TYPOLOGY OF VERB AGREEMENT IN THE LANGUAGES OF NEPAL

 

1. Nepali

1.1.  mʌ       a-e͂

I           come-1s.PFV

‘I came’.

1.2. mʌĩ-le tʌ̃-lai                dekʰ-e ̃

I.OBL you-DAT         see-1s.PFV

‘I saw you’.

1.3. tʌĩ-le          mʌ-lai        dek^h-is

you.OBL   I-DAT       see-2s.PFV

‘You saw me’.

1. Churaute

2.1. T^hul-a         keT-a         a-ya

big-PL       boy-PL      come-3p.PFV

‘Big boys came’.

2.2.  Ʈ^hul-i         keƮ-i          a-i

big-FEM    girl-FEM   come-3s.FEM.PFV

‘Big girl came’.

2.3. keT-i le      mui ̃-kun    dekh-i

girl-ERG   I-ACC       see-PFV.FEM

‘The girl saw me’.

 

Verb agreement is found only in marginal cases in Majhi. On the basis of the limited data number and gender agreement are missing from Majhi. Contrast on person agreement is also limited in negative forms,e.g:

 

1. Majhi

3.1.   tʌ ^̃     ba-bud^z-as

you   NEG-understand-2sg.NPT

‘You can’t understand’.

3.2.   mʌ    ba   -bud^z          -u ̃

I        NEG-understand-1sg.NPT

‘I can’t understand’.

3.3.   t^shor-i      ba   -bud^z          -ẽ

daughter NEG-understand-3sg.NPT

‘The daughter can’t understand’.

1. Darai

4.1.   buDk-a         manus  ʌi-l-ʌ

big-MASC   man     come-PAST-MASC

‘A big man came’.

4.2.   buDk-i          manus  ʌi-l       -i

big-FEM       man come-PAST-FEM

‘A big woman came’.

1. Danuwar [11]

Danuwar does not have number and

gender distinctions in verb agreement,

but it shows contrasts of person:

5.1.   mʌ ͂   nik^h-siyo

I        write-1sg.NPT

‘I write’.

5.2.   tui^̃      nik^h-t^shʌ

you   write-2sg.NPT

‘You write’.

5.3.   u       dzai-t^sho

he     go-3sg.NPT

‘He goes’.

 

These data show that the agreement pattern in Danuwar is nominative – accusative. It does not reflect any clear trace of pronominalization although a linguist like Givon ([19], [20]) would expect so.

 

3.2.      With simple pronominalization:

1. Magar

6.1. Palpa Dialect

(a).       ŋa  rah-a

I     come-PT

‘I came’.

(b).       ŋai       niŋ ke              daŋ-a

I.ERG you ACC         see-PT

‘I saw you’.

(c).       niŋ-e    ŋa ke                daŋ-a-s

you-ERG I   ACC see-PT-2s

‘You saw me’.

6.2. Eastern Syangja Dialect

(a).       ŋa  rah -a-ŋ

I     come-PT-I

‘I came’.

(b).       ŋai       niŋ ke  daŋ-a-ŋ

I.ERG you ACC see-PT-I

‘I saw you’.

6.3.            Western Syangja

(a).       ŋa        ŋa-rah-a-ŋ

I           I-come-PT-I

‘I came’.

(b).       ŋai niŋ ke         ŋa-daŋ-a-ŋ

I-ERG you ACC I-see-PT-I

‘I saw you’.

(c).       niŋ-e    ŋa ke    na-daŋ-a-s

you-ERG I-ACC 2s-see-PT-2s

‘You saw me’.

 

These data from Magar language show that there is subject pronominaliation in both the Western and Eastern Syangja dialects with different patterns of pronominalization, but the Palpa dialect seems to have lost pronominalization although agreement pattern is nominative-accusative in all the dialects of Magar.

 

1. Dhimal [27]

7.1. ka-O               na-seheŋ danai-g̈a

I-NOM                        you-DAT         beat-I

‘I beat you’.

7.2. nelai-O kelai-heŋ        danai-su-n̤a

you.PL-NOM  we-DAT beat-2p-you

‘You people beat us’.

 

These sentences show that in Dhimal there is simplex pronominalization with subject agreement. That is, it has nominative-accusative pattern in verb agreement. They also find it difficult to verify the claim of Grierson and Konow [21] that Dhimal is a complex pronominalized language. Dolakha Newar [18] shows simplex ‘pronominalization of subject agreement’

 

1.  Dolakha Newar

8.1.            dzi       wʌŋ-gi

I           go-1sg.PT

‘I went’.

