Standard Tibetan[note 2] is a widely spoken form of the Tibetic languages that has many commonalities with the speech of Lhasa, an Ü-Tsang (Central Tibetan) dialect. For this reason, Standard Tibetan is often called Lhasa Tibetan.[note 3] Tibetan is an official[note 4] language of the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China. The written language is based on Classical Tibetan and is highly conservative.
|བོད་སྐད་, Bod skad / Böké|
ལྷ་སའི་སྐད་, Lha-sa'i skad / Lhaséké
|Native to||India, Nepal, Tibet (Western China)|
|Region||Tibet Autonomous Region, Kham|
|(1.2 million cited 1990 census)|
Official language in
|Nepal (Upper Mustang)|
China (Tibet Autonomous Region)
|Regulated by||Committee for the Standardisation of the Tibetan Language[note 1]|
Like many languages, Standard Tibetan has a variety of language registers:
Syntax and word orderEdit
Unlike many other languages of East Asia and especially Chinese, another Sino-Tibetan language, there are no numeral auxiliaries or measure words used in counting in Tibetan although words expressive of a collective or integral are often used after the tens, sometimes after a smaller number.
Tibetan is written with an Indic script, with a historically conservative orthography that reflects Old Tibetan phonology and helps unify the Tibetan-language area. It is also helpful in reconstructing Proto Sino-Tibetan and Old Chinese.
Wylie transliteration is the most common system of romanization used by Western scholars in rendering written Tibetan using the Latin alphabet (such as employed on much of this page). Tibetan pinyin, however, is the official romanization system employed by the government of the People's Republic of China. Certain names may also retain irregular transcriptions, such as Chomolungma for Mount Everest.
Phonology of modern Lhasa TibetanEdit
The following summarizes the sound system of the dialect of Tibetan spoken in Lhasa, the most influential variety of the spoken language.
Tournadre and Sangda Dorje describe eight vowels in the standard language:
Three additional vowels are sometimes described as significantly distinct: [ʌ] or [ə], which is normally an allophone of /a/; [ɔ], which is normally an allophone of /o/; and [ɛ̈] (an unrounded, centralised, mid front vowel), which is normally an allophone of /e/. These sounds normally occur in closed syllables; because Tibetan does not allow geminated consonants, there are cases in which one syllable ends with the same sound as the one following it. The result is that the first is pronounced as an open syllable but retains the vowel typical of a closed syllable. For instance, zhabs (foot) is pronounced [ɕʌp] and pad (borrowing from Sanskrit padma, lotus) is pronounced [pɛʔ], but the compound word, zhabs pad is pronounced [ɕʌpɛʔ]. This process can result in minimal pairs involving sounds that are otherwise allophones.
Sources vary on whether the [ɛ̈] phone (resulting from /e/ in a closed syllable) and the [ɛ] phone (resulting from /a/ through the i-mutation) are distinct or basically identical.
Phonemic vowel length exists in Lhasa Tibet but in a restricted set of circumstances. Assimilation of Classical Tibetan's suffixes, normally ‘i (འི་), at the end of a word produces a long vowel in Lhasa Tibetan; the feature is sometimes omitted in phonetic transcriptions. In normal spoken pronunciation, a lengthening of the vowel is also frequently substituted for the sounds [r] and [l] when they occur at the end of a syllable.
The vowels /i/, /y/, /e/, /ø/, and /ɛ/ each have nasalized forms: /ĩ/, /ỹ/, /ẽ/, /ø̃/, and /ɛ̃/, respectively, which historically results from /in/, /en/, etc. In some unusual cases, the vowels /a/, /u/, and /o/ may also be nasalised.
The Lhasa dialect is usually described as having two tones: high and low. However, in monosyllabic words, each tone can occur with two distinct contours. The high tone can be pronounced with either a flat or a falling contour, and the low tone can be pronounced with either a flat or rising-falling contour, the latter being a tone that rises to a medium level before falling again. It is normally safe to distinguish only between the two tones because there are very few minimal pairs that differ only because of contour. The difference occurs only in certain words ending in the sounds [m] or [ŋ]; for instance, the word kham (Tibetan: ཁམ་, "piece") is pronounced [kʰám] with a high flat tone, whereas the word Khams (Tibetan: ཁམས་, "the Kham region") is pronounced [kʰâm] with a high falling tone.
