Burmo-Qiangic

Burmo-Qiangic originated from a Bronze Age expansion from the Sichuan Basin, spreading upstream in all directions. Burmo-Qiangic spread:

    • northwest into western Sichuan via the Min, Dadu, and Yalong Rivers (Qiangic)

    • north into northern Sichuan via the Jialing River (Baima)

    • southwest into Yunnan via the southernmost extreme of the Yangtze River (Lolo-Burmese)

    • south into western Guizhou and NW Hunan via the Wu River (Cai-Long)

Tujia also received some Burmo-Qiangic such as some lexical items showing Qiangic brightening *-a > -i, but is not a Burmo-Qiangic language itself.

Ersuic has many unique forms not shared by other Burmo-Qiangic languages, likely due to its having a non-Burmo-Qiangic substratum.

Map

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dcf1OdmfcsfgZrbXyvKLLonfuAvWnPSA&usp=sharing

Linkage

"Qiangic" is a linkage consisting of rGyalrongic, Rma, Pumi, Muya (Minyak), Zhaba / Queyu, Guiqiong, etc. that has the internal diversity of Kuki-Chin-Naga.

The Burmo-Qiangic linkage can be roughly set up as follows, based on shared isoglosses and geographical locations.

Horpa-Lavrung <> rGyalrong <> Rma <> Choyo/nDrapa <> Guiqiong <> Minyak <> Ersuic <> Prinmi <> Naic <> Bai <> Lolo-Burmese

Reconstructions for Horpa-Lavung, rGyalrong, Rma, and Prinmi are currently underway.

Updated tentative classification as of 2019

Burmo-Qiangic linkage

    1. Qiangic linkage

        1. Northern (core Qiangic) linkage

          1. Tangut

          2. pre-Baima

          3. Rma

            1. Northern

            2. Southern

          4. Prinmi

            1. Northern

            2. Southern

          1. Guiqiong

          2. Greater Choyo

            1. nDrapa

            2. Choyo

              1. Choyo proper

              2. Lhagang Choyo

            3. Minyak

        1. Ersuic

          1. Ersu

          2. Tosu

          3. Lizu

        1. Naic linkage

          1. Namuyi

          2. Xumi

          3. Naish

            1. Laze

            2. Na

            3. Naxi

    1. Burmic linkage

      1. Lolo-Burmese

        1. Burmish

        2. Loloish

      2. pre-Bai

        1. Western

        2. Eastern

      1. pre-Cai-Long-Waxiang

        1. Waxiang

        2. Cai-Long

          1. Caijia

          2. Longjia

          3. Luren

Chikova (2012) believes that Qiangic may be a linguistic area rather than actual unified branch. In other words, Qiangic is likely to be paraphyletic. The comparative lexical data in ZMYYC (1991) and STEDT show that "Qiangic" has high internal lexical diversity. Based on evidence from comparative lexical data and geographical distribution, I believe that Burmo-Qiangic is best divided into multiple primary branches that had radiated out from the Sichuan Basin via the Upper Yangtze drainage basin before the Qin and Han conquests of Sichuan occurred. The Three Gorges served as a natural geographical barrier between Burmo-Qiangic and the non-Burmo-Qiangic languages to the east such as Tujia, Hmong-Mien, and the missing "Donor Miao-Yao" (or rather "Donor Hmong-Mien") branch of Tibeto-Burman proposed by Benedict (1988).

The Tibeto-Burman form *syam 'iron', reconstructed by Matisoff in STEDT, has an almost exclusively Burmo-Qiangic distribution, with sporadic loanwords in non-Burmo-Qiangic languages to the west such as Nungic languages, Apatani (Tani branch), and Deori (Bodo-Garo branch). Hence, *syam 'iron' is actually a Proto-Burmo-Qiangic lexical innovation. This suggests that Proto-Burmo-Qiangic speakers were an economically influential group that had already developed metalworking. Hence, the Sanxingdui culture of Sichuan that had existed over 3,000 years ago was very likely to have been associated with speakers of early forms of Burmo-Qiangic languages.

Sun Hongkai (2013) also notes that the geographical distributions of Qiangic subgroups correspond with specific watersheds.

George van Driem's "fallen leaves" model can be applied to Burmo-Qiangic as well. Further comparative work will be needed to figure out the relationships of these branches to each other, and whether Nungic, Karenic, and Gong (or perhaps even Sinitic) are sister branches of Burmo-Qiangic as part of a larger "Eastern Tibeto-Burman" group. This would give us 19 fallen leaves if we include extinct languages and languages with primarily Sinitic and Tibetic superstrata. If we exclude those, we would have only 14 fallen leaves.

    1. Tangut

    2. Baima [with Tibetic superstratum]

    3. Rma (Qiang)

    4. ? rGyalrong

    5. Lavrung

    6. Ergong (Horpa)

    7. Choyo

    8. nDrapa (Zhaba)

    9. Guiqiong

    10. Minyak (Muya)

    11. Ersuic

    12. Namuyi

    13. Shixing

    14. Naish (Naxi)

    15. Prinmi (Pumi)

    16. Lolo-Burmese

    17. Bai [with Old Chinese superstratum]

    18. Cai-Long [with Old Chinese superstratum]

    19. Waxiang [with Old Chinese superstratum]

I now consider rGyalrong and Horpa-Lavrung to each be independent Sino-Tibetan branches that have undergone heavy contact with Burmo-Qiangic, since they do not have many lexical roots shared by Burmo-Qiangic branches. Many rGyalrong dialects also do not display Qiangic brightening (PTB *-a > -i). rGyalrong's location in the upper reaches of the Dadu River watershed and Horpa-Lavrung's location in the upper reaches of the Yalong River watershed have allowed them to retain conservative phonological features, unlike languages further downstream that display heavy phonological erosion.