8.2.            dzi-n    thʌn tʌ khoŋ-gi

I-EGR you-ACC see-1sg.PT

‘I saw you’.

 

Kathmandu Newar also shows subject agreement, but it does not show clear trace of pronominalization. It also has reflects nominative-accusative pattern in verb agreement.

 

1. Kusunda

9.1  [37]

(a).       ci         paao     c-ingian

I           tired     I-be

‘I am tired’.

(b).       nu        paayo   n-ingian

you      thirst    you-be

‘You are tired’.

(c).       git        idaan   g-ingian

he        hunger he-be

‘He is tired’.

9.2  Bandhu (pc)

(a).       ci         kadi     t-amanan

I           rice      I-eat

‘I eat rice’.

(b).       nu        kadi     n-amanan

you      rice      you-eat

‘You eat rice’.

(c).       gi         kadi     g-amanan

he        rice      he-eat

‘He eats rice’.

9.3  Pokharel

(a).       t^si         saŋ-di

I           sit-I

‘I sit’.

(b).       nu        haŋ-nu

you      sit-you

‘You sit’.

 

On the basis of very limited data like this it is not clear whether Kusunda had complex pronominalization. These data only indicate that Kusunda is a pronominalized language in that the subject pronoun is prefixed in the Gorkha dialect while it is suffixed in the Dang-Pyuthan dialect. Reinhard and Bandhu collected their data from Gorkha, but I collected from the Dang-Pyuthan dialect. This difference in the distribution of affixes may hint that Kusunda had at least two dialects when it was a language of everyday conversation. Prefixing in pronominalization is a less likely pattern in the contemporary languages of Nepal.

 

4.   Ergative – absolutive pattern

 

In this pattern the verb agrees with the NP in the Absolutive case. It means the verb agrees either with the transitive Object or with the intransitive Subject. This pattern is found in Nepali dialects of Darchula, Baitadi, Bajhang and Achham [39] and Chamling if the intransitive subject or the transitive object is in the second person. Otherwise Chamling is also a language with complex pronominalization (see [16]).

 

4.1.      With pronominalization

 

1.             Chamling (Informant: Bagdevi Rai)

10.1                      kaŋa wa banu-ŋa

I-TOP  came-I

‘I came’.

10.2                      khana   ta-ba-na

you      2-came-you

‘You came’.

10.3                      kaŋa khana       lai        tʌ:-na

I you    DAT    saw-you

‘I saw you’.

10.4                      khana   wa       kaŋa     lai        ta-tʌdu-ŋa

you-TOP         I-ACC 2-saw-I

‘You saw me’.

 

Chamling data clearly show that the verb in this language agrees with the noun in the Absolutive case, but there are other morphological intricacies of person hierarchy and so on that I have not been able to crystalize. Yakkha (Informant: Ramji Kongren), Thangmi [44] also show similar pattern in a subset of data.

 

4.2.      Without pronominalization:

 

1. Dialects of Nepali [39]

11.1 Dialects of Darchula and Baitadi

(a).       mulya-I le mulya lai dhek-yo

girl-F-ERG boy.NF ACC                               see-PFV.NFEM

‘The girl saw the boy’.

(b).       mulya  le mulya-I lai dhek-i

Boy-ERG        girl-F-ACC                                          see-PFV.FEM

‘The boy saw the girl’.

11.2           Dialect of Bajhang

(a).       keT-i    le keT-a lai dhek-yo

girl-FEM ERG boy-NF-ACC                                     see-PFV.NFEM

‘The girl saw the boy’.

(b).       keT-a le keT-i  lai        dhek-i

boy-NFEM  ERG       girl-F-ACC      see-PFV.FEM

‘The boy saw the girl’.

11.3. Dialect of Achham

mʌ kʌnʌ t^shoryaTT-I  dhek-yai

I-DAT girl-F   see-PFV.FEM

‘I saw the girl’.

 

1. 5.      Complex pronominalization

 

This pattern is followed by a number of languages like Satar or Santal, Limbu [51], Bantawa [36], Yamphu [37], Khaling ([40], [41]), Yakkha, Thangmi [44], Chhiling [48], Athpare [15] and Maithili [52], [6]). Limbu verb- agreement also shows the contrast of transitivity in that if the verb is intransitive, it is in the middle voice and if the verb is transitive, it is in the active voice [51].

