Janhunen J. The Mongolic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

functions (here termed simple vs. complex), though it is not immediately clear what the

difference is. In many concrete examples, the two forms are used, as it seems, in a more

or less identical function, cf. e.g. (Gansu) njang aameghale yud-o [term.] ‘he left with

[his] mother’ vs. njase gude yude-je [res.] ‘they left yesterday’. It is also not clear how

these forms differ in function from the predicative use of the perfective participle.

THE CATEGORY OF PERSPECTIVE

As in Mongghul and Mangghuer, the category of perspective (also known as ‘eviden-

tiality’) in Bonan represents an areal feature ultimately connected with the Tibetan

impact on the local non-Tibetan languages. This category is differentiated into what may

be termed the subjective and objective perspectives. The forms expressing the subjective

perspective have normally (in the unmarked case) a first person referent, while the forms

expressing the objective perspective have a second or third person referent, without

regard to the category of number. The personal references of the forms can, however,

also be reversed (implying a marked case).

The available information suggests that perspective in Bonan is not formally incor-

porated into the system of the simple temporal-aspectual suffixes of the finite conjuga-

tion. Rather, the distinction is primarily only present in the copular and existential verbs.

From the latter, it has been secondarily extended to two complex finite forms, which may

be termed the periphrastic progressive and future (Table 16.8).

The basic existential verb has the forms subj. wi (probably more currently phonemi-

zed as wii) : obj. wa, which seem to represent a syncretic merger and secondary (re)dif-

ferentiation of the original copula *bUi and the auxiliary *ba(y)i- ‘to be’. The existential

verb also serves as the basis for the emphatic copula with the forms subj. mbi (or mbii) :

obj. mba, which additionally appear to include a prefixed trace of the pronoun *mön ‘that

very’ (used as a copula in Mongol proper). The existential verb is probably also the

source of the copular set subj. yi (or yii) : obj. o (< *wa), though the details of this dif-

ferentiation remain somewhat unclear. The distribution between the existential set wi :

wa and the copular set yi : o is also open to different interpretations, and there may be

dialectal differences. For the copular shape yi the possibility of Tibetan influence cannot

perhaps be ruled out (cf. the Amdo Tibetan copula yen).

In principle, the copular set, including the emphatic copula, is used with a nominal

(including adjectival) predicate, while the existential set is used in existential sentences,

including the possessive construction, e.g. (Xiazhuang) (cop. subj.) ne mene gar yi ‘this

is my house’; (cop. emph. subj.) ne mene more mbi ‘this is my horse’; (cop. obj.) njang

340 THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES

TABLE 16.8 BONAN PERSPECTIVE MARKERS

subjective objective

exist. wi wa

cop. yi o

cop. emph. mbi mba

exist. neg. gi(-wa) gi-na

cop. neg. shi sho(-wa)

progr. periphr. - Ji -Jo

fut. periphr. -Gi -Gwa > -Go

janig o ‘he is Chinese’; ne gar hanisa onder o ‘this house is the highest of all’; (exist.

subj.) mene agu yadzede wi ‘my daughter is in Xunhua’; (exist. obj.) cade temer more

wa ‘you have a bicycle’. The copular set is, however, also used with some converbs,

while the existential set seems to be combined with the predicatively used perfective par-

ticiple e.g. (conv. + cop. subj.) be xolone uutexang yi ‘I have just had my breakfast’;

(part. perf. + exist. subj.) be lawrangde hcesang wi ‘I have been to bLa.brang’.

The negative existential subj. gi (perhaps gii) or gi-wa (gii-wa) : obj. gi-na (gii-na,

dialectally gi-ne or gii-ne) transparently reflects the Common Mongolic negative noun

*ügei. The negative copula subj. shi (or possibly shii) : obj. sho (< *shi+o) ~ sho-wa like-

wise derives from the Common Mongolic negative particle *bisi. The distribution of

these elements is basically analogous to that of their affirmative counterparts, e.g.

(Xiazhuang); (exist. neg. subj.) nade more gi ‘I do not have a horse’; (exist. neg. obj.)

bedane diwade bedane gacene le medecung gine ‘in our village there is no one who

would not understand our speech’; (cop. neg. subj.) njang lizhiba sho ‘he is not a cadre’.

