A Model for.the Alignment of Dialects in Southwestern Tai. พิมพ์ อีเมล
เขียนโดย John F. Hartmann   

 

 

HARTMANN, JOHN F. A  MODEL FOR THE ALIGNMENT OF DIALECTS IN SOUTHWESTERN TAI. JSS. VOL.68 (pt. 1) 1980. p.72-86

 

                                                    A MODEL FOR THE ALIGNMENT OF DIALECTS

                                                                         IN SOUTHWESTERN TAI


This article is an exercise in linguistic geography encompassing the region of Southwestern
Tai, the  term   used  by F.K. Li  (1959) in  his  work  on  the  classification  of  Tai  languages. In Li
(1960) there is a concluding sketch of the subdivisions within Southwestern Thai  that  is  of  note.
Redrawn, it looks like the one below.

 

mo1

           While it is only a rough  sketch  for  which  the  details had not yet been worked out, it is
interesting to see the close connection between Siamese and Lao clearly drawn.

          Perhaps the next most significant attempt  at  subcategorization  of  Southwestern  Thai
was the work of Brown (1965). He used two diagrams, one showing mutual intelligibility and
another diagramming the lines of historical  development  of  the  modern  dialects  from  an
ancient source in  Yunnan. His  picture  of  degrees  of  similarity  between  modern   dialects
appears  as  follows. The  fewer  the  number  of  lines  between  dialects  indicates   greater
"contact type similarities".

          Brown's chart is designed to show rough geographical relationships as well as degrees of

mutual intelligibility. Accordingly, as a measure of degree of contact, Lao is only once removed
from Northern Thai but twice from Central and Southern. Central Thai  is  thrice  removed  from

Northern and five times from Shan,etc.

_____________________________________________________________________________

* Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Department of  Foreign  Languages   &  Literature, Northern  Illinois
University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA. This article was originally presented at the 10th International Conference
on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Literatures, at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, in October 1977.

 

 

 

 

 

                                          John F. Hartmann                                                     73

mo2

 

          In the reference sheets to the same work, Brown offers a sketch of the 'family  tree'  (p.179)
of modern   Thai  dialects, wherein   it  is  shown  that Shan  and   Central  Thai, contrary  to what
appears in his diagram of contact similarities,are from an earlier Chieng Saen branch while Lao
emerged as an offshoot of a Yunnan parent, the sister of the Chieng Saen  branch  ca. 1150 A.D.
According to the same genealogy, too complex to  replicate  here, Southern  Thai  broke  off even
earlier, separating from a  Yunnanese  sister  language  ca. 950 A.D. History  and  geography do
not coincide in Brown's scheme, and he is careful to point this out.

          Since—and   even  before—Brown  published  his  reconstruction  of   ancient  Thai,  most
scholars have rejected  the  hypothesis  of  a  Yunnan  homeland  for  the  parent  language. It is
generally accepted now that the  origin  of  Proto-Tai  is  somewhere  in  the  region  around  the
border  of  the  north  of   Viet Nam  and  China. Thus, it  is  all the more appropriate that Li  gave
the label "Southwestern" to  the  dialects  under  study  here. It  indicates  the  general  direction
of the migration of the Tai peoples: west and south, over a fan-shaped area.

          A   more  recent   classification  of  Southwestern  Tai  in  Chamberlain (1975) shows  still
another    set    of   permutations   between   Siamese, Lao   and   Southern   Thai.  In  it  a  clear
Lao-Southern Thai link is established  in  opposition  to  a  separate  branch  for  Siamese  and
other dialects. Accordingly:

 

mo3

          In view of  the  foregoing, we   might pause  to  ask  a  question  which  brings  a  focus, or
at least a beginning point, to the study of the  alignment  of  dialects  in  Southwestern  Tai. With
Siamese (Central Thai) as the focal point, we might ask where  it  stands vis-à-vis  surrounding
dialects. In Haas (1958),for example,the tonal system of Siamese is regarded as a reduction of

 

 

 

 

 

74                                          SOUTHWESTERN TAI DIALECTS

 

          he Chiengmai array,but "in most other respects Siamese and Nakhon-Sithammarat are much
closer than Siamese and Chiengmai". We can now summarize the  views  of  four  linguists  on  the
relationship of Siamese to other dialects, bearing   in  mind  that  each  author  used  quite  different
approaches. In chronological order, the arguments are :

                 Haas:  Siamese-Southern Thai/Northern Thai
                      Li :  Siamese-Lao
              Brown:   Siamese-Southern Thai (geographical, contact)
                              Siamese-Northern Thai (genetic)
Chamberlain :    Lao-Southern Thai ; Siamese-Phu Tai, etc.