 

1. Austroasiatic Satar or Santal

 

12.1.          iɲ         gitiɲ-iɲ-a

I           sleep-I-INTR

‘I slept’.

12.2.          alaŋlaŋ             gitiɲ-iɲ-a-laŋ

We.two.(INCL) sleep-I-INTR-1DI

‘You and I slept’.

12.3.          ʌlinɲliɲ            gitiɲ-iɲ-a-liɲ

We.two.(EXCL) sleep-I-INTR-1DI

‘He/she and I slept’.

12.4.          abubun                        gitiɲ-iɲ-a-bun

1PL.INCL sleep-I-INTR-1PL.INCL

‘We slept’.

12.5.          alele     gitiɲ-iɲ-a-le

we (PL.EXCL) sleep-I-INTR-1PL.EXCL

‘We slept’.

12.6.          am       iɲ-em   ɲelkid- iɲ-am

you      I-ACC see-OBJ-SUB

‘You saw me’.

12.7.          iɲ         ɲelkid-mi-iɲ

I     saw-OBJ-SUB

‘I saw you’.

 

Santal or Satar is a typical Austroasiatic northern Munda language with complex pronominalization. In fact a single verb form in the language is a full sentence if the speech act participants are in the subject or in the direct object position. In such a situation the verb carries all the information about the subject and object pronouns like their number, person, case and whether the first person plural subject or object is exclusive or inclusive of the listener.

 

5.2.      Kiranti languages

 

1. Limbu (Informant: Yehang Lawati)

13.1.          khunɛ  phɛr-a

he  come-PT.MIDDLE

‘He came’.

13.2.          khun-tshi         phɛr-ɛ-ttshi

3-du                 come-?-du

‘They two came’.

13.3.          khɛn-tshi         kɛ-bhɛr-ɛ-ttshi

2-du                 2-come-?-du

‘You came’.

13.4.          an-tshi a-bhɛr-ɛ-ttshi

1-du                 1-come-?-du

‘We two (INCL) came’.

13.5.          an-tshi-gɛ a-bhɛr-ɛ-ttshi-gɛ

1-du-EXCL 1-come-?-du-EXCL

‘We two (EXCL) came’.

13.6.          khun-i  mɛ-bhɛr-a

3-p       3p-come-MIDDLE

‘They came’.

13.7.          khɛn-i              kɛ-bhɛr-i

2-PL                2-come-PL

‘You (pl) came’.

13.8.          aŋga                 phɛr-a-ŋ

I           come-PT.MIDDLE-I

‘I came’

13.9.          khɛne   kɛ-bhɛr-a

You 2S-come-PT.MIDDLE

‘You came’.

13.10.        khɛl-lɛ khɛnɛʔ kɛ-nis-a

he-ERG you.S you-see-PT

‘He saw you’.

13.11.        khunɛʔ aŋga                 nis-aŋ

he        I                       see-I

‘He saw me’.

13.12.        khɛnɛʔ aŋga     kɛ-nis-aŋ

you      I           you-see-I

‘You saw me’.

13.13.        aŋga     khɛnɛʔ ni:-nɛ

I           you      see-you

‘I saw you’.

 

Begendra Subba [38] has given about four hundred different

verb forms in the Phedappe dialect of Limbu. The verb forms are complicated by difference in transitivity, polarity, tense, number, participant roles of subject and object nominals (see [4]), animacy hierarchy, inclusive-exclusive contrast in the first person dual and plural forms and with variation in reflexive and reciprocal meanings. Similar paradigms are found in [51] and [45, 46, 47]. Such a complication is typically found in verb forms of an Austroasiatic language like Santali. It is not possible here to note all such verb forms of a language with complex pronominalization.

Khaling [42], [43], Bahing [22], Hayu (Michaelovsky, pc), Chepang (Caughley, pc), Bantawa [36] and [14] , Athpare ([14], [15], [16], [32]), Chamling [16], Belhare [5], Yamphu [37], Thami (Informant: Sanu Maya Thami), Yakkha (Informant: Ramji Kongren) and Chiling [48] seem to have equally complicated verb forms. Taka dialect of Kham [49] and Thulung [1] do not have inclusive-exclusive contrast, but in terms of other categories involved in pronominalization they are similar to Limbu in many respects. Jyarong [10], Sunuwar [7] and Khaling [40, 41] also have complex pronominalization, but several of the complexing categories of verb that take part in agreement in a typical Santal or Limbu are missing from these languages. Still less complex are the verbs of Kulung [43].

