Talk:Tibetan grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Article cleanup (and invitation to join in)

Like others I am sure, I am alarmed and filled with concern for the plight of the Tibetan people which recent protests inside and outside Tibet have brought to the world's attention. Probably this is something that cannot be directly said within the text of a Wikipedia article but I would just like to explain that because of this concern I have felt moved to do something to support Tibetan culture at this time, and as a linguist who has contributed substantially to some other language articles (most particularly grammar articles) on Wikipedia, I thought I could help be attempting to improve this Tibetan grammar article. Since I am not knowledgeable about the Tibetan language I can't help to correct substance at this point but I thought I could still contribute by cleaning up the expository aspects, style and so on, which is what I shall try to do. I invite anyone else interested to join me in this, whether simply as part of your usual Wikipedia activity or as a constructive expression of solidarity.

If I think any of my amendments need comment or justification I will append my notes here. Alan --A R King (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • To start with, I am removing the first part of the sentence "The grammar of Tibetan differs greatly from that of European as well as Chinese languages in that it is an ergative language" (in the introduction) and also the mention of European languages in this sentence lower down: "The difference between Tibetan and European languages is that when the suffixes are attached to the noun, the noun remains the same and the suffix changes form." In case somebody wonders why, I offer the following justification. First of all, I don't think it is a good idea, stylistically and in terms of how to present information in this kind of article, to stress comparisons with other languages whether European, Chinese or whatever; it's clearer and more to the point just to characterise the language under discussion. Secondly, the statements I refer to are also factually incorrect. Basque is a European language, yet both of the features being referred to by these sentences are true of it: it is an ergative language and "the noun remains the same and the suffix changes form". --A R King (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have a doubt about the ablative case as described in the article. The text says that this case expresses "direction towards the noun". I have respected that formulation in my cleanup because I am not a Tibetan scholar so I cannot say, but that is certainly not what one expects an ablative case to mean. Rather it is the sense one would expect to attach to an allative case, not an ablative one.
  • I also notice a discrepancy between this account of the Tibetan cases, which are said to be six in number, and the description in the main Tibetan language article, where the cases are numbered as eight. One of the cases there listed is called allative (whereas in this grammar article "allative" is not on the list of cases). I do understand that different grammatical descriptions of a language need not give the same number of cases if they analyse them differently, but here there may be something that needs putting in order. --A R King (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Personal pronouns: I suggest a table would be appropriate and helpful here if well designed. It ought to be done by someone who is familiar with the language to avoid making mistakes, so I will refrain for now and wait to see if someone else would like to do it. --A R King (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Demonstrative pronouns: Referring to the demonstratives, the article says: "Whether they appear as adjectives or as pronouns they come after the noun..." That doesn't seem to make too much sense... Can we be enlightened? --A R King (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The paragraphs about volitional/non-volitional and transitive/intransitive are both lame as they stand at present, because nothing at all is said in the article about how (or even whether!) these categories are expressed or reflected in the language, the categories are only briefly characterised ("a volitional verb is this, a non-volitional one is that"). Why do we need to know this? --A R King (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally there is a notable imbalance between the attention paid to the copulas and other issues (including verbs). In fact, the section on verbs only consists of the two short paragraphs on verb classes mentioned in my preceding point here, and there is no substantial discussion of how Tibetan verbs actually work at all (the Tibetan language article is actually more informative).
  • I think the next step would probably be to see what (including the verb stuff) in the grammar section of the language article can be fitted into the grammar article. I may or may not be able to offer more help with this (my time is limited, sorry). Anyone else fancy a go? Cheers, Alan --A R King (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PS

If you think this initiative is a good idea, please join in and/or spread the word to your friends and suggest they do the same. All the best, Alan --A R King (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I liked your suggestions. They are very helpful.

From my learning of Tibetan, or at least this dialect, there are only six nominal cases. You are correct that I defined the Ablative case incorrectly, it should have been "movement away from" and it will be changed. I also apologise for my lack of detail when it comes to, well, most things. I'm aiming at correcting that mistake by writing up everything I know first, before putting it up on Wikipedia. So, unfortunately, very few changes made by me personally will occur for some time.

Thanks for the input. I hope to improve the article greatly using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikim3 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)