In polysyllabic words, tone is not important except in the first syllable. This means that from the point of view of phonological typology, Tibetan could more accurately be described as a pitch-accent language than a true tone language, in which all syllables in a word can carry their own tone.
|Stop/Affricate||aspirated||pʰ||tʰ||tsʰ||ʈʰ ~ ʈʂʰ||tɕʰ||cʰ||kʰ|
|unaspirated||p||t||ts||ʈ ~ ʈʂ||tɕ||c||k||ʔ|
The unaspirated stops /p/, /t/, /c/, and /k/ typically become voiced in the low tone and are pronounced [b], [d], [ɟ], and [ɡ], respectively. The sounds are regarded as allophones. Similarly, the aspirated stops [pʰ], [tʰ], [cʰ], and [kʰ] are typically lightly aspirated in the low tone. The dialect of the upper social strata in Lhasa does not use voiced stops in the low tone.
- The alveolar trill ([r]) is in complementary distribution of the alveolar approximant [ɹ]; therefore, both are treated as one phoneme.
- The voiceless alveolar lateral approximant [l̥] resembles the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative [ɬ] found in languages such as Welsh and Zulu and is sometimes transcribed ⟨ɬ⟩.
- The consonants /m/, /ŋ/, /p/, /r/, /l/, and /k/ may appear in syllable-final positions. The Classical Tibetan final /n/ is still present, but its modern pronunciation is normally realized as a nasalisation of the preceding vowel, rather than as a discrete consonant (see above). However, /k/ is not pronounced in the final position of a word except in very formal speech. Also, syllable-final /r/ and /l/ are often not clearly pronounced but realized as a lengthening of the preceding vowel. The phonemic glottal stop /ʔ/ appears only at the end of words in the place of /s/, /t/, or /k/, which were pronounced in Classical Tibetan but have since been elided. For instance, the word for Tibet itself was Bod in Classical Tibetan but is now pronounced [pʰø̀ʔ] in the Lhasa dialect.
The standard Tibetan verbal system distinguishes four tenses and three evidential moods.
|Personal||V-gi-yin||V-gi-yod||V-pa-yin / byuṅ||V-yod|
Standard Tibetan has a base-10 counting system. The basic units of the counting system of Standard Tibetan is given in the table below in both the Tibetan script and a Romanisation for those unfamiliar with Written Tibetan.
|གཅིག་||chig||1||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩ་གཅིག་||nyishu tsa ji||21||བཞི་བརྒྱ་||zhi kya||400|
|གཉིས་||nyi||2||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩགཉིས་||nyishu tsa nyi||22||ལྔ་བརྒྱ་||nyi kya||500|
|གསུམ་||sum||3||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩགསུམ་||nyishu tsa sum||23||དྲུག་བརྒྱ་||drug kya||600|
|བཞི་||zhi||4||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩབཞི་||nyishu tsa zhi||24||བདུན་བརྒྱ་||dün kya||700|
|ལྔ་||nga||5||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩ་ལྔ་||nyishu tsa nga||25||བརྒྱད་བརྒྱ་||kyed kya||800|
|དྲུག་||drug||6||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩདྲུག་||nyishu tsa drug||26||དགུ་བརྒྱ་||ku kya||900|
|བདུན་||dün||7||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩབདུན་||nyishu tsa dün||27||ཆིག་སྟོང་||chig tong||1000|
|བརྒྱད་||gyed||8||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩབརྒྱད་||nyishu tsa gyed||28|
|དགུ་||gu||9||ཉི་ཤུ་རྩདགུ་||nyishu tsa gu||29|
|བཅུ་||chu||10||སུམ་ཅུ||sum cu||30||སུམ་ཅུ་སོ་གཅིག||sum cu so chig||31|
|བཅུ་གཅིག་||chugchig||11||བཞི་བཅུ||ship cu||40||བཞི་ཅུ་ཞེ་གཅིག||ship cu she chig||41|
