Tibetan Grammar — Inside the Classic

(0 User reviews) 1176

In Category - Grammar

Authors: Jäschke, H. A. (Heinrich August), 1817-1883, Wenzel, H. (Heinrich), 1855-1893 [Editor] Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2022 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Tibetan language -- Grammar Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 22,264

Reading time 97 min

Text sections 10

Before opening Tibetan Grammar — Inside the Classic, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 22,264 words, 1 hr 37 min estimated reading time, and 10 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 12.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Tibetan language -- Grammar,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #69207

This editorial note examines H. A. Jäschke's 1883 Tibetan Grammar, focusing on his treatment of Western Tibetan dialect, verb root systems, and the use of respectful speech forms, based on the preface and grammatical excerpts.

Editorial Edition Score 4.7/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg69207

Read the Text

ཆུ་མིག་བཞི་ཞིག་དེ་རུ་ཡོད་ ‘there were some four wells’, and even: མང་ཞིག་གདའ་སྟེ་ ‘there being a multitude of them’ (from Mil.). Very often it is placed after the interrogative pronouns (v. 27), and sometimes its original meaning is obscured so much that it occurs even after known and definite subjects, where one would expect the demonstrative (see f. i. Dzl. 25, 1. 28, 6. 128, 14).

14. The Number. The Plural is denoted by adding the word རྣམས་ nam, or, more rarely, དག་ dag (dʽag), ཚོ་, or a few other words, which originally were nouns with the common notion of plurality. But this mark of the Plural is usually omitted, when the plurality of the thing in question may be known from other circumstances, e.g. when a numeral is added: thus, མི་ ‘man’, མི་རྣམས་ ‘men’, མི་གསུམ་ ‘three men’. When a substantive is connected with an adjective, the plural sign is added only once, viz. after the last of the connected words: མི་བཟང་པོ་རྣམས་ ‘the good men’.

Note. The conversational language uses the words རྣམས་ etc. seldom, in WT scarcely ever (an exception s. 24. Remarks), but adds, when necessary, such words as: all, many, some; two, three, seven, eight, or other suitable numerals (cf. § 20, 5.).

15. Declension. The regular addition of the different particles or single sounds by which the cases are formed is the same for all nouns, whether substantives or adjectives, pronouns or participles. Only in some cases, in the Dative and Instrumental, the noun itself is changed, when, ending in a vowel, it admits of a closer connection with the corrupted case-sign. We may reckon in Tibetan seven cases, expressive of all the relations, for which cases are used in other languages, viz: nominative and accusative, genitive, instrumental, dative, locative, ablative, terminative and vocative. 1. The unaltered form of the noun has some of the functions of our Nominative and those of the Accusative and Vocative. 2. The sign of the Genitive is ཀྱི་ after words with the finals ད་ བ་ ས་; གྱི་ after ན་ མ་ ར་ ལ་, གི་ after ག་ and ང་; after vowels i is simply added by means of an འ་ thus: འི་, which then will form a diphthong with the vowel of the noun (cf. § 6), or if, in versification, two syllables are required, i appears supported by an ཡ་ forming a distinct word. 3. The Instrumental or Agent is expressed by the particles ཀྱིས་, གྱིས་ or གིས་ after the respective consonants as specified above; after vowels simply ས་ is added, or, in verse, sometimes ཡིས་.

Note. The instrumental is, in modern pronunciation, except in Northern Ladak, scarcely discernible from the genitive, and there are but few if any, even among lamas, who are not liable to confound both cases in writing.

In the language of common life, in WT, the different forms of the particle of the genitive and instrumental, after consonants, ཀྱི་ གྱི་ etc. are never heard, but everywhere the final consonant is doubled and the vowel i added to it, thus: ལུས་, G. lus-si (Ld.), lṳ̄-i; ལམ་, G. lam-mi; གསེར་ (gold), G. ser-ri etc; or, in other words, all nouns ending in consonants are formed like those ending with ག་ (see the example མིག་). In those ending with a vowel no irregularity takes place.

4. The Dative adds indiscriminately the postposition ལ་ la, denoting the relation of space in the widest sense, expressed by the English prepositions in, into, at, on, to. 5. The Locative is formed by the postposition ན་ na ‘in’. 6. The Ablative by ནས་ nā̤ or ལས་ lā̤ ‘from’ (the latter especially with the meaning: from among), all three likewise without any discriminating regard to the ending of the noun. 7. The Terminative is expressed by the postpositions རུ་ or ར་ after vowels; ཏུ་ after final ག་ and བ་ and, in certain words, ད་ ར་ ལ་; སུ་ after ས་; དུ་ generally after ན་ ར་ ལ་ and the other final consonants. All these postpositions denote the motion to or into. 8. The Vocative is not different from the Nominative (as stated above), if not distinguished by the interjection ཀྱེ་ oh!, and can only be known from the context.

Examples of declension. As example of the declension of consonantal nouns we may take 1. for those in s (respectively d, b), ལུས་ lus, lṳ̄, ‘body’; 2. for those in m (n, r, l), ལམ་ lam ‘way’; 3. for those in g (ṅ), མིག་ mig ‘eye’,—of that of vocalic nouns: 4. ཁ་ kʽa or kʽa-wa ‘snow’.

