Southern Loloish

My Southern Loloish tree is given below. I consider Lahu to be an independent branch of Loloish that had come into close contact with Southern Loloish.

• 1. Hani-Akha

     1. Hanoid: Hani, Nuomei, Nuobi, Lami, Luomian, Angluo, Guohe, Guozuo, Gehuo, Yiche, Qidi, Kabie, Haoni cluster (Honi, Woni, Baihong, Bukong, Budu, Suobi, Duoni, Duota, Asuo, Amu)

     2. Akoid: Nukui, Phuso, Puli, Chepya, Eupa, Nyau, Oma, Chicho, Ulo, Muteun, Muda, etc.

  2. Bi-Ka

• • 1. Biyue, Enu

    2. Kaduo

• 3. Siloid

• • 1. Luma, Pala

    2. Akeu, Gokhy

    3. Wanya (Muchi)

    4. Sila cluster

       1. Sila, Sida

       2. Paza (Phusang)

       3. Khir, Cosao

       4. Phana

• 4. Bisoid

• • 1. Bisu cluster: Bisu, Laomian, Laopin, Pyen, Laopan

    2. Singsali cluster: Phunoi, Singsali, Cantan, Laoseng, Phongku, Phongset, Phunyot

    3. Coong cluster: Cốông, Sangkong, Tsukong

    4. Cauho

    5. Bantang

    6. Khongsat

    7. Habei (Mani)

• 5. Mpi

  6. Jino

Hani-Akha and Bi-Ka are part of a northern linkage or linguistic area centered in the northwestern part of the Red River watershed in south-central Yunnan (Mojiang, Xinping, Yuanjiang, Yuanyang, Jinping, Lvchun, Jiangcheng counties), while Siloid, Bisoid, Jino, and Mpi are part of a southern linkage or linguistic area centered within the Mekong watershed in Phongsaly Province, Laos and in Mengla County, China. Hence, the presence of Akha in more southern territories is a relatively recent phenomenon.

More information on my Southern Loloish classification can be consulted in my 2016 presentation on the classification of Cosao.

Notes on the classifications of various Southern Loloish languages

• • Luomian, Guozuo, Guohe, and Gehuo in Tang (2011) are closely related to Lvchun Hani.

  • Duota and Amu are closely related to Baihong and Haoni.

  • Habei in Yan (1995) is a Bisoid language.

  • Khongsat and Laoseng are Bisoid languages that have some Siloid loanwords.

  • Muda of Xu (1991) is not the same as Muteun of Kato (2008). It belongs to the Akha cluster, since the vast majority of its lexicon is shared with Akha (Ko) lects. However, Muda preserves Cl- consonant clusters like Jinuo, Kathu, and various Bisoid and Siloid languages, which is due to Muda having a Bisoid substratum. Words of likely Bisoid origin include 'leg', 'house', 'smoke', and others. However, Muda likely split off from Bisoid before it went through phonological changes such as nasal hardening and final excrescent nasals (e.g., the word for 'arrow').

  • Gɔkhy in Hansson (1997) is most closely related to Wanyä (Muchi) in Shintani (2001), and is hence a Siloid language. Comparisons with the limited Akeu data available shows that it most likely an Akeu variety.

  • Akeu in Norihiko Hayashi (2015) is most closely related to Pala and Luma.

  • Pala and Luma have an underlying Siloid substratum layer and an Akha superstratum layer.

  • Mpi is not closely related to Biyue or Kaduo. Despite the name Mpi sounding superficially like Piyo (Biyue), I could not find any innovations shared between Mpi and Bi-Ka. There are lexical resemblances with Siloid, Bisoid, and Akha, but these are likely due to mutual contact and shared retentions. Thus, Mpi should constitute its own separate branch of Southern Loloish, rather than as part of Bi-Ka.

  • The three Bi-Ka languages (Biyue, Enu, and Kaduo) likely do indeed form a coherent branch consisting of Biyue-Enu and Kaduo, with Enu being closely related to Biyue. However, Bi-Ka must have diversified early in the way Mang had diverged early from Proto-Mangic so that its relationship with Pakanic (Bugan and Bolyu) is not immediately obvious.

  • Haoni-Baihong may be a linguistic area within Hani rather than a true subgroup.

  • Gong is certainly not Southern Loloish, and is not even Lolo-Burmese. Rather, it is an independent branch of Sino-Tibetan spoken by a early remnant group located to the south of the Salween River mouth. Similarities between Gong and Lolo-Burmese are due to shared retentions from Proto-Tibeto-Burman rather than directly from Proto-Lolo-Burmese. Gong shares similarities not only with Lolo-Burmese, but also with other eastern Tibeto-Burman branches such as Karenic and Nungish.

  • Khong and Paille in Lefevre (1892) are Bisoid languages.

  • Li, Tigne, Phana, Kho, and Asong in Lefevre (1892) all belong to the Hani-Akha cluster.

  • Mousseux and Kouis in Lefevre (1892) are Lahu varieties.

Sources

See metadata tab in SouthernLoloish.xlsx below (attached).