Because of their general lack of verbal morphology and their inherent differentiation

for the category of perspective, the copular and existential verbs could perhaps syn-

chronically also be analysed as perspective particles. The existential stem wi (in this case

invariably < *bayi-) retains, however, still part of its non-finite verbal paradigm, in that

it has all the three participles and a few converbs: part. perf. wi-sang : fut. wi-gu (also

conv. wi-gu-ma) : ag. wi-cang, conv. cond. wi-sa : conc. wi-sa:da. In the Gansu dialect,

the stem yi is also attested in the fully lexicalized converbial forms conv. cond. yi-se ‘if’ :

conc. yi-se:da ‘although’. All of these non-finite forms lack any notion of perspective.

The periphrastic progressive in subj. - Ji (possibly -Jii) : obj. -Joand future in subj.

-Gi (possibly

-Gii) : obj. -Go (gNyan.thog -Gwa) are based on the imperfective converb

in - Je as well as the futuritive participle in -Gu (Xiazhuang > -Ge), to which the cliti-

cally used copular set yi : o (< *wa) has been added. These two complex forms serve as

the most common expressions for the present and future tenses of the indicative conjugation,

e.g. (Xiazhuang) (progr. periphr. subj.) ce resangde be bise-ji ‘I am glad that you came’;

(progr. periphr. obj.) fi jore kung nege yu-jo ‘[there] is a man going in [along] the forest’;

(fut. periphr. subj.) magshe cawsung se orse be hce-gi ‘if it does not snow tomorrow,

I will go; (fut. periphr. obj.) njang cenazhe re-go ‘he will come the day after tomorrow’.

Due to the perspective reference they contain, the periphrastic progressive and future

seem to be replacing the simple narrative and durative forms, which are undifferentiated

with regard to the category of perspective. Dialectally, there is also a third periphrastic

form ending in subj. -sang-ni : obj. -sang-no, based on the perfective participle, e.g.

(Xiazhuang) (subj.) be hkude lang kile hce-sang-ni ‘yesterday I went to hand over grain’;

(obj.) ne pejigne wang sruji peje-sang-no ‘[it was] secretary Wang [who] wrote this letter’. The

functional status of this complex form remains to be clarified, but from the formal point

of view it has to be noted that the elements -ni : -no are perhaps not simple traces of the

copula, but also contain the possessive suffix -ne, which here seems to function as a

substantivizer.

Diachronically, the periphrastic progressive is the form that may be assumed to have

the longest history in Mongolic. It is therefore not surprising that the construction conv.

imperf. + wi (wii < *bayi-) is also attested in Bonan in a secondary non-finite form,

ending in - J-i-gu (possibly - J-ii-gu < *- Ji+bayi-ku) and functioning as a progressive

participle, as in mene mer-c-i-gu mamug datrang wi ‘what I am wearing is a cotton coat’.

The progressive participle is not used as a nominal predicate, which suggests that it pos-

sibly remains outside of the regular participial system. On the other hand, as a nominal

form of wi(-), it is indifferent with regard to the category of perspective.

BONAN 341

AUXILIARY VERBS

In addition to the copular and existential verbs (which can apparently also be analysed

as perspective particles), Bonan has several other verbs which clearly function as auxil-

iaries, conveying various meanings of aspectuality, directionality, or modality. Most

auxiliaries have close parallels in the other languages of the Gansu-Qinghai complex,

and they typically derive from well-known Common Mongolic sources.

The Bonan auxiliaries may be divided into three main groups: (1) those expressing

directional or aspectual relationships, e.g. er- ~ re- ‘to come; to begin’ (< *ire-), xar- ‘to

come out; to begin’ (< *gar-), od- ‘to go; to finish’ (< *od-), ware- ‘to finish’ (< *bara-),

suu- ‘to sit; to continue’ (< *saxu-); (2) those expressing ability or necessity, namely rta-

‘to be able’ (< *cida-), yada- ‘to be unable’ (< *yada-), ol- ‘to become; to be possible’

(< *ol- and/or *bol-), ker- ‘to be necessary’ (< *kere-); and (3) those indicating the

beneficiary of the action: aw- ‘to take; to do for oneself’ (< *ab-), oke- ‘to give; to do for

somebody else’.

In the typical auxiliary construction, the auxiliary is preceded by the semantic main

verb in a converbial form. The most common form in these cases is the imperfective con-

verb, e.g. xara-je erena ‘(he) begins to curse’; ndangne nee-je oke ‘(please) open the

door (for me)’; hol-je ile olna ‘(he) is not able to run’. In some cases, other converbs,

notably the final converb, can be used, e.g. xara-la xarto ‘(he) began to curse’. However,

the auxiliaries ware-, suu-, ker-, rta-, and yada- can also be preceded by the zero-marked

verbal stem, which in this particular construction may also be analysed as a suffixally

unmarked converbial form (sequential converb), e.g. be yegine pece-Ø waro ‘I finished

writing the letter’; tere kung dawu hol-Ø suujo ‘that person is still running’; ce diiso

nimangsa ngguuda kur-Ø kerna ‘you must arrive before eight o’clock’.

