Gengo Bunka Kenkyū / Journal of Asian and African Studies 68:
177-182.
Hill, Nathan W. (2007). “Aspirate and non-aspirate voiceless consonants in Old Tibetan.”
語言暨語言研究 / Languages and Linguistics 8.2: 471-493.
Ḥjigs med nam mkhaḥi rdo rje (1966). Bod kyi brda skad ston paḥi bstan bcos. Dolanji: Ti-
betan Bonpo Foundation.
Ḥjigs med nam mkhaḥi rdo rje. “Bod kyi sprod brda dus gsum skul tshig reḥu mig ḥdzad
med rig paḥi mdzod chen.” [A]: Bod kyi brda skad 223-258. [B]: Phuntshok 81-108.
Hoshi Izumi 星泉 (2003). 現代チベット語動詞辞典 Gendai chibetto go dōshi jiten / A
Verb Dictionary of the Modern Spoken Tibetan of Lhasa: Tibetan-Japanese. (Asian and
African Lexicon Series 62). Tokyo: Research Institute for the Languages and Cultures
of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Huang Bufan 黄不凡 (1981). “古藏語動詞的形態 Gu Zangyu dongci de xingtai [The Ver-
bal Morphology in Ancient Tibetan].” 民族語文 Minzu Yuwen 3: 1-13.
Inaba Shōju 稲葉正就 (1957). “仏典に用いられた チベット語動詞の用法の研究年俸
Butten ni mochiirareta chibettogo dōshi no yōhō no kenkyū nenpō [Studies in the use
of Tibetan verbs in Tibetan Buddhist literature].” 大谷大学研究年報 Ōtani daigaku
kenkyū nenpō 9: 243-248, supplement 1-42.
Jäschke, H. A. (1881). A Tibetan-English dictionary. London: Unger Brothers.
de Jong, Jan Willem (1973). “Tibetan blag-pa and blags-pa.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 36.2: 309-312.
de Jong, Jan Willem (1989). The story of Rāma in Tibet: text and translation of the Tun-huang
manuscripts. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Jin Peng 金鵬 (1956). “藏文動詞屈折形態在現代拉薩話裏衍變的情況 Zangwen dongci
quzhe xingtai zai xiandai lasahua li yanbian de qingkuang [Verbal Inflexion in Classical
Tibetan and Present-day Lhasa Dialect].” 硏究語言研究 Yuyan Yanjiu 25-39.
Jumian Gesang 格桑居冕 (=Skal bzaṅ ḥgyur med) (1982). “藏語動詞的使動範疇 Zangyu
dongci de shidong fanchou [The causative category of Tibetan Verbs].” 民族語文 Minzu
yuwen 5: 27-39.
Kerang, Tan (1988). “On the morphology of simplex and causative verbs in Tibetan.” 民族
語文 Minzu Yuwen 6: 42-50.
Ko źul grags pa ḥbyuṅ gnas and Rgyal ba blo bzaṅ mkhas grub (1992). Gaṅs can mkhas
grub rim byon miṅ mdzod. Xining: Mtsho sṅon źiṅ chen źin hwa dpe khaṅ.
Lalou, Marcelle (1958). “Tibetain ancien Bod / Bon.” Journal Asiatique 241: 275-276.
Li Fang-kuei (1933). “Certain Phonetic Influences of the Tibetan Prefixes upon the Root
Initials.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 6.2: 135-157.
Li Fang-kuei (1959). “Tibetan Glo-ba-’dring.” Studia Serica Bernhard Karlgren dedicata,
Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard. 55-9.
Li yuṅ khraṅ (1988). Bya tshig tshig mdzod. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ. [Excerpt of
Zhang 1985].
Mkhar stod, Rdo rje dbaṅ phyug / Kharto, Dorrje Wangchuk (1979). Thumi dgongs gter:

