Sino-tibetski jezici
Sino-tibetski jezici su sa 1.300.000.000 govornika druga najveća jezička porodica na svetu. Ovoj grupi pripada 340 jezika koji se govore u Kini, regionu Himalaja i jugoistočnoj Aziji. Dele se u dve grupe jezika: kineske (osam jezika sa 1.220.000.000 govornika) i tibeto-burmanske jezike (330 jezika sa 70 miliona govornika).
Ranije su jezici tai-kadai, hmong-mijen i vijetnamski uvrštavani u ovu grupu. Iako imaju fonoloških i sintaksičkih sličnosti sa sino-tibetskim jezicima, od 1950-ih većina lingvista prve dve grupe posmatra kao posebne porodice, dok vijetnamski smatra jednim od austroazijskih jezika.
Kineska grana jezika se koristi širom Kine i na Tajvanu, tibeto-burmanski jezici se govore u oblasti Himalaja i obližnjim oblastima jugoistočne Azije, pre svega na Tibetu, južnoj Kini, Burmi, Nepalu, Butanu, severnoj Indiji i delovima Pakistana, Bangladeša, Laosa, Vijetnama i Tajlanda.
Najveći jezik iz ove porodice je mandarinski kineski koji govori 875 miliona ljudi. Slede vu kineski (80 miliona), kantonski kineski (70 miliona), min kineski (60 miliona), đin kineski (45 miliona), sjang kineski (36 miliona), hakka kineski (33 miliona) i gan kineski (21 miliona). Najveći tibetsko-burmanski jezici su burmanski (35 miliona kao prvi jezik i 15 miliona drugih govornika), južnokineski jezik ji (4,2 miliona), tibetski (2 miliona kao prvi jezik, sa dijalektima 4,5 miliona), zgav (2 miliona u Burmi) i majtaj (skoro 2 miliiona u severnoj Indiji).
Klasifikacija
- Sino-tibetski
- Kineski jezici (8 jezika, 1.220.000.000 govornika)
- Tibeto-burmanski (330 jezika, 68 miliona govornika)
- Bodijski jezici sa tibetskim, tamang-gale, šangla, takpa, dimal-toto jezicima
- Zapadnohimalajski
- Jezici mahakiranti kiranti, magar-čepang, nevari-tangmi
- Severnoasamski tani, kova-sulung, mijuiš, idu-digaru
- Hrusijski jezici
- Bodo-konjak-jingpo jezici bodo-koh, konjak, jingpo-sak
- Kuki-čin-naga jezici mizo-kuki-čin, ao, angami-počuri, zeme, tankul, manipuri
- Đang-gjalrong jezici đang, gjalrong
- Nungijski jezici
- Karenijski jezici
- Lolo-burmanski jezici lolo i burmanski
- izolovani jezici: pju †, dura †, lepša, mru, naksi, tudžia, baj
Opšte karakteristike
Fonologija
Kineski jezici su jednosložni (skoro sve morfeme se sastoje iz jednog sloga) i tonalni, poput jezika tai-kadai i vijetnamskog. Mnogi tibeto-burmanski jezici imaju reči od više slogova. Tonski akcenat ne postoji u zapadnotibetskim i burmanskim jezicima.
Morfosintaksa
Uobičajen red reči u kineskom jeziku je subjekat-glagol-objekat. Neki tibeto-burmanski jezici takođe praktikuju ovaj red reči, dok većina prati šablon subjekat-objekat-glagol.
Zajedničko za sve sino-tibetske jezike je sistem suglasničkih prefiksa i sufiksa. Oni u svim jezicima imaju sličnu funkciju.
Kineski jezici su analitički jezici i praktično nemaju morfologiju.
Za tibeto-burmanske jezike je karakteristična velika morfološka raznolikost. U velikom broju jezika postoji gramatičko slaganje subjekta i predikata. Kod nekih jezika postoji sistem padeža, tipično nekoliko vrsta ergativa, a negde i sistem nominativ-akuzativ. Zamenice i glagoli mogu da razlikuju jedninu, možinu, dual i kategoriju inkluzivno/ekskluzivno za prvo lice množine. Za ove jezike karakteristična je i aglutinativna struktura koja se tipično ostvaruje sufiksima.
Literatura
- Baxter, William H. (1992), A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-012324-1.
- 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, Bangkok: Mahidol University at Salaya, pp. 812–826.
- Benedict, Paul K. (1942), „Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A New Alignment in Southeastern Asia”, American Anthropologist 44 (4): 576–601, DOI:10.1525/aa.1942.44.4.02a00040, JSTOR 663309.
- Blench, Roger; Post, Mark (2013), „Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of North East Indian languages”, Hill, Nathan W.; Owen-Smith, Thomas, Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–104, ISBN 978-3-11-031083-2.
- Bodman, Nicholas C. (1980), „Proto-Chinese and Sino-Tibetan: data towards establishing the nature of the relationship”, van Coetsem, Frans; Waugh, Linda R., Contributions to historical linguistics: issues and materials, Leiden: E. J. Brill, pp. 34–199, ISBN 978-90-04-06130-9.
- Burling, Robbins (1983), „The Sal Languages”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7 (2): 1–32.
- DeLancey, Scott (2009), „Sino-Tibetan languages”, Comrie, Bernard, The World's Major Languages (2nd izd.), Routledge, pp. 693–702, ISBN 978-1-134-26156-7.
- van Driem, George (1987), A grammar of Limbu, Mouton grammar library, 4, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-011282-5.