A special formative expressing the perfective aspect, synchronically a mere suffix but

diachronically probably to be connected with the auxiliary *od- ‘to go’ is -de- or

(gNyan.thog) -te-

, as in (gNyan.thog) oke- ‘to give’ : perf. oke-te-, (Xiazhuang and

Gansu) kel- ‘to tell’ : perf. kel-de-, yu- ‘to go’ (< *yabu-) : perf. yu-de- . Most probably,

the construction originally also included a converb suffix, possibly that of the perfective

converb (otherwise unattested in Bonan), e.g. perf. term. yu-d-o ‘(they) went’ < *yabu-

xad+od-ba. Parallels are known from the other languages of the Gansu-Qinghai complex,

most transparently from Shira Yughur. There are indications that some other auxiliaries,

notably da- ‘to be able’, can also in some dialects of Bonan be synchronically interpreted

as suffixes, e.g. re +da- > (Gansu) re-da- ‘ to be able to come’.

A special type of auxiliary is formed by the quotative verb ge- ‘to say’, which shows

that the preceding clause involves reported speech, often stressed by the presence of

other indicators of verbal expression, such as kil- ‘to speak’ or asexa- ‘to ask’. Interestingly,

however, the quotative verb stem can also be reduced to zero, leaving only its verbal end-

ings functioning as quotative markers, e.g. manba mene ner cexiirce Ø-jo, yang hdasa

mene hungda mung wa Ø-ji kiljo ‘the doctor said that I looked pale (literally: ‘my face

was white’) and that smoking is bad for my health’; ghwilajegune yanggeje od kerna

Ø-sa . . . ‘as to [literally: ‘when saying’] how to make an offer of marriage . . .’. The quo-

tative verb is also used after descriptive expressions, as in tinggerig jala jala Ø-je orjo

‘it rained continuously’ (literally: ‘the sky rained saying: jala jala’).

A somewhat similar case of zero-marked verbal stem is present in the clause-final par-

ticle part. perf. Ø-sang : poss. Ø-sang-ne, also converbially conv. imperf. Ø-sang-je,

which indicates reference to the past tense, e.g. tere ghurang hungne ngguune dondag

sang ‘it (was an incident that) took place three years ago’; tere ghurang hungne ngguune

342 THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES

dondag sang-je ide tege kil ‘since it happened (already) three years ago, do not mention

it now!’; terna yang bedela hdign’ge ujeto sang-ne ‘we had a difficult time then’; This

element comes close to the category of copulas, and it may, indeed, represent a lost

copular stem, possibly simply wi- .

SYNTAX

The basic unmarked word order in Bonan is subject–object–predicate (SOV), but devia-

tions from this pattern are possible for the purpose of topic marking, cf. e.g. (unmarked

SOV) cena nogheine joorje ‘the wolf bit the dog’ vs. (marked OSV) nogheine cena joorje

‘the dog was bitten by the wolf’. In sentences beginning with the object, the predicate is

occasionally expressed by a causative derivative, signalling the emergence of a passive,

though the object is still in the connective form, e.g. (OV) gha ghwala-ne war-gha-rje

‘two foxes were caught’ (literally: ‘made themselves caught’). A modifier normally stands

before its headword, but, again, deviations are possible. Adverbs of degree, for instance,

can also follow an adjectival noun, as in ngga yagsa ~ yagsa ngga ‘very beautiful’.

As in other Mongolic languages, negation and interrogation in Bonan are expressed

by syntactic particles. For negation, several particles are used, depending on what par-

ticular form is to be negated. The postpositionally used negative copula shi : sho(-wa)

negates nouns, including participles, e.g. ( part. fut. + neg. cop. subj.) bede kelge shi ‘we

will not tell’. Participles, as well as converbs, can, however, also be negated by the nega-

tive existential gi(-wa):gi-na. The negative existential is also used to negate the

periphrastic progressive and future, in which case the synthetic construction is replaced

by an analytic one, e.g. (conv. imperf. + neg. exist. subj.) be taa-je gi ‘I am not sleeping’,

(conv. imperf. + neg. exist. obj.) ojang taa-je gina ‘he is not sleeping’.

