Modern Burmese e Book22 HoppleP Structure Burmese

75 percent in lexical and grammatical particles. The reason the written language can be used successfully to the extent it has, is because the same basic, underlying template is employed for both languages. This grammatical framework, particularly the phrase structure and the functions of postpositional particles, has remained quite stable over time. The surface forms may be quite different, but the arrangement of information between the two “languages” is basically the same. Thus, the exercise of switching between the two codes is principally a matter of lexical and particle substitution. This would be like the language learners dream where, knowing one language, all one needed was to learn word forms to refill the structural positions in another language. The regularity of pattern keeps the two languages “together” and usable as “one” social communicative form, called Burmese. The result is that technically one rarely, if ever, pronounces words the way they are written as they were written hundreds of years ago, but this is not noticed by native speakers since everyone reads the written form with basically the same pronunciation. The modern speaker is unaware that long ago the same spelling sounded different, perhaps as different as local vernacular forms of Burmese or its northern language cousins. Native speakers are aware of lexical changes. They can simply substitute the Formal Burmese particle for the Colloquial Burmese particle through a process of lexical-functional equivalence, change nominal and verbal lexical variants to a higher speech-register lexicon, increase the number of word pairs as a kind of elegant doubling, and smooth over the whole operation for consistency, coherence, and overall naturalness. This summary is an over-simplification, nevertheless, the transformation between Formal written Burmese FB and Colloquial spoken Burmese CB occurs primarily in the lexicon. The difference in usage between written and spoken Burmese is one of appropriateness of social context. It is quite likely that there is a gradient quality to the transition from “written” to “spoken” Burmese. Since the phonology, lexicon, and postpositional markers all have shifted over time between the two forms of Burmese, modern linguists utilize Burmese for historical linguistic purposes to compare dialects of modern Tibeto-Burman spoken languages focusing on the changes. Also profitable are studies which examine the historical rules for changes in modern CB as compared to FB. By comparing and contrasting the underlying system that has held it all together over time, a system is displayed that promotes the subconscious view that these two languages are the “same.” This study will explicate a portion of that underlying template.

2.3 Modern Burmese

Burmese, like most of Tibeto-Burman, is an SOV language. As such, it demonstrates a consistent head-final typology—verbs are final in relation to preceding sentential arguments; modifiers consistently precede nominal and verbal phrases; postpositional particles consistently follow the grammatical term that they relate to the rest of the sentence. In fact, postpositional particles perform the bulk of the duties of grammar. These particles, which are analogous to English prepositions, encode the functions in European languages filled by inflections for tense, aspect, case, gender, person and number; all types of agreement and disagreement or disjunction; and logical, chronological, and situational relations. They mark textual and discourse information structure, as well as pragmatic functions of the speaker- hearer relationship and the general marking of all important social roles within society and the family. These particles are regarded here as the heads of their phrases, with other constituents consistently preceding them. The apparent few exceptions to the particle-as-head of the phrase, which other approaches to Burmese grammar have lamented, can be resolved under the method of analysis undertaken here. My hypothesis is that an underlying consistency in typology gives Burmese information structure, which may at times appear heavily laborious and confusingly complex, a simplicity and predictability that reduces the information-processing load and enhances comprehension. Regarding word classes, modern linguists have assumed but two basic types—nouns and verbs, with the addition of a third, closed-class of particles. The present analysis supports this view consistently and attempts to demonstrate structurally how this structuring principle is followed throughout the phrase structure up to the top-most, text structure. A typical Burmese sentence might be “Have you eaten rice yet?”, a very common greeting that, while situationally sensitive, is almost always appropriate. There is no generic greeting like “Hello.” The constituents of this sentence are laid out in figure 13. – Subject + Object + Verb + Particles tamang: ca pri pi la: rice eat Cp Cp I wrif: pm \yD: yD: vm: ‘Have you eaten rice yet?’ Figure 13. Overview of Burmese sentence structure The grammatical subject in Burmese is frequently unspecified and assumed to be clear in most natural conversation and writing. Postpositional particles can typically “stack up” as can be seen from the three at the end of the verb phrase. When viewing this kind of structure linearly, one might be tempted to call this a chaining effect. Most other studies of Burmese grammar have taken a linear view of constituent structure. A nonlinear view of constituent structure preserves the consistency of final headedness and breaks apart apparent chains, both of verbs and particles.

2.4 Constituency in Burmese