 

5.3.                  Indo-Aryan Maithili

 

Maithili [52] is a single Indo-Aryan language that has developed complex pronominalization. It does not have all the features of verb agreement relevant in a typical Austroasiatic Munda language Santali or a typical Kiranti language with complex pronominalization, but there are pragmatic factors that control verb agreement [6]. Except for a few syncretic forms, verbs in this language agree with difference in person and the honorific grade of speech act participants irrespective of whether the noun which denotes an honorable man to the speaker is in the nominative or in the oblique case. Sometimes, even in a situation when the esteemed person is not mentioned in the sentence, but if he or she is mentally present in the speaker’s mind, he or she is able to control verb agreement in this language [17].

 

14. Maithili

14.1.          kaka                 khel-l-k-ʌi

uncle                eat-PT-3NH

‘Uncle ate’.

14.2.          kaka                 khe-l-khin

uncle                eat-PT-3MH

‘Uncle ate’.

14.3.          kaka                 khe-l-ah

uncle                eat-PT-2MH

‘You uncle ate’.

15.1.          ke-kʌr  g̈ʌr                   cha-ik

whose  (NH)   house   is-NH

‘Whose house is it?’

15.2.          kin-kʌr g̈ʌr                  cha-inh

whose (H) house         is-H

‘Whose house is it?’

16.1.          i okʌr   g̈ʌr       cha-ik

This his (NH) house    is-NH

‘This is his house’.

16.2.          i           hun-kʌr g̈ʌr     cha-eth

this      he (HON)-POSS                     house   is-HON

‘This is his house’.

17.1.          ham     tohar    babu-ji-ke ̃       dekha-l-i-au-nh

I           your     father-H-ACC see-PT-1-2NH-3H

‘I saw your father’ [52].

17.2.          to ̃dhyan lʌgake pʌDh-l-ah-unh

You (2MH.NOM)       attentively read-PT-2MH-3H

‘Did you read attentively?’ (e.g. for your father’s sake)

 

In (17.1) the verb form shows agreement markers not only of the subject and object NP but also of the possessive NP. In (18.2) the listener’s father or some other esteemed person was in the mind of the speaker. The esteemed person may or may not be in the sentence or in the speech act situation, but he or she is controlling verb agreement. Maithili stands out in this respect among all the languages of Nepal. Bickel et al [6] think that the non-nominative agreement in Maithili is controlled by the relations of ‘face’ hierarchy and ’empathy’.

Credit for the emergence of such an agreement pattern in Maithili (Chatterji and Bagchi’s ‘Bihari’ [9]) may be given to a substratum influence of Munda language. Chatterji and Bagchi [9] write: ̈

 

Sten Konow…admitted that some phenomena of Bihari [Maithili], like the conjugation of verbs, the use of diffenent forms to denote an honorific or nonhonrific subject or object and the curious change of verb when the object is a pronoun of the second person singular can be conveniently explained as due to Munda influence.

 

Hook [25] is also of the same view about verb agreement with the oblique NP and other irregularities in Marathi, which he thinks is a substratum influence of Munda languages over Marathi.

 

6. Languages without verb agreement

 

Languages of this group are Gurung, Tamang, Thakali, Hyolmu, Chahntyal [35], Meche (endonym Bodo), Sherpa and Jirel. These languages do not have verb agreement at all. Among the languages noted in this group all except Meche have geographically and historically close affinity with Tibetan.

 

7. Results, discussions and conclusions

 

In this typological survey of languages spoken in Nepal we can classify the languages basically into two groups, viz. languages that have verb agreement and those that do not. Gurung, Tamang, Thakali, Hyolmu, Meche (endonym Bodo), Sherpa and Jirel are the languages that do not have verb agreement. The rest of the languages have verb agreement of one type or the other. The languages that have verb agreement can be further classified into two groups. In the one there are languages that show Nominative-Accusative pattern, in the other there are languages with Ergative-Absolutive pattern. Standard Nepali, Churaute, Majhi, Darai, Danuwar, Magar, Dhimal, Kusunda, Newar and its dialects like Pahari and Dolakha represent Nominative-Accusative split while the pattern found in Chamling and Nepali dialects of Darchula, Baitadi, Bajhang and Achham has Ergative-Absolutive split in a subset of data. Among these languages Magar, Dhimal and Kusunda show subject pronominalization, but Chamling possibly has complex pronominalisation. If we follow Givon ([19], [20]) verb agreement of other languages could also represent historical development of pronominalization.