xxx
 Bibliography

the complete Tibetan verb forms / Dus gsum reḥu mig Thu miḥi dgoṅs gter. Delhi: C.T.
Charto.
Ṅag dbaṅ bstan dar lha rams pa (1971). “Sum cu pa daṅ rtags ḥjug gi don go sla bar bsdus
paḥi bshad pa skal ldan yid kyi pa dam ḥbyed paḥi snaṅ paḥi mdod bya ba.” Collected
gSung ‘bum of Bstan-dar lha-ram of a-lag-sha. Vol. Kha. New Delhi: Lama Guru Deva.
155-214.
Ṅag dbaṅ tshul khrim (1997). Brda dkrol gser gyi me loṅ. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ.
Nishi, Yoshio et al, eds. (1995). New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax. (Senri Eth-
nological Studies 41). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Nishida Tatsuo (1994). “A personal view of the Sino-Tibetan Language Family.” Current
issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics. Osaka, 26th international conference on Sino-Tibetan
Languages and Linguistics. 1-22.
Nobel, Johannes (1950). Suvarnaprabhāsottamasūtra. Das Goldglanz-Sūtra. Ein Sanskrittext
des Mahāyāna-Buddhismus. Die Tibetischen Übersetzungen mit einem Wörterbuch. Leiden,
E. J. Brill.
Phuntshok, Tenpa [Phun tshogs rten pa], ed. (1979). Bonpo Lexicographical Works: A col-
lection of lexicographical and grammatical writing by two Bonpo Lamas Khyun-sprul ‘Jigs-
med-nam-mkha’i-rdo-rje and Hor-btsun Bstan-’dzin-blo-gro. Dolanji: Tibetan Bonpo
Monastic Centre.
Regamey, C. (1946-1947). “Considération sur le système morphologique du Tibétain lit-
téraire.” Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 6: 22-46.
Richardson, Hugh E. (1985). A corpus of Early Tibetan Inscriptions. (James G. Forlong
Series 29). Hertford: Royal Asiatic Society.
Róna-Tas, András (1966). Tibeto-Mongolica: The Loanwords of Mongour and the Develop-
ment of the Archaic Tibetan Dialects. (Indo-Iranian Monographs 7.) The Hague: Mou-
ton.
Róna-Tas, András (1978). “On a Term of Taxation in the Old Tibetan Royal Annals.” Pro-
ceedings of the Csoma de Körös Memorial Symposium. Ed. Louis Ligeti. (Bibliotheca Ori-
entalis Hungarica 23.) Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 357-364.
Róna-Tas, András (1985). Wiener Vorlesungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte Tibets.
(Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 13). Vienna: Arbeitskreis für
Tibetische und Buddhistiche Studien Universität Wien.
Schneider, Johannes (1992). Der Lobpreis der Vorzüglichkeit des Buddhas:
Udbhaṭasiddhasvāmins Viśeṣastava mit Prajñāvarmans Kommentar. (Indica et Tibetica
23). Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.
Sde srid saṅs rgyas rgya mtsho (1979). Blaṅ dor gsal bar ston paḥi draṅ thig dwaṅs shel me
loṅ: A treatise on the Sixteen Fundamental Principles of Tibetan Administrative Law by
Sde-srid Sans-rgyas-rgya-mtsho with 16 other prints of works on Tibetan Grammar and
Orthography from 20th Century Lhasa New Zhol blocks. Dolanji: Sonam Drakpa Tibetan
Bonpo Monastic Centre.
Siklós, Bulcsu (1986). “The Tibetan Verb: Tense and Nonsense.” Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 49: 304-320.
Simon, Walter (1971). “Tibetan ‘fifteen’ and ‘eighteen’.” Études Tibétaines: dédiées à la mé-
moire de Marcelle Lalou. Paris: Libraire d’Amérique et d’Orient.

