 Thanks very much for inviting me. I am very Thoroughly aware that I'm one of the more junior members in this crowd and I Have learned more from the other presentations than I don't know perhaps you will learn from this one, but I'll try my best So The topic the title here is to can is connecting tamangic and with written Tibetan Verbs and beyond and the idea is that I'm going to look I'm going to be looking at this group of languages called tamangic or as I will call them TGTM and there are a small somewhat small group of languages spoken in central Nepal That are hypothetically a member of bodhich and bodhich is a term that floats around in literature from very early on And it's sort of hypothetically a group But requires Rigorous sort of rigorous verification through new grammar means a ie sound changes. So this group of languages Called bodhich usually is usually considered to include Tibetic so all the Tibetan dialects dialects languages that Descend from old Tibetan of which we have written documents East bodhich languages, which are spoken in Bhutan mostly Bhutan, Arunachal Pradesh And West bodhich and West bodhich is often a Term used to include mainly the TGTM languages. So TGTM is an acronym from the the four major Modern languages from which the reconstruction was done And this is sort of the the term I will use for this group. So This tree is a sort of a good Impression of what people have been saying basically Tibetan East bodhich and they're a bit more closer together And then the impression is that West bodhich is slightly farther away So this is what I'm this part of what I'm going to take up today I'm going to try to look at this classification through sound changes So what we have now is a reconstruction and continue about a thousand words by Mazodong and Let me just show you sort of a quick quick and easy sort of comparison of the kind of questions that We're facing when we look at comparing comparing TGTM forms with written Tibetan forms. So Tone is pretty much the Sort of only huge outlining issue and this is not something I won't cover today I have some ideas as to how to correlate the proto AB tone as we constructed by Mazodong with Tibetan But it's more it's it's a lot more complicated. But apart from that we see that Well written Tibetan has a set of prefixes or and so some of these prefixes are Pre-initials, so they're part of the stem. They're root. They're part of the roots. They're just Says crystal abic in in phonological status Others are true prefixes and those come in some Nominal functions, but also most most permanently in verbs In verbal paradigms. We'll see later The meteors and the rhymes are mostly un problematic, so the only thing that's worth noting is that TGTM has a set of diphthons Yodicized diphthons, and I've and there's pretty good evidence that they come from Yodicization of a of a coronal Of coronal of coronal finals, so pretty so that's pretty good there so So what I'm going to do Today It's twofold. I'm going to I'm going to talk about two studies I've done on the verbal system through correspondences between verbs in across these two language groups and I'm also going to look at more generally how where does Where does TGTM sit in terms of this Classificatory relationship among bodhich so on the verbal side Just as a back just as a piece of background background information Written Tibetan has a set of full-fledged paradigmatic morphology and this is very well known Across to battle to battle Berman, so it comes it comes in this four main four four Stem paradigm often called the present past or a perfective future imperative now the cement the real semantic value Of these things are probably something closer quite a bit closer to stated was stated progressive Perfective irrealis and imperative I'm not going to I'm not going to try to argue for those terms, but I'll use the traditional so present past future imperative to refer to these stents Compare that though with Tamanic verbs so Tamanic verbs are Tamanic verb roots do not Have this sort of paradigmatic morphology there for the for the Greatest most part Imvariable and the Aglutin the gluten of the glutenative morphology that we see in modern TGM languages are Very clearly of secondary origin, so You would see this is the maximal actually verbal complex in that you see in sickness growing is a variety of growing I've done research on I've done the field work on you get all of these essentially verb so B is an worthwhile verb to give why is to throw what was to throw negation and tense so sort of gives us a trouble of how much Tibetan verbal morphology there is in proto-bodish given this Modern status so okay outline of today's talk. I'm going to talk about two case studies in bodish verbal more verbal morphological reconstruction one of them in one of them I'm going to try to I'm going to try to show that paradigmatic more of these paradigmatic morphemes that we see in written Tibetan Existed in non-paradigmatic forms in proto-bodish despite significant subsequent phonological erosion in tamalic So such that we only see remnants of it But the functions as we can as far as we can see them seem to seem to correlate with Written Tibetan now the second study is one where I'll look at a case of a case of lexicalization of event structure That leads to a subsequent Valency change and this and the crucial evidence for that is actually lexical a shift in lexical semantics I'll talk about that when we get to it Now the third part I'll abstract away from the verbal system and and talk about sound sound changes and how we can use sound changes to determine the genetic status of tgtm Okay, so let's jump into the verbal part So two studies I mentioned two studies start with the first one So the in the first one and the first one is really sort of the beginning of this entire project And this is to start to look for Written Tibetan like verbal morphology in tgtm Now we have verbal so the conclusions are that verbal prefixes B G and M are retained in a good number of tgtm