Presentation on theme: "Kurtöp (Tibeto-Burman) orthography development in Bhutan"— Presentation transcript:
1Kurtöp (Tibeto-Burman) orthography development in Bhutan lsa symposium: developing orthographies for unwritten languageGwendolyn HyslopUniversity of Oregon
2Outline Introduction to Kurtöp and literacy in Bhutan Factors involved in orthography development in Bhutan‘Deep’ vs. ‘shallow’ representation‘faithful’ representationGovernment expectationsScript choice (Roman-based vs. ’Ucen-based)Religion (Buddhism)National language (Dzongkha – linguistically a Tibetan dialect)
3KurtöpKurtöp is a previously undescribed Tibeto-Burman language of Bhutan (Hyslop 2011 is first grammatical description)About 15,000 speakers in Northeastern BhutanNo monolingual speakers. Most fluent in Dzongkha (national language) as well as Tshangla (unwritten lingua franca of eastern Bhutan), Nepali and many are also fluent in Hindi and English.Mainly literate in Dzongkha and English
5Linguistic Factors ‘Deep’ vs. ‘shallow’ representation: Relatively simple and predictable allomorphy on case enclitics and verbal suffixes.e.g. perfective -pa ~ -wa ~ -sae.g. hortative -ki ~ -ci ~ -ikiConsensus among community members to represent allomorphy in all examples.
6Linguistic Factors How much to represent: Tone and vowel length are contrastive, though not terribly robust. High/low tone contrasts following sonorants. Long/short contrasts in open syllables.Again, speaker consensus to represent the contrasts.
7Governmental Policies Linguistic research in Bhutan is necessarily collaborative and thus so is orthography development.The government requires both Roman and ’Ucen-based orthographies.’Ucen is the Tibetan-based orthography (abugida) derived from Brahmiin the 7th century
8Tshui and Joyi versions of ’Ucen <tshugs.yig> tshui<mgyogs.yig> joyi
9Buddhism and ’Ucen Buddhism is a state religion in Bhutan. Buddhist texts, written in ’Ucen (Tshui) are sacred.As extension, anything written in ’Ucen is often considered sacredAs such, issues surrounding ’Ucen are very sensitive
11Background: The ’Ucen syllable In the Classical Tibetan Orthography, syllables are represented according to this diagram.The “R” represents a simple onset, or in the case of an onset-less syllable, the vowel. C1, C2, and C4 may be used to add consonants to the onset, making it complex. The V slots are for vowels. C3 represents a single coda (if present) and C5 makes a complex coda (rarely occurs).
12Classical Tibetan <bsgrubs> For example, to write <bsgrubs> Thecomplex onset is <b> in C1; <s> inC2 position, <g> in root position;<r> in C4. /u/ is representedbelow C4. <b> in C3 and <s> in C5indicate the complex coda.
13’Ucen and Tibetan/Dzongkha Classical Tibetan phonology had around 28 consonants (labial, dental, palatal, velar).And complex onsetsAnd five vowelsNo tone
14’Ucen and Tibetan/Dzongkha After almost 1,400 years of change, Lhasa Tibetan (the prescribed standard) has:A new series of retroflex consonantsTwo new vowels (front high and mid rounded)High and low tonal registers; level and falling tonal contoursChanges in voicing/aspiration contrastsSimplified onsets
15’Ucen and BhutanThe modern use of ’Ucen assumes the 1400 years of change from Classical Tibetan to modern Lhasa Tibetan.’Ucen is used this way in Bhutan; for example, words with complex onsets in Classical Tibetan are still written as such in modern Tibetan/Dzongkha, but not pronounced as such.Representing any pronunciation using ’Ucen entails the reader to infer the sound change.There is no way to represent various aspects of the phonology of other synchronic Bhutanese languages – such as complex onsets – in the history of Bhutanese education.
16Contemporary <bsgrubs> After approximately1400 years of change,<bsgrubs> ispronounced: ɖùp
18But in Kurtöp pra = ‘monkey’ Some problemsBut in Kurtöp pra = ‘monkey’
19Some problems Idea 1: Use ’Ucen in a way similar to Roman. <pra>How to represent vowels other than /ɑ/?
20Problems, continued This would be confused with /lé/ in Dzongkha/Tibetanconventions<ble><bele>This leads people to tend to pronounce theword correctly, but does not follow thetraditional conventions and is unattractive.
21Proposed solutionBased on existing (but rarely used) conventions established in Tibetan to represent different languages.Should not affect Dzongkha transference issuesAesthetically pleasingKurtöp speakers find it intuitive and easy to read
22Proposed solutionExisting computer fonts do not allow the needed combinationsChris Fynn, DDC font developer, agreed to adapt the Bhutan ’Ucen fonts (joyi and tshui) to accommodate the new combinationsIn addition to the complex onsets, the adapted fonts will be able to mark tone
23Proposed solutionTshui font is finished and joyi is scheduled to be finished by March./ká/ /khí/ /gú/ /ŋé/ /có//c/ /kja/ /ʈa/ /kra/ /kla/ /klwa/
24SummaryKurtöp speakers preferred a shallow and faithful representation -- for both Roman and ’Ucen based orthographies.With regard to ’Ucen, the cursive, or Joyi, version was preferred, due to its somewhat neutral religious affiliation and its status as an indigenous script.Reading rules from Tibetan/Dzongkha posed serious problems for Kurtöp, which is not a direct descendent from Classical Tibetan and has a different phonology.
25SummaryAdapting ’Ucen to fit Kurtöp phonology required considerations in:transference from Dzongkhareadabilityusabilityaestheticsstandard conventionshistorical uses of ’Ucenreligious sensitivity (e.g. representing Classical Tibetan religious borrowings, script choice)
26AcknowledgementsResearch on Kurtöp has been funded by the National Science Foundation and the Endangered Languages Documentation Project. All research and orthography development has been done in collaboration with the Dzongkha Development Commission in Bhutan. I am also grateful for discussion with and comments from Karma Tshering, Kuenga Lhendup, Scott DeLancey, Keren Rice, and Kris Stenzel. Thank you!