Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 46:2 (2023) ► pp.235–264

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Revisiting “Eye of the day”

Tibeto-Burman evidence and arguments both for and against contact as the driver of innovation, in response to Urban (2010) & Blust (2011)

ORCiD logo with link | Universität Zürich | La Trobe University
Published online: 9 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.22011.van
Abstract
A particular lexical construction for “sun” composed of morphemes for “eye” and either “day” or “sky” has been widely reported for Austronesian languages. Urban, Matthias. 2010. ‘Sun’ = ‘Eye of the Day’: A linguistic pattern of Southeast Asia and Oceania. Oceanic Linguistics 49(2).568–579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar made the case for this phenomenon as an areal feature originating in Austronesian, with attestation in Austroasiatic and Tai-Kadai varieties, but absent in Sino-Tibetan. A follow-up (Blust, Robert. 2011. ‘Eye of the day’: A response to Urban (2010). Oceanic Linguistics 50(2).524–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) argued for the possibility of independent genesis across the languages, while reiterating the absence of the feature in Sino-Tibetan. This paper presents a large scale survey of Tibeto-Burman language varieties. Data from this region show widespread occurrence of the phenomenon in distinct constructions, arguing against contact as the inciting factor. Instead, this paper argues for multiple innovation events, with only small scale regional spread through contact. Data are analysed from approximately 250 doculects from a wide range of sources, including newly elicited data for Bodo-Garo, Maringic and Northern Naga varieties.
Keywords: typology, contact
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Conventions used in this paper
    • 1.2Methodology
  • 2.Eye in Tibeto-Burman “sun” constructions
    • C+corV+back+midŋ as sky in Tibeto-Burman
  • 3.Occurrences of “eye of the day” by language group
    • Tani
    • Meitheilon, Uipo (Khoibu) & Maring
    • Tangkhulic
    • Zemeic
    • Kiranti
    • South central (Kuki-ChinNaga)
    • Sal
    • Digarish & K’man-Meyor
    • Karenic
  • 4.Possible occurrences of “mother of day”
    • Lolo-Burmese
    • Naic
    • Ersuic
    • Qiangic
  • 5.Against contact as an explanation
  • 6.Expanded uses of eye: Ankles and navels
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Language varieties surveyed
    • Bodic
    • Bodo-Garo
    • Lolo-Burmese
    • Digarish
    • Jinghpaw-Sak
    • Karenic
    • Kuki-Chin-Naga
    • Mahakiranti
    • Na-Qiangic
    • Northern Naga
    • Nungish
    • Tani
    • Other varieties
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (56)
References
Baxter, William & Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blench, Roger & Sokhep Kri. 2017. A dictionary of Kman [=Miju], a language of Arunachal Pradesh. Ms. [URL]
Blench, Roger & Mite Lingi. 2018. A grammar of Idu, a language of Arunachal Pradesh. Ms. [URL]
Blust, Robert. 2011. ‘Eye of the day’: A response to Urban (2010). Oceanic Linguistics 50(2).524–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Nathan. 1837. Comparison of Indo-Chinese languages. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 6(2).1023–1038.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruhn, Daniel Wayne. 2014. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Central Naga. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, PhD thesis.
Burling, Robbins & L. Amon Phom. 1998. Phom phonology and word list. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 21(2).13–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caughley, Ross C. 2000. Dictionary of Chepang: a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal [Pacific Linguistics 502]. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1930. ə sIstəm əv “toun-lɛtəz”. Maître Phonétique 301.24–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chirkova, Ekaterina. 2009. Shixing, a Sino-Tibetan language of South-West China: A grammatical sketch with two appended texts. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 32(1).1–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coblin, W. South. 1986. A Sinologist’s handlist of Sino-Tibetan lexical comparisons. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dam, Kellen Parker. 2019. Mapping the frontier: Correlating representations of Tangsa-Nocte villages in early British Survey maps with modern GIS data. Anthropology Today: An International Peer Reviewed NEIRA Journal 51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Patkaian (Northern Naga). In Kristine Hildebrandt et al. (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Tibeto-Burman languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. In press. Semantic splits in Northern Naga: Lexical disambiguation through partial sound changes in polysemes. Journal of the 2nd International Conference of Tibeto-Burman Linguistics Association of North East India (ICTiBLANEI-2).
Das Gupta, Kamalesh. 1983. An outline on Tagin language. Shillong: Directorate of Research, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ding, Picus Sizhi. 1998. Fundamentals of Prinmi (Pumi): A Tibeto-Burman language of Northwestern Yunnan, China. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis.
