On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia
It has now become conventional wisdom in Southeast Asian linguistics that Proto-Sino-Tibetan is to be reconstructed as verb-final, as reflected in Tibeto-Burman, with the Chinese VO word order secondary, e.g. at the recent International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics XXVI in Os...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/179357 |
| _version_ | 1824455346980126720 |
|---|---|
| author | Benedict, Paul K. |
| author_facet | Benedict, Paul K. |
| author_sort | Benedict, Paul K. |
| collection | NTU |
| description | It has now become conventional wisdom in Southeast Asian linguistics that Proto-Sino-Tibetan is to be reconstructed as verb-final, as reflected in Tibeto-Burman, with the Chinese VO word order secondary, e.g. at the recent International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics XXVI in Osaka, both Matisoff and LaPolla presented papers to this effect. The explanations for this vary from scholar to scholar; the writer has emphasized an apparent substratum factor inasmuch as both blocs of Sino-Tibetan that present VO, viz. Chinese and Karen, lie on the east, where they overlie Austro-Tai (Austronesian /Kadai/Hmong-Mien), with the same VO feature. In any event, the historical picture conventionally drawn in Southeast Asia has a basic distinction between a monosyllabic Sino-Tibetan of OV type and a sesquisyllabic (Matisoffs term) Mon-Khmer of VO type, shared by Kadai and Hmong-Mien as well as by Chamic and Malay. |
| first_indexed | 2025-02-19T03:36:45Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | ntu-10356/179357 |
| institution | Nanyang Technological University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-02-19T03:36:45Z |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | ntu-10356/1793572024-07-30T05:44:49Z On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia Benedict, Paul K. Arts and Humanities It has now become conventional wisdom in Southeast Asian linguistics that Proto-Sino-Tibetan is to be reconstructed as verb-final, as reflected in Tibeto-Burman, with the Chinese VO word order secondary, e.g. at the recent International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics XXVI in Osaka, both Matisoff and LaPolla presented papers to this effect. The explanations for this vary from scholar to scholar; the writer has emphasized an apparent substratum factor inasmuch as both blocs of Sino-Tibetan that present VO, viz. Chinese and Karen, lie on the east, where they overlie Austro-Tai (Austronesian /Kadai/Hmong-Mien), with the same VO feature. In any event, the historical picture conventionally drawn in Southeast Asia has a basic distinction between a monosyllabic Sino-Tibetan of OV type and a sesquisyllabic (Matisoffs term) Mon-Khmer of VO type, shared by Kadai and Hmong-Mien as well as by Chamic and Malay. Published version 2024-07-30T05:44:49Z 2024-07-30T05:44:49Z 1994 Journal Article Benedict, P. K. (1994). On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 17(1), 173-174. https://dx.doi.org/10.32655/LTBA.17.1.10 0731-3500 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/179357 10.32655/LTBA.17.1.10 1 17 173 174 en Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area © 1994 The Editor(s). All rights reserved. application/pdf |
| spellingShingle | Arts and Humanities Benedict, Paul K. On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia |
| title | On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia |
| title_full | On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia |
| title_fullStr | On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia |
| title_full_unstemmed | On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia |
| title_short | On VO vs. OV in Southeast Asia |
| title_sort | on vo vs ov in southeast asia |
| topic | Arts and Humanities |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/179357 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT benedictpaulk onvovsovinsoutheastasia |