In the finite conjugation, four prepositional negative particles are used: (i)le (< *ülü)

for the present-future forms (narrative and durative), (i)se (< *ese) for the past forms (ter-

minative and resultative), and tege (< *bitegei) or be (< *bu ~ *buu, preserved only in

the sGod.mar subdialect of Qinghai Bonan) for the imperatives, e.g. (narr.) kama nege

da kurgu ndaaje ile olem ‘no one should come too late’; (dur.) magshe ojang tende ile

odena ‘tomorrow he will not go there’; (term.) rkude ojang ende ise erwa ‘he did not

come here yesterday’; (imp.) tege dangla ‘do not stop [them]!’; (sGo.dmar) ce be er

‘you, do not come!’.

Question is indicated by the Common Mongolic interrogative particle u (< *=U ),

though in Gansu Bonan the Chinese particle ma also occurs. The particle u regularly

amalgamates with a preceding finite form, yielding: narr. -m-u, dur. -n-u, term. -w-u >

-u

, dialectally also conf. -j-u, e.g. narr. interr. ode-m-u ‘will [he] go’, dur. interr. ode-n-u

id., term. interr. (gNyan.thog) ir-w-u > (Xiazhuang) r-u ‘did [he] come’ (< *ire-be+ü),

conf. interr. (Xiazhuang) h-c-u ‘did you go’ (< *oci-ji-u). The existential wi and the cop-

ular mbi yield exist. interr. wu resp. cop. emph. interr. mbu, e.g. ce tilang ghaghalje wu

‘are you chopping wood?’, magshe ce tilang ghaghalgwa mbu ‘tomorrow you will chop

wood, won’t you’. In sentences containing an interrogative word, no corrogative particle

is used, e.g. tane kete kutung kung wi ‘how many people are (there) in your house’.

Other syntactic particles play a role in the discourse. For instance, the particles ya and

ri (both from Tibetan) as well as sii, express certainty or emphasis, e.g. ta ghwala nege

hung olwa ya ‘you two were really born in the same year’; xolung wa ri ‘it is hot,

indeed’; be tenggeje odeje sii ‘I went that very way’. Uncertainty or assumption is

expressed by ba or yo, e.g. temten’ge mba ba ‘it may be so’, ojang kete haajorje yo ‘he

has probably been back home’. Imperative forms can be reinforced by the particles ree

BONAN 343

and see, e.g. man’gela yawuya ree ‘let us go!’, ce nege uje da ree ~ ce nege uje da see

‘please have a look!’. The latter have been tentatively explained (Chen Naixiong) as the

prescriptive and desiderative forms of some subsequently lost verbal stem (another

zero-stem), i.e. Ø-ree < *-xArAi vs. Ø-see < *-xAsAi. It should, however, be noted that

the prescriptive and desiderative are forms otherwise unattested in Bonan.

LEXICON

Owing to its prolonged and intensive interaction with the neighbouring non-Mongolic lan-

guages, the influence of the written languages of Buddhism and Islam, and the almost total

bilingualism or trilingualism of its speakers, Bonan has absorbed considerable amounts of

alien vocabulary. According to a count made in the 1950s, only c.23 per cent out of a total

of 3,020 lexical items in Gansu Bonan were of Mongolic origin. A similar count for

Qinghai Bonan yielded a proportion of c.22 per cent out of a total of 3,032 words. In a

more recent survey, based on a somewhat larger corpus comprising 3,596 words of

Qinghai Bonan, the proportion of native lexical items was established at c.29 per cent.

It goes without saying that the native lexical items dominate the basic vocabulary,

including terms for body parts and body functions, basic actions, colours, pronouns,

postpositions and other grammatical items, as well as the basic numerals. Bonan also has

Mongolic terms for many domestic animals and, importantly, for several agricultural

concepts. On the other hand, the kinship terminology seems to have undergone consid-

erable changes under the impact of the neighbouring languages. Altogether, a count

based on c.700 items of basic vocabulary yields a proportion of c.42–4 per cent of native

words in both dialects. The text frequency of the native vocabulary is, of course, even

higher.

