Kho-Bwa languages

Kho-Bwa
Kamengic
Bugunish
Geographic
distribution
Arunachal Pradesh
Linguistic classificationSino-Tibetan?
  • Kho-Bwa
Subdivisions
Glottologkhob1235

The Kho-Bwa languages, also known as Kamengic, are a small family of languages spoken in Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India. The name Kho-Bwa was originally proposed by George van Driem (2001). It is based on the reconstructed words *kho ("water") and *bwa ("fire"). Blench (2011) suggests the name Kamengic, from the Kameng area of Arunachal Pradesh. Alternatively, Anderson (2014)[1] refers to Kho-Bwa as Northeast Kamengic.

Both Van Driem and Blench group the Sherdukpen (or Mey), Lishpa (or Khispi), Chug (Duhumbi) and Sartang languages together. These form a language cluster and are clearly related. The Sulung (or Puroik) and Khowa (or Bugun) languages are included in the family by Van Driem (2001) but provisionally treated as language isolates, with no demonstrated genetic relationship to Kamengic, by Blench (2023).[2]

These languages have traditionally been placed in the Tibeto-Burman group by the Linguistic Survey of India, but the justification of this is open to question.[citation needed] The languages have certainly been strongly influenced by the neighboring Sino-Tibetan languages, but this does not necessarily imply genetic unity and may possibly be a purely areal effect.[3]

The entire language family has about 15,000 speakers (including Puroik) or about 10,000 speakers (excluding Puroik), according to estimates made during the 2000s.

Word lists and sociolinguistic surveys of Kho-Bwa languages have also been conducted by Abraham, et al. (2018).

  1. ^ Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2014. On the classification of the Hruso (Aka) language. Paper presented at the 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
  2. ^ What is the evidence that the isolate languages of Arunachal Pradesh are genuinely Trans-Himalayan?
  3. ^ Blench (2011): "Certainly, the phonology and morphology of Arunachali languages looks superficially like Tibeto-Burman, which explains their placing in the Linguistic Survey of India. Unfortunately, this is rather where matters have remained [... this paper] proposes we should take seriously the underlying presumption probably implied in Konow's statement in Linguistic Survey of India. Volume III, 1, Tibeto-Burman family, Calcutta (1909:572)], that these languages may not be Sino-Tibetan but simply have been influenced by it; that they are language isolates."

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search