(An extract from the book THE QUINTESSENCE OF APATANI LANGUAGE (PRELUDE)
released on 5th July 2011)
Apatani–a spoken language–belongs to the compact family of Tani group. Tani languages also known as
Miric or Mishingish or Adi–Galo–Mishing –Nishi (Bradley 1997) or
Abor-Miri-Dafla (now Nyishi)[1] (Matisoff 1991) are hesitantly classified under Tibeto-Burman languages as a distinct branch. Digarish languages like Taraon and Idu
considered to be the closest relatives of Tani languages.
Though the linguistic affiliation of Apatani has been often
shifted by various scholars within broader subgroups but seldom has the name
Apatani as such appeared distinctly. Some of the linguistic classifications
shows the affiliation of Apatani language within higher Tani or North Assam or Abor–Miri–Dafla or Adi–Galo–Mishing–Nishi.
In the colossal Linguistic Survey of India[2]
by George Abraham Grierson which
consists of XI (Eleven) Volumes published in between 1903 and 1928, Apatani is
brought under “North Assam Groups”
(Volume III, Part I: Himalayan Dialects,
North Assam Groups) which is meant to be a geographical grouping with other
Tani languages.
Apart from LSI, the classifications by Shafer (1966) and
Benedict (1972) are considered to be two milestones in the classification of Tibeto–Burman
languages[3].
Robert Shafer (1955:102) gives
a tentative classification and takes agnostic position and without promoting
any one branch to primary status he emphasises the “North Assam” language where Apatani is classified under “Mishingish” which is one among four
groups recognised under North Assam
of Bodic/ Burmic, the other three being Digarish, Midzuish and Hrusish.
Paul K. Benedict (1972:5)
introduced a terminological distinction between Sino-Tibetan and Tibeto-Burman.
He divides Tibeto-Burman into seven branches and by suggesting genetic
classification he proposes “Abor–Miri–Dafla”
as one of the (third) major nuclei where Apatani is included along with other
Tani languages and Aka, Digaro, Miju, and Dhimal.
James Matisoff modifies
Benedict’s (1991:480-1) proposal and offers a simplified geographic
classification rather than linguistic proposal. He underscores “Abor–Miri–Dafla” along with
Kuki–Chin–Naga and Bodo–Garo under Kamarupan
(geographic)to accommodate Apatani as one subgroup of “Abor–Miri–Dafla”.
David
Bradley (1997) includes Apatani within “Adi–Galo–Mishing–Nishi” under third
central nuclei along with Mishmi (Digarish and Keman) and Rawang subgroups.
According to him, this central group is perhaps a residual group which is not
actually related to each other and where even Lepcha may be fitted in.
George
Van Driem (2001) suggests semi–ethnic
classification for Tani languages but is not clear of actual languages since
some of the languages are undocumented. Of all the classifications, only Van
Driem mentions the name Apatani language as “Apa Tani” or “Tanii”
along with Milang, Adi langauges (Minyong, Padam, Pasi, Shimong, Nishi
languages {Nishi (aka East Dafla,
Nishing), Tagin (aka West Dafla), Bangni,
Nah, Hill Miri (aka Sarak)} and
Gallong languages {(aka Duba,
Galo), Pailibo (aka Libo), Ramo,
Bokar}
However, until the works done by Thangi Chhangte from Mizoram (1990,
1992) and Tian-Shin Jackson Sun of
Taiwan[4]
(1993, 1994), the Tani languages had not receive attention. Mark William Post (2007) in his PhD
thesis on “A Grammar of Galo” has
pointed out that the position of Tani within Tibeto-Burman language family
remains to be fully worked out. Presently, Tani languge is treated as a
subgroup under supra Tibeto-Burman language family.
The most gratifying classification though
provisional is of Sun (1993b) on the basis of segmental phonological
correspondences and by comparing with Proto–Tani reconstruction as provided by Post (2007) in
his postdoctoral thesis. Sun has broadly divided Tani group into Western Tani and Eastern Tani. Apatani is bifurcated out immediately in the second
level in Western Tani. According to Sun’s classification, Apatani language has
lesser phonological correspondences or affiliation with Nishi, Tagin Hills Miri
or Galo than they have within them. Even the degree of mutual intelligibility
is higher among them as compared with Apatani.
The following diagram is the classification
given by a Taiwanese linguist Tian–Shin Jackson Sun.