Correspondingly, the cultural vocabulary connected with recent and regional phe-

nomena, including religion, is almost completely non-Mongolic in Bonan, with Tibetan

and Chinese being the two most important source languages. The relative roles of

Tibetan and Chinese vary considerably between the dialects and subdialects. Generally,

Qinghai Bonan has a larger proportion of Tibetan loanwords, ranging from c.43 per cent

in Xiazhuang to c.54 per cent in gNyan.thog, while the figure for Gansu Bonan is only

c.17 per cent, as counted from the total recorded lexical corpus. The proportion of

Chinese loanwords, on the other hand, ranges from as low as c.9 per cent in gNyan.thog

to c.14 per cent in Xiazhuang and to over 40 per cent in Gansu Bonan.

Apart from the Tibetan and Chinese elements, there are a few easily recognizable

Turkic loanwords, like yagsa ‘good’, borrowed from Salar, as it seems. These, as well as

the possible elements of unknown origin in Bonan, remain to be investigated in the

future. Another issue requiring a detailed diachronic analysis is the dating of the Tibetan

loanwords. Most of the Tibetan elements in Bonan are, of course, very recent, so recent

that they are ‘reborrowed’ on a daily basis in the speech of bilingual individuals.

However, there must also be older layers which are perhaps distinguishable by phono-

logical or semantic criteria.

One phenomenon which seems to distinguish some of the Tibetan elements in Bonan

from their regular Amdo Tibetan counterparts is the frequent sporadic nasalization of the

non-nasal preinitial h, as in ndom ‘spider’ < *hdom (Amdo hdom, Written Tibetan sdom),

(Gansu) nggar vs. (Qinghai) hgar ‘temple’ < *hgar (Amdo hgar, Written Tibetan sgar).

Since similar variation (nasal prothesis) is encountered in native Bonan words, it may

reflect internal tendencies in the language. It may, however, also have a background in

the local Amdo Tibetan dialects.

344 THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Buhe and Liu Zhaoxiong (1982) Baoanyu Jianzhi [Zhongguo Shaoshu Minzu Yuyan Jianzhi

Congshu], Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.

Chen Naixiong [Cev Nai Siyuivg] et al. (1985) [published 1986] Buu vAv Galav u vUigas

(Baoanyu Cihui) [= Muvgqhul Tuirul uv Gala vAyalqhuv u Sudulul uv Cuburil / Menggu Yuzu

Yuyan Fangyan Yanjiu Congshu 011], Guigaquda.

Chen Naixiong [Cev Nai Siyuivg] et al. (1986) [published 1987] Buu vAv Galav u vUigae Galalgae

jiv Ma’teriyal (Baoanyu Huayu Cailiao) [= Muvgqhul Tuirul uv Gala vAyalqhuv u Sudulul uv

Cuburil / Menggu Yuzu Yuyan Fangyan Yanjiu Congshu 012], Guigaquda.

Chen Naixiong [Cev Nai Siyuivg] and Chingeltei [Cavggaldai] (1986) [published 1987] Buu vAv

Gala bae Mungqhul Gala (Baoanyu he Mengguyu) [= Muvgqhul Tuirul uv Gala vAyalqhuv u

Sudulul uv Cuburil / Menggu Yuzu Yuyan Fangyan Yanjiu Congshu 010], Guigaquda.

Chen Naixiong (1994) ‘Baoanyu ji Qi Fangyan Tuyu’, in Edward H. Kaplan and Donald W.

Whisenhunt (eds) Opuscula Altaica: Essays Presented in Honor of Henry Schwarz, Bellingham,

Washington: Western Washington University, pp. 265–85.

Janhunen, Juha and Kalsang Norbu (2000) ‘Aspects of Amdo Tibetan phonology’, Studia

Orientalia 85: 249–76.

Lee-Smith, Mei W. (1996) ‘The Hezhou Language’, in Stephen A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler, and

Darrell T. Tryon (eds) Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia,

and the Americas [= Trends in Linguistics, Documentation 13], vol. II.2: 865–73.

Lee-Smith, Mei W. and Stephen A. Wurm (1996) ‘The Wutun Language’, in Stephen A. Wurm,

Peter Mühlhäusler, and Darrell T. Tryon (eds) Atlas of Languages of Intercultural

Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas [= Trends in Linguistics, Documentation

13], vol. II.2: 883–97.

Potanin, G. N. (1893) Tangutsko-tibetskaya okraïna Kitaya i central’naya Mongoliya, vols. 1–2,

S.-Peterburg: Izdanie Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshhestva.

Roerich, Georges Nicolas (1958) Le parler de l’Amdo: Étude d’un dialecte archaïque du Tibet

[= Serie Orientale Roma 18], Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

Todaeva, B. X. [Ch.] (1963) ‘Einige Besonderheiten der Paoan-Sprache’, Acta Orientalia

Hungarica 16: 175–97.