The rest of the languages in our data represent complex pronominalization. The languages that follow this pattern are Austroaisatic Satar or Santal, Limbu, Tibeto-Burman Bantawa, Behlare, Athpare, Yamphu, Khaling, Yakkha, Thangmi [44], Chhiling and Indo-aryan Maithili. Verb-agreement of Limbu and several other Kiranti languages noted above also shows the contrast of transitivity in that if the verb is intransitive, it is in the middle voice and if the verb is transitive, it is in the active voice.

Indo-aryan languages like Nepali (dialects), Churaute, Majhi ane Darai show difference of gender and horoficity in verb agreement. Some of the languages of this family like Danuwar and Rajbamshi do not show contrast of gender. Maithili has gender distinction only in a subset of data, but it has developed honorificity with different intricacy and delicacy.

Verb agreement in the languages of Nepal show different grammatical categories like number (singular, dual, plural), gender (feminine, nonfeminine), person (first, second and third), animacy hierarchy, participant roles, inclusiveness of the listener, honorificity, transitivity,  ergativity, role played by postpositions, obligation, volitionality, reflexivity, reciprocity and voice categories like active-middle or active-passive paradigms. Maithili stands out in its verb agreement patterns dominated by pragmatic factors

REFERENCES

 

[1] Allen, N.J. (1975). Sketch of Thulung grammar. New York: China-Japan Program. Cornell University East Asia Papers No 6.

 

[2] Bauman, Jim    (1974).       Pronominal verb morphology in Tibeto-Burman”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 1.1:108-155.

[3] Benedict, Paul K.(1993). “PTB/PST pronominals/pronominalization. A note on systemic dyschronicity”. In: Kitamura et al (eds.), 633-636.

[4] Bhat, D.N.S. (1998). A typology of Himalayan languages. Keynote address, 4th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Pune, December 7-9.

[5] Bickel, Balthasar (1996). Aspect, mood, and time in Belhare. Studies in the Semantics- Pragmatics Interface of a Himalayan Language. Zurich: Universitat Zurich.

[6] Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang and Yogendra P. Yadava (1998). “Face vs. empathy: the social foundation of Maithili verb agreement”. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal. Printed in Linguistics 37.3(1999):481-518.

[7] Bieri, Dora (1975). Is Sunwar a pronominaloized language? Mimeo. Kathmandu: SIL.

[8] Caughley, Ross Charles (1982). The syntax and morphology of the verb in Chepang. Pacific Linguistics Series 84. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

[9] Chatterji, S.K. and P.C. Bagchi (1929). “Some more Austric words in Indo-Aryan”. In: Sylvain Levi,Jean Przysuski and Jules Bloch (eds.)(1929). Pre-Aryan and Pre-Dravidian in India. Translated from French by Prabodh Chandra Bagchi. Calcutta : Calcutta University.

[10] Chin Peng, Tan Ke-jang, Ch’u Ai-t’ang and Lin Hsiang-jung (1958). “The phonology and morphology of the Jyarung language (Suo-mo dialect)” [in Chinese]. [Caughley’s reference]. Yuyan yenchiu 3:71-108.

[11] Dahal, Durga Prasad (1997). Danuwar language: a study. M.Ed. (Nepali) dissertation. Tahachal: Mahendra Ratna Campus.

[12] DeLancey, Scott (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57:626-657.

[13] DeLancey, Scott  (1988). On the evolution of the Kham agreement paradigm. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 11.2: 51-61.

[14] Ebert, Karen H. (1994). The structure of Kiranti languages. Comparative grammar and texts. Zurich: Universitat Zurich.

[15] Ebert, Karen H. (1997a). A Grammar of Athpare. New Castle: Lincom Europa.

[16] Ebert, Karen H. (1997b). Camling. New Castle: Lincom Europa.

[17] Gaderi, Satya Narayan (1997). A Comparison of agreement between Nepali and Maithili [In Nepali]. M.A. dissertation. Tribhuvan University: Central Department of Nepali.

[18]      Genetti, Carol (1994). A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Tokyo: Institute ofr the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

[19] Givon, Talmy (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.

[20] Givon, Talmy (1984). Syntax: a functional-typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[21] Grierson, G.A. (1927). Linguistic survey of India 1.1:32-38, 40-49, 53-80, 81-93 and 3.1:288-296.

[22] Hodgson, Brian H. (1857). “Camparative vocabulary of the languages of the Broken Tribes of Nepal”. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 26.5:317-349.

[23]      Holzhousen, A. (1973). Kulunge Rai clause types. Nepal studies in linguistics 1:15-26.