 

          Turning now to Hartmann (1976a), it was shown that Lao, Siamese and Southern    Thai
were one continuous group  standing  in  opposition  to  the  remaining  dialects  to  the  north,
further   divided   into   two  major  subgroups. The   three   major   divisions   were   arrived   at
primarily   by   using   Haudricourt's   notion  of  bipartition  and  tripartition, reinforced  by  other
phonological   changes   held   in  common. Accordingly, areas  that  underwent  two-way  and
then three-way splitting allow us to "understand not only  Bangkok  Thai  but  the  Lao  dialects
(including Northeastern Thai) and  those  of  southern  Thailand  as  well. These  three  areas
have all participated in tripartition..." (p. 47).

          Points within the three dialect areas were then listed. They included areas outside of the
Southwestern Tai zone as well.

 

mo4

 

           A more detailed view of determining the patterns of tonal splitting in modern dialects
             of Tai is provided by the following display. It is based on the matrix  developed  by  Gedney
            (1964, 1973). The only refinement added is a fifth division, following Li (1977).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                         John F. Hartmann                                                     75

 


mo5

 

          According to this chart, bifurcation or two-way splitting divides the three PT  tones  A,P,C
into six, along the lines  *vd  (voiced) versus  *vl (voiceless  initials  at  the  time  of   the   split).
Or, following the Siamese writing system, the two-way split  puts  the  High-Mid  in  one  class
and the Low in another as determinants of modern tones.

          Similarly, trifurcation or three-way splitting, in   the  case  of  the  Lao-Siamese-Southern
Thai group  at  least, divides  the  initials  along  the  lines  of  High, Mid, Low, thus  creating  a
possible maximum of nine tones on live or smooth syllable. No modern dialect of course has
this many tones. Various tones (allotones at the early stage of the split)  collapsed  to  reduce
the number to as many as seven in Southern Thai and  a  few  as  four  in  Northeastern  Thai.

 

 

 

 

 

 

76                                                         SOUTHWESTERN TAI DIALECTS

 

          The geographic spread of the dialects in Southwestern Tai that appear to have trifurcated
cover the southernmost or lowest region of the Southwestern domain. Henceforth  this  group
of dialects shall be referred to as Lower Southwestern  Tai. Later, we  shall see  that  there  is
a Middle and Upper Southwestern Tai group.

          In   addition  to  their  having  undergone  a  common  tripartition, the  dialects  of  Lower
Southwestern Tai  hold  at  least  two  other  phonological  changes  in  common. First  is  the
progression of *vd > vl (stage I) > aspirates (stage II). The second change is a lengthening of
vowels, a process which appears to be of recent  entry  and  is spreading northward  into  the
Middle Southwestern Tai group at least. The emergence of the modern Low  aspirate  series
from *voiceless   consonants  is  viewed  here  as  the  mechanism  for  triggering  tripartition.
That is, as the High (*aspirated vioceless  stops)  and  the  Low  aspirates  began  to  merge
in the   modern  Lower  Southwestern  dialects, homophony  had  to  be  avoided. This  could
be achieved by a reinterpretation of the tones in  the  High  series  to  carry  a  new  functional
load lost in the merger of the  High  and  Low  aspirates. In  summary, the  progression  from
bipartition to tripartition and vowel lengthening appears as a feeding relation.

  1. *vd > vl (stage I)

  2. Bipartition: High-Mid vs. Low

  3. vl > Low aspirates (stage II)

  4. Tripartition: High vs. Mid vs. Low

  5. Vowel lengthening

          Vowel lengthening is viewed  as  a  subsequent  development in Southwestern Tai. Quite
possibly  it  is  not  involved  in  the obvious feeding relationship expressed in steps 1 to 4, and
may   have   preceded   or   accompanied  step  4.  Following  Li (1977), vowel  length  was  not
distinctive in Proto-Tai.

          Following the argument in Brown (1965), the Lower Southwestern Tai dialects are viewed
as having reached  a  contour  stage  in  their  development. In  turn  this  has  led  to  step  5  or
vowel lengthening in these dialects. For further discussion  of  step  5  see  Hartmann  (1976b).
The  historical  development  of  the  Tai  vowel  system  is  detailed  in  Sarawit  (1973)  and  Li
(1977).