xxxi
 Tibetan Verb Dictionary

Shafer, Robert (1950-1951). “Studies in the Morphology of the Bodic Verb.” Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 13: 702-724, 1017-1031.
Skal bzaṅ ḥgyur med (1981). Bod kyi brda sprod paḥi khrid rgyun rab gsal me loṅ. Chengdu:
Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khaṅ. [Translated as Kesang Gyurme 1992]
Skorupski, Tadeusz, ed. (2001). Bod dbyin tshig mdzod chen mo: bod rgya tshig mdzod chen
mo bcos snon byas paḥi deb / An encyclopaedic Tibetan-English Dictionary: A Revised Ver-
sion of Bod rGya Tshig mdzod chen mo. Beijing: mi rigs dpe skruṅ khaṅ daṅ shar phyogs
daṅ a hphri ri khaḥi śes rig slob gliṅ / The Nationalities Publishing House and The
School of Oriental and African Studies, 2001. [Translation of Zhang 1985].
Sprigg, R. K. (1970). “Vyañjanabhakti, and irregularities in the Tibetan Verb.” Bulletin of
Tibetology 7.2: 5-20.
Sprigg, R. K. (1979). “The Golok dialect and Written Tibetan past-tense verb forms.” Bul-
letin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42: 53-60.
Sprigg, R. K. (1980). “‘Vocalic alternation’ in Balti, the Lhasa, and the Sherpa verb, as a
guide to alternation in Written Tibetan, and to Proto-Tibetan Reconstruction.” Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43: 110-122.
Stein, Rolf A. (1939). “Trente-fois fiches de divination Tibétaines.” Harvard Journal of Asi-
atic Studies 4: 306-307.
Stein, Rolf A. (1942). “Notes d’etymologie Tibétaine.” Bulletin de l’École Française d’Ex-
trême-Orient 42.2: 203-232.
Stein, Rolf A. (1983). "Tibetica Antiqua I: Les deux vocabulaires des traductions indo-ti-
betaines et sino-tibetaines dans les manuscrits Touen-Houang", Bulletin de l'École
Française d'Extrême Orient 62: 149-236.
Stein, R. A. (1988). “Tibetica Antiqua V: La religion indigène et les Bon-po dans les manu-
scripts de Touen-Houang.” Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrème-Orient 77: 27-56. [A
defective English translation published in The History of Tibet. Vol I. Ed. Alex McKay.
London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003: 584-614.]
Takeuchi Tsuguhito 武内紹人 (1990a). “チベット語の述部における助動詞の機能とそ
の 発展過程 Chibettogo no jutsubu ni okeru jodōshi no kinō to sono hatten katei /
The semantic functions of auxiliary verbs in Tibetan and their historical development.”
アジアの諸言語と一般言語学 Ajia no shogengo to ippan gengogaku [Asian Languages
and General Linguistics] eds. Sakiyama and Satoh. Tokyo: Sanshodo. 6-16.
Takeuchi Tsuguhito (1990b). “A Group of Old Tibetan Letters Written Under Kuei-i-chün:
a Preliminary Study for the Classification of Old Tibetan Letters.” Acta Orientalia Acad-
emiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44: 175-190.
Takeuchi Tsuguhito (1995). Old Tibetan Contracts from Central Asia. Tokyo: Daizo Shup-
pan, 1995.
Takeuchi Tsuguhito and Takahashi Yoshiharu (1995). “Split Ergative Patterns in Transitive
and Intransitive Sentences in Tibetan: a Reconsideration.” Nishi 1995: 277-288.
Taube, Manfred (1953-1954). “Die Wiedergabe sanskritischer Verbformen im tibetischen
Texte des Bodhicaryāvatāra.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität:
Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 3.4: 393-412.
Taube, Manfred (1978). “Zu einige Texten der tibetischen brda-gsar-rñiṅ-Literatur.” Asien-
wissenschaftliche Beiträge: Johannes Schubert in memoriam. Eds. Eberhardt Richter and

xxxii
 Bibliography

Manfred Taube. (Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Völkerkunde zu Leipzig 32).

Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Thomas, Frederick William (1957). Ancient Folk-Literature from North-Eastern Tibet.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Thomas, Frederick William (1935-1965). Tibetan literary texts and documents concerning
Chinese Turkestan 4 vols. (Oriental transation fund Publication. New series. 32, 37, 40,
41). London, The Royal Asiatic Society.
Tillemans, Tom J.F. (1991). “Gser tog blo bzang tshul khrim rgya mtsho on Tibetan verb
tenses.” Tibetan History & Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Géza on his Seventieth
Birthday. Ed. Ernst Steinkellner. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde
26). Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.
487-496.
Tillemans, Tom J.F. and Derek D. Herforth (1989). Agents and Actions in Classical Tibetan:
The Indigenous Grammarians on bDag and gZhan and Bya Bye Las gSum. (Wiener Stu-
dien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 21). Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und
Buddhistiche Studien Universität Wien.
Tournadre, Nicolas (1995). “Tibetan Ergativity and the Trajectory Model.” Nishi 1995: 261-
276.
Tournadre, Nicolas (1996). L’ergativité en Tibétain: Approche morphosyntaxique de la langue
parlée. (Bibliothèque de l’Information grammaticale 33). Louvain and Paris: Éditions
Peeters.
Tournadre, Nicolas (2001). “Final auxiliary verbs in literary Tibetan and in the dialects.”
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area: Person and Evidence in Himalayan Languages:
Part II. 24.1: 49-111.
Tournadre, Nicolas and Sangda Dorje (2003). Manuel de Tibétain standard: langue et civi-
lization. Paris: Mondes et Langue, L’asiathèque.
Uray Géza (1953). “Some problems of the ancient Tibetan verbal morphology: method-
ological observations on recent studies.” Acta linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hun-
garicae 3: 37-60.
Uray Géza (1962). “Old Tibetan dra-ma-drangs.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 14: 219-30
Uray Géza (1964). “The Old Tibetan verb bon.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 17: 323-334.
Uray Géza (1966). “The alleged Old Tibetan equivalent of the ethnic name C’hiang.” Acta
Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17: 246-256.
Uray Géza (1972). “The Narrative of Legislation and Organization of the Mkhas pa’i dga’
ston.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26: 11-68.
Uray Géza (1982). “Notes on the Thousand-districts of the Tibetan Empire in the First
Half of the Ninth Century.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36: 545-
548.
Westergaard, N. L. (1841). Radices linguæ sanscritæ, ad decreta grammaticorum definivit
atque copia exemplorum exquisitorum illustravit. Bonnæ ad Rhenum, impensis H.B.
König; Havniaæ, typis fratrum Berling.
Whitney, William Dwight (1885). The roots, verb-forms, and primary derivatives of the San-

xxxiii
 Tibetan Verb Dictionary

skrit language. A supplement to his Sanskrit grammar. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.
Yasuhiko, Nagano (1995). “Functions of a Written Tibetan Instrumental Particle, -kyis, Re-
visited.” Nishi 1995: 133-142.
Zeisler, Bettina (2000). “Narrative Conventions in Tibetan Languages: the issue of miri-
tivity.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area: Person and Evidence in Himalayan Lan-
guages: Part I. 23.2: 39-77.
Zeisler, Bettina (2001). “The Development of Temporal Coding in Tibetan: Some Sugges-
tions for a Functional Internal Reconstruction. Part II: The Original Semantics of the
‘Past’ Stem of Controlled Action Verbs and the Reorganization of the Proto-Tibetan
Verb System.” Zentralasiatische Studien 31: 169-216.
Zeisler, Bettina (2002). “The development of temporal coding in Tibetan: some suggestions
for a functional internal reconstruction. Part 1: Unexpected use of the ‘imperative’ stem
in Old Tibetan and Themchen (Amdo Tibetan).” Proceedings of the 9th Seminar of the
International Association of Tibetan Studies, Leiden, June 2000. Ed. Henk Blezer. Leiden:
Brill, 331-453.
Zeisler, Bettina (2004). Relative Tense and Aspectual Values in Tibetan Languages: A Com-
parative Study. (Trends in Linguistics, studies and monographs 150). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Zeisler, Bettina (2006): “The Tibetan understanding of karman: Some problems of Tibetan
case marking.” Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages II, PIATS 2003: Tibetan studies: Pro-
ceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford
2003. Ed. Christopher I. Beckwith. Leiden: Brill. 57-101.
Zhang Yisun (1985). Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo / 藏漢大詞典 Zang Han Da Cidian.
Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun kaṅ / Minzu Chubanshe. [Translated as Skorupski 2001, ex-
cerpted as Li 1988]
Zimmermann, Heinz (1979). Wortart und Sprachstruktur im Tibetischen. (Freiburger
Beiträge zur Indologie 10). Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz. [Reviewed: Miller, Roy An-
drew. “Linguistic Issues in the Study of Tibetan Grammar.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die
Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für Indische Philosophie 26. (1982): 83-116.]

xxxiv