forms with Medial liquids so Written Tibet so written Tibetan and other comparenda show historical reanalysis where You start off with a prefix and a root which has a lick which has liquids on the onset Often as pre often as pre initials and they are re analyzed respectively as their root initial and the root root medial and sometimes this sort of code this sort of a Process preempts other onset consonants and sometimes even the onset the major onset so major onset syllable so an example a Curricutorizing example would be when you have relax in Proborish in Reanalyze as the onset and the medial Preempting the L and then you get Tibetan you get something like you get a paradigm with the verb relac that shows paradigmatic forms as you expect them So What's the data so let's look at the data I find three forms in all of the words in all of the tgtm words containing a cluster of VR and that's Quite significant because there are only about ten of them that were that are verbs and of which six of them are verbs that cannot be traced to root verbs in written Tibetan that have themselves a PR onset Now So the first one to walk Tcm is bra written to back and has a grow So this is to go interestingly there's no Past stem there's no regular past stem Attested for written Tibetan. It's depleted by a different verb, which we'll actually talk about later on But the yeah, but the core the correspondence would be that this past stem With a be over the be prefix present presents us with the best Sound correspondences to bra Similarly you have brought to grind. So this is the the the prototypical example in Ttm to grind large amounts of grain in written Tibetan you get a you get a verb that has a more abstract more abstract meaning to Annihilate to reduce to dust in that sense and here you see a you see a clear case of Be prefixation being reanalyzing preempting initial So there's also the word to write Now this has been argued by Even as even in written Tibetan to involve in the case of re-analysis the be prefix in the past in a in a past stem as the roots initial It's this word because you know by virtue of its meaning to write is likely a Tibetan borrowing into Tcm Tgtm and Tgtm languages in Tibetan have been in in contact with each other mostly through religion and through trade So it's not surprising. We see Technological and religious terms being borrowed But the idea but the idea stands nevertheless that That there is in fact an entirely analogous reanalysis that happened in in old Tibetan between old Tibetan and written Tibetan as well okay, so with Blah and look clusters clusters involving an L-medial we have to forget we have mlet in Tgtm in written Tibetan you get you have the same word meaning the same same have been having the same meaning project Which is reconstructed to? murled This is actually a perfect Core a perfect coordinate Here's an interesting one blah blah to prick I haven't found any Tibetan sorry Bodish internal Correspondence to this maybe you can you can you can maybe you know some but I found it in Himalayas languages In Limbu in Bantawa in Tulum interestingly there you have the root is basically the root starts with the the liquid Now what we have to say is that if the root verb root in Tgtm is really truly borrowed And this form would have would be evidence that the bee derivation was in fact once productive Another form bling to push while rolling for an animate animate Object to fall down This one is interesting because we have Written Tibetan coordinates that are basically adjectival and they mean in a basic sense Basically something that is round and full in the round sense the words Lingbo and being spoke Jet have basically have both come to mean all the entire but in the in a very round sense You could say the an entire Because an entire pancake as one of one of dictionaries tell us what these things mean So it's very clear that there is a an association with an earlier meaning of roundedness and round and spherical So the bee derivation the bee verbal derivation in fact derives a causative verb so either to make round or to Do a motion such as to make things round Lastly In we see uncle Tom on so this one of the languages we have a we have a pair of forms look and clup So these are reconstructed to exactly the same forms in prodo Tgtm Look and clup means to overturn or spill to turn upside down now in written Tibetan you have the word you have you have to form to pour out pour into whose Has sent those roots and in fact this L In fact this this L interestingly is Aspirating the bee prefix that we see in tamang now What's also interesting in tamang is that you have this initial final metathesis of a veeler and a labial this is actually It's strange, but it's actually a tested elsewhere in Tgtm So when you have plek or we have basically a word plek to press down to flatten dough with stick In written Tibetan you have in fact glab and this glab word is itself a verb a denominable form involving the verbal prefix Adjectival stem to a type of stem lab flat. So you have glab in written Tibetan being cognate with with tamang Gleb which then became a metathesis to plek So these are pretty good cognates for The pre for the presence of prefix B in in Tgtm. How about prefix G? We find also very good evidence. So Tgtm claw To throw away discard abandon divorce renounce. This is a So the calm nature for that in written Tibetan is in fact a An intransitive verb plaque to be left behind to remain now This is also as we saw before a and if shows it shows the effect the semantic effect of derivation by the G prefix which is transitivizing Blue to buy In written Tibetan you have this paradigm blue blues blue blues to buy off ransom. You also have this Denomin these d-verbal noun form ransom glued now. What's interesting here is that glued involves what Guillaume Jacques proposed as a G prefix that's separate from the verbal G prefix. He thinks it's a Denominal prefix there is independent evidence for it But for this for this form though, there are two possibilities