|བཅུ་གཉིས་||chunyi||12||ལྔ་བཅུ||ngap cu||50||ལྔ་བཅུ་ང་གཅིག||ngap cu nga chig||51|
|བཅུ་གསུམ་||choksum||13||དྲུག་ཅུ||trug cu||60||དྲུག་ཅུ་རེ་གཅིག||trug cu re chig||61|
|བཅུ་བཞི་||chushi||14||བདུན་ཅུ||dün cu||70||བདུན་ཅུ་དོན་གཅིག||dün cu dhon chig||71|
|བཅོ་ལྔ་||chonga||15||བརྒྱད་ཅུ||gyed cu||80||བརྒྱད་ཅུ་གྱ་གཅིག||gyed cu gya chig||81|
|བཅུ་དྲུག་||chudrug||16||དགུ་བཅུ||gup cu||90||དགུ་བཅུ་གོ་གཅིག||gup cu go chig||91|
|བཅུ་བདུན་||chubdun||17||བརྒྱ་||kya||100||བརྒྱ་དང་གཅིག||kya tang chig||101|
|བཅོ་བརྒྱད་||chobgyed||18||རྒྱ་དང་ལྔ་བཅུ་||kya tang ngap cu||150|
Chinese cognates in TibetanEdit
There are some Chinese cognates in Tibetan. The numbers from 1 to 10 are an obvious example, although modern Chinese and Tibetan underwent different phonological changes and some are not obvious. Some of the most obvious cognates between the two languages include:
English: Name Tibetan: མིང (ming) Chinese: 名 (míng)
English: To die Tibetan འཆི་བ (chiba) Chinese: 死 (sǐ)
English: Sun or day Tibetan ཉི་མ (nyima) Chinese: 日 (rì)
English: Negation Tibetan: མ- (ma) Chinese: 無 (wú - similarity is more obvious in Cantonese mo)
English: Tea Tibetan: cha Chinese: 茶 (Chá)
English Water (possibly) Tibetan: chu Chinese: 水 (Shuǐ)
English: I, me Tibetan ང (nga) Chinese: 我 (wǒ in Mandarin - the similarity is more obvious in Cantonese ngoh)
English: He Tibetan kho (possibly) Chinese: 佢 (pronounced qú in Mandarin but never used; Cantonese pronunciation keoi)
English: Three Tibetan: གསུམ་ (sum) Chinese: 三 (sān)
English: Four Tibetan: བཞི་ (zhi) Chinese: 四 (sì)
English: Five Tibetan: ལྔ་ nga Chinese: 五 (wǔ - Cantonese pronounces it ng)
The other numbers from one to 10 also have more similarity Old Chinese, less so to Modern.
In the 18th and 19th centuries several Western linguists arrived in Tibet:
- The Capuchin friars who settled in Lhasa for a quarter of century from 1719:
- Francesco della Penna, well known from his accurate description of Tibet,
- Cassian di Macerata sent home materials which were used by the Augustine friar Aug. Antonio Georgi of Rimini (1711–1797) in his Alphabetum Tibetanum (Rome, 1762, 4t0), a ponderous and confused compilation, which may be still referred to, but with great caution.
- The Hungarian Sándor Kőrösi Csoma (1784–1842), who published the first Tibetan–European language dictionary (Classical Tibetan and English in this case) and grammar, Essay Towards a Dictionary, Tibetan and English.
- Heinrich August Jäschke of the Moravian mission which was established in Ladakh in 1857, Tibetan Grammar and A Tibetan–English Dictionary.
- At St Petersburg, Isaac Jacob Schmidt published his Grammatik der tibetischen Sprache in 1839 and his Tibetisch-deutsches Wörterbuch in 1841. His access to Mongolian sources had enabled him to enrich the results of his labours with a certain amount of information unknown to his predecessors. His Tibetische Studien (1851–1868) is a valuable collection of documents and observations.
- In France, P. E. Foucaux published in 1847 a translation from the Rgya tcher rol-pa, the Tibetan version of the Lalita Vistara, and in 1858 a Grammaire thibétaine.
- Ant. Schiefner of St Petersburg in 1849 his series of translations and researches.
- Theos Casimir Bernard, a PhD scholar of religion from Columbia University, explorer and practitioner of Yoga and Tibetan Buddhism, published, after his 1936/37 trip to India and Tibet, A Simplified Grammar of the Literary Tibetan Language, 1946. See the 'Books' section.