Todaeva, B. X. (1965) ‘Baoan’, in Narody mira: Narody Vostochnoi Aziï, Moskva & Leningrad:

Nauka, pp. 665–6.

Todaeva, B. X. (1966) Baoan’skii yazyk, Moskva: Nauka (AN SSSR: Institut narodov Aziï).

Todaeva, B. X. (1997) ‘Baoan’skii yazyk’, in Mongol’skie yazyki – Tunguso-man’chzhurskie

yazyki – Yaponskii yazyk – Koreiskii yazyk, Yazyki Mira, Moskva: Rossiiskaya Akademiya

Nauk & Izdatel’stvo Indrik, pp. 29–36.

BONAN 345

346

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

SANTA

Stephen S. Kim

Santa is spoken as the first language by an estimated 95 per cent of the 380,000 Santa

people in China (according to the 1990 census). The ethnonym Santa is etymologically

connected with the term Sart, as used historically of Persian and Turkic-speaking traders

and urban people in Eastern Central Asia. In the Santa language, however, Santa means

‘Muslim’, and, consequently, it comprises not only the speakers of Santa, but also any

other Muslim people. The Santa speakers feel that their Islamic faith is more important

for their identity than any other ethnically distinctive feature, including their native

language. This is obviously the reason why the term Santa has come to be used in its

current ethnonymic sense, for in their relationships with other ethnic groups the Santa

speakers prefer to identify themselves as ‘Muslims’ in the first place.

Before the founding of the People’s Republic of China, even the Chinese government

considered the Santa to be part of the Hui or Huihui (Muslim) minority. In the ethnic

taxonomy of the People’s Republic of China, however, the Santa speakers are recognized

as a separate minority nationality, officially termed the Dongxiang, or the ‘Eastern

Village’ people. This ethnonym is based on the name of the administrative territory of

Dongxiang, where most of the Santa speakers traditionally live. Even today, the Santa

speakers make only a vague distinction between themselves and the other Muslim groups

in the region. Many Santa speakers identify themselves both as Dongxiang (Dunxian)

and Hui. In earlier Chinese sources, the Santa also used to be known as the ‘Mongolian

Huihui’ or the ‘Dongxiang Huihui’. Nevertheless, for most Santa speakers the term Santa

expresses best their primary identification.

Dongxiang is today an autonomous county located within Linxia Hui Autonomous

Prefecture of Gansu Province. To some extent, the Santa population extends beyond the

borders of Dongxiang to the neighbouring administrative areas. More importantly, owing

to droughts in the 1960s to 1980s, more than 50,000 Santa moved to Sinkiang (Xinjiang),

where they are mainly concentrated in the northwestern district of Ili (Yili). Like the

Santa, in general, most of these migrants still retain their native language (and religion)

well. More recently, in the 1990s, some 30,000 Santa were relocated by the Chinese gov-

ernment to a few other locations within Gansu, including the county of Anxi in north-

western Gansu, and the county of Yongdeng near Lanzhou. These relocations, directed to

areas with good irrigation, were also caused by the constantly recurrent droughts in the

high and arid mountains of Dongxiang County.

Although little is known concerning the historical background of the Santa, many

Santa speakers themselves believe that their ancestors migrated from Central Asia some-

time in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century. It is generally conjectured that they

were formed from a mixture of Central Asian traders, Han Chinese artisans, and Mongol

soldiers. It remains, however, unclear, what the proportions of linguistically Mongolized

Central Asian Muslims vs. culturally Islamized Mongols are in the modern ethnic

composition of the Santa. In any case, while the Santa language is unquestionably

a member of the Mongolic language family, the Santa people incorporate a considerable

SANTA 347

non-Mongolic ethnohistorical component. How, when, and where, the linguistic

Mongolization of this component took place, remains to be investigated in the future.

Owing to the complex ethnohistorical background of its speakers, the Santa language

has developed some very idiosyncratic phonological and lexical characteristics, which

make it not readily intelligible to speakers of any other Mongolic language, including

Gansu Bonan and (Minhe) Mangghuer, the two Mongolic idioms geographically closest

to Santa. Practical information from a Santa native speaker suggests that it is easier for

the Santa to understand Mangghuer than Bonan. However, the language and dialect

boundaries between Santa and its Mongolic relatives still need to be further investigated.

It happens that recent field research has revealed the existence of a previously unknown

Mongolic idiom, technically termed the Kangjia ‘language’, spoken by a small Muslim

population of c.300 individuals in the county of gCan.tsha (Jianzha), north of Tongren in

Qinghai. Taxonomically, the Kangjia ‘language’ would appear to be intermediate

between Bonan and Santa.