For the Tgtm form either I think the G in the Tgtm form is a cognate with the verbal G prefix in written Tibetan or It is an instance of the novel of a normalizing prefix good as Reflected in as also as good in the in the written Tibetan d-verbal noun if it's the latter though So if we say that this verb is in fact, I would have to say that in Tgtm, there's an independent Verbalizing morphine that has since been lost in form that derives that noun into a verb again I don't I'm inclined not to take that because I think what's happening in written today here is that you have a paradigm that Has been leveled from a pre-prefix form as we see as we've seen before Tibetan does that sometimes so the the older pre Tibetan Paradigm would have been something like Glue loose glue loose loose or something like that or loose and written to and Tgtm inherits the G prefix form there But the other possibility is also Logically possible, but it will be less powerful So summary of this part. There's good evidence for the existence of verbal prefixes BG and M in Tgtm at in Tgtm as they in the same scent in the same forms as they are tested in rim Tibetan paradigms Both B and G are trans divisors. They trans devised status and a state of adjectives So we've seen that G may be a nominalizing suffix a reflex of go, but the evidence is not quite conclusive M and M is associated with indeed with an inner directed state state action that has been proposed for the prefix M not just for not just in written Tibetan but for Cognites in other Tibetan Berman languages as well and for M. We saw the word we saw was to forget That's sort of a mental a mental state or a mental change of state So semantically also we see a pretty clear correlation between these forms so Good, so we've established that there's Pretty significant similarities between what we see as paradigms in written Tibetan verbs and in Gtm as just verb roots now How can Tgtm verbs in their extremely Paco form in Possibly inform the study of written to a written Tibetan Puzzles in verbs in verbal paradigms now. I think there has been an interesting Thing that I've been that I found in Tgtm that actually can give us that information and this is a process that I am turn that I turn secondary in trans divisation. I think this is something that can shed light on a somewhat well-known puzzle in Written Tibetan verbal paradigms namely a set of paradigms that involve voicing alternations in the root onset So I'll present out. I'll sort of give you a sense of what the idea what the puzzle is So written Tibetan transitive paradigms some of them a small set of them show an interesting voicing alternation in the root initial the past So we're talking about this Transitive so in the past and in the Imperative stem you have a You have the voiceless variant of the onset notice that Aspiration in Tibetan is already sub phonemic so aspiration here doesn't really show any Real underlying difference, but in the present in the present and the future stem you have a You have the voiced variant of the onset so the zoo in the future stem here is a is by a different sound change that Friculavized so this really would have been this this really shows an underlying is root. So starting with so now why is that There have been many things many many things said and Many proposals, but Let's see what let's see what tamai can tell us now the other Puzzle which I think remains kind of unresolved is These this set of voicing alternating transitives often appear in these triplets and this is as Nathan pointed out and Instead of doublets so these triplets alternate in terms of transitivity as well now It's interesting. It's sort of bizarre in a way because trans transitive transdivity alternating Forms usually occur in doublets. You have an intransitive no transitive. Now. Why do you have a triplet? So you have an intransitive a transitive be an intransitive see Now what do you have two intransitives? It's strange that requires some sort of explanation now triplets may be incompletely attested They might have subparagmatic variation, etc. So an example would be So to fall you have an intransitive a with a voiced onset but Transitive be with was alternating onset to bring down to make fall intransive C is Not attested according to According to Hill 2014, but in an earlier paper Because I would actually said that on the honorific to go to come actually is a is in an intransitive C form Originally meaning to descend You could also have in transit a on the tested transit B. So to pour out to make Flow forth Intransive C to flow forth Now two questions, right? So first why a triplets instead of doublets and second Why do these C intransitives have a Voiceless onset that we only see in Transitive in some in a subset of transitive paradigmatic forms. So I'm gonna try to answer each question in turn First question why triplets instead of doublets now here's an observation from tamonic now Tamaki also has So here's an observation the observation is that past stems of transitive B paradigms are prone to why I call secondary intransitivization This is something that we I see transparently in TGTM So TGTM cognates of words like four and five Turn out to be pairs of intransitives alternating in terms of onset aspiration so You have an interest of a pup to fall as when tripped an interest of C pup which means to go or come down the example is You know I I I have come down Same thing pure to gosh to gosh forth come out of the ground of water in the monsoon pure for water to boil Okay, so two important points, right? And I think it's pretty clear just by eyeballing it The aspirate in transitive C forms are semantically narrower. They're more specific than the interest in transitive a forms So the idea is that going and coming down is a particular subtype of a downward motion. It's done by a human being Boiling is a particular type of Subtype of gushing forth. So fine. It's left. Okay. Wow So one is a particular subtype of gushing gushing forth So the type of events denote but denoted