          If it is granted that Lower Southwestern  Tai  can  be  defined  by  using  the  preceding  five
steps,it should be possible to draw an isogloss separating the Lower group from the remaining
Southwestern  dialects. Map  1  (at  end  of  article) shows  the  line  of  demarcation. The  line  is
really a 'floating' isogloss. By that it is meant that it may need adjustment  as  new  data  come in,
or  as  correction  of  errors  and  omissions  is  called  for. Too, as  a  geo-linguistic  frontier, it is
a zone of great change and variation, especially as regards vowel length.

          For example, Egerod (1971) describes a great deal of variation of vowel length in  Northern
Thai   just   north  of  the  isogloss. Mundhenk  (1967), in  a  study  of  the  same  general   region,
registers   discomfort   about   vowel   length, too. Finally, to  the  east  in  northern  Laos, Gedney
(1964)   reports   similar   misgivings  about  vowel  length  in  Red  Tai, which  is  just  above  the
isogloss. He states:

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                     John F. Hartmann                                                                77

 

The list of Red Tai vowels is the same as for Black Tai.At this early stage of the investigation,however,it
is not certain whether there is a distinction in vowel length  in   other  vowels than /a/ versus /aa/ ... The
question is whether this [over-all vowel-length distinction] is really a Red Tai distinction  or  the result  of
contamination from Lao.

          As we  go  north  into  northern  Shan, Lue  of  Chieng  Rung, White, Red  and   Black  Tai,
phonemic vowel length is definitely lost  except  for  some  small  pockets. The  data  on  vowel
length suggest an isogloss between Lower and  Middle-Upper  Southwestern Tai  just  slightly
north of the isogloss for the area  of   tripartition. Quite  possibly, in  some  areas  this  isogloss
for vowel length distinction could  be  allowed  to  float  southward  in  some  areas. For  a  look
at its approximate position, see map 2.

          We  can  now  return  to  a  more  detailed  discussion of delimiting dialect areas in South-
western  Tai   based  on  bi-and tri-partition. The  area   of  the  latter  has  already  been shown;
the bulky evidence for calling this a zone of  tripartition  is  presented  toward   the   end   of   this
article.

          Here   we   begin  to  deal  with  the  area  of  bipartition  and  a  variant  of  bipartition, both
of   which   represent   separate   subgroups   of   Southwestern  Tai  which  I  label  Upper  and
Middle Southwestern Tai, respectively.

          Simple bipartition can safely be assumed to have affected all branches and dialects of the
Tai  language family at  some  point  in   their  history. In  modern  dialects  this  two-way split  is
preserved in the uppermost geographic reaches of Southwestern Tai, extending  from  western
and northern varieties of Shan through Lue  of  Sipsongpanna  and  the  Red, White  and  Black
Tai  mentioned  earlier. The  same  type  of  simple  bipartition  extends  even  farther  eastward
through  Western  Nung, Nung, Lung  Chao, Ning  Ming,  Wuming, dialects  of  Puyi  South  and
Chuang. But   for   Southwestern   Tai   the   following   dialects   are  representative  of  the  geo-
graphical spread, from east to west.


 


mo6

 

Lastly, the group of Middle Southwestern Tai groups shows a pattern of tonal array  that
is considered here a variant or minor adjustment of the bipartite  Upper  type. The pattern  is
displayed below alongside dialects representative of the geographical coverage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

78                                                   SOUTHWESTERN TAI DIALECTS

 

 

mo7

 

 

          It can be argued, as Haudricourt indeed does, that dialects of the Middle Southwestern
type represent a three-way split rather than a variant  of  a  two-way  split. That  point  will  not
be contested here. It is only a minor point in this stage of the  argument. The  point  at  which
the initials divide in the Middle group affects but few items in that it cuts across the A column
only  and  moves  only  four  initials  into  the  *vd  tonal  category :  * ?b- * ?d- * ?y- * ?. In  this
light, a split of this variety can be  considered  a  minor  adjustment of an original *vl/*vd split
to   account  for  the  loss  of  a  distinctive  feature (pre-glottalization) in  the  series. Also, the
Middle group did not participate in step 3, which was viewed  as  the  mechanism  triggering
trifurcation. Vowel lengthening, step 5, where it does appear in  the  Middle  group  seems to
be  a  recent   innovation  due most likely to the spread of Central Thai into the urban centers
of  northern  Thailand. Finally, for  the  sake of  convenience  and  clarity  in  later  discussion
of the case for tripartition in Lower Southwestern Thai, the Middle Southwestern  Thai  group
is kept separate.

