Tibetan (review)

Although attention is given to other dialects and to Preclassical (PT) and Classical Tibetan (CT), this overview is actually a thorough linguistic description of the modern dialect spoken in the Lhasa area. The first chapters deal with the geographic framework (1–11), the history (13–19), and the dialects (21–45) of Tibetan and its speakers. A discussion of the levels of analysis—graphematic, phonological, and lexicogrammatical—(47–53) is followed by a presentation of the script and some morphophonological matters linked to the writing interface (55–68). The next eight chapters (69–242) are devoted to the Lhasa dialect, covering phonology, morphology, and syntax in detail. A short sketch of PT and CT (243–73) provides the reader with a mesmerizing window into the grammar of this culturally and historically important language. The final chapter (275–87) presents a few parsed textual samples of Lhasa, PT, and CT. The appendixes include a list of dialects (289–95) and a brief description of the phonology of other Tibetan dialects (297–306). The volume concludes with an extensive bibliography (307–56) and indexes (357–72).

It is rather surprising that Denwood appears reluctant to accept that all Tibetan dialects are historically part of the same Tibetan language sensu stricto (43–44). It is true that one should reject any reductionist approach to the linguistic history of Tibetan— i.e. attempts at making PT or CT the direct ancestor of any of the modern spoken or written variants. There were certainly other vernacular variants which were never written and may well account for the ancestry of most contemporary dialects. It is also clear that the traditional tree model, with its monolithic Ursprache, works as a Procrustean bed on which a wide and complex range of evidence can hardly fit. However, one cannot deny that, regardless of the specifics of their internal relationship, the different ancient and modern Tibetan dialects belong to a branch of the Tibeto-Burman group within the larger Sino-Tibetan family. It is simply quite farfetched to propose, as D does, that the conspicuous and consistent correspondences between the different dialectal variants are either the result of a creole-like model of interaction or due to external influence.

Probably the guidelines for the series and the overwhelming focus on the modern dialect of Lhasa have prevented D from exploring some potentially fecund avenues, especially concerning historical developments. For instance, when discussing the issue of the ’a-chung or ‘small a’ (57), usually transliterated as an apostrophe, there is no mention of the possible prenasal feature represented by this grapheme as a prefix in CT, as is probably reflected in some modern Tibetan dialects with prenasalized clusters; see Stephan V. Beyer (The Classical Tibetan language, 47. Albany: SUNY Press, 1992). Such a consideration would carry considerable weight in the ongoing discussion on the reconstruction of the intransitivizing prefix in Old Chinese (either a voiced laryngeal *ɦ- or a nasal segment *N- whose articulation point is determined by the following segment); see Laurent Sagart (The roots of Old Chinese, 74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999).

In spite of these few observations, this book offers an excellent overview of Lhasa Tibetan as well as some insights on PT and CT. This focus on a modern dialect makes the book especially valuable for linguists, but it may discourage some general readers whose interest lies in the Classical language.