by in transitive C verbs are agent cause specified subsets of events denoted by in transitive a so going and coming down Involves is described as described a downward motion of a human agent boiling is a cause is a gushing forth caused by a volitional action of boiling by some agent so Just by way of analogy we can think of English passive participles reanalysis reanalysis Resultative adjectives. So the idea would be that in tamagik you have the equivalent of a pair between to be full and To be filled and the media the mediating factor would be a transitive verb to fill now So here's the proposal TGTM in transitive C verbs are derived in transitives from their agent of transitive counterpart, which has been lost now Let's look at the sort of hypothesized pathway, right? So first you start off with a general cause of meaning So something like, you know, John caused water to gush forth So the idea would be it means John did such a thing as to cause the result of water gushing forth But in this set of languages both Tibetan and to UTM you have a homomorphism of agentive or get a case with instrumental case Which marks passive agents and Then you have a lot of argument dropping So this is an environment for reanalysis of past stems and past and past them only as Resultatives because only past them only the perfective sense gets us to resultatives So you get sent you probably get lots of sentences like water Cause to gush forth the water was cost of gush forth by John if Overly specified or by someone if unspecified now the crucial step here is that? Semantic narrowing happens on this particular Cosy stem This sort of transitive stem towards a resultative sense that subsumes the causal event So instead of gushing cost to gush forth you have a particular a more Narrower sense of B of causing to gush forth literally namely to boil That semantic narrowing gets lexicalized. It creates a new lexical root and it leads to in the Tibetan case to paradigmatic morphology extension So this is the stage where you can't use and you cannot say water became boiled by John anymore the predictions of this analysis is that Because is that any aspirate initial in transitive sea verbs that are secondary in transitives would show agent or cost specified semantic narrowing compared to transitive counterparts Very there will be a variation since this is a lexical shift. You would have cases where you have a fully aspirate paradigm that is not in transitive that's still transitive And third the particular direction of the narrowing should be idiosyncratic So you would get you know, it's there's no There's no there's no inherent reason why gushing forth would be would become boil as opposed to another type of narrow or narrow sense of making causing to gush forth and I'm gonna skip the data, but this is but all of these Predictions are born out both in TGTM and in Tibetan Now the second question is what is why written Tibetan in transitive forms? Show this Interesting Abla pattern though, but you only see in transitive form in the present step So I said that this custom is the one that gets re-analyzed as an intransitive now Why do you see it in that you only see in transitive stems? I think this this is a difficult this is a really difficult in a really different this is a really difficult case But I think the idea would be that secondary in transitive is in transivization in written Tibetan must have occurred after the innovation of paradigms so after the establishment of paradigmatic Relations between these forms and in analogical extent in this analogical extension of this paradigm this paradigm into this new newly innovated in transitive both the present stem and the past stem entered into the calculation of the new form so And then the addition of Aspiration to the onset would be something like Would give you something like the resultative meaning so that would be the process that That roughly goes into this Analogical extension now TGTM verbs don't show this and this is because TGTM verbs do not form paradigmatic relations with these Forms that you see in written Tibetan present stems now these Verbs showing the same ablotty morphology. So real cognates of the present stems are in fact attested in in TGTM But they are lexically independent You should you see that there is a clearly state of meaning, but they you don't see that they are attested together with any sort of paradigmatic Relationship with the perspective or the irrealist forms so Basically the so basically the conclusion here would be that written the written Tibetan voice alternating verbal paradigms are grammaticalized state of active resultive lexical pairs and there's a piece of further evidence in the idiosyncratic Sufficient of exactly this paradigm to go and this form This form is in fact a secondary in transit of our secondarily in trans device past them of to remove And this is actually still shown in its semantics because this Supply it past them of to go only means Removal go so you can only say I left and went to lasso with this past them You cannot say I walk I went on the road with the stem So here I so here's the so the summary secondary and secondary in transformation happened both in TGTM and In written Tibetan with the same Process to the same stem except that written Tibetan has this additional contamination from paradigmatic morphology in the extension in the in the calculation of this new step in the innovation of this new step So I'm going to skip part three obviously because I'm out of time but basically in part three I show through and an examination Against the sound changes that have been proposed recently for Tibetan and East bodish that TGTM languages precede the splitting off between Tibetic and East bodish. So in fact it is so in fact the the original impression is right that West bodish TGTM is an earlier split off and I propose a shared innovation exclusively among TGTM languages that Define them as a group in the full neogramarian sense And with that I'll close but we can discuss any of this