          A split of the Mid class initials which may be related to the one found  in  Middle  South-
western Tai is also found in Yai, Poai, Lung Ming, and Puyi North. The details are presented
in Hartmann (1976a). Here we merely note the connection and the relation of the Upper and
Middle Southwestern Thai dialects to dialects to the east that show a similar history of tonal
splits.

 

 

 

 

 

                                       John F. Hartmann                                                     79

 

mo8

 


                         The dialects of Upper and Middle Southwestern Tai have  split  along  the  clearest  lines.
               There seems to be little doubt about the unity of these  two  subgroups  if  examined  from  the
               standpoint of tonal splits. However, when we are pressed to demonstrate the unity of the Lower
               Southwestern group or Lao-Siamese-Southern Thai, the patterns of tonal development are  not
               all that transparent. We proceed  to  examine  the  evidence  presented  in  Hartmann  (1976a)
               and Li (1977).

          The clearest  evidence  of  tripartition  in  Lower  Southwestern  Tai  comes  from  the  Southern
Thai   dialect  at  Nakhorn  Sri  Thammarat  as  recorded  by  Brown  (1964)  at  dialect  point  68. The
three-way   split  runs  completely  through  the  three  PT  tones  ABC. His  chart  shows  that  coales-
cence   has   taken   place  between  B-C High  and  B-C Low, thus  reducing  the  maximum  of  nine
possible modern tones to seven. Only slightly different  is  the dialect  at  Yala, which  has  collapsed
three allotones into  one  modern  tone; the  othe r six  fill  the  remaining  six  cells. The  tonal  arrays
of the two Southern dialects adapted from Brown (1964) appear below.

 

mo9

 

          When we move into the Central Thai or Siamese region and look at the Bangkok  tonal
array, tripartition is not as immediately apparent. However, if we put the Bangkok array along-
side   the  not-too-distant  and  mutually  intelligible  dialects  of  Khorat, Roi-Et  and  Ubon, a
pattern of a three-way split followed by idiosyncratic arrangements for  coalescence  in  each

 

 

 

 

 

80                                                      SOUTHWESTERN TAI DIALECTS

 

mo10

 

 



                       It is especially illuminating to compare the A  column   of  Bangkok  with  that  of  Roi-Et.
             Thanks to Brown's highly trained ear and commendable service of  actually  drawing  out  tonal
             contours, it appears that Roi-Et column  A  with  its  three-way  split  is  beginning  to  resemble
              Bangkok A. Roi-Et's  A-Mid  and  A-Low, both  falling  contours, seem  to  be  verging  close  to
              coalescence,a process the Bangkok dialect went through at some earlier stage after tripartition.

                             From Bangkok  to  Vientiane  and  the  northern limit  of  Southwestern  Tai  at  Luang  Prabang,
                   there  is  also  a  shared  development  of  a  preference   for   coalescence  in  the  B column,  either
                   B-Mid+High  or   B-Mid+High+Low, in   the   form   of   a   register   (Mid level)    tone    rather     than  a
                   contour.

Similarly,   A-High   in   these    dialects  shows  a  tendency  toward  a  rising  tone. Contrary  to
sentiments voiced by some students of  comparative Tai, the  actual  shapes  of  tones can  provide
highly  illuminating  information  on  the  development  of  tones  in  Tai  dialects. Brown's   presenta-
tion of his data, with  charts  showing  individually  drawn  tonal  shapes, is  a  model  which  should
be emulated by all Tai field linguists.

Last  and  most  perplexing, or   perhaps   least  convincing, is the Luang Prabang dialect itself.
It   has   the  peculiar  distinction  of  showing a  split  of  A  and  C  High  versus  A a nd  C  Mid+Low,
leaving   the   B   column    untouched,  i.e.  with  a  single  tone. At  first  glance, the  Luang  Prabang
array looks  like  a  simple  bipartition, a   flip-flop   of   the   usual   two-way  split. A   second,   closer
look  reveals  that  it  is  instead  a  trifurcated  dialect  that  has  gone  through  the  usual  five  steps

 

 

 

 

 

                                                               John F. Hartmann                                                     81

 

outlined earlier, but for which traces of steps 1 and 2 are all but lost. It is necessary to remember
that bifurcation was defined as separating the PT voiced series  from  the rest  of  the  PT  initials
as determinants of the first tonal  split.  It   was   axiomatic  that  all  dialects  had  undergone  the
two-way split. Tripartition is the second-stage  tonal  split  which  effectively  separates  the  High
class   initials  from  the  remaining  initials, which  is  exactly  what  the  Luang  Prabang  dialect
has done. Once this has been done, there  really  is  no  need  to  maintain  the  line  separating
the Low from the Mid class initials. In a  sense, the  Luang  Prabang  dialect  is  very  modern  in
choosing to erase the bottom line.