Tujia also has been influenced by Burmo-Qiangic, but is nevertheless a Sino-Tibetan branch.

The "fallen leaves" principle can even apply to Lolo-Burmese. Here is my list of Lolo-Burmese "fallen leaves" (10 in total; in contrast, Bradley recognizes only 5 Lolo-Burmese branches):

    1. Burmish

    2. Mondzish (Mangish)

    3. Southern Loloish

    4. Lahu-Kucong

    5. Northern Loloish

    6. Southeastern Loloish

    7. Kazhuoish

    8. Lisoish

    9. Nusu-Rouruo

    10. Lawu-Awu

The following map shows the Burmo-Qiangic branches and how their probable dispersal routes. My Burmo-Qiangic dispersal hypothesis is synthesized from earlier work by Jacques & Michaud (2011), Sun (2013), and Chamberlain (2015). Bai has been included based on Lee & Sagart (2008), Cai-Long and Waxiang based on Zhengzhang (2010) and Sagart (2011), and Baima based on Chirkova (2008).

Map legend:

Red = Burmo-Qiangic branches

Blue = Hmong-Mien branches

Green = Kra-Dai (Austro-Tai) branches

Pink = Austroasiatic branches

Purple = non-Burmo-Qiangic Tibeto-Burman branches

Brown = Old Chinese

(Note: She of Jiangxi, Fujian, and Zhejiang is closely related Hakka, and is completely distinct from the She of Guangdong, which is a Hmongic language. The She of eastern China may have been "Para-Hmong-Mien" speakers who had shifted to Hakka as Hakka speakers from the north moved into the hills of eastern China.)

Two additional maps are shown below.

Many Qiangic subgroups are located within the Min River watershed of Sichuan, while the remaining Burmo-Qiangic diversity is concentrated in the Jinsha River (Upper Yangtze) watershed. thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that early forms of Qiangic (or Burmo-Qiangic) were spoken in the Sichuan Basin during the late Neolithic.

Likewise, Kra-Dai dispersed via the Pearl River drainage basin, and Hmong-Mien had dispersed via the Yuan and Xiang drainage basins in Hunan. Austroasiatic dispersed upstream via Mekong tributaries (Blench & Sidwell 2010), and also by coastal routes.

The internal diversity of each branch or phylum roughly correlates with the geographic size of the respective drainage basin that the phylum or branch had primarily dispersed in. Chamberlain (2015) notes that languages in Bhutan also tend to disperse via drainage basins (watersheds), and that the tributaries in a river system are analogous to subway lines, and that watersheds correspond closely to linguistic groupings. I believe that following river valleys upstream would have been the primary means of agriculturally-motivated population dispersal during the East Asian Neolithic when overland travel via roads was much more difficult than riverine transportation in sparsely populated mountainous frontier regions. Coasts and flat plains are other means for population dispersals. However, starting from the Han Dynasty and especially during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, population movements often follow roads rather than rivers, and usually occurred as a result of military operations and forced population displacements as noted by Holm (2010).

Additionally, I have noticed that Tibeto-Burman loanwords abound in Kra and Jiamao, but it is unclear which branch of Tibeto-Burman these words are from. Today, only Southern Loloish, Northern Loloish, Southeastern Loloish, and Mondzish languages are found in the region, and the Tibeto-Burman loanwords in Kra and Jiamao are ostensibly not from these branches. These Lolo-Burmese branches are all recent arrivals in northern Vietnam, Wenshan, and Guangxi within the past 1,000 years. Thus, a "missing" Burmo-Qiangic branch may have been in southern Guangxi and northern Vietnam, which was later absorbed by Tai and Vietic languages. This "missing" Burmo-Qiangic branch would had dispersed downstream via the Red River valley.

References

Chamberlain, Brad. 2015. Watersheds and language mapping. Presented at SEALS 25, Payap University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Chirkova, Katia. 2012. "The Qiangic Subgroup from an Areal Perspective: A Case Study of Languages of Muli" (Archived 2015-06-08 at WebCite). In Languages and Linguistics 13(1):133-170. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Holm, David. 2010. "Linguistic Diversity along the China-Vietnam Border." In Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, Volume 33.2, October 2010.

Luce, George. 1985. Phases of Pre-Pagan Burma, volume 2. Oxford University Press.

Sun Hongkai, et al. 1991. Zangmianyu yuyin he cihui (ZMYYC) 藏缅语音和词汇 [Tibeto-Burman phonology and lexicon]. Beijing: Chinese Social Sciences Press.

Sun Hongkai. 2013. Tibeto-Burman languages of eight watersheds [八江流域的藏缅语]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Academy Press.

van Driem, George. 2014. "Trans-Himalayan", in Owen-Smith, Thomas; Hill, Nathan W., Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 11–40, ISBN 978-3-11-031083-2.

Zhèngzhāng Shàngfāng [郑张尚芳]. 2010. Càijiāhuà Báiyǔ guānxì jí cígēn bǐjiào [蔡家话白语关系及词根比较]. In Pān Wǔyún and Shěn Zhōngwěi [潘悟云、沈钟伟] (eds.). Yánjūzhī Lè, The Joy of Research [研究之乐-庆祝王士元先生七十五寿辰学术论文集], II, 389–400. Shanghai: Shanghai Educational Publishing House.