- Tibbati Bal-Siksha, 1933
- Pathavali (Vols. 1, 2, 3), 1933
- Tibbati Vyakaran, 1933
- Tibbat May Budh Dharm, 1948
- Japanese linguist Kitamura Hajime published a grammar and dictionary of Lhasa Tibetan
In much of Tibet, primary education is conducted either primarily or entirely in the Tibetan language, and bilingual education is rarely introduced before students reach middle school. However, Chinese is the language of instruction of most Tibetan secondary schools. Students who continue on to tertiary education have the option of studying humanistic disciplines in Tibetan at a number of minority colleges in China. That contrasts with Tibetan schools in Dharamsala, India, where the Ministry of Human Resource Development curriculum requires academic subjects to be taught in English from middle school. Literacy and enrollment rates continue to be the main concern of the Chinese government. Much of the adult population in Tibet remains illiterate, and despite compulsory education policies, many parents in rural areas are unable to send their children to school.
In February 2008, Norman Baker, a UK MP, released a statement to mark International Mother Language Day claiming, "The Chinese government are following a deliberate policy of extinguishing all that is Tibetan, including their own language in their own country" and he asserted a right for Tibetans to express themselves "in their mother tongue". However, Tibetologist Elliot Sperling has noted that "within certain limits the PRC does make efforts to accommodate Tibetan cultural expression" and "the cultural activity taking place all over the Tibetan plateau cannot be ignored."
Some scholars also question such claims because most Tibetans continue to reside in rural areas where Chinese is rarely spoken, as opposed to Lhasa and other Tibetan cities where Chinese can often be heard. In the Texas Journal of International Law, Barry Sautman stated that "none of the many recent studies of endangered languages deems Tibetan to be imperiled, and language maintenance among Tibetans contrasts with language loss even in the remote areas of Western states renowned for liberal policies... claims that primary schools in Tibet teach Mandarin are in error. Tibetan was the main language of instruction in 98% of TAR primary schools in 1996; today, Mandarin is introduced in early grades only in urban schools.... Because less than four out of ten TAR Tibetans reach secondary school, primary school matters most for their cultural formation."
Recently, the Yushul Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People's Court sentenced Tashi Wangchuk to 5 years in prison on 22 May 2018. " Part of the evidence used in the Communist Chinese court was a New York Times video entitled, Tashi Wangchuk: A Tibetan’s Journey for Justice' by Jonah M. Kessel. The accompanying text states, "(...) To his surprise, he could not find one, even though nearly everyone living in this market town on the Tibetan plateau here is Tibetan. Officials had also ordered other monasteries and a private school in the area not to teach the language to laypeople. And public schools had dropped true bilingual education in Chinese and Tibetan, teaching Tibetan only in a single class, like a foreign language, if they taught it at all. 'This directly harms the culture of Tibetans,' said Mr. Tashi, 30, a shopkeeper who is trying to file a lawsuit to compel the authorities to provide more Tibetan education. Our people’s culture is fading and being wiped out.' (...) "
The most important Tibetan branch of language under threat is, however, the Ladakhi language of the Western Tibetan group, in the Ladakh region of India. In Leh, a slow but gradual process is underway whereby the Tibetan vernacular is being supplanted by English and Hindi, and there are signs of a gradual loss of Tibetan cultural identity in the area. The adjacent Balti language is also in severe danger, and unlike Ladakhi, it has already been replaced by Urdu as the main language of Baltistan, particularly due to settlers speaking Urdu from other areas moving to that area.
- Tibetan: བོད་ཡིག་བརྡ་ཚད་ལྡན་དུ་སྒྱུར་བའི་ལས་དོན་ཨུ་ཡོན་ལྷན་ཁང་གིས་བསྒྲིགས་, Wylie: bod yig brda tshad ldan du sgyur ba'i las don u yon lhan khang gis bsgrigs; Chinese: 藏语术语标准化工作委员会
- Tibetan: བོད་སྐད་, Wylie: Bod skad, THL: Böké, ZYPY: Pögä, IPA: [pʰø̀k˭ɛʔ]; also Tibetan: བོད་ཡིག་, Wylie: Bod yig, THL: Böyik, ZYPY: Pöyig
- Tibetan: ལྷ་སའི་སྐད་, Wylie: Lha-sa'i skad, THL: Lhaséké, ZYPY: Lasägä
- Local languages such as Tibetan have official status "according to the provisions of the self-government regulations for ethnic autonomous areas" ("What is the right of self-government of ethnic autonomous areas?" Updated August 12, 2009). With specific reference to the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), the use of Tibetan (no dialect specified, taken to mean all dialects) is given priority over the Han Chinese language ("Fifty Years of Democratic Reform in Tibet", official Chinese government site, retrieved October 15, 2010).