          Whether  or  not  the  changes  common  to  Lower Southwestern Tai proceeded along the
neat five-fold path as is pretended here, the delimitation of  Lower  Southwestern Tai  as  a  geo-
graphical  dialect  area  still  stands. The isogloss in  map  1  running  through Tak, Loei, Luang
Prabang and Sam  Neua  is  a  reasonably  real, albeit  rough, northern  limit  of  a  Lower  South-
western Tai domain.

          Since the appearance of the model for the alignment  of  dialects  in  Southwestern  Tai  in
Hartmann (1976a), Fang Kuei Li's publication A Handbook  of  Comparative  Tai  has  appeared
(1977). Much of  the  opening  part  of  this  volume, which  will  undoubtedly  become  a  classic
in comparative Tai studies, is devoted to the classification of  dialects  along  the  lines  of  tonal
splits. It is clear that the divisions made by Li (1977) support the model presented in  Hartmann
(1976a) and revised slightly in this article, along with an elaboration of the feeding   relationship
involved in the five steps in the  changes  that  predominate  in  Southwestern  Tai. Li's   division
of Tai   dialects  allows  us  to  equate  his  dialect types I, II, III  for  the  Southwestern  Tai  group
with our labels Upper, Middle and Lower Southwestern Tai, respectively.

          Reviewing very briefly, in Li (1977) we  find  the  following  dialects  representative  of  type I,
or Upper Southwestern Tai :

Lue (Li), White Tai (Donaldson), Black Tai (Gedney),

Sam Neua (Simmonds), Tak Bai (Brown f 79), Shan (Cushing),

Red Tai (Gedney, Phu Thai (Brown).

For type II, or Middle Southwestern Tai, we find the following in Li (1977):

Chiengmai (Haas, Egerod, etc.), Chiengrai (Brown), Prae (Simmonds, Brown),
Payao (Simmonds), Tak (Simmonds), Khuen (Egerod).

          Type III in Li (1977) includes the remaining dialects of Laos and northeast Thailand, and
Central Thai and Southern Thai. Li states on page 49:

 

Dialects showing systems of Type III are found only in Laos and Thailand, and seem to form a subgroup of

dialects among the Southwestern group. From the typology of  their  tonal  development, we  may  arrange

the different  subtypes  in  a  hierarchical  order  which  perhaps  has  significance  in  terms  of  historical

development and geographical distribution.

mo11

 

 

 

 

 

82                                                      SOUTHWESTERN TAI DIALECTS

 

          The tree sketched above is only a rough approximation of the one presented in Li  (1977)
showing the hierarchical order of dialects in Lower Southwestern Tai. Our approach has been
a strictly geographic one. With this in mind, a cartogram  of  the  dialects  within  Southwestern
Tai has been prepared (at end of article).

          A few words concerning the major geographical boundaries found in  the  Southwestern
Tai region are appropriate here.

          First, the major geographical divide that appears to  separate  Lower  Southwestern  Tai
from Central and Upper is the foothills that mark the beginning of the uplands where the Chao
Phraya Valley (Central Plains) and the Lower Mekong River Valley end.

          Next in significance is undoubtedly the Mekong River itself. In the Central Mekong region,
Yunnan Province in particular, the River clearly serves as a border between  dialects  of  Shan,
Nuea, Khamti on the west and the closely related dialects of Lue, White and Black  Tai  on the
east.

          Not to be overlooked is the Khorat  Plateau  which  effectively  divides  Northeastern  and
Central Thai.

          There are socio-political determinants of subdialects  within  Southwestern  Tai  as  well.
In Laos proper, there are  at  least three  subdialects  that focus  on  the  capitals  of  the  north,
center and the south. 

 

 

 

          In  this  paper, we have reviewed and compared the arguments for the alignment  of  sub-
divisions  within  Southwestern  Tai as presented  in  Hartmann  (1976) and   Li  (1977). It  was
shown that three major subdivisions of dialects covering distinct and continuous geographical
areas can be delimited on the basis of common patterning of the splitting up  of  the  PT  tones
*A B C. In the model presented in this paper, the three subdialects have  been  labeled  Upper,
Middle  and  Lower  Southwestern  Tai  for  areas  which  are designated by Li (1977) as I, II, III,
respectively.