[24]      Hongkai (1995). A further discussion on verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman languages. In: Nishi et al (eds.), 17-29.

[25] Hook, Peter Edwin (1991). “Agreeing to disagree: Concordant adverbs and discordant adjectives in Marathi”. Paper presented in Deccan College, Pune, India.

[26] Kansakar, TR, YP Yadava, KP Chalise, B Prasain, DN Dhakal and K Paudel (2011). Agrammar of Baram. Kathmandu: Linguistic and Ethnographic Documentation of the Baram Language, Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University.

[27] Khatiwada, Karnakhar (1999). Dhimal verb morphology. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University.

[28] Kitamura, Hajime, Tatsuo Nishida and Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.)(1993). Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics. Osaka: The 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.

[29] LaPolla, Randy J. (1995). ‘Ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. In: Nishi et al (eds.), 189-228.

[30] Michailovsky, Boyd (1974). “Hayu typology of verbs”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 1.1:1-26.

[31] Michailovsky, Boyd (1975). Notes on the Kiranti verb <East Nepal>. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 2.2:183-217.

[32] Neupane, Tanka Prasad (2002). A linguistic study of Athpare Rai [In Nepali]. Ph.D. thesis. Kathmandu: Tribbhuvan University.

[33] Nishi, Yoshio (1995). A brief survey of the controversy in verb pronominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Nishi et al (eds.), 1-16.

[34] Nishi,Yoshio, James A. Matisoff and Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.) (1995). New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax. Senri Ethnologican Studies No. 41. Osaka: National Museum of Ethonlogy.

[35] Noonan, Michael (1998). The Chantyal language: a grammatical sketch. Paper presented at the Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University, Nepal, July 23.

[36] Rai, Novel Kishore (1985). A Descriptive Study of Bantawa. Ph.D. thesis. Pune: Deccan College.

[37] Reinhard, Johan and Tim Toba (1970). A Preliminary Linguistic analysis and Vocabulary of the Kusunda Language. TU: SIL.

[37] Rutgers, Roland (1998). Yamphu: grammar, texts and lexicon. Leiden: Research School CNWS School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.

[38] Subba, Begendra (1999). A comparative study of Nepali and Limbu agreement [in Nepali]. M.A. dissertation. Kathmandu: Ratna Rajya Laxmi Campus.

[39] Subedi, Sakhisharan (1994). A syntactic survey of Nepali dialects [in Nepali]. M.A. dissertation, Central Department of Nepali, Tribhuvan University.

[40]      Toba, Sueyoshi (1984). Khaling. Tokyo: ILCAA.

[41]      Toba, Sueyoshi (1991). Verb agreement in Khaling. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal, November 26-27.

[42] Toba, Sueyoshi (1998). A bibliography of Nepalese languages and linguistics. Kathmandu, Tribhuvan University: Central Department of Linguistics.

[43] Tolsma, Gerard  J. (1993). ” A study in Kulung verbal morphology”. In: Kitamura et al (eds.), 571-580.

[44] Turin, Mark (1999). “Don;t do That !” Thangmi imperatives in comparative perspective. Paper presented at the 5th Himalayan Languages Symposium, September 13-15, Kathmandu, Nepal.

[45] van Driem, George (1987).Agrammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

[46] van Driem, George (1992). The Monpa language of the Black Mountains.Paper presented at the annual conference on the Linguistic Society of Nepal, November 26-27.

[47] van Driem, George (1995). Black mountain conjugational morphology, Proto-Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax, and the linguistic position of Chinese. In: Nishi et al (eds.), 229-260.

[48] van Hoorn, Joyce             (1999). Syllable structure in Chiling. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal, November 26-27.

[49] Watters, David E.            (1973). Clause patterns in Kham. In: Austin Hale (ed.). Clause, Sentence and Discourse Patterns in Selected Languages of Nepal. Oklahoma: SIL 40/I-IV, 39-202.

[50] Watters, David E., Yogendra P Yadava, Madhav P Pokharel and Balaram Prasain (2005). Notes on Kusunda grammar (a language isolate of Nepal). Kathmandu: National Foundation fr the Development of Indigenous Nationalities.

[51] Weidert, A. and B. Subba (1985). Concise Limbu Grammar and Dictionary. Amsterdam: Lobster.

[52] Yadava, Yogendra P.      (1993). Verb agreement in Maithili. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal, November 26-27. Reappeared in a modified form under the same title on a talk delivered in Tribhuvan University as Yadava (1997).