- Standard Tibetan at Ethnologue (18th ed., 2015)
- Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017). "Tibetan". Glottolog 3.0. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
- Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica. 12 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 916–928. .
- Hill, Nathan W. (2013). "ḥdug as a testimonial marker in Classical and Old Tibetan". Himalayan Linguistics. 12 (1): 2.
- Hill, Nathan W. (2013). "Contextual semantics of 'Lhasa' Tibetan evidentials". SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. 10 (3): 47–54.
- Tournadre, Nicolas; Dorje, Sangda (2003). Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and civilization. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications. ISBN 1559391898. OCLC 53477676.
- Postiglione, Jiao and Gyatso. "Education in Rural Tibet: Development, Problems and Adaptations". China: An International Journal. Volume 3, Number 1, March 2005, pp. 1–23
- Maslak, Mary Ann. "School as a site of Tibetan ethnic identity construction in India". China: An International Journal. Volume 60, Number 1, February 2008, pp. 85–106
- "Report reveals determined Chinese assault on Tibetan language". Press Release – 21st February 2008. Free Tibet. Retrieved 7 February 2010.
- Elliot Sperling, "Exile and Dissent: The Historical and Cultural Context", in TIBET SINCE 1950: SILENCE, PRISON, OR EXILE 31–36 (Melissa Harris & Sydney Jones eds., 2000).
- Sautman, B. 2003. “Cultural Genocide and Tibet,” Texas Journal of International Law 38:2:173-246
- Wong, Edward (2015-11-28). "Tibetans Fight to Salvage Fading Culture in China". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-03-19.
(...) To his surprise, he could not find one, even though nearly everyone living in this market town on the Tibetan plateau here is Tibetan. Officials had also ordered other monasteries and a private school in the area not to teach the language to laypeople. And public schools had dropped true bilingual education in Chinese and Tibetan, teaching Tibetan only in a single class, like a foreign language, if they taught it at all. 'This directly harms the culture of Tibetans,' said Mr. Tashi, 30, a shopkeeper who is trying to file a lawsuit to compel the authorities to provide more Tibetan education. 'Our people’s culture is fading and being wiped out.' (...)
- Bernard, Theos C. (1946), A Simplified Grammar of the Literary Tibetan Language, Santa Barbara, California: Tibetan Text Society.
- Das, Sarat Chandra (1902), Tibetan–English Dictionary (with Sanskrit Synonyms), Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depot.. Reprinted by Motilal Banarsidass, Dehli, ISBN 81-208-1713-3.
- Hodge, Stephen (2003), An Introduction to Classical Tibetan, Orchid Press, ISBN 974-524-039-7.
- Jäschke, Heinrich August (2004), A short practical grammar of the Tibetan language, with special reference to the spoken dialects, London: Hardinge Simpole, ISBN 1-84382-077-3. " ... contains a facsimile of the original publication in manuscript, the first printed version of 1883, and the later Addenda published with the Third Edition."—P.  of cover./ First edition published in Kye-Lang in Brit. Lahoul by the author, in manuscript, in 1865.
- —— (1866). Romanized Tibetan and English dictionary. Retrieved 2011-06-30.(Original from Oxford University)
- —— (1881). A Tibetan–English dictionary, with special reference to the prevailing dialects: To which is added an English-Tibetan vocabulary. London: Unger Brothers (T. Grimm).
- —— (1883). Heinrich Wenzel (ed.). Tibetan grammar. Trübner's collection of simplified grammars. 7 (2nd ed.). London: Trübner & co.
- Kopp, Teresa Kunkel. 1998. Verbalizers in Lhasa Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.
- Naga, Sangye Tandar. (2010). "Some Reflections on the Mysterious Nature of Tibetan Language" In: The Tibet Journal, Special issue. Autumn 2009 vol XXXIV n. 3-Summer 2010 vol XXXV n. 2. "The Earth Ox Papers", edited by Roberto Vitali, pp. 561–566.
- Sandberg, Graham (1894). Hand-book of colloquial Tibetan: A practical guide to the language of Central Tibet. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.(Original from Harvard University)
- Tournadre, Nicolas; Dorje, Sangda (2003), Manual of Standard Tibetan, New York: Snow Lion Publications, ISBN 1-55939-189-8.
- Hahn, Michael. “Foundational Questions of Tibetan Morphology.” The Tibet Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, 1 July 2008, pp. 3–19.