Santa itself seems to form a single language, whose speakers all understand each

other. Dialectal differences tend to be so small that it is usually not easy for a Santa

speaker to tell which area the other speaker might come from. It also seems that the Santa

speakers do not have clear ideas about any dialects in the language, though linguistic

research has established three dialect areas: Suonan, Wangji, and Sijiaji (today’s

Longquan and Kaori). These three areas show slight phonological and/or lexical differ-

ences, as in: Sijiaji fugierei vs. Wangji fugher vs. Suonan fugie ‘cow’ (< *xüker);

Wangji khar > kha vs. Sijiaji and Suonan kha ‘hand’ (< *gar); Sijiaji guruwang vs.

Suonan & Wangji ghurang ‘three’ (< *gurba/n). Generally, though not always, it seems

to be the Sijiaji dialect that preserves the most archaic state. Lexical differences are often

caused by the varying exposure to Chinese influence, the impact being less strong in

mountain areas with no Chinese speaking communities.

DATA AND SOURCES

Santa remains one of the least investigated Mongolic languages, a situation that is in a

curious contrast with the fact that the Santa, by the size of their population, form the

third-largest Mongolic speaking ethnic group in the world (after the Mongols proper and

Buryat). Since the Santa generally also preserve their mother tongue well, the relative

unknownness of their language must be connected with their seclusive social structure,

in which considerably less attention is paid to the Mongolic linguistic affiliation than to the

Islamic religious context. Another reason is that the Santa are among the economically and

educationally least developed minority nationalities in the whole of China. According to

governmental statistics (1992) they have the lowest literacy rate of all ethnic groups in the

country, with only 17 per cent of the Santa being able to read some Chinese.

The first information on Santa as a specific form of Mongolic derives from G. N. Potanin

(1893), who also published lexical material on the other Mongolic languages of the

Gansu-Qinghai region. After this limited information it was, however, only the Sino-

Soviet field work in the 1950s that yielded fresh material. As a result, B. X. Todaeva dealt

with the Santa language in a descriptive paper (Todaeva 1959), as well as in a more com-

prehensive grammatical monograph with texts and a vocabulary (1961), later followed

by a briefer sketch (1997) and an ethnological summary (1965). On the Chinese side,

a Santa grammar was published by Liu Zhaoxiong (1981). In retrospective, it is reported

that Antoine Mostaert, the pioneer of Monguor studies, also collected material on Santa,

but his field notes remain unpublished.

Information on Santa became more abundant with the work of the Inner Mongolian

scholar Buhe, who, in collaboration with Chingeltei and others, published a vocabulary

(1983), a collection of texts (1986), and a diachronic grammar (1985). An important

secondary source is the collective work of specialized papers edited by Hao Sumin

(1988). For the diachronic understanding of Santa and its relationship with Bonan, the

recent work of Sechenchogtu (1999) on the Kangjia ‘language’ is a major cornerstone.

The Santa language is also described in the doctoral dissertations of Kenneth L. Field

(1997) and Stephen S. Kim (1998). Problems of Santa phonology have been discussed

by Masayoshi Kakudo (1995).

The most recent development involves an attempt to create a literary language for

Santa. A practical orthography based on the Pinyin system of Romanization, and modelled

after the already functioning orthographies of Mongghul and Mangghuer, has entered an

experimental stage. The first publication in the new literary language is a dictionary by

the native Santa scholars A Yibulaheimai and A Shelefu (2001). It has to be noted, how-

ever, that the Santa have occasionally tried to write down their language in the Arabic

script. Traditionally, the Santa put a high emphasis on religious education, as given by

imams at mosques throughout the Santa villages. As a result, quite a few people seem to

have acquired a knowledge of the Arabic script, and specimens of Santa texts in Arabic

writing have circulated among the population. The Arabic script is also used for more

casual notes in the native language. All of these written sources on Santa remain to be

collected and investigated in the future.

The data for the present paper are primarily based on the author’s own field work with

a variety of Santa speakers. The Santa language material is transcribed in a slightly

modified version of the experimental orthography, as used by A Yibulaheimai and

A Shelefu.

SEGMENTAL PHONEMES

Santa is normally considered to have six basic vowel qualities, which can be denoted

roughly as [a e i o u ]. Among these, only the five vowels a e i o u (a e i o u) occur

freely in various environments and may be regarded as actual phonemes (Table 17.1).