1. 2. N. Acc. ལུས་ lus, lṳ̄ ལམ་ lam Gen. ལུས་ཀྱི་ lus-kyi, lṳ̄-kyi; ལམ་གྱི་ lam-gyi; lam-mi lus-si, lṳ̄i Inst. ལུས་ཀྱིས་ lus-kyis, ལམ་གྱིས་ lam-gyis, -gyī; lam-mī lṳ̄-kyī; lus-sī, lṳ̄ī Dat. ལུས་ལ་ lus-la, lṳ̄-la ལམ་ལ་ lam-la Loc. ལུས་ན་ lus-na ལམ་ན་ lam-na Abl. ལུས་ནས་ lus-nā̤ ལམ་ནས་ lam-nā̤ Term. ལུས་སུ་ lus-su ལམ་དུ་ lam-du

3. 4. N. Acc. མིག་ mig ཁ་ kʽa; ཁ་བ་ kʽa-wa Gen. མིག་གི་ mig-gi ཁའི་ kʽai; ཁ་བའི་ kʽa-wai Inst. མིག་གིས་ mig-gis, -gī ཁས་ kʽā̤; ཁ་བས་ kʽa-wā̤ Dat. མིག་ལ་ mig-la ཁ་ལ་ kʽa-la; ཁ་བ་ལ་ kʽa-wa-la Loc. མིག་ན་ mig-na ཁ་ན་ kʽa-na; ཁ་བ་ན་ kʽa-wa-na Abl. མིག་ནས་ mig-nā̤ ཁ་ནས་ kʽa-nā̤; ཁ་བ་ནས་ kʽa-wa-nā̤ Term. མིག་ཏུ་ mig-tu ཁ་རུ་, ཁར་ kʽa-ru, kʽar; ཁ་བ་རུ་, ཁ་བར་ kʽa-wa-ru, kʽa-war.

As the plural signs are simply added to the nouns, without affecting their form, we here only give examples of declension with the two most frequent plural particles. As example for དག་ the plural of the pron. དེ་ ‘that’ has been chosen.

Continue Reading →

H. A. Jäschke's Tibetan Grammar, prepared for a second edition by Dr. H. Wenzel in 1883, is distinguished by its attention to the Western Tibetan (WT) dialect, a choice shaped by Jäschke's missionary work in Kyelaṅ. The preface notes that Jäschke, prevented by ill-health from revising his 1865 lithographed edition, provided manuscript notes that Wenzel used sparingly, adding remarks from texts like Milaraspa and further observations on Western Tibetan vernacular. This edition thus reflects a specific linguistic focus rather than a comprehensive survey of all Tibetan dialects.

Dialectal Emphasis in Grammatical Description

The grammar consistently prioritizes Western Tibetan forms, often contrasting them with Central Tibetan (CT) usage. For instance, in the imperative formation, Jäschke notes that WT changes only the vowel of the perfect root, as in btong 'give!' from btang, while CT more frequently employs the particle cig and does not exclusively prefer the perfect root. This dialectal lens is also evident in the treatment of the verb 'to be': the respectful form lags-pa is explicitly marked as never used in WT, whereas yod and bzhugs are in general use. Such distinctions suggest that the grammar is not a neutral compendium but a document shaped by Jäschke's fieldwork in a specific region.

Verb Root Systems and Periphrastic Strategies

Jäschke devotes careful attention to the classification of verbs by number of roots—one-rooted, four-rooted, etc.—and to periphrastic constructions that compensate for root deficiencies. For example, the intensive verb formed by combining byed 'to do' with the terminative infinitive of another verb allows one-rooted verbs like mthong 'see' to acquire distinct forms for present, past, future, and imperative. The future tense of bya('o) is noted to express necessity or obligation, as in brjod 'must not be uttered'. Jäschke remarks that spoken WT lacks this convenience, possessing only the intensive imperative formed with btong. This analysis reveals a grammarian attentive to both literary and colloquial registers.

Respectful Speech and Social Register

The grammar systematically records honorific or respectful forms, a feature essential for navigating Tibetan social hierarchies. For the verb 'to be', Jäschke lists multiple stems: yin (neutral), lags (elegant/respectful), yod (existential), mchis (elegant but seldom heard), and bzhugs (respectful). When expressing possession, the respectful term is not bzhugs but mnga', as in the question rgyal po la mnga' ma mchis sam 'has not the King an indisposition?'—a phrase Jäschke glosses as 'is Your Majesty ill?'. Such details indicate that the grammar was designed not only for linguistic analysis but also for practical communication in a society where speech register carries significant social weight.

Evidence from the Preface and Editorial Choices

The preface, written by editor H. Wenzel, provides crucial context for understanding the grammar's scope. Wenzel states that Jäschke's ill health prevented his direct involvement, and that only sparing use was made of his manuscript notes. The additions include remarks from Gyalrabs and Milaraspa, and further observations on Western Tibetan vernacular. This editorial process means that the published text is a composite: Jäschke's original framework supplemented by Wenzel's selections. Readers should be aware that the grammar's authority rests on Jäschke's fieldwork but is mediated through an editor who exercised discretion in incorporating new material. The result is a work that is both a product of its time and a reflection of specific scholarly choices.

Readers approaching Jäschke's Tibetan Grammar should keep in mind its dual character: it is both a systematic reference and a document of a particular linguistic encounter. The emphasis on Western Tibetan, the careful parsing of verb systems, and the attention to honorifics all stem from Jäschke's missionary context. The grammar rewards close reading not only for its rules but for the glimpses it offers into the spoken language of 19th-century Ladakh and the challenges of describing a language with multiple registers and dialectal variation.

There’s something deeply comforting in Jäschke’s careful grammar, the way he lingers over verb roots like old friends, catching respectful speech forms mid-flight. It reminds me of opening that other book, Bisayan grammar and notes on Bisayan rhetoric and poetics and Filipino dialectology — Story, Setting & Ideas, and feeling the same quiet ache for languages preserved in ink alone. We only ever catch echoes.