- Dryer, Matthew S. (2003), „Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages from a typological and geographical perspective”, Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages, London: Routledge, pp. 43–55, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
- Gong, Hwang-cherng (1980), „A Comparative Study of the Chinese, Tibetan, and Burmese Vowel Systems”, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology (Academia Sinica) 51: 455–489.
- Hale, Austin (1982), Research on Tibeto-Burman Languages, State-of-the-art report, Trends in linguistics, 14, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 978-90-279-3379-9.
- Handel, Zev (2008), „What is Sino-Tibetan? Snapshot of a Field and a Language Family in Flux”, Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (3): 422–441, DOI:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00061.x.
- Hill, Nathan W. (2012), „The six vowel hypothesis of Old Chinese in comparative context”, Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 6 (2): 1–69.
- Klaproth, Julius (1823), Asia Polyglotta, Paris: B.A. Shubart.
- Kuhn, Ernst (1889), „Beiträge zur Sprachenkunde Hinterindiens”, Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Philologische und Historische Klasse, Sitzung vom 2 März 1889: 189–236.[mrtav link]
- LaPolla, Randy J. (2003), „Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax”, Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages, London: Routledge, pp. 22–42, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
- Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Eighteenth izd.), Dallas, Texas: SIL International, 2015.
- Li, Fang-Kuei (1937), „Languages and Dialects”, Shih, Ch'ao-ying; Chang, Ch'i-hsien, The Chinese Year Book, Commercial Press, pp. 59–65, reprinted as Li, Fang-Kuei (1973), „Languages and Dialects of China”, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1 (1): 1–13.
- Logan, James R. (1856), „The Maruwi of the Baniak Islands”, Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia 1 (1): 1–42.
- Matisoff, James A. (1991), „Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects”, Annual Review of Anthropology 20: 469–504, DOI:10.1146/annurev.anthro.20.1.469, JSTOR 2155809.
- Miller, Roy Andrew (1974), „Sino-Tibetan: Inspection of a Conspectus”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (2): 195–209, JSTOR 600891.
- Przyluski, J.; Luce, G. H. (1931), „The Number 'A Hundred' in Sino-Tibetan”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 6 (3): 667–668, DOI:10.1017/S0041977X00093150.
- Sagart, Laurent (2005), „Sino-Tibetan–Austronesian: an updated and improved argument”, Sagart, Laurent; Blench, Roger; Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia, The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, London: Routledge Curzon, pp. 161–176, ISBN 978-0-415-32242-3.
- Sapir, Edward (1925), „Review: Les Langues du Monde”, Modern Language Notes 40 (6): 373–375, JSTOR 2914102.
- Shafer, Robert (1952), „Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan”, International Journal of American Linguistics 18 (1): 12–19, DOI:10.1086/464142, JSTOR 1263121.
- Sharma, Devidatta (1988), A Descriptive Grammar of Kinnauri, Mittal Publications, ISBN 978-81-7099-049-9.
- Thurgood, Graham (2003), „A subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages”, Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages, London: Routledge, pp. 3–21, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
- Bauman, James (1974), „Pronominal Verb Morphology in Tibeto-Burman”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 1 (1): 108–155.
- Baxter, William H. (1995), „'A Stronger Affinity ... Than Could Have Been Produced by Accident': A Probabilistic Comparison of Old Chinese and Tibeto-Burman”, Wang, William S.-Y., The Ancestry of the Chinese Language, Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monographs, 8, Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis, pp. 1–39.
- Benedict, Paul K. (1976), „Sino-Tibetan: Another Look”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 96 (2): 167–197, JSTOR 599822.
- Blench, Roger; Post, Mark (2011), (De)classifying Arunachal languages: Reconstructing the evidence, arhivirano iz originala na datum 2013-05-26, pristupljeno 2015-05-09.
- Coblin, W. South (1986), A Sinologist's Handlist of Sino-Tibetan Lexical Comparisons, Monumenta Serica monograph series, 18, Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, ISBN 978-3-87787-208-6.
- van Driem, George (1995), „Black Mountain Conjugational Morphology, Proto-Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, and the Linguistic Position of Chinese”, Senri Ethnological Studies 41: 229–259, arhivirano iz originala na datum 2020-09-27, pristupljeno 2015-05-09.
- Gong, Hwang-cherng (2002), Hàn Zàng yǔ yánjiū lùnwén jí [Collected papers on Sino-Tibetan linguistics], Taipei: Academia Sinica, ISBN 957-671-872-4.
- Jacques, Guillaume (2006), „La morphologie du sino-tibétain”, La linguistique comparative en France aujourd'hui.
- Kuhn, Ernst (1883), Über Herkunft und Sprache der transgangetischen Völker, Munich: Verlag d. k. b. Akademie, arhivirano iz originala na datum 2014-04-07, pristupljeno 2015-05-09.
- Starostin, Sergei; Peiros, Ilia (1996), A Comparative Vocabulary of Five Sino-Tibetan Languages, Melbourne University Press, OCLC 53387435.
Vanjske veze
- Klasifikacija sino-tibetanskih jezika (de)
- Etimologija sino-tibetanskih jezika (en)
- Žak Gijom: O sino-tibetanskoj morfologiji (fr)
- James Matisoff, Tibeto-Burman languages and their subgrouping
- The Genetic Position of Chinese, by Guillaume Jacques
- Sino-Tibetan at the Linguist List MultiTree Project: Genealogical trees attributed to Conrady 1896, Benedict 1942, Shafer 1955, Benedict 1972, Egerod 1991, Matisoff & Namkung 1996, Peiros 1998, Thurgood & LaPolla 2003, and Matisoff 2006. (The tree attributed to Bradley 2007 does not correspond to that article.)