The normal pronunciation of e is that of the mid central unrounded vowel []. The

vowels i u e are usually devoiced in an unstressed initial syllable when followed by

a strong (aspirated) stop or fricative and preceded by a voiceless segment.

The quality [] occurs mainly after the uvular consonants kh gh in complementary

distribution with i, suggesting that it should be interpreted as an allophone of i.

Diachronically [] seems to represent the original back vowel *ï, e.g. ghimusun

[mus] ‘thumb’ < *qïmusu/n ‘fingernail’, khidei [qdei] ‘Han Chinese’ < *qïta-.

After a medial gh, the quality [] can be replaced by [], e.g. eghi- [] ‘to hit’ (possibly

from *orkï- ‘to throw’). Another position in which the quality [], or perhaps more often

[], is attested, is before a nasal coda in non-initial syllables; in these cases, it seems to

348 THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES

TABLE 17.1 SANTA VOWELS

be a question of an allophone of e, e.g. amen [am] ‘millet’ < *amu/n, banden [bd]

‘stool’ (from Chinese). After the dental sibilants s z c and the retroflexes sh zh ch r, the

vowel i is pronounced with a sibilant resp. retroflex coarticulation, e.g. bosi [bus]

‘cloth’ < *bös, zisi [dzs] ‘selfish’ (from Chinese), zhighon [d

] ‘six’ < *jirguxa/n,

chi [t] ‘you’< *ci, shire [] ‘desk’ < *sirexe. These pronunciations are obviously

due to Chinese influence.

Some scholars also include the retroflex vowel [] in the Santa vowel system. The

occurrences of the quality [] are, however, marginal and do not require the postulation

of a separate phoneme. The distribution of [] is restricted to syllables without an onset

or a coda. Both synchronic and diachronic evidence shows that [] may be analysed as

er (phonemically a syllabic r), as in qierge (for ci-r-ge) [tig] ‘vehicle’ < *terge.

Clearly, this is another feature reflecting the restructuring of Santa phonology under the

impact of Chinese. In the Wangji dialect, however, a syllable-final r can form a single

nucleus with any preceding vowel quality, as in khar ‘hand’ < *gar, ghurghei ‘worm’

< *kor(o)kai.

The low vowel a and the two non-low rounded vowels o and u mostly correspond to

Proto-Mongolic *a as well as *o and *u, respectively, e.g. khara ‘black’ < *kara, okho

‘short’ < *okor, usu ‘water’ < *usu/n. The vowels o and u also correspond to original *ö

and *ü, respectively, e.g. mo ‘road’ < *mör, usun ‘hair’ < *(x)üsü/n. In individual

examples, there are many deviations from these regular correspondences.

There is no distinctive vowel length in Santa. However, as a facultative phonological

phenomenon, when the same vowel is repeated in two consecutive syllables of a word,

the intervocalic consonant is often omitted in fast speech. The remaining vowels tend to

be contracted into a single phonetically long vowel, which can further be shortened. This

results in a three-way free variation between a regular two-syllable structure, a vowel

sequence (pronounced as a long vowel), and a single vowel, as in suru- > suu- > su- ‘to

learn’, kuru- > kuu- > ku- ‘to reach’, baighagha- > baighaa- > baigha- ‘to let build’.

The Santa consonant system comprises, by place of articulation, the labials p b f m w

( p b f m w), the dental non-sibilants t d n l (t d n l ), the dental sibilants c z s (ts dz s), the

retroflexes (alveopalatals) ch zh sh r (tr dr sr r), the palatals q j x y (c j sh y), the velars

k g h ng (k g x ng), and the post-velars (uvulars and glottals) kh gh hh (q gh h). By manner

of articulation, the consonants can be divided into the strong (aspirated) stops p t k kh, the

weak (unaspirated) stops b d g gh, the strong (aspirated) affricates c ch q, the weak

(unaspirated) affricates z zh j, the fricatives f s sh x h hh, the nasals m n ng, the liquids

l r, and the glides w y. This makes a total of twenty-seven consonant phonemes (Table 17.2).

The three sets of dental sibilants (c z s), retroflexes (ch zh sh), and palatals (q j x) are

parallel with, and at least partly due to the influence of, the Chinese consonant system.

Among them, the segment c is the most marginal, occurring only in Chinese borrowings

SANTA 349

TABLE 17.2 SANTA CONSONANTS

ptc chq kkh

bdz zhj ggh

fsshxhhh

mn ng