Linguistic Affiliation of Apatani Language

 (An extract from the book THE QUINTESSENCE OF APATANI LANGUAGE (PRELUDE) released on 5^th 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.  

---

[1] As the names appear in the linguistic classification by concerned researchers and scholars.

[2] Grierson, G.A. (2005).  Linguistic Survey of India, 11 Vols. in 19 Parts. Delhi, Low Price Publ.

[3] www.wikipedia.org

[4] Mark William Post (2007). A Grammar of Galo a PhD thesis submitted to Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.