          Going a step beyond a taxonomy of subdialects, the  groups  were  viewed  as  having  un-
dergone a series of changes described as a process of feeding relationships. To wit, the dialects
of   Upper  and   Middle   Southwestern  Tai  have  undergone  bipartition, while  those  of  Lower
Southwestern Tai have undergone tripartition as part of  their  separate  histories. For  the  latter,
in  particular, tripartition  was  triggered   by   the  final   step   in   the   series  of  changes  in  the
initial  stops : *vd > vl > asp. The  process  is  an  orderly  one  where  bipartition   must  precede
tripartition.

          Several  implications   for   future research  might be drawn from this exercise  in linguistic
geography. The same three divisions that  apply  to  Southwestern  Tai  alone  might  be  shown

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                     John F. Hartmann                                                                   83

 

later to extend to the whole of  the  Tai  language  family, or  at  least  one  aspect  of  its  historical
development. It also remains to  be  shown  whether  or  not  the  model  proposed  here  can  be
validated using vocabulary as the basis for dialect  grouping.  Finally, since  the  issue  of  mutual
intelligibility between dialects was raised in Brown (1965), it would  be  an  interesting  challenge
to show in what ways and to what degree comparative-historical methods contribute to a solution
to this practical psycholinguistic problem.

 

 

                                                                             REFERENCE

Brown,  J.  Marvin.  1965. From  ancient  Thai  to  modern  dialects.  Bangkok: Social   Science
             Association Press.

Chamberlain,James R. 1975.A new look at the history and classification of the Tai languages.

             In Harris & Chamberlain (1975).
Egerod, Soren. 1971. The poem in four songs. Lund, Sweden: Studentliteratur.
Gedney, William J. 1964. A comparative sketch of White, Black and Red  Tai. (Social  Science

             Review special publication, 1.) Bangkok.

______.1973. A checklist for determining tones in Tai dialects. In Smith (1973).

Gething, Thomas; Jimmy Harris, and  Pranee  Kullavanijaya.  1976.  Tai  linguistics  in  honor

             of Fang-Kuei Li. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Haas, Mary. 1958. The tones  of  four  Tai  dialects. (Bulletin   of   the  Institute  of  History  and

             Philology, 29.) Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Harris, Jimmy, and James R. Chamberlain (eds.). 1975. Studies in Tai  linguistics.  Bangkok:

             C. I. E. L.

Hartmann, John F.. 1976a. The   linguistic   and   memory  structure  of  Tai-Lue oral narrative.

             (Ph.D. dissertation.) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
______.1976b. The waxing and waning of vowel  length  in  Tai  dialects. In  Gething,Harris &

             Kullavanijaya (1976).

Li, Fang-Kuei. 1959. Classification   by  vocabulary: Tai  dialects. Anthropological  Linguistics,
             1. 2.

______.1960. A tentative classification   of  Tai dialects. Culture  in  history: Essays  in  honor

of Paul Radin. S. Diamond (ed.)

______.1977. A    handbook   of   comparative   Tai.   Honolulu:  University  of   Hawaii   Press.

Mundhenk, Norman   A. 1967. Auxiliary   verbs  in  Myang  of  northern  Thailand.  (M.A. thesis.)

              Hartford Seminary Foundation.
Sarawit,  Mary   S. 1973.  The    Proto-Ta i    vowel   system. (Ph.D.   dissertation.) Ann    Arbor:

              University of Michigan.
Smith, M. Estelle (éd.). 1973. Studies in linguistics in honor of George L. Trager. The  Hague:

              Mouton.

 

 

mo12

 

 

 

 

 

mo13

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo14

 


 


 

 


 

 


 

 

 

 


ดาวน์โหลดเอกสาร
FileคำอธิบายFile sizeDownloadsLast modified
Download this file (vol 68 pt 1 page 72-86.pdf)vol 68 pt 1 page 72-86.pdf 1436 Kb15309/13/10 10:49
 

ค้นหา

สถิติผู้เข้าชมเว็บไซต์

mod_vvisit_counterผู้เข้าชมวันนี้364
mod_vvisit_counterผู้เข้าชมเดือนนี้18849
mod_vvisit_counterผู้เข้าชมเดือนที่แล้ว22645
mod_vvisit_counterผู้เข้าชมทั้งหมด1981173

We have: 16 guests, 2 bots online
IP ของคุณ: 52.3.228.47
วันนี้: ๒๘ ก.ย. ๒๕๖๓