van Driem, George. 2015. Tibeto-Burman. In William S-Y. Wang & Chaofen Sun (eds.), Oxford handbook of Chinese linguistics, 135–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerold. A. & Lama Ziwo. 1999. Laghuu or Xá Phó, a new language of the Yi group. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22(1).1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2022. Glottolog 4.6. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansson, Inga-Lill. 1989. A comparison of Akha, Hani, Khatu, and Pijo. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 12(1).6–91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartmann, Helga. 1988. Notes on the Southern Chin languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11(2).98–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
He, Jiren & Jiang Zhuyi. 1985. Naxi language sketch. Beijing: Nationalities Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Htun Aung Kyaw. 2007. A Study on the Hpun Dialect. Rangoon: Rangoon University PhD thesis (in Burmese).
Huziwara, Keisuke. 2008. A descriptive study of the Cak language. Kyoto: Kyoto University PhD thesis (in Japanese).
. 2016. Systematic reconsideration of the Taman language. Kyoto University Linguistic Research 351.1–34 (in Japanese).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivani, Jessica Katiuscia. 2019. Suansu 250 concepts wordlist. Zenodo. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakhi, Libu. 2018. A descriptive grammar of Namuyi Khatho spoken by Namuyi Tibetans. Bundoora: La Trobe University PhD thesis.
Li, Yongsui & Wang Ersong. 1986. Hani language sketch. Beijing: Nationalities Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luce, Gordon Hannington. 1985. Phases of pre-pagan Burma: Languages and history. 21 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lustig, Anton. 2010. A grammar and dictionary of Zaiwa. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manson, Ken. 2010. Kayan-English/English-Kayan dictionary. (unpublished ms. contributed to STEDT).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marrison, Geoffrey Edward. 1967. The classification of the Naga languages in North-East India. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, PhD thesis, 21 volumes.
Matisoff, James A. 1991. The mother of all morphemes: Augmentatives and diminutives in areal and universal perspective. In Martha Ratliff & Eric Schiller (eds.), Papers from the First Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 293–349. Tempe: Arizona State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaud, Alexis. 2006. STEDT deposit (version 1, 2011) of original materials collected in the Yongning plain (Yongning Na) and in Muli’s Xiangjiao township (Laze). (unpublished ms. contributed to STEDT).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morey, Stephen D. 2010. Turung: A variety of Singpho language spoken in Assam. [Pacific Linguistics 614]. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortensen, David R. & James A. Miller. 2013. A reconstruction of proto-tangkhulic rhymes. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 36(1).1–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mossang, Wanglung Kelim. 2022. Personal correspondence, August 2022.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nishida, Tatsuo. 1988. Ao Naga. In Takashi Kamei, Rokuro Kono & Eiichi Chino (eds.), Dictionary of modern linguistics. vol.11, 133–137. Tōkyō: Sanseido (in Japanese).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, Mark. 2007. A grammar of Galo. Bundoora: LaTrobe University PhD thesis.
. 2020. The Eastern Himalayan ethno-linguistic diversity hotspot: Where is it, why is it significant, why is it endangered, and what should “we” do about it? Aligarh Journal of Linguistics 9(1–2).29–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Rutgers, Roland. 1998. Yamphu: Grammar, texts & lexicon. 21 vols. Leiden: CNWS, Leiden University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sæbø, Lilja Maria. 2020. A description of Uipo phonology. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem MA thesis.
Schorer, Nicholas. 2016. The Dura language: Grammar and phylogeny. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shi, Vong Tsuh. 2009. Discorse studies of Makuri Naga narratives. Chiang Mai: Payap University MA thesis.
Singh, Laishram Bijenkumar. 2015. A descriptive grammar Of Khoibu. Silchar: Assam University PhD thesis.
So-Hartmann, Helga. 2009. A descriptive grammar of Daai Chin. [STEDT Monograph Series v.7]. Berkeley: STEDT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1991. Tibeto-Burman phonology and glossary. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson Tianshin. 1993a. Tani synonym sets. (unpublished ms. contributed to STEDT).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993b. A Historical-comparative study of the Tani (Mirish) Branch in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California PhD thesis.
Teo, Amos Benjamin. 2009. Sumi tone: A phonological and phonetic description of a Tibeto-Burman language of Nagaland. Melbourne: University of Melbourne MA thesis.
Urban, Matthias. 2010. ‘Sun’ = ‘Eye of the Day’: A linguistic pattern of Southeast Asia and Oceania. Oceanic Linguistics 49(2).568–579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanBik, Kenneth. 2009. Proto-Kuki-Chin: A reconstructed ancestor of the Kuki-Chin languages. [STEDT Monograph Series, v.8]. Berkeley: STEDT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, Dominic. 2012. Proto-Ersuic. Berkeley: University of California PhD thesis.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue