Research on Tibetan Languages: A Bibliography

=Related Fields=

General Bibliographies of Tibetan Studies
n order to situate this bibliography among other Tibetan studies bibliographies, it is worth mentioning what other bibliographies are available. I have used all of the ones relevant for this study. But also this may help the student navigate the secondary literature in other areas. Bibliographies of primary sources, manuscript catalogues and the like have been excluded. Perhaps most relevant here is Clark (2006) which includes a bibliography of Tibetan dictionaries. Bibliographies of Tibetan studies concentrating on research in Japanese include Sadakane (1982, 1997) and Suo (1999). A useful bibliography of Chinese and Tibetan language works has been issued in three volumes covering the period 1949-2000 (Zhongguo Zangxue shumu 1994, 1997, 2001). The somewhat longer period 1872-2004 is covered in another two volume bibliography (Zhongguo zangxue lunwen 1999, 2006). However whereas the former has information in Tibetan and English as well as Chinese, the latter is a monolingual publication. Bibliographies focusing on work in other languages include French *(Aubin 1993), German *(Aschoff 1992), and Italian *(Angelini 1994).

Tibeto-Burman
Tibetan is generally considered a member of the Tibeto-Burman (also called Sino-Tibetan) family. Bibliographies of Tibeto-Burman studies include Shafer (1957), Hale (1982), and LaPolla and Lowe (1994). Another important bibliographic resource is van Driem (2001). Attempts to reconstruct Tibeto-Burman (none terribly successful) include Shafer (1966-???), Benedict (1972), and Matisoff (2003). MENTION SUB BRANCH RECONSTRUCTIONS. and GONG

The Bodish Languages
Apart from the Tibetan languages the Bodish subbranch of Tibeto-Burman is probably among the least researched branches of Tibeto-Burman. Languages regarded as members of this family include Bumthang (Michailovsky and Mazaudon 1994; van Driem 1995), Tshangla (Stack 1897, Hoffrenning 1959, Das Gupta 1968, Hoshi 1987; Andvik 1999), Monpa (Lu 1986; Nishida 1988, Sun et al. 1991, Lu 2002), and Zhangzhung (Nagano and LaPolla 2001). Zeissler (2004) is an attempt to postulate a broad theory of Bodish syntax in both its diachronic and geographic varieties, but attempts more than it achieves, and appears to have been based solely on secondary literature. Some papers on Kurtoep include Hyslop (2008a, 2008b, 2009).

The indigenous grammatical tradition
The study of the indigenous Tibetan grammatical tradition, while of course offering much insight into the language, is a field in itself. Therefore, no attempt to comprehensively discuss the Tibetan genres of Sum rtags and Brda gsar rnying will be made in this bibliography. Studies of the Tibetan grammatical tradition include Inaba (1989), Miller (1976, 1993) and Verhagen (1994, and 2001). It remains a discipline in its infancy.

The Tibetan alphabet and paleography
Uray 1955, van Schaik. also articles on the alphabet by Francke, Filliozat (?), and Laufer.

Tibetan in contact with other languages
Studies of loanwords from Tibetan into other languages include Róna-Tas (1962, 1966) for Mongour, Emmerick (1983, 1985) for Khotanese, de Roerich (1957) for Mongolian, and Jacques (2004) for Japhug Rgyalroṅng. Studies of loanwords into Tibetan include Laufer (1916/18 and 1919) from various languages, Emmerick (1983, 1985) from Khotanese, and Beckwith and Walter (1997) from Indo-European, and Norbu and Takeuchi (1991) from Mongolian. Studies of Tibetan words written in other scripts include Laufer (1914), Miller (1955b), Li Fang-Kuei (1979), Zhang (1987), Che (1991) and Róna-Tas (1992). Studies concerning the influence of Tibetan on Tokharian include Sapir (1936) and Ivanov (1961).

=Varieties of Written Tibetan= ery little rigorous work has been done on the classification of forms of Written Tibetan. The two categories that appear relatively well defined are "Old Tibetan" and "Modern Literary Tibetan". The former, "Old Tibetan" consists of imperial stone inscriptions on the one hand and Dunhuang documents and wood slips on the other hand. The latter, "Modern Literary Tibetan" may be defined as writing in Tibetan after the communist takeover of Tibet, or generically as the form of writing found in newspapers and modern secular publications such as novels and short stories. It is convenient to define "Classical Tibetan" negatively as all forms of Written Tibetan not belonging to these two categories.

Classical Tibetan Grammars
The first published Tibetan grammar was that of de Koros, this was translated into German and slightly amended by Schmidt. Schmidt also has a Russian version. Foucaux learned Tibetan using de Koros materials but came to write his own grammar. Cordier (1907) is one of the few grammars to incorporate the various studies of Schiefner.

Beyer's grammar (1992) is insufficient in various respects. Despite being positively reviewed (Behr 1994, Davidson 1996, Eimer 1993, LaPolla 1994, Miller 1994). Beyer cites neither his predecessors nor his textual examples. He contributes little new, and muddles much of his sources. Other Tibetan grammars include: Inaba (1954), Hahn (1994), Hodge (1990), Bskal bzang vgyur med (1981, 1992), Wilson (1992), and Schwieger (2006). (DESCRIPTION OF EACH NEEDED)

BACOT, de KOROS, SCHMIDT, ROERICH (?)

Classical Tibetan Morphology
Wolfenden (1928) discusses the 'prefix' m- used with nominals. Uray's papers on duplication (1954), -e (1953), and the diminutive (1952). Zhang Jichuang (2009) describes Classical Tibetan lexical morphology from the 'word family' perspective. Anton Schiefner (1877) and Michael Hahn (1978) have insightful studies of how the plurals -dag and -rnams differ. Hoshi (2012) explores the use of the polar question marker e arguing that it was borrowed into Classical Tibetan from eastern Tibetan dialects.

Lyovin (1970) makes some desultory remarks on the internal reconstruction of the verbal system, which in some ways presage the more thoroughgoing and more influential work of Coblin from a few years later.

Coblin (1976) undertakes an internal reconstruction of Tibetan that has been highly influential. His internal reconstruction eliminates all vowel and auslaut alternations from the verb stems.

Classical Tibetan Syntax
Taube (1953-1954) compares the verbal categories of Tibetan and Sanskrit as reflected by the Tibetan translation of the Bodhicaryāvatāra.

There is an excellent article on zero-anaphora in Classical Tibetan by Andersen (1987), which unfortunately seems not to have been noticed much by other researchers. Andersen discusses in particular the use of -pa-dang to block zero-anaphora. He also discusses constructions which are comparable to the passive and anti-passive.

The syntactic effect of converbial markers has also been addressed by Abel Zadoks and Felix Haller from the perspective of 'switch-reference'. Unfortunately none of the studies of Zadoks have been published, the handouts he presented at various conferences in the early 2000s are however invaluable. The study of Haller (2009) is mostly devoted to Shigatse dialect. In his treatment of Classical Tibetan (based on the Mila rnam thar) he acknowledges neither the previous work of Andersen and Zadoks, nor does he present sufficient examples to demonstrate his claims. Beer (2019) gives more in depth treatment of switch reference in Classical Tibetan.

Oetke (1977) discusses the use of vgyur, byed, and yin as auxiliary verbs, in particular with reference to conditional clauses in Buddhist literature. He suggests that the main distinction is one of 'control' versus 'non-control'. His seems to be the earliest discussion of this important distinction in any variety of Tibetan.

Sato (1994) discusses ergativity in Classical Tibetan. On the same topic is the disastrous article by Saxena (1989) which must be read together with the response to it by Dempsey (1993). Nagano (1994) discusses two examples one from Old TIbetan and one from Classical where he believes the suffix -kyis marks the patient of a transitive clause. He has another paper about this too somewhere.

Hoffmann (1955) has a nice discussion of -gis as a converbial marker. He finds that it marks the future, primarily of first persons, whether singular or plural.

Studies on the language of specific Classical Tibetan Documents
Roesler (2011) discusses the grammar of the Dpe chos of Po-to-ba Rin-chen-gsal. Hoshi (2010) discusses existential verbs in the Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long.

Classical Tibetan Dictionaries and General Works of Tibetan Lexicography
Pre-modern dictionaries including Manchu-Tibetan, and Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionaries have been excluded. see Simon's article, the bibliography of Walters, and the article by Ruegg (1998).

The first Tibetan dictionary by a western author is a manuscript Tibetan-Latin dictionary by the Cappucian missionaries Giuseppe da Ascoli, Franceso Maria da Tours and F. Domenico da Fano (1674-1728), compiled between 1708 and 1713. This dictionary unfortunately remains unpublished but according to Simon (1964: 85) an extract is held at the Bibliothèque Nationale (Fonds Tibétain No. 542). Because this dictionary reportedly carries indication of pronunciation it could be of significant interest for Tibetan historical phonology. A Tibetan Italian dictionary was compiled by F. Francesco Orazio della Penna (1680-1745), a student of da Fano. The text of this work was translated into English and considerably mangled. The English version became the first published Tibetan dictionary (Schroeter 1826) but the original remains unpublished. These first two dictionaries and well as those of de Kőrös (1834), Schmidt (1841), Jäschke (1881), Desgodins (1899), and Das (1902) are well discussed by Simon and require no lengthy discussion here. de Kőrös is widely regarded as the founder of Tibetology as an academic discipline He has himself been the subject of a significant amount of research. Schmidt (1841) is largely a translation of de Kőrös (1834) into German, but it has been supplemented with lexicographical entries from some Tibetan-Mongolian glossaries at Schmidt's disposal. (WHICH ONES). Schmidt also prepared a Tibetan-Russian dictionary, which however I have not examined. A biography of Schmidt is provided in Babingen (1920). In Jäschke's first dictionary of 1866, the entries are alphabetized by their phonetic romanization, according to Latin alphabetical order. Tibetan script equivalents given for each entry, and differences of dialect are reported; information on verb syntax or stem variation occasionally reported. This dictionary was intended for practical use in the colloquial language. (OF LADAKH OR CENTRAL TIBET???) His 1881 dictionary does not differ significantly from the 1871 dictionary (IS THIS TRUE??). This is the first Tibetan dictionary of real caliber, and indeed as a work of lexicography is unrivaled to this day.

In the history of Tibetan lexicography special place must be afforded to the word of Chos kyi grags pa (1946). This is the first indigenous Tibetan dictionary (although the author was actually ethnically a Mongolian) to be organized alphabetically. Chos kyi grags pa received the aid of Dge 'dun chos 'phel in compiling the work. The latter has become a subject of scholarly inquiry in his own right, which now verges on a subdiscipline within Tibetan Studies (CITATIONS). Until recently this was used very widely be Tibetan as well as Western scholars. A number of lexeme from this dictionary are discussed in Wilhelm, F. (1962).

Gould and Richardson (1943) produced an interesting lexical resource. In a series which included Tibetan Verbs, and Tibetan Sentences. Each of 2950 syllables is numbered. Compound words are listed under each heading, and crossreferenced to each of their members. A phonetic transcription is given. Intransitive and transitive verbs are marked, as well as honorifics and high honorifics. A real contribution to Tibetan etymology and word analysis which has not be properly followed up on. For a similar work see Tshe dbang rnam rgyal ([1958] 1997). Gould’s work is reviewed by Edgerton (1944), Barnett (1946) and Steward (1947).

A number of dictionaries can be mentioned all of which serve more or less the same function and are of roughly equal quality, i.e. derivative, somewhat unreliable, unscientific, but useful. In this category would be a French-Tibetan dictionary (Giraudeau and Goré 1956) closely based on Desgodins (1899) but incorporating more modern technology as well, the Tibetan-Russian dictionary of Semichov (1963), which includes an appendix of verb tables, the Tibetan-German dictionary of Richter (1965), the Tibetan-English dictionary Buck (1969), which relies heavily on the French Catholic lexicographical tradition.

The luminous figure of early twentieth century Tibetology, George Nicholas de Roerich, left a long manuscript Tibetan-English dictionary as part of his Nachlass. It was edited and translated into Russian to form a twenty volume Tibetan-English and Russian dictionary. The size of the work and erudition of its author recommend it. Unfortunately not citing any sources it is not a methodological improvement on its peers, and is now rather difficult to obtain. CITATION

A number of other Tibetan-Tibetan or Tibetan-Chinese dictionaries were published in Tibet during the fifties, unfortunately they have all so far evaded me and it seems unproductive to share the inadequate bibliographic scrapes which I have managed to collect.

A Tibetan-Tibetan dictionary of lasting importance is Tsan chung (1979). This is an excellent dictionary, with carefully written definitions. The cross references are excellent, and the handling of verbs is more sophisticated and reliable than in most dictionaries. Its relatively small size means that obscure words are not to be found, though it does have a strength in colloquial words and eastern dialect words. The examples appear to have been invented by the authors. While not a contribution to the scientific description of the Tibetan language, for a dictionary of its nature and size it is the best that can be achieved. Western students of Tibetan who do not yet know most basic vocabulary and are making the transition from using bilingual to monolingual dictionaries will find a particular asset in this work. It has been unfortunately somewhat upstaged by its larger but less carefully edited successor, to be treated in the next paragraph. The dictionary which has become the current unrivaled standard is that of Zhang (1985). It is certainly a very large and useful work, but its merit is somewhat overrated. The definitions are so laconic as to sometimes be unintelligible, in particular words close in meaning are poorly differentiated. As usual, the compilers do not cite their examples or provide information on their sources. They have also haphazardly included geographical and biographical information properly outside the scope of a dictionary. Begun in 1928, as a translation of Jäschke (1881) the only mention of sources I am aware of cites western works, and Qing dynasty works in general. This work has been the subject of an translation into English (Skorupski 2001) though so far only until the letter nya, and supplement of more recent words has been compiled by Hackett (2001). The handling of tshad ma terminology in Zhang (1985) has been criticized by Bkra shis bzang po (1999). The verb entries have been excerpted and published separately as Li yung khrang (1989). Hackett (2003a) is a dictionary of verb stems and verbal collocations with lexical semantic information and paradigm example sentences taken from classical literature using techniques of corpus linguistics. Hill (2010) is a dictionary of verb stems collected from previous sources.

Old Tibetan
Takeuchi (2012) treats the periodization of Old Tibetan.

Old Tibetan Grammars
As yet no grammar of Old Tibetan has been written.

Old Tibetan Phonology
Hill (2010b) provides an overview of Old Tibetan synchronic phonology. Contributions to particular issues in Old Tibetan phonology include Beckwith (2006), Che (1981, 1984), Dragunov (1936, 1939), and Hill (2005b, 2006, 2007, 2009). Zhang Jichuan 張濟川 (1982) studies stop finals, sandhi with case markers, and the effects of the da-drag.

A newly discovered source for Tibetan historical phonology is a collection of Dunhuang texts which are the transcripts of oral teachings, and give information about the pronunciation of Tibetan in medieval Dunhuang (van Schaik 2007).

Nancy Caplow has reconstructed stress for proto-Tibetan (Caplow 2009). Jacques (2009a) has argued that consonants of the type Cwa originate from *Cuba in pre-Tibetan. Temple (2012) explores the conditioning of palatalization in Old Tibetan.

Old Tibetan Morphology
Hill (2005a) treats changes in the inflection of the verb for 'to write', Jacques (2010) extends the same argument to a further group of verbs. Hill (2010a) discusses the case marker -las after verbal nouns. Hill (2012b) discusses case grammar. Jacques (2012) speculates about the history of verbal morphology.

Old Tibetan Syntax
Zeisler (2002) takes note of a potentialis use of the imperative stem in Old Tibetan.

Zeisler (2018) discusses evidentiality in Classical Tibetan.

Old Tibetan Dictionaries
To date only one work has been published which can be properly called a dictionary of Old Tibetan, this being Btsan lha ngag dbang tshul khrims (1997). This work carefully quotes and cites its sources, however not specifically enough to afford confirmation. Citations have been culled from Dunhuang texts as well as the Bdra gsar rnying, and commentarial literature. Thus it exceeds the scope of Old Tibetan per se, but this only adds to its utility. Despite the very high quality of this work, which exceeds that of most scholarship emitting from the PRC, in my view a comprehensive dictionary-cum-thesaurus of Old Tibetan texts making specific citations is a remaining desideratum of both Tibetan and Tibeto-Burman studies. Another Old Tibetan dictionary is that of Rnam-rgyal Tshe-ring (2001) which I have not yet seen. Although not dictionaries as such the glossaries of Li and Coblin (1987), Richardson (1985), and F. W. Thomas (1935-1965) should be mentioned as lexicographical resources for Old Tibetan. Although the last is now quite outdated. A number of Old Tibetan texts have been fully indexed, though without any definitions or commentary in Choix 3 and 4, and in Takeuchi (1995), and (1997-1998). Although, Takeuchi (1995) does contain a short glossary of terms, and a variety of invaluable lexicographical data and discussion throughout. Work on Tibetan and Tibeto-Burman historical linguistics must reply foremost upon Old Tibetan, and although more work can be done in Old Tibetan lexicography, enough resources are already available to make the common practice of many Tibeto-Burmanists of replying exclusively on Jäschke 1881 now inexcusible. There is an indigenous tradition of providing glossaries of Old Tibetan words and phrases in Classical Tibetan, such works are extensively employed by Btsan lha ngag dbang tshul khrims (1997), Mimaki has made two studies of one of the earliest by Dbu pa blo gsal (Mimaki 1990, 1992). An overview of this literature in general is provided in an article by Manfred Taube.

Modern Literary Tibetan Grammars
In the later part of the 20th century one of the most active figures in Tibetan lexicography has been Melvyn C. Goldstein. His work is especially strong in political and military terminology. His first dictionary was published in 1975. It is very positively reviewed by Wylie (1980). Goldstein (1984) later compiled an English-Tibetan dictionary. The carefulness of editing seems uncharacteristic of Goldstein’s work. In 2001 he published a dictionary which is ostensibly a new edition 1975 dictionary though many times its size. It suffers from many basic problems such as cross་references which lead nowhere, and mistakes in alphabetical order. Although ostensibly centered around the language of contemporary news and literature, because the work incorporates other dictionaries more or less in totol, this work even contains Old Tibetan vocabulary. As the first place to turn for a word it has its place. Although this work is useful for reading texts, especially modern, because of its large vocabulary, it fails to contribute to scientific lexicography. The negative comments of the reviewers are well deserved (Beckwith 2001, Denwood 2002, Tsering 2002 CONSULT THIS ONE). Hackett (2001) edited and oversaw the compiling of a dictionary of neologisms compiled from PRC newspapers. This dictionary contains words not already in Zhang (1985), and is intended to serve as a supplement to it. Many quotations are provided drawn from "The Tibet Daily" (བོད་ལྗོངས་ཉིན་དེའི་ཚགས་པར་) and "Lhasa Evening News" (ལྷ་སའི་དགོང་དྲོའི་ཚགས་པར་), but no specific citations are provided. A older, smaller lexicon of newspaper terms can be found in the reader of Sedláček (1972), but many are outdated.

=Spoken Tibetan Languages= escriptive work on Tibetan dialects began in a piecemeal fashion through the work of missionaries and explorers in the 19th century. Inevitably this research focused on the languages of border regions either in the far West or East. Subsequent work on spoken Tibetan languages has focused above all on Lhasa dialect, the 'lingua franca' of Central Tibet and the Tibetan exile community. These three forms of language are often confused in the literature. Recent work on a number of other dialects has filled out the picture.

Surveys and comparative works
Bonnerjea (1936) offers a pioneering contribution in the comparative phonology of Tibetic languages. His 1937 efforts at comparative morphology, entirely constrained by the straight-jacket of Latinate terminology, is however disappointing (Bonnerjea 1937).

The Tibetan Dialects Project at the University of Berne has been collecting data for a Comparative Dictionary of Tibetan Dialects. This massive project, headed for many years by Roland Bielmeier, is documenting the exact phonetic realisation of Tibetan-derived vocabulary in dozens of Tibetan languages in five countries.

Gesang Jumian & Gesang Yangjing (2002) provide a short introduction to several Tibetan dialects.

Wang Yao (1996) treats the phonetic evolution of the word zla-ba 'moon', and the phonetic evolution of zl- more generally, in several dialects. In the same year, Denwood (1996) treated the same set of questions.

Western Dialects
Jacques (2009b) has an article showing that what has been argued to be an archaism in the Western Tibetan vowel system is in fact an innovation.

Balti
Some early word lists for Balti include Vigne (1842), Austen (1866:PAGES), and Jäschke (1881: PAGES).

Balti Grammars
Bielmeier, Roland (1985). REVIEWED BY SPRIGG AND KVAERNE READ, SPRIGG

Lobsang, Ghulam Hassan (1995)

Eunice Jones (2009) has an MA thesis devoted to evidentiality and mirativity in Balti.

Balti Dictionaries
Sprigg (2002)

Phonology
Miller (1956), Koshal (1976)

Texts
A Tibetan script Ladakhi text is Francke (DATE 2000).

Grammars
Grammars of Ladakhi include Francke ([1901] 1979), Koshal (1979, 1982), Norman (2001). Tournadre (1996) and Zeisler (2004) treat specific topics in Ladakhi grammar.

Dictionaries
Sandberg (1894) includes a long vocabulary of Ladakhi words. Dictionaries of Ladakhi include Ramsay (1890), Norberg-Hodge and Paldan (199?) and Hamid (1998). Rebecca Norman is compiling a Ladakhi dictionary which will exceed all previous efforts in scope.

Works dealing with social linguistics include Zeisler (2006). Works that I have to read before evaluating include Dey (1975) and Koshal (1990).

Zanskar
Hoshi Michiyo (1978) has a glossary.

Purik
Bailey (1920: PAGES), short grammar, text and vocabulary.

Ngari
Qu and Tan (1983)

Lhasa, 'Central', and 'Modern Standard'
Because many researchers do not rigorously distinguish the speech of the city of Lhasa per se from other forms of speech dubbed 'Lhasa Tibetan' it is convenient to treat Lhasa dialect together with the other dialects of Central Tibet which have been referred to as 'Lhasa' or generically as 'Central' Tibetan. In addition the lingua franca of the Tibetan exile often all called 'Lhasa' Tibetan is covered in this section.

Handbooks and Manuals
A number of works treat 'Central Tibetan' without referring more specifically to dialect. Grammars of 'Central Tibetan include Sandberg (1894), and Roerich and Phuntshok (1957) both of which include fairly extensive vocabularies. Early handbooks include Lewin (1879), Sandberg (1894), and Henderson (1903), Bell (1905). Roerich and Phuntshok, Amundsen It is not really clear that Lewin is describing Lhasa dialect.

A good discussion of the previous literature is in Haller's Shigatse grammar, which would almost be worth just translating here.

A discussion of the phonemes of Dbu-gtsang dialect is found in P. Miller (1951).

Handbooks and Manuals include those of the Changs, Goldstein and Nornang (1970), working with one of the same informants. Hu Tan (1989), which is very popular in China. Recently, and popular in Europe and North America is Tournadre and Dorje (2003).

Dictionaries
Hoshi (2003) is a colloquial Tibetan-Japanese verb dictionary. Kitamura and Nagano (1990) is a Tibetan Japanese dictionary which I have not yet seen.

Grammars
Kitamura (1977) has a short grammar. Hoshi M. (1988) also has a grammar. There is a longer grammar in Chinese by Wang Zhijing (1994). A Tibetan to Chinese dictionary of Lhasa dialect which i also haven't seen is yu et al. (1983).

Phonology
The phonology of Lhasa dialect, in particular the analysis of tone has been rather controversial. Sprigg (1955, 1961, 1993).

Hári (1979) studies tone.

The retention and over-application of -bC- word internally has been studied by Chang and Chang (1967) and Shirai (1999).

Pao et al. (1992) has a study of instrumental phonetics. Tang and Kong (1991) discuss vowels, vowel length and tone.

Róna-Tas (1984) compares the analysis of the vowel system across several authors, focusing of the description of Chang and Chang, from a typological perspective.

Hu Tan (1991b) has a study of final consonants.

Chang and Chang Sprigg Chao, Jin Peng (1958) treats mostly phonology. He suffers from the Chinese obsession of giving the "same" sentence in several dialects. Zhou Li (1986) teaches how to read Tibetan script in the pronunciation of Lhasa. His description of phonology closely matches that of Tournadre, with a more detailed treatment of tone and tone sandhi.

Dawson wrote a PhD thesis (1980) on Lhasa phonology in keeping with the tradition of Goldstein and Nornang. She has also written a related paper on Lhasa vowels (1985).

Geziben (1996) has something on trochaic structures in the tone system.

Ergativity
Tourandre (1991, 1996) an article by the Changs.

Morphology
Robin and Vittrant (2007) treat reduplication in Lhasa dialect. Hu Tan (1991) discusses nominalization.

Verbal System
Agha (1990, 1993) reviewed by Hongladarom 1996, who points out that he omits mention of yod-pa-red.

Evidentiality
Researchers into Lhasa Tibetan evidentiality divide into three groups: 1. early pedagogical grammarians who treat Lhasa evidentiality more or less as a form of person agreement, 2. linguistic researchers who analyze the three term Lhasa system as reflecting binary settings of interacting features, 3. those who describe the three semantic categories encoded by the evidential system as isomorphic with the three morphosyntactic categories used to encode them. These three approaches broadly correspond with chronologically distinct stages in research on Tibetan evidentiality and reflect an overarching movement away from a prior commitments to person and toward characterizations that are both structurally verifiable and motivated by usage in discourse. However, there are striking exceptions to the chronological pattern. The vanguard includes Yukawa Yasutoshi, a proponent of the third approach already in 1966. Although a useful heuristic, the division of researchers among these three groups is somewhat arbitrary. No researcher unambiguously equates the Lhasa system with person agreement of the Indo-European type, to do so would be foolish. Concomitantly, until recently few researchers vehemently disavowed grammatical person.

As Überbegriffe for the meanings the Lhasa categories express 'mood' or 'modality' (Takeuchi 1978, Tournadre 1996: 217, Denwood 1999: 119), 'evidentiality' (DeLancey 1992: 45, Tournadre 1996: 217, Denwood 1999: 119), and 'deixis' (Tournadre 1992, Beckwith 1992, Bartee 1996) have all enjoyed popularity. Since, as de Saussure teaches, the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, it would be meaningless to attempt to adjudicate among these terms. No single rubric will ever capture the subtitles of the Lhasa Tibetan evidential system.

Early pedagogical grammarians
Early pedagogical grammars of spoken Lhasa or Central Tibetan attempt to describe the language's three evidential categories as person agreement. Authors themselves acknowledge the imperfect fit. Writing that personal yod “is more commonly used with the 1st person” (1894: 46), Graham Sandberg pointedly avoids the direct identification of this category with first person agreement. Vincent Henderson habitually translates the personal verb suffixes -yin and -yod as first person and the testimonial suffixes -red and ḥdug as both second and third person, but he includes caveats along the lines that sometimes “yin is also heard with 2nd and 3rd persons” (1903: 33). Charles Bell continues to suggest that these suffixes indicate person agreement by offering paradigms such as ṅas blug-gi-yod 'I pour' (personal) and khos blug-gi-ḥdug 'He pours' (testimonial) (1905: 37). Nonetheless, when writing about the use of the relevant forms as existential verbs rather than as tense suffixes, he also draws attention to the importance of evidence. He writes that as

a general rule it may be said that yod [personal] means 'it is there, I saw it there and know that it is still there'; ḥdug [testimonial] means 'I saw it there but I am not sure whether it is still there or not'; yod-pa-red [factual] means, 'I did not see it, but have heard that it is there' (1905: 40).

Unfortunately, Bell's observations on the evidential meanings of the existential verbs languished for some time.1 Like Bell, Chang & Chang continue to treat the tense suffixes as marking person (1964: 25), while singling out the existential verbs for alternative treatment. Unlike Bell, they distinguish the latter in terms of certainty (1964: 18) rather than evidence. Also in keeping with the precedence of Bell, Goldstein & Nornang speak of person when describing the verbal suffixes (1970: 408-409) but in their discussion of existential verbs they distinguish testimonial ḥdug “actual visual knowledge” from factual yod-pa-red “hearsay and knowledge other than visual” (1970: 23). Thus, altogether early pedagogical grammars never abandoned the attempt to characterize the Lhasa Tibetan verbal system in terms of person agreement, through time the importance of information source gradually emerged. In assessing the accuracy of these pedagogical treatments, one must bear in mind the classroom context, where a com­prehensible oversimplification often commends itself.

Interacting binary features
A ramification of the early pedagogical treatments' identification of the Lhasa personal evidential category with first person agreement is the bifurcation of the three term Lhasa system into a two way opposition of personal (associated with first person) versus factual and testimonial taken together (both associated with both first and third person). Such a tack precipitates the need to subsequently bifurcate factual and testimonial without recourse to person agreement. Thus, it is no coincidence that to the limited extent Goldstein & Nornang (1970: 408-409) invoke source of knowledge they do so to distinguish between factual and testimonial.

Whether out of deference to this pedagogical heritage or under the influence of a Jakobsonian penchant for binary features, many of the linguists who studied the Lhasa Tibetan verbal system in the latter part of the 20th century upheld this analysis of double bifurcation. Thus, Takeuchi Tsuguhito divides Lhasa Tibetan 'modus' into 内的 'inner' (personal) and 外的 'outer', with the latter subsuming 直接認識 'direct recognition' and 間接認識 'indirect recognition' (1978). Independently of Takeuchi and of each other, in 1992 a further three scholars describe the three Lhasa Tibetan evidential categories in terms of two binary contrasts. Scott DeLancey distinguishes 'conjunct' (personal) and 'disjunct', dividing the disjunct into 'mirative' (testimonial) and 'non-mirative' (factual) (1992: 45). Nicolas Tournadre distinguishes between “égophoriques” (personal) and “hétérophoriques” auxiliaries (1992: 197), dividing the latter between “constatif” (testimonial) and “assertif” (factual) (1992: 207).2 Less clearly, Christopher Beckwith posits a primary distinction of 'personal deictic class' of “first versus second and third persons” (1992: 2) but implies a recognition of 'evidentials' (1992: 11) within the latter class. Ellen Bartee (1996) repeats DeLancey's account, as does Krisadawan Hongladarom, although she notes that his classification is “not wholly adequate” (1992: 1151). Philip Denwood's description of the Lhasa Tibetan three term evidential system as resulting from binary interactions of up to four independent factors 'person', ‘evidentiality’, ‘viewpoint’, and ‘generality’ (1999: 150) represents the apogee of the Jacobsonian approach. This machinery allows him to explain the use of the relevant morphemes in a wide array of contexts, but using a descriptive apparatus of 16 possible settings to account for three paradigmatically contrasting categories is excessive. The 21st century appears to offer no new adherents to the binary feature approach.

Three contrasting forms means three contrasting functions
The earliest pub­lished dedicated study of Tibetan evidentiality is Yukawa Yasutoshi's 1966 article on ḥdug, a revised version of his 1964 master's thesis. He followed this study with overall treatments of Tibetan predicates in 1971 and 1975. Yukawa's approach is to treat each morphological suffix in turn in all of the syntactic positions in which it occurs. In the third of these papers he says the personal 話し手〈疑問文の場合は話し相 手）にとって身近に感じられる状麓をあらわし“denotes a state with which the speaker (or the listener in interrogative sentences) feels familiar” the factual ある状態であるととを客観的に断定する“objectively asserts a certain state” and the testimonial ある状態を話し手（疑問文の場合は話し相手）の感覚で直接にとらえ...場合に用いられる“used when the speaker (or the listener in interrogative sentences) directly perceives a certain state through the senses” (1975: 4).

In some cases erstwhile adherents of the person agreement or binary features approaches later realize the wisdom of following the three-way morphosyntactic contrast as a guide to describing contrasting evidential functions. Twenty years after the publication of their textbook, Chang & Chang return to the Lhasa Tibetan evidential system with an audience of linguists rather than students in mind. Although they do not explicitly characterize the Tibetan system as 'evidential', their discussion of the personal as “the habitual or customary basis of knowledge which has been personally acquired” (1984: 605), the testimonial as “witness” (1984: 619), and the factual as “hearsay” (1984: 605) makes clear that these morphemes encode three types of information source. For Hongladarom, a mere year sufficed for her to realize the mistake of her earlier adherence to DeLancey's 'conjunct-disjunct' model. She succinctly describes

a three way evidential distinction among yöö [personal], tuu, [testimonial] and yôôree [factual] indicating the speaker's self knowledge, direct experience, and indirect source of information respectively. (1993: 52 emphasis in original).

Garrett arrives as the same analysis positing three “evidential categories in Lhasa Tibetan—ego [personal], direct [testimonial], and indirect [factual]” (2001: x et passim). Schwieger (2002: 183) explicitly rejects the association of these evidential categories with agreement. Recent pedagogical grammars also stress that the Tibetan system encodes information source and not person agreement (Tournadre & Dorje 2003, Chonjore 2003).

The pre-occupation of this discussion has been the general characterization of evidentiality in Lhasa Tibetan and an emphasis on the fact that Lhasa has a three term evidential system. This structure is most clear in the parallelism between the existential verbs yod (personal), ḥdug (testimonial), and yod-pa-red and the present tense suffixes -gi-yod (personal), -gi-ḥdug (testimonial), and -gi-yod-pa-red (factual). Probably one factor that impeded description of this system is the opacity of the system's symmetry in other parts of the verbal system. In particular, the placement of the suffixes -yoṅ, -myoṅ, and -byuṅ into the overall verbal paradigm requires further study. In Hill's contribution to this volume he recommends that bźag be analyzed as a perfect testimonial rather than a separate inferential evidential (as in DeLancey 1985: 65-67, 2003: 279, Tournadre 1992: 198, 207, 1996: 236-238, Tournadre & Dorje 2009: 140-144, 410, 413) and further suggests that the analysis of the semantics of inference as a combination of direct evidentiality with perfect tense is a useful framework for understanding phenomena in other languages.

Jin (1979) describes yod, yod-pa-red, and 'dug, but I have not read his paper.

Takeuchi (1990) provides a masterful survey of the Lhasa Tibetan verbal system and sketches the development of evidential marking from Old Tibetan to several modern dialects. Saxena (1997), in contrast, offers an ignorant and error filled attempt at a treatment of the same question, bizarrely ignoring Takeuchi's previous study.

Delancey has treated the auxiliary system of Lhasa and Modern Standard Tibetan in a number of papers. In particular he has written about the use of the morpheme 'dug to express information new to the speaker, i.e. the admirative, called 'mirative' by DeLancey. Most researchers (e.g. Tournadre, Volkart) see 'dug instead as showing visually witnessed information. Hill (2012) argues against DeLancey's analysis, which DeLancey (2012) accepts.

Hongladarom (1994) traces the history of 'dug, and argues (incorrectly) that the meaning which DeLancey refers to is quite recent. Hill (2013) however shows that 'dug, had evidential functions already in Classical if not in Old Tibetan.

Hongladarom (1993) discusses the evidential system from the perspective of sociolinguistics and conventionalized social situations.

Bartee (1996) also treats the evidential system, from the perspective of deixis and 'cognative grammar' but because her framework still accepts such categories as 'person' and 'conjunct/disjunct' it is hard to use.

Tense and Aspect
Hoshi I. (1994a) discusses the temporal and aspectual uses of the V-ki-yod, etc. construction. A similar paper which I have not read is Hoshi I. (1994b) in Japanese. Hoshi I. also has an article on the auxiliary yong (1998) and the nominalizer mkhan (2004) in Lhasa Tibetan.

Light verbs
'Verbalizers' are treated by Kopp (1998).

Texts
There is a collection of texts by Chang and Chang (1978, 1981) and quite a series by Michiyo Hoshi.

Dingri
(Hermann 1989)

Western Drokpa
(Kretschmar 1986)

Southern Mustang
(Kretschmar 1995)

Shigatse
Shigatse (Jin Peng 1958, Haller 2000). In addition Kim (1996) discusses relativization in Shigatse.

Sherpa
It is mainly spoken in Nepal as well as in Sikkim/India. The Sherpa language is comprised of several dialects : Shorong (Solu), Pharak, Khumbu, Rolwaling and Dram (Tournadre and al. 2009b).

Schöttelndreyer (1978) studies Sherpa discourse. Schöttelndreyer (1980) discusses what he sees as person markers, but are better described as evidential affixes.

Sherpa received further attention in an article by Woodbury (1986), exploring the interaction of evidentiality and tense in lexical verb marking. He provides a very different account to the binary-focused conjunct-disjunct analysis presented in Schöttelndreyer (1980). Woodbury argues that the Sherpa form nok is used as a visual sensory evidential in the present tense (glossing with ‘I see, have seen…’) and an inferential evidential in the past (glossing with ‘I hear, I infer…’). In the past, the form suŋ instead has sensory semantics. These two uses of nok can be attributed to it being used for ‘immediate evidence’, either evidence of the event itself taking place in the present, or the evidence of the aftermath of an event that allows the speaker to make an inferential claim. Woodbury also discusses a nok as a future inferential, and wi as a ‘gnomic’, glossed with ‘It is known’. Kelly (2004) draws on both traditions, outlining the semantics of each specific Sherpa evidential form, while also noting how it would be distributed in a conjunct/disjunct analysis. She discusses the ĩ verb suffix as a ‘first-person conjunct’ marking “a volitionally instigated event as having been directly experienced by a speaker” (Kelly 2004: 250). The form suŋ is a ‘disjunct’ used to “mark an event as having been directly witnessed by a speaker” (Kelly 2004: 250). Like Woodbury, Kelly (2004: 251-252) notes that nok can be used either as a visual sensory or inferential, but argues that instead of a tense-based distinction it is aspectual, with the sensory function in imperfective contexts and the inferential function in the inferential in the perfective. Finally wi is given as a gnomic, marking accepted ideas of how things happen.

Tournadre and al. (2009b) wrote the first Sherpa-English dictionary, based on the Khumbu dialect, which provides Tibetan provides both Tibetan and Nepali equivalents as well as the Tibetan etymology. Sherpa words are presented in a romanization system with a notation of tones. This dictionary includes a brief description of the Sherpa-speaking area, dialectal variation, and the linguistic affiliation of the language. It is the first publication to provide information about the phonological correspondences of Literary Tibetan in Sherpa. These correspondences, as well as the basic lexicon, clearly show that Sherpa is derived from Old Tibetan and is closely related to Classical Literary Tibetan. The specificities of Sherpa verb morphology are described in great detail in an appendix of this dictionary.

Sprigg (1980) in a comparative article about Tibetan verb morphology makes use of some Sherpa data. The article is quite difficult to make sense of.

Jirel
Strahm (1975) discusses Jirle's clause types.

Maibaum, A. and Strahm, E.(2005) wrote the first Jirel dictionary. Tournadre and al. (2009:22) say: "'Jirel is another Tibetic language which is closely related to Sherpa. Most Jirel speakers live in Jiri, a village in the Dolakha district, near the Solu area. Jirel has preserved a number of conservative phonological features which were lost in Sherpa (such as the final /t/ sound, as discussed in section 2.1 of Appendix 3). The mutual intelligibility between Sherpa and Jirel is not high. Jirel has been more strongly influenced by Nepali and Hindu language and culture than has Sherpa.'"

Lhomi
Vesalainen and Vesalainen (1980) discuss the case system and verbal system. Their approach to evidentiality is overly syntactic, as was typical of SIL affiliated linguistics of their day.

Kyirong-Kagate
This group is comprised of several dialects according to Tournadre (2005): Kyirong (Lende), Kagate, Tsum, Langtang and Yolmo (Helambu Sherpa). There is an extensive dictionary of Yolmo by Hari, A.M. and Chhegu Lama (2004) as well as a shorter grammatical description (Hari 2010). According to Tournadre and al. (2009:22): "'Yolmo is another Tibetic language spoken in Sindhupalchok and Nuwakot districts. It is often referred to as “Helambu Sherpa” by the Nepalese people. However, as demonstrated by Anna Maria Hari (2004: 699), Yolmo is closely related to Kagate, and is not a Sherpa dialect.'" While Hari has worked on the Melamchi Valley variety spoken in the Sindhupalchok district, Yolmo is also spoken in the Lamjung district of Nepal (Gawne 2010), and a smaller dictionary of that variety also exists (Gawne 2011), as well as a grammatical description as part of Gawne (forthcoming). There has been considerably less work published on Kagate, with an extensive phonemic description by Höhlig and Hari (1976) and a short discussion of reference in narratives Höhlig (1978).

There is very little in the way of descriptive work on Kyirong, save for a grammar by Brigitte Huber (2005) that also includes historical annotations. Hildebrandt and Perry (2011) note that the Gyalsumdo language variety spoken in the Manage district of Nepal shows strong similarities to Kyirong, as well as Nubri, and would therefore likely be classed in the "Kyirong-Kagate" group.

For a complete bibliography of Yolmo studies see the wikibook Research on Hyolmo.

Bhutia (or Lhoke or Drenjongke)
Spoken in Sikkim/India (Sandberg 1888)

Dzongkha
The national language of Bhutan was dubbed 'Dzongka' and committed to writing. The native speakers of this language are known as the Ngalong. Byrne (1909) provides an early description. Walsh (1905) describes the Gro-mo dialect spoken in Chumbi. On behalf of the government of Bhutan, van Driem (1992) wrote a complete grammar.

Early Word lists
(Prževal'skij 1875: 259) (Széchenyi 1898, vol. 3: 421)

Sbra-nag (Grum-Gržimajlo 1899: 419, cf. Kara 1984)

Standard Amdo
(Dṅos grub 1989)

Min et al. 1989 provide a selection of dialogues.

Various things by Hua Kan, also that textbook by K. Norbu et al. (2000). There is also a textbook by Sung et al. (2005). Roche (2008) discusses the comparative merits of three available Amdo Tibetan textbooks, viz. K. Norbu et al. (2000), Sung et al. (2005), and another one.

Ebihara (2009) treats the auxiliary verbs song and byung.

Wang & Chen (2010) is a phonetic study of aspirate fricatives.

Zhaxi Cairang (2011) compares causative constructions in Amdo and Japanese.

Amdo Sherpa
(Nagano 1980)

Reb-goṅ
(Gō 1954, cf. Stein 1955) (de Roerich 1958)

Evidentiality
George de Roerich (1958) describes the Reb-gong dialect of Amdo (specifically the speech of the famous intellectual Dge-ḥdun chos-ḥphel, 1902-1951, cf. Stoddard 1985) in terms of verb agreement. For example, he gives ṅa ǰ'o ɣ̮o̊-jol’ (ṅa ḥgro-gyin-yod) ‘je vais’, č‘’o ǰ'o ɣ̮o̊-dïɣ (khyod ḥgro-gyin-ḥdug) ‘tu vas’, etc. for le present simple (1958: 43) and ṅa joṅ-no̊̄-jin (ṅa yoṅ-ni-yin) ‘je suis venu’, č‘’o joṅ-no̊̄-rel’ (khyod yoṅ-ni-red) ‘tu est venu’, etc. for one of three ways to conjugate le passé accompli (1958: 45). However, like the early researchers on Lhasa Tibetan, he makes clear that he is aware that what is at play here is not European style person agreement. For example, he notes that “[la]a conjugaison tibétaine – sauf quelques exceptions – ne connaît ni distinction de personne, ni distinction de nombre” (1958: 43) and points out that “[e]xceptionnellement la forme jin s’étend aussi à la deuxième et troisième personne” giving the example č‘’o joṅ-no̊̄-jin (khyod yoṅ-ni-yin) ‘tu est venu’ (1958: 45). A particular weakness of de Roerich’s account of the Amdo verbal system is his failure to offer any semantic distinctions among the three ways of forming the passé accompli, which respectively exhibit rel’, zïɣ, and t‘a as their exponents (1958: 45-46). Thus, Sun is justified in his criticism that in de Roerich’s work the “evidential morphology is buried unanalyzed in his section on 'morphologie'” (Sun 1993: 948 note 6).

Mdzo-dge
(Sun 1986, 1993)

Evidentiality
Despite his criticism of de Roerich, Sun does not shake off reference to person. He recognizes a distinction between ‘self person’ and ‘other person’, which he equates with ‘conjunct’ /‘disjunct’ person marking. His use of this distinction is however inconsistent. At times he appears to use ‘self person’ as a name for a morphological category, for example writing that “the volitional self-person forms (the default marking) represent direct knowledge of the volition” (1993: 961), but at other times ‘self person’ in his usage refers to a type of sentence regardless of how it is marked morphologically, for example writing that “[s]elf-person sentences containing such verbs are usually marked with the direct evidential” (1993: 692). From Sun’s claim that “no particular evidential marking is employed for volitional self-person sentences” (1993: 958) one may surmise that the personal (i.e. ‘conjunct’ or ‘egophoric’) is zero-marked in this variety. Nonetheless, his comment that as “in other Tibetan dialects, the equative copulas jən [yin] and re [red] … carry inherent epistemological values: jən indicates that the reported situation is well-known to the speaker, otherwise re is used” (Sun 1993: 951 note 10) suggests that personal evidentially may in fact be marked in some cases. Some questions must await answer until further research on Mdzo-dge Tibetan becomes available. What is clear is that this variety exhibits personal evidentially, but rather than recognizing it as an evidential category Sun bifurcates it off as a peculiar type of person marking. Another oddity of Sun’s analysis is his treatment of se as a ‘quotative’ evidential marker. Although the “quotative morpheme se is, on both categorical and distributional counts, at variance with the other three evidential markers” (1993: 991), Sun decides to list the quotative with the others because “it is quite common for evidentials not to constitute a unitary morphological category in a given language” (1993: 992). In this way, previous methodologically unjustifiable analyses beget new unjustifiable analyses. The ‘quotative’ is compatible with the others evidential categories and its cognate in other Tibetan varieties is not normally considered an evidential suffix. Omitting the ‘quotative’ form his analysis and adding the ‘personal’, which he avoids describing as evidential, the system he describes equates to three evidential settings in the past tense, ‘personal’ (unmarked), ‘direct’ (tʰæ), and ‘indirect’ (zəg), and two evidential settings in the present tense ‘personal’ (again unnamed), and ‘immediate’ (ʰkə).

Dpa ri
Hermanns (1952), Hua and Ma (1992), Ma (1994), Bessho and Ebihara (2007), Ebihara (2012)

A-mchog
(Wu 1982)

Źo-ṅu
(Sun 2003)

Mgo-log
(de Roerich 1958) (Sprigg 1987)

Chabcha/Cherje
Suzuki 2004. Ebihara 2008.

rNgawa
Suzuki & Yeshemtsho 2006.

Rma chu
Zhou Maocao 2003

A rig
Shao Mingyuan 2011

Early Works
The language of Qoqonor, Sbatang, and Tsarong in Rockhill (1891: 361-370).

Chab mdo (Needham 1886, Jin Peng 1958)

Khams (Jäschke 1881: xvi-xvii)

Khams (de Roerich 1958)

Khams, Dar-rtse-mdo 1 (Migot 1957)

Khams, Dar-rtse-mdo 2 (Migot 1957)

Khams, Rtaḥu (Migot 1957) : Amdo nomadic variety

Khams, Dkar-mdzes (Migot 1957)

Khams, Sde-dge (Migot 1957)

Derge (sDedge)
Häsler 1999

Nangchen
Causemann 1989

Dongwang
Bartee 2007

Baima
There is a dialect Baima, which has undergone such radical phonetic developments that some scholars believe it is not a Tibetan dialect. Chirkova has devoted a number of studies to this dialect.

=Tibetan Computational and Corpus Linguistics=

Hackett, P. (2000a, 2000b) present the theory and initial results of experiments in the construction of a Tibetan Information Retrieval system using the first publicly available corpus of classical literary Tibetan (ACIP). In particular, both works highlight the construction of an automatic rule-based part-of-speech tagger in combination with a word-segmentation algorithm.

Hackett, P. (2003b) presented theoretical and statistical estimates for the morphological entropy of literary Tibetan.

Wangher, Andreas and Bettina Zeisler (2004). (DESCRIPTION NEEDED)

Tsering Rgyal (2005). (DESCRIPTION NEEDED)

Sun, Y. (2009). (DESCRIPTION NEEDED)

Hackett, P. (2010) presents techniques of topic-boundary detection for precision indexing of corpora of Tibetan classical literature.

Caizhijie and Cairang Zhuoma (2010) discuss the development of the 'Pandita' dictionary for Tibetan auto-segmentation and part-of-speech tagging.

Cairang Zhuoma and Cai Zhijie (2011) describes an algorithm used for "decomposing" Tibetan words, which seems to mean to assigning each letter to its place in the syllable, e.g. -g- in bsgrubs is the ming-gzhi, -s is the yang-'jugs, etc. I am not really clear what practical purpose such a system serves.

Tsering Rgyal and Dbangphyug Tsering (2010) presents an overview of a dictionary-based part-of-speech tagger, including a detailed list of the categories and entities they attempted to tag.

Liu, H. et al. (2010), (2015) treat word segmentation. Sun, Y. (2010). (DESCRIPTION NEEDED)

Chungku, C., J. et al. (2010) discusses a project to developed a Dzongka corpus and tag set.

Jiang Di (2003) is working on syntactic chunking.

P. V. Arun (2014) is work on Dzongka from a computational perspective.

=References=

Agha, Asif

 * (1990) Lexical structure and grammatical categories in Lhasa Tibetan.Ph.D., The University of Chicago.

Andvik, Erik

 * (1999). Tshangla Grammar. Ph.D. Thesis University of Oregon.

Aschoff, Jürgen C.

 * (1992). Nepal und der Kulturraum des Himalaya: (mit Ladakh, Sikkim und Bhutan): Kommentierte Bibliographie deutschsprachiger Bücher und Aufsätze 1627 bis 1990 (Aufsätze bis zum Jahre 1900). Dietikon: Garuda-Verlag.

Austen, H. H. G.

 * (1866). "A Vocabulary of English, Balti and Kashmiri." Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 35: 233.

Babinger, F.

 * (1920). “Isaak Jakob Schmidt 1779-1847, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Tibetforschung.” Festschrift für Friedrich Hirth zu seinem 75. Geburtstag, 16, April 1920. Berlin: PUBLISHER, 7-21.

Barnett, L. D.

 * (1946). Review of Gould and Richardson (1943). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 11: 445-446.

Bartee, Ellen

 * (1996). Deixis and spatiotemporal relations in Lhasa Tibetan. M.A., The University of Texas at Arlington.
 * (2007). A grammar of Dongwang Tibetan. PhD Dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara.

Beckwith, Christopher I.

 * Beckwith, C.I. 1992, "Deictic class marking in Tibetan and Burmese", in Papers from the First Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, ed. M. Ratliff and E. Schiller, pp. 1-14. Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies.
 * (1994). "Tibetan language reform: History and future." Language reform: History and future. Ed by I. Fodor and C. Hagege. Vol. VI. Hamburg: Helmut Buske: 73–84.
 * (1996). "The Morphological Argument for the Existence of Sino-Tibetan." Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceeings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8th-10th, 1996. Vol 3. Bangkock: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development Mahidol University at Salaya: 812-826.
 * and Michael Walter. (1997). “Some Indo-European Elements in Early Tibetan Culture.” Ernst Steinkellner (ed.), Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 256. Band. Vol II. Vienna: Östereichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1037-1055.
 * (2001). Review of Goldstein 2001. Anthropological Linguistics 43.3: 396-399.
 * (2006). “The Sonority Sequencing Principle and Old Tibetan Syllable Margins.” Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages II. Leiden: Brill, 45-57.

Behr, Wolfgang

 * (1994). [Review of Beyer 1992] Oriens 34: 557-563.

Benedict, Paul

 * [reviewed: Bodman, N. (1975), Chang, K. (1973), Coblin, W. S. (1972-3), Haudricourt, A (1973), Lehman, F. K  (1975), Matisoff, J. (1975), Miller, R. A. (1974), Sedláček, K. (1974), Sprigg, R. K.  (1973)]

Bessho Yusuke 別所 裕介 and Ebihara Shiho 海老原 志穂

 * (2007). "チベット語天祝方言とその言語使用状況について dPa's ris Dialect of Tibetan and its Language Use." 京都大学言語学研究 26: 77-91.

Beyer, Stephan V.

 * Reprint 1993, (Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica series, 116.) Delhi: Sri Satguru.

Bielmeier, Roland

 * (1985). Das Märchen von Prinzen Čobzaṅ. (Beiträge zur tibetische Erzählforschung 6) Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.


 * (1988). “The Reconstruction of the Stop Series and the Verbal System in Tibetan.” Languages and History in East Asia: Festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Kyoto: Shokado. 15-27.






 * (1982). “On Tone in Tibetan.” In: Helga Uebach and Jampa L. Panglung (eds.): Studia Tibetica: Quellen und Studien zur tibetischen Lexikographie. München. Vol. 2:43-54
 * (1985). “A survey of the development of western and southwestern Tibetan dialects.” In: Barbara Nimri Aziz and Matthew Kapstein (eds.), Soundings in Tibetan civilisation. Proceedings of the 1982 seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Columbia University. Delhi: Manohar: 3–19.
 * (1985) “On Tone in Tibetan.” Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 4th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies Schloss Hohenkammer — Munich 1985. Helga Uebach and Jampa L. Panglung, eds. (Studia Tibetica 2). Munich: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988: 43-54.
 * (1994). “Zu den Bono-Na Liedern der Darden von Da-Hanu.” SII 19: 11–32.
 * Bielmeier, Roland. 2000. Syntactic, semantic and pragmatic-epistemic functions of auxiliaries in Western Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2). 79–125.
 * Bielmeier, Roland. 2003. "Comparative Dictionary of Tibetan Dialects (CDTD). A research report." European Bulletin of Himalayan Research 23:97-101.
 * (2004). "Shafer's proto-West Bodish hypothesis and the formation of the Tibetan verb paradigms." Anju Saxena (ed.), Himalayan Languages, Past and Present. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 149). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 395-412.
 * (2004). "Lexikalische Variation und lexikalischer Wandel im Tibetischen am Beispiel einiger Körperteilbezeichnungen." Wiltrud Mihatsch & Reinhild Steinberg (eds.), Lexical Data and Universals of Semantic Change. Tübingen: Stauffenburg (Stauffenburg Linguistik).


 * (2007). Tibetischer Wortschatz im historischen Sprachkontakt, in Petra Maurer and Peter Schwieger (eds) Tibetstudien, Festschrift für Dieter Schuh zum 65. Geburtstag. Bonn: Bier’sche Verlagsanstalt, pp.19-36.

Bodman, N.

 * (1975). (review of Benedict 1972) Linguistics: An International Review 149: 89-97.

Bonnerjea, Biren

 * (1936). "Phonology of Some Tibeto-Burman Dialects of the Himalayan Region." T'oung Pao (Second Series) 32.4:238-258.
 * (1937). "Morphology of Some Tibeto-burman Dialects of the Himalayan Region." T'oung Pao (Second Series) 33.5: 301-360

Bkra shis bzang po

 * (1999). bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo yi tshad ma'i skor la dpyad pa [Comments on Tshad ma in the Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo] Chengdu: dar thang bshad grwa.

Bskal bzang vgyur med

 * (1981). Bod kyi brdav sprod rig pavi khrid rgyun rab gsal me long. Chengdu: Si khron Mi rigs Dpe skrun khang.
 * (1992). Le clair miroir: enseignement de la grammaire tibétaine. Nicolas Tournadre and Heather Stoddard, trans. Arvillard : Editions Prajñā.

Btsan lha ngag dbang tshul khrims

 * (1997). Brda dkrol gser gyi me long zhes ba bzhugs so. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang.

Cable, Seth

 * Cable, Seth 2009. “The syntax of the Tibetan correlative”. In Correlatives Cross-Linguistically, Lipták, Anikó (ed.), 195–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Caizhijie and Cairang Zhuoma




Caplow, Nancy

 * (2009). The role of stress in Tibetan tonogenesis: A study in historical comparative acoustics. Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara.

Chang, Kun

 * (1973). (review of Benedict 1972). Journal of Asian Studies 32: 335-337.

Chang, Kun & Betty Shefts













 * 1980 (?). “Perfective and imperfective in Spoken Tibetan.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 52/2:303-21




 * Chang Shefts, Betty and KunChang 1982 The persistence of present tense reflexes in modem spoken Tibetan. TsingHua Hsue bao 14(112):21-30.




 * 1984. “The Spoken Tibetn verb kap”. L. Ligeti (ed.), Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma de Körös. Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó. Vol I. 131-142


 * 1993. “Tense and aspect in spoken Tibetan.” In: Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher (eds.), Contributions on Tibetan language, history, and culture. Proceedings of the Csoma de Kőrös Symposium held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13–19 September 1981. Vol. I. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 10.) Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien: 329–37.

Che Qian 車謙










Chirkova, Katia

 * Chirkova, Katia (2005). Báimǎ nominal postpositions and their etymology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 28.2: 1-41.
 * Chirkova, Katia (2008). On the Position of Báimǎ within Tibetan. Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof, eds. Amsterdam: Rodopi. vol. 2, 69-91
 * Chirkova, Katia 2008b. 白马语示证范畴及其与藏语方言的比较 báimǎyǔ shìzhèng fànchóu jíqí yǔ Zàngyǔ  fāngyán de bǐjiào [Evidentials in Baima and Tibetan dialects compared] Mínzú yuwen 《民族语文》, vol. 3, 36-43.

Chos kyi grags pa

 * (1946). བརྡ་དག་མིང་ཚིག་གསལ་བ་བཞུགས།, Lhasa: privately printed by Hur kang bsod nam dpel bar, 1950; reprinted Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe / mi rigs dpe skrun khang 1957; Dharamsala: Damchoe Sangpo, 1980; (electronic edition) Kathmandu: Tibetan Computer Company, 2000. Translated into Chinese as 格西曲札藏文辭典 Gexi Quzha Zangwen cidian, Beijing: 民族出版社 Minzu chubanshe, 1957; reprinted: Tokyo: 西藏佛教研究会；発売所山喜房仏書林 Chibetto Bukkyō Kenkyūkai; hatsubaijo Sankibō Busshorin. 昭和 Shōwa 47 [=1972]).

Chungku, C., J. Rabgay, and G. Faaß

 * (2010). "Building NLP resources for Dzongkha: A Tagset and A Tagged Corpus." Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Asian Language Resources, 103-110.

Clark, Larry V. et al.

 * (2006). Bibliographies of Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus, and Tibetan Dictionaries. (Orientalistik Bibliographien und Dokumentationen 20). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Coblin, W. South









 * (1991). “A Study of the Old Tibetan Shanshu Paraphrase.” Journal of the American Oriental Society (Part I) 111.2: 303-322. (Part II) 111.3: 523-539.

Davidson, Roland M.

 * (1996). [Review of Beyer 1992] Philosophy East and West 46.1: 119-122.

Dawson, Willa

 * (1980). Tibetan Phonology. Ph.D., University of Washington.
 * (1985). "The Tibetan vowel feature 'Constricted'" Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies Presented to André-G. Haudricourt. ed. S. Ratanakul et al. Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University. 158-177

Das, Sarat Chandra

 * (1902). A Tibetan English Dictionary: with Sanskrit Synonyms. Eds. Graham Sandberg and A. William *Hyde. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depôt: reprints include Tokyo: Risen Book Company, 1988; New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995. SOME REVEIEWS ARE MENTIONED BY SIMON

Delancey, Scott





 * (1984). "Categories of non-volitional actor in Lhasa Tibetan." A. Zide et. al., eds., Proc. of the Conference on Participant Roles: South Asia and Adjacent Areas, pp. 58-70. IULC.
 * (1984). "Agentivity in syntax." Chicago Linguistic Society Parasession on Agentivity and Causation.
 * (1985). "On active typology and the nature of agentivity." F. Plank, ed., Relational Typology. Mouton.
 * (1985). "Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation." Proc. of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 65-72.
 * (1986). "Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan." W. Chafe and J. Nichols, eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 203-13. Norwood, N.J. : Ablex Pub. Corp.








 * (1998). "Semantic categorization in Tibetan honorific nouns." Anthropological Linguistics 40:109-23.
 * (1999). "Relativization in Tibetan." in Yogendra Yadava and Warren Glover, eds., Studies in Nepalese Linguistics, pp. 231-49. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.
 * DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 255-269. London: Routledge.
 * (1999). "Relativization in Tibetan." in Yogendra Yadava and Warren Glover, eds., Studies in Nepalese Linguistics, pp. 231-49. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.
 * DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 255-269. London: Routledge.

Denwood, Philip

 * (2002). (Review of Goldstein 2001). The China Quarterly 171: 777-779.
 * (1999). Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
 * Denwood, Philip (1996) 'Tibetan sl- and zl-.' The Tibet Journal, XXI (4). pp. 23-29.

Desgodins, Auguste

 * (1899). Dictionnaire tibétain-latin-français / par les missionnaires du Thibet. Hong Kong: Impr. de la Société des missions étrangères; reprinted Saint Léon-sur-Vézère: Karme Dharma Chakra Kagyu Library, 1976.

van Driem, George

 * (1992). The Grammar of Dzongkha. Thimphu, Bhutan: RGoB, Dzongkha Development Commission (DDC).
 * (1995). Een eerste grammaticale verkenning van het Bumthang, een taal van midden-Bhutan. Leiden: Onderzoekschool CNWS.
 * (2001). Languages of the Himalayas. Leiden: Brill.

Ebihara Shiho　海老原 志穂

 * (2008). 青海省共和県のチベット語アムド方言 Seikaisyō Kyōwaken no Chibettogo Amudohōgen [A descriptive Study on the Amdo Dialect of Tibetan Spoken in Gonghe County, Qinghai Province]. PhD dissertation, The University of Tokyo.
 * (2009). "Auxiliary Verbs Concerning 'Intentionality' and 'Directionality' in Amdo Tibetan" チベット文化圈における言語基層の解明　101-114.
 * (2010). Amdo-Tibetan Pronunciation and Conversation: for ILCAA Intensive Language Course 2010, Textbook 1. Tokyo: ILCAA.
 * (2011) "Amdo Tibetan." In Yamakoshi, Yasuhiro (ed.), Grammatical Sketches from the Field, 41-78. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
 * (2013) "Preliminary field report on dPa'ris dialect of Amdo Tibetan." Historical Development of the Tibetan Languages. Tsuguhito Takeuchi and Norihiko Hayashi, eds. Kobe: Research Institute of Foreign Studies, Kobe University of Foreign Studies. 149-161.

Edgerton, Franklin

 * (1944). Review of Gould and Richardson (1943). Language 20: 174-175.

Eimer, Helmut

 * (1995). (review of Verhagen 1994). Central Asiatic Journal 39.2: 14-16.

Francke, August Hermann

 * 1901 A Sketch of Ladakhi Grammar. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal (Part 1-History, Literature, etc.) 70.1, extra No. 2. pp. 1-63.

von der Gabelentz, Hans Conon

 * 1861 "Über das Passivum : eine sprachvergleichende Abhandlung." Abhandlungen der Philologisch-Historischen Klasse der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 8: 431-546.

Gawne, Lauren

 * (2010). "Lamjung Yolmo: a dialect of Yolmo, also known as Helambu Sherpa." Nepalese Linguistics 25: 34-41.
 * (2011). Lamjung Yolmo-Nepali-English dictionary. Melbourne, Custom Book Centre; The University of Melbourne.
 * (forthcoming). Lamjung Yolmo: Grammar and social cognition. PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne.

Gesang Jumian (格桑居冕 = Skal bzang 'gyur med)

 * 1985. Zangyu Batanghua de yuyin fenxi [An analysis of the phonology of ’Ba’-thang Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen 1985.2:16-27.

Gesang Jumian (格桑居冕 = Skal bzang 'gyur med) and Gesang Yangjing (格桑央京 = Skal bzang dbyangs can)

 * 2002 藏语方言槪论 Zang yu fang yan gai lun [Overview of the Tibetan dialects]. Beijing: 民族出版社 Minzu chubanshe.

Geziben, Deji-Sezhen

 * (1996). Trochaic structure in Tibetan phonology: A metrical analysis of tone in Lhasa Tibetan. M.A., The University of Texas at Arlington.

Giraudeau, Pierre Philippe et Françis Goré

 * (1956). Dictionaire française-tibétain. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1956.

Goldstein, Melvyn C.

 * (1975) . Tibetan-English Dictionary of Modern Tibetan. (Bibliotheca Himalayica, Series II, Vol. 7.). Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar.
 * (1984). English-Tibetan Dictionary of Modern Tibetan: den grabs bod skad dbyin bod tshig mdzod. Berkeley: Univeristy of California Press: Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1999.
 * (2001) with T.N. Skilling, J.T. Surkhang and Pierre Robillard. The New Tibetan-English Dictionary of Modern Tibetan. Berkeley: University of California Press. [reviews Beckwith 2001, Denwood 2002. Tsering 2002]

Goldstein, Melvyn C. and Nawang Nornang
Modern spoken Tibetan: Lhasa dialect. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Gould, Basil John, Sir, and Hugh Edward Richardson

 * (1943). Tibetan word book. London: Oxford University Press. [reviews Edgerton 1944, Barnett 1946 and Steward 1947]

Hackett, Paul G.

 * (2000a) "Approaches to Tibetan Information Retrieval: Segmentation vs. n-Grams." Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Maryland.
 * (2000b) "Automatic Segmentation and Part-Of-Speech Tagging For Tibetan." Ninth International Association of Tibetan Studies Conference. http://www.columbia.edu/~ph2046/iats/it/IATS-IX_Hackett_paper.pdf
 * (2001). Tibetan-English Dictionary of New Words. Springfield, Dunwoody Press.
 * (2003a). A Tibetan Verb Lexicon. Ithaca, Snow Lion Publications.
 * (2003b). "An Entropy-based Assessment of the Tibetan Unicode Encoding." Tenth International Association of Tibetan Studies Conference. http://www.columbia.edu/~ph2046/iats/it/IATS-X_Hackett_paper.pdf
 * (2010). "The Use of yig-cha and chos-kyi-rnam-grangs in Computing Lexical Cohesion for Tibetan Topic Boundary Detection." Twelfth International Association of Tibetan Studies Conference. http://www.columbia.edu/~ph2046/iats/it/IATS-XII_Hackett_paper.pdf

Hahn, Michael

 * (1973). "Grundfragen der tibetischen Morphologie." Zentralasiatiche Studien 7: 425-442.


 * (1978). "On the function and origin of the particle dag." Martin Brauen & Per Kvaerne (eds.), Tibetan studies: presented at the Seminar of Young Tibetologists, Zurich, June 26-July 1, 1977. Zürich : Völkerkundemuseum der Universität Zürich: 137-47


 * (1994). Lehrbuch der klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache. 6th edition. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.


 * (1999). "Blags und Verwandtes (Miscellanea etymologica tibetica, VI)." Studia Tibetica et Mongolica (Festschrift Manfred Taube). Eds. Helmut Eimer et al. (Indica et Tibetica 34.) Swistall-Odendorft: Indica et Tibetica Verlag. 123-125.


 * (2003). Schluessel zum Lehrbuch der klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache und Beitrage zur tibetischen Wortkunde (Miscellanea etymologica tibetica I – VI). Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.

Hale, Austin

 * (1982). Research on Tibeto-Burman languages. Berlin: Mouton.

Haller, Felix

 * Haller, Felix. 2000. Verbal categories of Shigatse Tibetan and Themchen Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burmam Area 25.2: 175-191.
 * (2000). Dialekt und Erzählungen von Shigatse. (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 13.) Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
 * (2004). Dialekt und Erzählungen von Themchen: sprachwissenschaftliche Beschreibung eines Nomadendialektes aus Nord-Amdo. (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 14.) Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
 * (2009). "Switch-reference in Tibetan." Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 32.2: 45-106.

Hamid, Abdul.

 * (1998). Ladakhi-English-Urdu Dictionary with an English-Ladakhi Index. Leh: Ladakh Melong Publications.

Hári, Anna Mária.

 * (1979). An investigation of the tones of Lhasa Tibetan. (Language Data, Asian-Pacific Series 13). Huntington Beach: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
 * (2004). with Chhegu Lama. Dictionary Yolhmo-Nepali-English. Kathmandu: Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University.
 * (2010). Yohlmo Sketch Grammar. Kathmandu: Ekta books.

Häsler, Katrin Louise.

 * (1999). A Grammar of the Tibetan Dege (Sde dge) Dialect. Zürich :Selbstverlag.

Haudricourt, A

 * (1973). (review of Benedict 1972). Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 68.2: 494-495.

Henderson, Vincent C

 * (1903). Tibetan manual. Calcutta: Inspector General of Chinese imperial maritime customs.

Hermann, Silke

 * (1989). Erzählungen und Dialekt von Diṅri. (Beiträge zur tibetischen Erzählforschung 9). Bonn: VGH wissenschaftsverlag.

Hermanns, Matthias

 * (1952). “Tibetische Dialekte von A mdo.” Anthropos 47.1-2: 193-202.

Hildebrandt, Kristine A.

 * (2011). With J. J. Perry. "Preliminary notes on Gyalsumdo, an undocumented Tibetan variety in Manang District, Nepal." Himalayan Linguistics 10(1): 167-185.

Hill, Nathan W.











 * (2008). “Verba moriendi in the Old Tibetan Annals.” Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages III. Christopher Beckwith, ed. (Proceedings of the 11th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies.) Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH: 71-86.


 * (2009) Review of Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction. By James A. Matisoff. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. 語言暨語言學 / Languages and Linguistics, 10 (1). pp. 173-195.





















Hill, Nathan W. (2015) 'Tibetan part-of-speech conundrums: maṅ and yun riṅ'. Rocznik Orientalistyczny, (73) 2, pp 65-72.

Hill, Nathan W. (2016) 'Tibetan *-as > -os'. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Reconstruction, (12), pp 163-173.

Hill, Nathan W. (2017) 'Tibetan first person singular pronouns'. Rocznik Orientalistyczny, (70) 2, pp 161-169.

Hill, Nathan W. and Abel Zadoks
Hill, Nathan W. and Zadoks, Abel (2015) 'Tibetan √lan ‘reply’'. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland (Third Series), (25) 1, pp 117-121.

Hoffmann, Helmut
| author = Hoffmann, Helmut | editor = Krahe, Hans | chapter = Über ein wenig beachtetes Hilfswort zur Bezeichnung der Zukunft im Tibetischen}, | year = 1955 | title = Corolla Linguistica, Festschrift Ferdinand Sommer zum 80. Gebürtstag am 4. Main 1955, dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern, und Kollegen | pages = 73-9 | publisher = Otto Harrassowitz | location = Wiesbaden}}
 * {{cite book

Höhlig, Monika

 * (1976). With A.M. Hári. Kagate phonemic summary. Kathmandu, Summer Institute of Linguistics Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies.
 * (1978). "Speaker orientation in Syuwa (Kagate)". Papers on discourse. J. E. Grimes. Kathmandu, Summer Institute of Linguistics. 50: 19-24.

Hongladarom, Krisadawan (กฤษดาวรรณ หงศ์ลดารมภ์)

 * (1993) Evidentials in Tibetan: A dialogic study of the interplay between form and meaning. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.


 * (1994). "Historical Development of the Tibetan Evidential tuu". Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics. Kitamura Hajime et al. eds. Osaka: The Organizing Committee, the 26the International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. 673-684.


 * (1996). Review of Agha 1993. Anthropological Linguistics 38, 1: 169-170.

Hoffrenning, Ralf W.

 * (1959) First Bhutanese Grammar: Grammar of Gongar language of East Bhutan. Madison.

Hoshi Izumi (星泉)

 * (1993).「チベット語ラサ方言の非完了・継続状態を表わす動詞述語について」『東京大学言語学論集』 13, pp.415-446, 1993.
 * (1994a). "On the nonperfect continuative aspect of the Lhasa dialect of modern Tibetan." Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics. Kitamura Hajime et al. eds. Osaka: The Organizing Committee, the 26the International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. 985-991.
 * (1994b) チベット語ラサ方言における動詞述語V-ki^reeの意味. [The meaning of V-ki^ree in the verbal predicates of Lhasa Tibetan.] 日本西蔵学会々報 40: 53-60.
 * (1996).『チベット語ラサ方言の述語「動詞＋chun」の意味と用法』 東京大学言語学論集 Tokyo University Linguistic Papers 15: 203-229.
 * (1998). チベット語ラサ方言の述語の意味分析上の諸問題 : 述語動詞yonを含む述語の意味分析を例に. [Various problems in the semantic analysis of predicates in Lhasa Tibetan: the example of the semantic analysis of the verbal predicate yon.]" アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究所通信 ILCAA newsletter 92: 80-81
 * (1998).「チベット語ラサ方言における述語動詞yonの意味」『言語研究』 113: -96, 1998.
 * (2001). "The Meaning of the Lhasa Tibetan Predicate "V-kyu + predicate verb"" 東京大学言語学論集 Tokyo University Linguistic Papers 20: 261-274.
 * (2001) チベット文学の幕開け, 週刊朝日百科世界の文学, 113号, 71-73.
 * (2002) 現代チベット語の名詞化接辞を持つ述語の意味---名詞述語から動詞述語への拡張と展開---, 東京大学言語学論集, 20巻, 261--274, 2001年
 * (2002) チベットの笑い話(1), 通信, 113号.
 * (2002) Web環境での多言語表示, ITUジャーナル, 32巻5号, 26--29.
 * (2002) 古代チベットの王家の谷で---撮影現場レポート& その後---, 『古典学の再構築』　研究費補助金 特定領域研究「古典学の再構築」, 12号, 66-67.
 * (2003) 現代チベット語ラサ方言の動詞の研究, 『南アジア諸言語に関する基礎語彙・文法調査』　科学研究費補助金（基盤研究(A)(2)）研究成果報告書, 79-100.
 * (2003) チベット文字における結合文字の使用に関する調査, 論集「情報処理」「古典学の再構築」研究成果報告集, 4巻, 141-144.
 * (2003). 現代チベット語動詞辞典 : ラサ方言 Gendai Chibettogo dōshi jiten : Rasa hōgen / A verb dictionary of the modern spoken Tibetan of Lhasa. Tokyo: 東京外国語大学アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究所 Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Ajia Afurika Gengo Bunka Kenkyūjo.
 * (2004) チベット語の接辞-nan(-mkhan)の文法化-専門家から人へ,人から属性へ	Asian and African linguistics	アジア・アフリカ文法研究 33: 115-138.
 * (2004) Displaying multi-script date on the Web, Proceedings of the Glyph and Typsettiong Workshop, 21st Century COE Program "East Asian Center for Informatics in Humanities―Toward an Overall Inheritance and Development of Kanji Culture―", 44--51, 2004年
 * (2005) チベット語の接辞-ñän（-mkhan）の文法化--専門家から人へ、人から属性へ--, 『アジア・アフリカ文法研究』　共同研究プロジェクト「音韻に関する通言語的研究」, 33巻, 115-138.
 * (2007) チベット語ラサ方言の接続関係を表すcääについて—動詞から転成した助詞—, 日本西蔵学会々報, 53号, 73-87.
 * (2010) チベット語ラサ方言の格標示形式の体系, チベット＝ビルマ系言語の文法現象 １：格とその周辺.
 * (2010) 14 世紀チベット語文献『王統明示鏡』における存在動詞. [Existential verbs in the Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long, a 14th century Tibetan narrative]. 東京大学言語学論集 (Tokyo University Linguistic Papers) 29.3: 29-68.
 * (2012) "The flow of Eastern Tibetan colloquial ^e into Middle Tibetan". Historical Development of the Tibetan Languages. Tsuguhito Takeuchi and Norihiko Hayashi, eds. Kobe: Research Institute of Foreign Studies, Kobe University of Foreign Studies. 71-86.
 * (2012) 静かなる闘い---熱を帯びるチベットの映画制作の現場から, FIELD+, 8号, 26-29.
 * (2013). The Flow of Eastern Tibetan Colloquial ˆe into Middle Tibetan, Journal of Research Institute Vol. 49 Historical Development of the Tibetan Languages, 49号, 71--83, 2013年
 * (2013). チベット語ラサ方言の文のタイプ, チベット＝ビルマ系言語の文法現象２：述語と発話行為のタイプからみた文の下位分類, 455-476.
 * (2013). 中世チベット語の文のタイプ, チベット＝ビルマ系言語の文法現象２：述語と発話行為のタイプからみた文の下位分類, 321-345.
 * (2014). 小説家の描く現代チベット: アムド出身の二人の作家, 日本西蔵学会々報, 60号, 135-148.
 * Hoshi Izumi (星泉). 『古典チベット語文法：『王統明鏡史』(14世紀) に基づいて』Tokyo, 2016

Hoshi, Michiyo (星 実千代)

 * (1978) (and Tondup Tsering). Zangskar vocabulary : a Tibetan dialect spoken in Kashmir (Monumenta Serindica 5) Tokyo : Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures in Asia and Africa.
 * (1987). A Sharchok Vocabulary: A Language Spoken in Eastern Bhutan. (Integral Study on the Ecology, Languages and Cultures of Tibet and Himalayas 8). Tokyo: The Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
 * (1988). 『現代チベット語文法（ラサ方言）』. Gendai Chibetto-go bunpō (Rasahōgen). 東京：ユネスコ東アジア文化研究センター Yunesuko Higashi Ajia Bunka Kenkyū Sentā

Hoshi, Michiyo (星 実千代) and Hoshi Izumi (星泉)

 * (1995) チベット語研修報告 (平成7年度言語研修報告). アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究所通信 ILCAA newsletter 85： 45-50

Hu Tan (胡 坦)

 * 1980 藏语 (拉萨话) 声调研究. 民族语文.


 * 1984 拉萨藏语中几种动词句式的分析. 民族语文.


 * 1984 藏语的语素变异和语音变迁. 民族语文.


 * 1989). “Comparative Sentences in Tibetan.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 43.2-3: 399-408.


 * (1991a). 蔵語動詞的名詞化 "On the Nominalization of Verbs in Tibetan." アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究 Journal of Asian and African Studies 41: 71-81.


 * (1991b). 論蔵語韵尾的隠現 "On the Consonant Final Variation in Contemporary Lhasa Tibetan." アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究 Journal of Asian and African studies 41: 83-90.


 * 1993 国外藏语语法研究述评. 当代语言学.


 * 1992 藏语语法的类型特征. 藏学研究论丛 (第 4 辑). 拉萨: 西藏人民出版社.

Hua, Kan (華侃)

 * (1983). "Anduo Zangyu shengmu de jizhong teshu bianhua" [Several special sound changes of Amdo Tibetan initials]. 民族語文 Minzu Yuwen 1983.3:43-46.


 * (2002). Zangyu Anduo Fangyan Cihui [A Vocabulary of Amdo Tibetan]. Lanzhou: Gansu Minzu Press.

Hua, Kan (華侃) and Duozangta (朵藏他)

 * Hua, Kan (華侃), and Duozangta (朵藏他). 1997. Zangyu Songpanhua de yinxi han yuyin de lishi yanbian [Sound system of Songpan Tibetan and its historical development]. Zhongguo Zangxue 29.2:134-44.

Hua, Kan (華侃) and Longbojia (龍博甲)

 * Hua, Kan (華侃), and Longbojia (龍博甲). 1993. Anduo Zangyu Kouyu Cidian [A Dictionary of Spoken Amdo Tibetan]. Lanzhou: Gansu Minzu Press.

Hua Kan (華侃) and Ma Maoqian

 * Hua Kan and Ma Maoqian (1992). "藏語天主話的語音特點給予藏文的對應關係 Zangyu Tianzhuhuade yuyin tedinjiyu zangwende duiying guanxi [the sound characteristics of Tianzhu Tibetan and the correspondence relation with written Tibetan." 西北民族研究 Xibei Minzu Yanjiu 1: 189-203 (in Chinese)

Huang Bufan (黃布凡)

 * (1983) “十二、十三世紀藏語(衛藏)聲母探討 shier, shisan shiji zangyu (weicang) shengmu tantao [An investigation of consonant initials of (dBus-gTsang) Tibetan of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.” 民族語文 Minzu Yuwen 1983.3:33-42.
 * Huang, Bufan (黃布凡). 1995. Conditions for tonogenesis and tone split in Tibetan dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 18.1:43-62.

Huang, Bufan (黃布凡), Suonan Jiangcai (索南江才), and Zhang Minghui (張明慧).

 * (1994). Yushu Zangyu de yuyin tedian han lishi yanbian guilü [Characteristics in Yushu Tibetan phonology and its rules of historical change]. 中國藏學 Zhongguo Zhangxue 26.2:111-134.

Huang, Bufan (黃布凡), and Zhang Minghui (張明慧)

 * (1995). "Baimahua zhishu wenti yanjiu [On the linguistic position of Baima]." 中國藏學 Zhongguo Zangxue 2:79-118.

Huber, Brigite

 * (2005). The Tibetan Dialect of Lende (Kyirong). (Beiträge zur tibetische Erzählforschung 15). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.

Hyslop, Gwendolyn

 * Hyslop, G., (2008a). Kurtöp phonology in the context of Northeast India. In: Morey, S., Post, M. (Eds.), North East Indian Linguistics 1: Papers from the First International Conference of the North East Indian Linguistic Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–25.
 * Hyslop, G., (2008b). "Kurtöp and the classification of the languages of Bhutan." In: Proceedings from the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 42, vol. 2, South Asian Linguistics, Case, Voice, and Language Coexistence. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
 * Hyslop, G., (2009), "Kurtöp Tone: A tonogenetic case study." Lingua 119: 827–845

Inaba Shōju 稲葉正就

 * (1954). チベット古典文法学 Chibettogo koten bunpōgaku. 京都 Kyōto, 法増刊Hōzōkan.

Jacques, Guillaume

 * (2004) Phonologie et morphologie du Japhug (rGyalrong), thèse de doctorat, université Paris VII - Denis Diderot.


 * (2009a) "Tibetan wa-zur and Laufer's law，" Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 32.1: 141-145.


 * (2009b). "Le développement du tibétain ancien -e- dans les dialectes occidentaux,"  Etudes mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétaines, 40. http://emscat.revues.org/index1500.html


 * (2010) “Notes complémentaires sur les verbes à alternance 'dr-/br en tibétain”, Revue d'Etudes. Tibétaines, no. 19, Octobre 2010, pp. 27-29


 * (2012) "An internal reconstruction of Tibetan stem alternations." Transactions of the Philological Society 110.2: 212–224


 * (2013). "On pre-Tibetan semivowels." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76, pp 289-300, doi:10.1017/S0041977X12001450

Jäschke, Heinrich August

 * (1860). “Über das Tibetische Lautsystem.” Monatsberichte der königlichen preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Nachtrag. 257-279.
 * (1865) A short practical grammar of the Tibetan language. London, Hardinge Simpole, 1865, ©2004. (Reproduced from manuscript copy. " ... contains a facsimile of the original publication in manuscript, the first printed version of 1883, and the later Addenda published with the Third Edition."--P. [4] of cover. First edition published in Kye-Lang in Brit. Lahoul by the author, in manuscript, in 1865. Cambridge Grammar series, 1 ISBN 1843820773
 * (1865). “Über die östliche Aussprache des Tibetischen im Vergleich zu der früher behandelten Westlichen” Monatsberichte der königlichen preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 441-454.
 * (1866). Romanized Tibetan and English dictionary. Kyelang in British Lahoul. http://books.google.de/books?id=kqACAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * (1868). “Ueber die Phonetik der tibetischen Sprache.” Monatsberichte der königlichen preussischen Akademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 148-182.
 * (1871). Handwörterbuch der tibetischen Sprache. Gnadau, Unitätsbuchhandlung; reprinted: Osnabrück, Biblio Verlag, 1971.
 * (1881). Tibetan English Dictionary. London: Unger Brothers.

Jin Peng [Chin P’eng] 金鵬

 * (1956). 藏文動詞屈折形態在現代拉薩話裏衍變的情況 “Zangwen dongci quzhe xingtai zai xiandai lasayu li yanbian de qingkuang [Verbal Inflexion in Classical Tibetan and Present-day Lhasa Dialect].” 硏究語言研究 Yuyan Yanjiu 25-39.
 * (1958). 藏語拉薩日喀則昌都話的比較硏究 Zangyu Lasa, Rikeze, Changdu hua di bijiao yanjiu. [Tibetan language, A comparative study of the Lha sa, Gzhis ka rtse, and Chab mdo dialects.] Beijing: 科学出版社 Kexue chubanshe.
 * (1979). "論藏語拉薩口語動詞的特點與語法結構的關繫 lun Zangyu Lasa kouyu dongci de tedian yu yufa jiegou de guanxi [On the relationship between the characteristics of te verb and grammatical structure in spoken Lhasa Tibetan.]" 民族語文 Minzu yuwen.

de Jong, Jan Williem

 * de Jong, J. W. “Tibetan blag-pa and blags-pa” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 36.2. London: School of Oriental and African Studies (1973): 309-312.

Jones, Eunice

 * (2009). Evidentiality and Mirativity in Balti. Ma dissertation, SOAS, university of London.

Kelly, Barbara F.

 * Kelly, Barbara F. 2004. "A grammar of Sherpa." In C. Genetti (ed.), Tibeto‐Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 232-­440. Pacific Linguistics.

Kinkley, G.J.

 * Kinkley, G.J. 1977, "Copular verbs in Tibetan", in Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Hawaii, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 99-114.

Kim, M. H.

 * Kim, M.-H. 1996, "A case grammar explanation of Tibetan relativization", in The Fourth International Symposium on Language and Linguistics, Thailand, pp. 1696-1713. Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University.

Kitamura Hajime

 * (1975) "The honorifics in Tibetan." Acta Asiatica 28: 56-74.
 * (1977). Tibetan (Lhasa dialect). (Asian and African Grammatical Manual 12z). Tokyo: Ajia Afurika gengo bunka kenkyūjo.

Kitamura Hajime 北村甫 and Nagano Yasuhiko 長野泰彦

 * (1990) 現代チベット語分類辞典 Gendai chibettogo bunrui jiten. Tokyo: 汲古書院 Kyūko Shoin.

KǑNG Jiāngpíng 孔江平

 * 2012. A study on the origin of Tibetan tones by homonym rate. In Yǔyánxué Lùncóng 语言学论丛 45, ed. Wāng Fēng 汪峰 et al, 112-127. Běijīng 北京: Shāngwù yìnshūguǎn 商务印书馆.

Kopp, Teresa Kunkel

 * (1998). Verbalizers in Lhasa Tibetan. M.A., The University of Texas at Arlington.

de Kőrös, Alexander Csoma [= Kőrösi Csoma, Sándor] with Sangs rgyas Phun tshogs

 * (1834). Essay towards a Dictionary. Tibetan-English. Calcutta: the Baptist Mission Press; reprints include New Delhi: Cosmo, 1978: Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984.

Koshal, Sanyukta

 * (1976). Ladakhi phonetic reader. (Central Institute of Indian Languages phonetic reader series, 18.) Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
 * (1979). Ladakhi Grammar. Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass.
 * (1982). Conversational Ladakhi. Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass.
 * (1987). “Honorific systems of the Ladakhi language.” Multilingua: Journal of Interlanguage Communication 6.2: 149–168.
 * (1990). “The Ladakhi language and its regional perspectives.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44: 13–22.

Kretschmar, Monika

 * (1986). Erzählungen und Dialekt der Drokpas aus Südwest-Tibet. Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
 * (1995). Erzählungen und Dialekt aus Südmustang. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.

LaPolla, Randy J.

 * (1994). [Review of Beyer 1992] Language 70.1: 195-196.
 * with John B. Lowe (1994). Bibliography of the International Conferences on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics I-XXV. Berkeley: Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project, Center for Southeast Asia Studies, University of California, 1994.

Laufer, Berthold

 * Laufer, Berthold (1898/1899). “Ueber das va zur.  Ein Beitrag zur Phonetik der tibtischen Sprache.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 12: 289-307; 13: 95-109, 199-226; reprinted in Kleinere Schriften von Berthold Laufer.  Ed.  Hartmut Walravens.  Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1976: 61-122.
 * (1915). “Bird Divination Among the Tibetans” T’oung Pao 15: 1- 110; reprinted in Sino-Tibetan Studies: selected papers on the art, folklore, history linguistics and prehistory of sciences in China and Tibet. 2 vols. Delhi: Rakesh Goel, 1987: 354-463. http://www.scribd.com/doc/69714943/Laufer-1914-Bird-Divination
 * “Loan-Words in Tibetan” (T'oung Poo, 1916, pp. 403—5 52)
 * Sino-Iranica. Appendix V additional notes on loan-words in Tibetan.

Lehman, F. K

 * (1975). (review of Benedict 1972). Language 51: 215-219.

Li Fang-Kuei



 * (1959). “Tibetan Glo-ba-‘dring.” Studia Serica Bernhard Karlgren dedicata. Egerod, Søren, ed. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard: 55-9.




 * and W. South Coblin (1987). A Study of the old Tibetan inscriptions. (Special Publications 91). Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Li yung khrang

 * (1989). Bya tshig tshig mdzod [verb dictionary]. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun kang.

Liu, H. et al.

 * (2010) "Tibetan Number Identification Based on Classification of Number Components in Tibetan Word Segmentation." Coling 2010: Posters,
 * (2015). “Tibetan Word Segmentation as Sub-syllable Tagging with Syllable’s Part-of-Speech Property.” M. Sun et al. (Eds.): CCL and NLP-NABD 2015, LNAI 9427, pp. 189–201, 2015. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25816-4 16

Lobsang, Ghulam Hassan

 * (1995). Short Sketch of Balti Grammar: Tibetan Dialect Spoken in Northern Pakistan. Universität Bern. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Bern.

Lu shao zun 陸紹尊

 * (1986). 錯那門巴語簡誌 Cuonamenba yu jian zhi. Beijing: 民族出版社 Minzu chubanshe.
 * (2002). 門巴語方言研究 Menbayu fangyan yanjiu [Studies in the dialects of the Monpa language.] Beijing: 民族出版社 Minzu chubanshe.

Lyovin, Anatole V.

 * Lyovin, Anatole V. (1970). "Gaps in the verb paradigms of Classical Tibetan." Working Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii 2.8: 129-135.
 * Lyovin, Anatole V. (1992), "Nominal honorific compounds in Tibetan", Mon-Khmer Studies vol. 20, pp. 45-56.
 * Lyovin, Anatole V. (1997). "Sketch of Classical Tibetan." pp. 146-172 in Lyovin, An introduction to the languages of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maibaum, Anita

 * (2005). with Esther Strahm. 2005. Jirel-Nepali-English. Kathmandu: Central Department of Linguistics. Tribhuvan University.

Matisoff, James A.

 * (1975). (review of Benedict 1972). “Benedict’s Sino-Tibetan: A Rejection of Millers’ Conspectus Inspection.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2.1: 155-172.
 * (2003). Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Reviewed: Sagart 2006].

Michailovsky, Boyd and Martine Mazaudon

 * (1994). “Preliminary Notes on the Languages of the Bumthang Group (Bhutan).” Tibetan Studies: proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Ed. Per Kværne. Vol 2. Oslo: The Institute of Comparative Research in Human Culture. 545-557.

Miller, P. M. (1951).

 * “The phonemes of Tibetan (U-Tsang dialect) with a practical orthography for Tibetan-speaking readers.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Letters 17.3: 191-216.

Miller, Roy Andrew

 * (1955). “The Independent Status of Lhasa Dialect within Central Tibet.” Orbis: Bulletin international de documentation linguistique 4.1: PAGES.
 * (1956). “Segmental Diachronic Phonology of a Ladakh (Tibetan) Dialect.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morganländischen Gesellschaft 106: 345-362.
 * Miller, Roy Andrew. 1970. "A Grammatical Sketch of Classical Tibetan." In Journal of the American Oriental Society, 90, no. 1: 74-96. American Oriental Society.
 * (1974). (review of Benedict 1972). “Sino-Tibetan: Inspection of a Conspectus.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94: 195-209.
 * (1976). Studies in the grammatical tradition in Tibet. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 * (1993). Prologomena to the First Two Tibetan Grammatical Treatises. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 30). Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.
 * (1994). "A New Grammar of Written Tibetan." [Review of Beyer 1992]. Journal of the American Oriental Society 114.1: 67-76.

Mimaki, Katsumi

 * (1990). “ウパロサル (dBus pa blo gsal) の『新旧語彙集』(brDa gsar rñiṅ gi rnam par dbye ba) 校訂本初稿Dbus pa blo gsal no ‘Shin Kyuu Goi Shu’ –Kōteibon Shokō / A Fourteenth-Century Tibetan Lexicographical Work, the brDa gsar rñiṅ gi rnam par dbye ba by dBus pa blo gsal.” アジアの言語と一般言語学: 西田龍雄教授還暦記念論集 Ajia no gengo to ippan gengogaku: Nishida Tatsuo kyōju kanreki kinen ronshū / Asian Languages and General Linguistics, Festschrift for Prof. Tatsuo Nishida on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Tokyo: 三省堂 Sanseidō 17-54.
 * (1992). “Index to two brda gsar rnying treatises: the works of dbus pa blo gsal and lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje” 成田山仏敎硏究所紀要 Naritasan Bukkyō Kenkyūjo kiyō 15: 479-503).

Ming Shengzhi 敏生智
Xining: Qinghai Nationalities Press.
 * (1990) Anduo Zangyu Changyong Xuci Shili (An Explanation of Common Xuci in Amdo Tibetan).

Ming Shengzhi 敏生智, Geng Xianzong 耿显宗, Wang Qingshan 王青山

 * 1989 安多藏语会话选编 Anduo Zang yu hui hua xuan bian. Am do'i kha skad slob deb. [Selected dialogues in Amdo Tibetan] Xining: 青海民族出版社 Qinghai min zu chu ban she.

Nagano, Sadako

 * (1994) "A note on the Tibetan kinship terms khu and zhang." Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17.2: 103-115.

Nagano, Yasuhiko

 * (1994). "On a WT instrumental particle, -kyis ---Ergative marker, adverbializer and/or something else?" Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics. Kitamura Hajime et al. eds. Osaka: The Organizing Committee, the 26the International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. 716-720.

Nagano, Yasuhiko and Randy J. LaPolla, eds.

 * (2001). New research on Zhangzhung and related Himalayan languages. (Senri ethnological reports 19, Bon studies 3). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

Needham, J.F.

 * (1886). A few Dîgârô (Taaroán), (Mîjû) (M'jû), and Thibetian words collected by J. F. Needham, Esq., Assistant Political Officer, Sadiya, during a trip from Sadiya to Rima and back in December 1885 and January 1886. Shillong http://www.scribd.com/doc/41465552/Needham-1886-a-Few-Digaro-Grey

Nishida Tatsuo

 * (1988). “The mTsho-sna Monpa language of China and its place in the Tibeto-Burman Family.” David Bradley, et al. eds. Prosodic Analysis and Asian Linguistics to honour R. K. Sprigg. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. 223-236.

Norbu, Kalsang, Karl Peet, dPal Idan bKra shis, & Kevin Stuart

 * (2000). Modern Oral Amdo Tibetan: A Language Primer. Lewiston, NY : Edwin Mellen Press.

Norbu, Thubten Jigme and Tsuguhito Takeuchi

 * Norbu, Thubten Jigme and Tsuguhito Takeuchi. (1991) "Mongolian Loan-words in Tibetan and their Socio-Cultural Implications". Tibetan history and language: Studies dedicated to Uray Geza on his 70th Birthday. Ed. Ernst Steinkellner Wienver Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunden 26. vienna: Arbeitskreis fuer Tibetische und Buddhistischen Studie Universitaet Vien, 1991. 383-386.

Norberg-Hodge, Helena and Gyelong Thupstan Paldan (eds.).

 * (199?). Ladakhi-English English-Ladakhi Dictionary. 1st Edition. Leh: Ladakh Ecological Development Group and Ladakh Project.

Norman, Rebecca

 * (2001). Getting Started in Ladakhi. (2nd edition). Leh: Melong Publications.

Oetke, Claus

 * (1977)."Hilfs- und Modalverben". Die aus dem chinesichen Übersetzten Tibetischen Versionen des Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH: 359-414.

Pao et al. 鮑懷翹, 徐昂, 陳嘉猷

 * (1992) 藏語拉薩話語音聲學參數數據庫 "Zangyu Lasajia yuyinshengxue canshu juku" A database of Lhasa Tibetan phonetic parameters 民族語文 Minzu Yuwen 1992.5: 10-20.

Qu Aitang 瞿靄堂 and Tan Kerang 谭克让

 * (1983) 阿里藏语 Ali Zang yu. Beijing: 中國社会科学出版社 Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe.

Ramsay, H

 * (1890). Western Tibet; a practical dictionary of the language and customs of the districts included in the Ladák Wazarat. Lahore: Printed by W. Ball & Co.

Read, Alred F. C.

 * (1934). Balti Grammar. London: Royal Asiatic Society.

Regamey, Constantin

 * (1946/1947) "Considérations sur le système morphologique du tibétain littéraire." Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 6: 26-46.

Richardson, Hugh Edward

 * (1985). A corpus of early Tibetan inscriptions. (James G. Forlong series 29). London: Royal Asiatic Society.

Rnam-rgyal Tshe-ring, ed.

 * (2001) Bod yig brda rnying tshig mdzod. Beijing: Krung go`i bod rig dpe skrun khang.

Robin, Francoise and Alice Vittrant

 * (2007) "Reduplication dans les langues tibeto-birmanes: l'exemple du birman et du tibetain." Faits de langues 29: 77-98.

Roche, Gerald

 * (2008) "Amdo Tibetan Learning Resources: A Review Article.' Anthropos 103.1: 229-232.

Rockhill, William Woodville

 * (1891). The Land of the Lamas. New York: The Century co.

de Roerich, George

 * (1933). Dialects of Tibet: The Tibetan Dialect of Lahul. (Tibetica 1) New York: Urusvati Himalayan Research Institute of Roerich Museum.
 * (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.
 * (1983-87). RUSSIAN SCRIPT Tibetsko-russko-angliiskii slovar’s sanskritskimi paralleliami. Tibetan-Russian-English dictionary with Sanskrit parallels. Y. Parfionovich and V. Dylykova, eds. Moscow: Izd-vo "Nauka," Glav. red. vostochnoi lit-ry / Central Department of Oriental Literature.
 * with Tse-Trung Lopsang Phuntshok (1957). Textbook of colloquial Tibetian: dialect of central Tibet. Calcutta: Govt. of West Bengal, Education Dept., Education Bureau.

Roesler, Ulrike

 * (2011). "Sprachliche Besonderheiten" Frühe Quellen zum buddhistischen Stufenweg in Tibet: Indische und tibetische Traditionen im dPe chos des Po-to-ba Rin-chen-gsal. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 642-650.

Róna-Tas, András

 * Róna-Tas, András. 1984. "Some Remarks on the Vowel System of Spoken Tibetan." Tibetan and Buddhist studies commemorating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Csoma de Kőrös. Louis Ligeti, ed. Vol 2. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 215-235.
 * (1985). Wiener Vorlesungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte Tibets. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 13). Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.
 * (1992). "Reconstructing Old Tibetan." Ihara Shoren and Yamaguchi Zuiho, eds. Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989. Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji. Vol 2. 697-704.

Ruegg, David Seyford

 * Seyford, Reugg (1998). Sanskrit-Tibetan and Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionaries and some problems in Indo-Tibetan philosophical lexicography. In: B. Oguibénine (ed.), Lexicography in the Indian and Buddhist cultural fields (Studia Tibetica: Quellen und Studien zur tibetischen Lexicographie, Vol. 4, Munich, 1998), pp. 115-142.

Sadakane Ayako (貞兼綾子)

 * (昭和Shōwa 57 = 1982) チベット研究文献目錄: 日本文．中国文篇: 1877年 – 1977年 Chibetto kenkyū bunken mokuroku: Nihonbun Chūgokubun hen: 1877-nen – 1977-nen. Tokyo and Musashino: 亜細亜大学アジア研究所 Ajia Daigaku Ajia Kenkyūjo,
 * (1997). チベット研究文献目錄 II: 1978-1995           Chibetto kenkyū bunken mokuroku. II. 1978-1995 / A bibliography of Tibetan studies. Tokyo: 高科書店 Takashina Shoten.

Sandberg, Graham

 * (1888). Manual of the Sikkim Bhutia Language or Déjongké. Westminster: Archibald Constable and co.

Saxena, Anju

 * (1989). "Ergative in Mi=la=ras=pa' i rnam thar" Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 12.2: 35-39.
 * Saxena, Anju (1997). "Aspect and Evidential Morphology in Standard Lhasa Tibetan: A Diachronic Study." Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 26.281-306.

Sato Michio

 * (1994) "An examination of ergativity and the so-called 'middle-construction' in the Tibetan Language". Current Issues in Sino-Tibetan Linguistics. Kitamura Hajime et al. eds. Osaka: The Organizing Committee, the 26the International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. 985-991.

Schiefner, Anton








Schmidt, Iakov Ivanovich

 * (1841). Tibetisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, nebst deutschem Wortregister. St. Petersburg: Kaiserlichen akademie der wissenschaften..

Schöttelndreyer, Burkhard

 * 1978 "Narrative Discourse in Sherpa" Papers on discourse. Joseph E. Grimes, ed. 248-389.
 * Schöttelndreyer, Burkhard. 1980. Persons markers in Sherpa. Pacific Linguistics A 53. 125-­‐130.

Schroeter, Rev. Frederic Christian Gotthelf

 * (1826). A Dictionary of the Bhotanta or Boutan Language. Serampore.

Schwieger, Peter

 * 1989 ''Tibetisches Erzählgut aus Brag-g.yab: Texte mit Übersetzungen, grammatischem Abriss und Glossar. Bonn: VGH-Wissenschaftsverlag.
 * 2002. Zur Funktion der verbalen Kongruenz im Lhasa-Tibetischen, in: Sikhisamuccayah: Indian and Tibetan Studies (Collectanea Marpurgensia Indologica et Tibetica), ed. By D. Dimitrov, U. Roesler, R. Steiner, Wien 2002, pp. 175-184. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 53)
 * (2006). Handbuch zur Grammatik der klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH.

Sedláček, Kamil

 * (1959). “The Tonal System of Tibetan (Lhasa Dialect).” T'oung Pao 47: 181-250.
 * (1972). Tibetan Newspaper Reader. Leipzig: Verlag Enzykopädie.
 * (1974). (review of Benedict 1972). Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländische Gesellschaft 124: 205-206.
 * with I.M. Parfionovich and B.D. Dandaron (1963). RUSSIAN SCRIPT Kratkiǐ tibetsko-russkiǐ slovar’ Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo Inostrannykh I Natsional’nykh Slovareĭ, 1963.

Shafer, Robert

 * Robert Shafer (1950-1951). “Studies in the Morphology of Bodic Verbs.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 13.3-4: 702-724, 1017–1031.
 * (1957). Bibliography of Sino-Tibetan Languages. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
 * (1966-????). Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [reviewed by Miller ???]
 * (1966-????). Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [reviewed by Miller ???]

Shao,James M.-Y (邵明園)

 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2011. "阿柔藏语的音韵系统及历史演变""Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of the Tibetan Dialect of A-rig" M.A.thesis. Nankai University.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2012. "书面藏语的小称 The Diminutive Markers of the Written Tibetan" "语言科学 Linguistic Sciences" 11.3:287-300.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2012. "安多藏语的差比句 The comparative construction in Amdo(安多) dialect" 东方语言学 EASTLING 12:27-41.
 * Nyima Tshering. 2013. "拂庐"辩难 A Textual Exegesis on the Chinese Word “Fulu”西藏研究 Tibetan Studies 6:100-105.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) & Rigvdzin Rgyamtsho. 2013. "藏语共和方言动词时式的演化 The evolution of the verb morphology of Gonghe(共和) Tibetan" 安多研究 Amdo Studies 10:140-148.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2014. "安多藏语阿柔话的示证范畴""Evidentiality in A-rig Dialect of Amdo Tibetan" Ph.D.thesis. Nankai University.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2014."藏语示证范畴研究综述" A Review of Studies on Tibetan Evidentiality”.藏学学刊Journal of Tibetology 11.China Tibetology Publishing House.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2015. "安多藏语言说动词zer和bzlas的语法化"" The Grammaticalization of Reporting Verbs “zer” and “bzlas” in Amdo Tibetan. 语言科学 Linguistic Sciences 14(1): 72-88.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2015."藏语差比助词bas溯源""The Grammaticalization of Comparative Marker bas in Written Tibetan".语言学论丛，第52辑.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2015."从趋向动词到示证标记-藏语亲知示证标记thal的语法化"From Directional Verb to Evidential Marker:On the Grammaticalization of the Evidential Marker thal in Tibetic Languages.藏学学刊Journal of Tibetology 13.China Tibetology Publishing House.
 * Shao,James M.-Y. (邵明園) 2016."藏语系动词red的语法化"The Grammticalizition of the Copula Verb red in Tibetic Languages. Language & Linguistics 17(5).

Simon, Walter







 * (1962). “Tibetan par, dpar, spar, and cognate words.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 25:72080 (?)
 * (1962). “Tibetan par, dpar, spar, and cognate words.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 25:72080 (?)










 * Simon, Walter (1970) "Some suggestions toward a Romanization of modern Tibetan (Lhasa dialect)." Roman Jakobson and Shigeo Kawamoto, eds. Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics. Tokyo: TEC, 535-539.
 * (1971). “Tibetan ‘fifteen’ and ‘eighteen’.” Études Tibétaines: dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou. Paris: Libraire d’Amérique et d’Orient
 * (1971). “Tibetan ‘fifteen’ and ‘eighteen’.” Études Tibétaines: dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou. Paris: Libraire d’Amérique et d’Orient

Sprigg, Richard Keith
Sprigg, Richard Keith (2002). Balti-English English-Balti dictionary. Richmond: RoutledgeCurzon.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1954). "Verbal Phrases in Lhasa Tibetan I".Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16.1:134-156.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1954). "Verbal Phrases in Lhasa Tibetan II".Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16.2:320-350.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1954). "Verbal Phrases in Lhasa Tibetan III".Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16.3:566-591.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1954). "The tonal system of nouns and adjectives in the Lhasa dialect of spoken Tibetan." Proceedings of the 23rd Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 1954, 262-266. London: Royal Asiatic Society.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1955). "The Tonal System of Tibetan (Lhasa Dialect) and the Nominal Phrase." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 17.1:133-153. reprinted in F.R. Palmer, ed. Prosodic analysis, 112-132. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1961). "Vowel harmony in Lhasa Tibetan, prosodic analysis applied to interrelated vocalic features of successive syllables." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 24: 116–138. reprinted in F.R. Palmer, ed. Prosodic Analysis., 230-252. London: Oxford University Press 1970.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1963). "Vowel harmony in Lhasa Tibetan." Trudy XXV Mjezdunarodnogo Kongrjessa, Vostoksjedov, Moskva 1960, 5:189-194.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1966). "Lepcha and Balti Tibetan, tonal or non tonal." Asia Major (New Series) 12: 185–201.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1967). “Balti-Tibetan Verb Syllable Finals and a Prosodic Analysis.” Asia Major (New Series) 14.1:187-210 (?? 13/1-2:187-210.)
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1968). "The role of 'R' in the development of the modern spoken Tibetan dialects." Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21.3. 301-311
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1969). The Phonology of the grammatical constituents of verbal-phrase words in spoken Tibetan (Lhasa Dialect). PhD dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1970). “Vyajñanabhakti, and irregularities in the Tibetan Verb.” Bulletin of Tibetology 7.2: 5-20
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1972). "Assimilation, and the definite nominal particle in Balti Tibetan." 'Bulletin of Tibetology'' 9.2: 5–19.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1974). "The main features of the Tibetan dialect." Bulletin of Tibetology 11.1: 11-15.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1976). "Tibetan, its relation with other languages." Tibetan Review (New Delhi) 11.4: 14-16.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1977). "Tonal units and tonal classification: Panjabi, Tibetan and Burmese." H.S. Gill, ed. Parole and Langue. Pakha Sanjam 13 (1975-76): 1-21.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1979). “The Golok dialect and Written Tibetan past-tense verb forms”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42:53-60
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1980). “‘Vocalic alternation’ in Balti, the Lhasa, and the Sherpa verb, as a guide to alternation in Written Tibetan, and to Proto-Tibetan Reconstruction”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43:110-122
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1980). "Vowel harmony in noun-and-particle words in the Tibetan of Baltistan." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43: 511–519/AOH 34: 235–43.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1981). “The Chang-Shefts tonal analysis, and the pitch variation of the Lhasa Tibetan tones.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6.1:49-60
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1987). “‘Rhinoglottophilia’ revisited: observations on ‘the mysterious connection between nasality and glottality.’” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 10.1. 44-62.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1990), "Tone in Tamang and Tibetan and the advantages of keeping register-based tone systems separate from contour-based systems", Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 33-56
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1991), "The spelling style pronunciation of Written Tibetan and the hazards of using citation forms in the phonological analysis of spoken Tibetan", in Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 93-131.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1993). "Controversy in the tonal analysis of Tibetan." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 56: 470–501.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (1996). "My Balti-Tibetan and English dictionary, and its predecessors." The Tibet Journal 21.4: 3–22.
 * Sprigg, Richard Keith (2007). "Tibetan orthography, the Balti dialect, and a contemporary phonological theory." Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond. Roland Bielmeier and Felix Haller, eds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Skorupski, Tadeuse

 * (2001). Bod dbyin tshig mdzod chen mo / An Encylopaedic Tibetan-English Dictionary. Volume One ka-nya. Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang dang shar phyogs dang a hphi ri kha’i zhes rig slob gling / The Nationalities Publishing House and The school of Oriental and African Studies.

Stack, Edward

 * (1897). Some Tsangla-Bhutanese sentences. Shillong.

Steward, FIRST NAME

 * (1947). Review of Gould and Richardson (1943). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society : 108-109.

Strahm, Esther

 * Strahm, Esther (1975) “Clause Patterns in Jirel” Collected Papers on Sherpa, Jirel. Austin Hale, ed. Nepal Studies in Linguistics 2. Kirtipur: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 73-146.

Sun Hong-kai, et al.

 * (1991). 藏緬語語音和詞彙 Zang Mian yu yu yin he ci hui. Beijing: 中國社會科學出版 Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe.

Sun, Jackson T. S.(孫天心)

 * (1984). Review of Melvyn C. Goldstein. English-Tibetan dictionary of modern Tibetan. 《漢學研究通訊》. 4.3:189-90. Los Angeles, University of California Press.
 * Sun, Jackson T. S. 1986. Aspects of the phonology of Amdo Tibetan: Ndzorge Śæme Xɤra dialect (Monumenta Serindica 16). Tokyo: Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
 * 1987. 〈談安多藏語方言若兒蓋話的一種語音現象〉. 《西藏研究會訊》. 3.
 * 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology. 63.4: 143-188.
 * 1997. Typology of tone in Tibetan. Chinese languages and linguistics IV: Typological studies of languages in China; Symposium series of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica; Number 2. Nankang, Taipei: Academia Sinica.  孫天心. 1990. 〈中印邊界「麥克馬洪」地區的民族及語言〉. 《西藏研究論文集－3》. 19-36. 台北：西藏研究委
 * 2003 〈求吉藏語的語音特徵〉. 《民族語文》. 2003.6: 1-6.
 * 2003. "Phonological profile of Zhongu: A new Tibetan dialect of Northern Sichuan." Language and Linguistics. 4.4: 769-836.
 * 2003. Variegated tonal developments in Tibetan. Language Variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff. Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU.
 * Sun, Jackson T. S (孫天心) 2004. 〈草登嘉戎語的狀貌詞〉. 《民族語文》2004. 5: 1-11.
 * Sun, Jackson T. S (孫天心) 2005. 〈嘉戎語組語言的音高：兩個個案研究〉. 《語言研究》. 25.1: 50-59.
 * Sun, Jackson T. S (孫天心) 2006. 〈草登嘉戎語的關係句〉. Language and Linguistics. 7.4: 905-933.
 * Sun, Jackson T. S (孫天心) 2006. 〈嘉戎語動詞的派生形態〉. 《民族語文》. 2006.4: 3-14.
 * Sun, Jackson T. S. 2006. Special Linguistic features of gSerpa Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area. 29.107-125.
 * Sun, Jackson T. S (孫天心) 2007. 〈藏緬語的調查〉. 《語言學論叢》.
 * (2007). “Perfective stem renovation in Khalong Tibetan.” Linguistics of the Himalayas and Beyond. Mouton de Gruyter.

Sun, Y.

 * Sun, Y., Wang, Z., Zhao, X., & Yang, G. (2009). Design of a Tibetan Automatic Word Segmentation Scheme. 2009 International Conference on Information Engineering and Computer Science. doi:10.1109/iciecs.2009.5366542
 * Yuan Sun, Xiaodong Yan, Xiaobing Zhao, & Guosheng Yang. (2010). A resolution of overlapping ambiguity in Tibetan word segmentation. 2010 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology. doi:10.1109/iccsit.2010.5564051

Sung, Kuo-Ming, & Lha Byams Rgyal

 * (2005). Colloquial Amdo Tibetan: A Complete Course for Adult English Speakers. Xining: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang.

Suo Wenqing (索文清)

 * (1999). チベット研究文献目錄 Chibetto kenkyū bunken mokuroku [Bibliography of Tibetan studies 1945-1999 ]. Tokyo: 風響社 Fūkyōsha.

Suzuki Hiroyuki 鈴木 博之

 * (2004) " アムドチベット語チャプチャ・チェルジェ牧民方言の音声分析(Amudo Chibettogo Chapucha-Cheruje Bokumin Hōgen no Onseibunseki) Amdo Tibetan Chabcha/Cherje Nomadic Dialect : a Phonetic Analysis" Kyoto University Linguistic Research 『京都大学言語学研究』(Kyōto Daigaku Gengogaku Kenkyuu) 23: 145-166.
 * (2005) " チベット語音節構造の研究(Chibettogo Onsetsu Kōzō no Kenkyuu) Study on the syllable system in Tibetan" Journal of Asian and African Studies 『アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究』(Azia Afurika Gengo Bunka Kenkyuu) 69: 1-23.
 * (2005) " チベット語丹巴・梭坡[Sogpho] 方言の音声分析(Chibettogo Danba-Sopo [Sogpho] Hōgen no Onseibunseki) Phonetic Analysis of Tibetan Sogpho Dialect" NIDABA 『ニダバ』 34: 96-104.
 * (2005) " Einige Bemerkungen über den Ursprung des creaky Tons im Tibetischen von Sharkhog [Songpan-Jiuzhaigou]" Kyoto University Linguistic Research 『京都大学言語学研究』(Kyōto Daigaku Gengogaku Kenkyuu) 24: 45-57.
 * (2006) " チベット語塔公[Lhagang] 方言の方言特徴とその背景(Chibettogo Tōkō [Lhagang] Hōgen no Hōgentokuchō to sono Haikei) Dialectal Characteristics of Tibetan Lhagang Dialect and its Background" NIDABA 『ニダバ』 35: 39-47.
 * (2006) " アムドチベット語中阿壩[rNgawa]方言の音声分析(Amudo Chibettogo Tyuu-Aba [rNgawa] Hōgen no Onseibunseki) Amdo Tibetan rNgawa dialect : Phonetic Analysis" Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 『アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学』(Azia Afurika no Gengo to Gengogaku) 1: 59-88. (collaborated with Yeshemtsho)
 * (2007) " 甘孜州郷城県カムチベット語の方言特徴(Kanzesyuu Kyōzyō Kamu Chibettogo no Hōgentokuchō) Dialectal Characteristics of Khams Tibetan Chaphreng Dialect" NIDABA 『ニダバ』 36: 17-26.
 * (2007) " カムチベット語新都橋[Rangakha]方言の音声分析(Kam Chibettogo Shintokyō [Rangakha] Hōgen no Onseibunseki) Khams Tibetan Rangakha dialect : Phonetic Analysis" Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 『アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学』(Azia Afurika no Gengo to Gengogaku) 2: 131-162.
 * (2007) " チベット語包座[Babzo]方言の音声分析とその方言特徴(Chibettogo Hōza [Babzo] Hōgen no Onsei Bunseki to sono Hōgen Tokuchō) Tibetan Babzo Dialect: Phonetic and Dialectal Analysis" Journal of Asian and African Studies 『アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究』(Azia Afurika Gengo Bunka Kenkyuu) 74: 101-120.
 * (2008) " 迪慶州瀾滄江流域カムチベット語（徳欽/雲嶺/燕門/巴迪方言）の方言特徴(Tekikeisyuu Lansōkō Ryuuiki Kamu Chibettogo (Tokukin/Unrei/Enmon/Bateki Hōgen) no Hōgentokutyō) Dialectal Characteristics of Khams Tibetan spoken along Lancang Rivier in bDechen (nJol/Yungling/Yanmen/Budy Dialects)" NIDABA 『ニダバ』 37: 115-124.
 * (2008) " Nouveau regard sur les dialectes tibétains à l’est d’Aba : phonétique et classification du dialecte de Sharkhog [Songpan-Jiuzhaigou]" Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31.1: 85-108.
 * (2008) " ヒャルチベット語九寨溝・玉瓦[gZhungwa]方言の音声分析(Hyaru Chibettogo Kyuusaikō-Gyikuga [gZhungwa] Hōgen no Onseibunseki) Shar Tibetan gZhungwa dialect : Phonetic Analysis" Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 『アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学』(Azia Afurika no Gengo to Gengogaku) 3: 135-168.
 * (2009) " Introduction to the method of the Tibetan linguistic geography —— a case study in the Ethnic Corridor ofWest Sichuan ——" In: Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.) Linguistic Substratum in Tibet —— New Perspective towards Historical Methodology (No. 16102001) Report Vol. 3: 15-34.
 * (2009) " Preliminary report on the linguistic geography for multicoloured Tibetan dialects of Yunnan" In: Makoto Minegishi, Kingkarn Thepkanjana, Wirote Arōnmanakun & Mitsuaki Endo (eds.) Proceedings of the Chulalongkorn-Japan Linguistics Symposium 267-279. Tokyo: Global COE Program ‘Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education,’ Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
 * (2009) " 金沙江流域カムチベット語（奔子欄/尼西/拖頂/霞若/其宗方言）の方言特徴(Tekikeisyuu Kinsakō Ryuuiki Kamu Chibettogo (Honziran/Nisei/Totyō/Kazyaku/Kisyuu Hōgen) no Hōgentokutyō) Dialectal Characteristics of Khams Tibetan spoken along Jinsha Rivier in bDechen (sPomtserag/Nyishe/Thoteng/Byagzhol/Qizong Dialects)" NIDABA 『ニダバ』 38: 29-38.
 * (2009) " Deux remarques à propos du développement du ra-btags en tibétain parlé" Revue d’étude tibétaine 16: 75-82.
 * (2009) " Origin of non-Tibetan words in Tibetan dialects of the Ethnic Corridor in West Sichuan" In: Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.) Issues in Tibeto-Burman Historical Linguistics 71-96. Suita : National Museum of Ethnology.
 * (2009) " カムチベット語奔子欄[sPomtserag]方言の音声分析(Kamu Chibettogo Honshiran [sPomtsherag] Hōgen no Onseibunseki) Khams Tibetan sPomtserag dialect : Phonetic Analysis" Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 『アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学』(Azia Afurika no Gengo to Gengogaku) 4: 219-258.
 * (2009) " Tibetan dialects spoken in Shar khog and Khod po khog" EAST and WEST 59(1-4): 273-283.
 * (2010) " カムチベット語瓊波/沖倉[Khyungpo/Khromtshang]方言の音声分析とその方言特徴(Kam Chibettogo Kyōha/Chuusō [Khyungpo/Khromtshang] Hōgen no Onsei Bunseki to sono Hōgen Tokuchō) Khams Tibetan Khyungpo/Khromtshang Dialect: Phonetic and Dialectal Analysis" Journal of Asian and African Studies 『アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究』(Azia Afurika Gengo Bunka Kenkyuu) 79: 95-120.
 * (2010) " カムチベット語燕門/斯嘎[Yanmen/Sakar] 方言の方言特徴(Kamu Chibettogo Enmon/Siga [Yanmen/Sakar] Hōgen no Hōgentokutyō) Dialectal Characteristics of Khams Tibetan Sakar Dialects" NIDABA 『ニダバ』 39: 78-87.
 * (2010) " カムチベット語香格里拉県浪都[Lamdo]方言の方言所属(Kamu Chibettogo Shangriraken Lōto [Lamdo] Hōgen no Hoogen Shozoku) Dialectal Position of the Lamdo [Langdu] dialect of Khams Tibetan spoken in Shangri-La County" Bulletin of National Museum of Ethnology『国立民族学博物館研究報告』(Kokuritsu Minzokugaku Hakubutsukan Kenkyuu Hōkoku) 35.1: 231-264.
 * (2010) " カムチベット語維西塔城[mThachu]方言におけるそり舌化母音---その音声学的特徴の記述と分析(Kamu Chibettogo Isei Tōzyō [mThachu] Hōgen ni okeru Sorisita Boin---sono Onseigakuteki Tokutyoo no Kizyutu to Bunseki) Retroflex vowels in Khams Tibetan mThachu Dialect : Description and Analysis of its Phonetic Characteristics" Kyoto University Linguistic Research 『京都大学言語学研究』(Kyōto Daigaku Gengogaku Kenkyuu) 29: 27-42.
 * (2010) " ヒャルチベット語大寨[Astong]方言の音声分析(Hyaru Chibettogo Daisai [Astong] Hōgen no Onseibunseki) Shar Tibetan Astong dialect : Phonetic Analysis" Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 『アジア・アフリカの言語と言語学』(Azia Afurika no Gengo to Gengogaku) 5: 117-155.
 * (2011) " Deux remarques supplémentaires à propos du développement du ra-btags en tibétain parlé" Revue d’étude tibétaine 20: 123-133.
 * (2011) " Phonetic analysis of dGudzong Tibetan: The vernacular of Khams Tibetan spoken in the rGyalrong area" Bulletin of National Museum of Ethnology 35.4: 617-653.
 * (2011) " 〈嘎嘎塘藏語的咽化元音與其來源(Gagatang Zangyu de Yanhua Yuanyin yu qi Laiyuan) Pharyngealised Vowels in Gagatang Tibetan and their Origin" Language and Linguistics 『語言曁語言學』(Yuyan ji Yuyanxue) 12.2: 477-500.

Takahashi Yoshiharu 高橋 慶治

 * 1989 現代チベット語における格助詞の意味機能について －LA格助詞を中心に－
 * 1992 現代チベット語 (中央方言) における複合形容詞の研究 : その修飾構造と内部構造についての一考察. A Study of Composite Adjectives in Modern Tibetan (Central Dialect): an analysis of their modifying and internal structure アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究 Journal of Asian and African Studies 43: 109-122.
 * 1992 現代チベット語における動詞の分類 A Classification of Verbs in Modern Tibetan. 国立民族学博物館研究報告 17(2), 343-368.
 * 1995 現代チベット語(中央方言)における格助詞と動詞の項構造

Takeuchi Tsuguhito 武内紹人

 * (1978). 現代チベット語における文の構造 Gendai Chibetto-go ni okeru bun no kōzō [The structure of the sentence in modern Tibetan]. Ma Thesis, Kyoto University.
 * Takeuchi Tsuguhito 武内紹人 (1987). "チベット語の敬語表現　Chibettogo no keigo hyōgen." 言語 Gengō 16.8: 66-67.
 * 1990 “チベット語の述部に置ける助動詞の昨日と園発達方栄 Chibetto-go no jutsubu ni okeru jidōshi no kinō to sono hattatsu katei / The semantic Function of Auxiliary verbs in Tibetan and their historical development” Asian Languages and General Linguistics, 崎山理編『アジアの諸言語と一般言語学』東京：三省堂Tokyo (1990): 6-16
 * (1993) (review) 北村甫･長野泰彦著『現代チベット語分類辞典』汲古書院,1990. 言語研究 (Gengo Kenkyū) 104: 157-167
 * (1997-1998). Old Tibetan manuscripts from East Turkestan in the Stein Collection of the British Library. Tokyo and London: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco, The Toyo Bunko, The British Library.
 * (2012) "Formation and Transformation of Old Tibetan". Historical Development of the Tibetan Languages. Tsuguhito Takeuchi and Norihiko Hayashi, eds. Kobe: Research Institute of Foreign Studies, Kobe University of Foreign Studies. 3-18.
 * Takeuchi, Tsuguhito. 2015. The function of auxiliary verbs in Tibetan predicates and their historical development. Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines, 31. 401–415. (translation of Takeuchi 1990).
 * Takeuchi, Tsuguhito. 2015. The function of auxiliary verbs in Tibetan predicates and their historical development. Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines, 31. 401–415. (translation of Takeuchi 1990).

Takeuchi, Tsuguhito and Yoshiharu Takahashi

 * (1995). “Split Ergative Patters in Transitive and Intransitive Sentences in Tibetan: a Reconsideration.” Yoshio Nishi et al. (eds.), New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax. (Senri Ethnological Studies 41). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. 277-88

Tang Kerang 譚剋讓 and Kong Jiangping 孔江平

 * (1991). "藏語拉薩話元音、韻母的長短及其與聲調的關繫 Vowels, vowel length and the relationship tone in Lhasa Tibetan." 民族語文 Minzu Yuwen 1991.2: 12-21.

Taube, Manfred

 * Taube, Manfred. 1953-1954. Die Wiedergabe sanskritischer Verbformen im tibetishe Texte des Bodhicaryavatara. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl Marx-Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschafliche Reie. 3. Jahrgang (1953/54), Heft 4. 393-412.
 * (1978). “Zu einige Texten der tibetischen brda-gsar-rnying-Literatur.” Asienwissenschaftliche Beiträge: *Johannes Schubert in memoriam. eds. Eberhardt Richter and Manfred Taube. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Völkerkunde zu Leipzig, 32. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 169-201 DOUBLE CHECK CITATION

Temple, Ross

 * Temple, Ross (2012). Conditioning Environments of Old Tibetan Palatalization. MA thesis, Indiana University.

Tharchin, G. Rev.

 * (1968) The English Tibetan Hindi Pocket-Dictionary. Revised and Reprinted by the Author at the Tibet Mirror Press, Kalimpong, West Bengal.

Thomas, Frederick William

 * (1935-1965).Tibetan literary texts and documents concerning Chinese Turkestan. (Oriental transation fund Publication. New series 32, 37, 40, 41). London: The Royal Asiatic Society.

Tillemans, Tom

 * (review of Verhagen 2001). Asiatische Studien / Etudes asiatiques 57.1, (2003) : 213-235]

Tillemans, T. / Herforth, D.

 * (1989) Agents and actions in classical Tibetan: the indigenous grammarians on Bdag and Gzan and Bya byed las gsum. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 21. Wien: Universität Wien, Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien.

Tournadre, Nicolas

 * (1988) A propos du sujet et de la morphologie nominale en tibétain (Vision traditionnelle et proposition d'outils descriptifs modernes), Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 1988, vol.83, n°1, p.277-292.
 * (1990) Présentation de la grammaire traditionnelle et des cas du tibétain : Approche classique et analyse moderne -- In : Tibet : Civilisation et société - Colloque organisé par la Fondation Singer-Polignac à Paris, les 27, 28, 29 avril 1987 -- Paris : Fondation Singer-Polignac : Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1990, p.189-198.
 * (1991) "The rhetorical use of the Tibetan ergative", in Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 93-108. []
 * (1992) "La deixis en tibétain : Quelques faits remarquables" La deixis. L. Danon-Boileau, M.-A. Morel (eds.). Paris: PUF, p.197-208
 * (1996). L'ergativité en tibétain : approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Paris: Peeters
 * (1996) "Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains (tibétain central, ladakhi, dzongkha et amdo)" L'énonciation médiatisée. Z. Guentchéva (Ed.). Louvain: Peeters, 195-213
 * (1999) "La langue du pays des neiges." Action poétique 157: 15-24.
 * & Konchok Jiatso,(2001) "Final auxiliary verbs in literary Tibetan and in the dialects" in Person and Evidence in Himalayan Languages. LTBA special issue, Spring 2001, p. 177-239, Berkeley.
 * (2002) "Le bilinguisme tibétain-chinois en régions et préfectures autonomes tibétaines : Situation et enjeux." Perspectives chinoises 74: 31-37.
 * with Sangda Dorjé, 2003, Manuel de tibétain standard, langue et civilisation (préface de Claude Hagège), Paris, L’Asiathèque « Langues et mondes », 544 p., accompagné de 2 CD. [2nde édition révisée]
 * (2005) "L'aire linguistique tibétaine et ses divers dialectes." Lalies, 2005, n°25, p.7-56
 * (2008) "Arguments against the Concept of ‘Conjunct’/‘Disjunct’ in Tibetan" in Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek. Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. B. Huber, M. Volkart, P. Widmer, P. Schwieger, (Eds), Vol 1. p. 281–308.
 * (2009a) Tournadre N. et Jamborová D., "Taxis : Temps déictique, Temps Relatif, Ordre Séquentiel" in actes du colloque „Románske štúdie: súčasný stav a perspektívy“ [Études romanes : situation contemporaine et perspectives], 26. - 27. marca 2009 v Banskej Bystrici Studia Romanistica Beliana. Banská Bystrica, p. 458-466.
 * (2009b) Tournadre N. Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa, Gyurme Chodrak and Guillaume Oisel, Sherpa-English and English-Sherpa Dictionary, with Literary Tibetan and Nepali equivalents, 295 p. Vajra Bookstore, Kathmandu.
 * Tournadre, Nicolas and Randy J. LaPolla. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 240-263.

Tsan chung

 * (1979). Dag yig gsar bsgrigs. Xining: mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang 1979, 1994, 1999, 2001.

Tshe dbang rnam rgyal

 * (1958) Dag yig ma nor lam bzang, Beijing, mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1958; 1997).

Tsering, Dhondup

 * (2002). Review of Goldstein 2001. The Tibet Journal 26.3-4: 210-211.

Tsering Rgyal

 * (2005) 才让加 (ཚེ་རིང་རྒྱ།), 吉太加 (མཆོག་ཐར་རྒྱལ།). “基于藏语语料库的词类分类方法研究,” 西北民族大学学报 (自然科学版), 2005 年 6 月第 26 卷总第 57 期, pp.39-42. [Tsering Gya, Chogthar Gyal. “Studies on a Taxonomic Approach to Part of Speech Identification in the Tibetan Corpus,” Journal of Northwest University for Nationalities. Natural Sciences, vol. 26 no. 57 (June 2005), pp.39-42.] http://www.lw23.com/pdf_d1fe578c-09f5-443b-bacc-5eb7bbdd649f/lunwen.pdf


 * (2010) "Research on a Standard for POS Tagging of Contemporary Tibetan for TIP" Paper presented at the 12th IATS. http://www.columbia.edu/~ph2046/iats/it/IATS-XII_Gya_paper.pdf

Uray, Géza

 * (1952). "A Tibetan diminutive suffix." Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2:182-220
 * (1953). “Some problems of the ancient Tibetan verbal morphology: methodological observations on recent studies.” Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae: 37-62.
 * (1953). “The suffix -e in Tibetan.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3: 229-244.
 * (1954). “Duplication, germination and triplication in Tibetan.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4.1-3: 177-256.
 * (1955). “On the Tibetan Letters ba and wa: Contribution to the Origin and History of the Tibetan Alphabet.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 5.1: 101-121.

Vesalainen, Olavi and Marja Vesalainen

 * (1980). Clause Patterns in Lhomi. (Pacific Linguistics Series B-53.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.

Verhagen, Pieter

 * (1994). A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet. volume1: Transmission of the Canonical Literature. (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Ab 2. vol 8). Leiden: Brill. [reviewd Eimer, Helmut (1995)]
 * (2001). A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet. volume 2: Assimilation into Indigenous Scholarship. (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Ab 2. vol 8.) Leiden: Brill. [reviewed, Tillemans, Tom (2003)]

Viehbeck, Markus

 * Markus Viehbeck, “Coming to Terms with Tibet: Scholarly Networks and the Production of the  First ‘Modern’ Tibetan Dictionaries,”  Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no.  37, December 2016, pp. 469–489.

Vigne, Godfrey Thomas

 * vol 2, p. 434-435.

Walter, Michael
74–235. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
 * Walter, Michael.  2006.  “A  Bibliography  of  Tibetan  Dictionaries.”  In Bibliographies     of     Mongolian,  Manchu-Tungus,  and Tibetan Dictionaries,  edited  by  Hartmut  Walravens,  1

Wangher, Andreas and Bettina Zeisler

 * (2004) "A Syntactically Annotated Corpus of Tibetan." The 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation,

Wang Qingshan 王青山

 * (1975). 藏语口语语法（油印稿）[M]. 西宁：青海民族学院少语系.
 * Wang, Qingshan [王青山] (1995) A Grammar of Spoken Amdo Tibetan. Chengdu: Sichuan Nationality Publishing House.

Wang Yao 王尧

 * Wang Yao. 1996. "藏语zla─ba一词音义考 The sound and meaning of the word zla-ba in Tibetan language." 民族语文 Minzu Yuwen 1996, no. 5, pp. 48-52.

王双成 Wang Shuangcheng and 陈忠敏 Chen Zhongmin

 * (2010) “安多藏语送气擦音的实验研究 An Experimental Study on the Aspirated Fricatives in Amdo Tibetan Dialect.” 民族语文 Minority Languages of China 2010.02: 7-15.

Wang Zhijing 王志敬

 * (1994). བོད་སྐད་ལྷ་སའི་སྐད་ཀྱི་འགྲོ་ལུགས / 藏语拉萨口语语法 Zangyu Lasa kouyu yufa [A grammar of spoken Lhasa Tibetan]. 中央民族大学出版社: 新华书店北京发行所发行, Zhongyang minzu daxue chubanshe.

Wen Yu

 * (1947) "Phonetic Changes of the Superadded and Prefixed Letters in Eastern Tibetan Dialects." Studia Serica 5: 1-22.

Wilhelm, Friedrich

 * (1962). “Ein Beitrag zur tibetischen Lexikographie.” Central Asiatic Journal 7: 212-225.

Wilson, Joe B.

 * (1992). Translating Buddhism From Tibetan. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.

Wolfenden, Stuart N.

 * (1928). "The Prefix m- with Certain Substantives in Tibetan." Language 4.4:277-280.

Woodbury, Anthony C.

 * (1986). Interactions of tense and evidentiality: a study of Sherpa and English. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), 188–202. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wylie, Turrell V.

 * (1980). Review of Goldstein 1975. The Journal of Asian Studies 40.1: 123-124.

Yu Daoquan 于道泉 et al.

 * (1983) 藏汉对照拉萨口语词典 Bod Rgya śan sbyar gyi Lha sa'i kha skad tshig mdzod / Zang Han dui zhao Lasa kou yu ci dian. Beijing:  民族出版社 Minzu chubanshe.

Yukawa Yasutosi 湯川泰敏

 * (1966). "チベット語のduuの意味 Chibettogo no duu no imi [The meaning of Tibetan duu.]" 言語研究　Gengo Kenkyū 49: 77-84.
 * (1971) "チベット語の述部の輪郭 Chibettogo no jutsubu no ringaku [Outline of Tibetan Predicates]" 言語学の基本問題 Basic problems in linguistics. 178-204. 大修館　Taishūkan
 * (1975)「チベット語のgiの意味」The Meaning of Tibetan gi"．アジア・アフリカ言語文化研究所通信 ILCAA Newsletter 23: 38-39.
 * (1975) チベット語の述語 Chibettogo no jutsugo [The Predicates of Tibetan] アジア・アフリカ文法硏究 Ajia Afurika bunpō kenkyū Asian & African Linguistics. 4: 1-14. Tokyo: ILCAA.

Zemp, Marius

 * (2006). Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of the Tibetan Dialect of Kargil. Master's Thesis, Bern.

Zeisler, Bettina

 * (2000). Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: The issue of mirativity. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23.2: 39-78.
 * (2001). "The development of temporal coding in Tibetan: some suggestions for a functional internal reconstruction. Part II: The original semantics of the 'past stem' of controlled action verbs and the re-organisation of the Proto-Tibetan verb system. Zentralasiatische Studien 31: 169-216.
 * (2002): "The development of temporal coding in Tibetan: some suggestions for a functional internal reconstruction. (1): Unexpected use of the 'imperative' stem in Old Tibetan and Themchen (Amdo Tibetan)." In: Henk Blezer (ed.), Tibet, Past and Present. PIATS 2000: Tibetan studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Leiden 2000. (Brills Tibetan Studies Library, 2/1.) Leiden etc.: Brill: 441-453.
 * (2004). Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: a comparative study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
 * (2006). “Why Ladakhi must not be written – Being part of the great tradition: Another kind of global thinking.” Anju Saxen & Lars Borin (eds.), Lesser-Known Languages of South Asia. Status and Policies, Case Studies and Applications of Information Technology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 175-94.
 * (2009). “Reducing phonological complexity and grammatical opaqueness: Old Tibetan as a lingua franca and the development of the modern Tibetan varieties”. In Complex Processes in New Languages, Aboh, Enoch O. and Norval Smith (eds.), 75–95.
 * Zeisler, Bettina (2017). 'Hypothetical sound laws and sound potential meaning. Once again on the uncommon Tibetan verb paradigm za, zos, zo ‘eat’.' International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 14: 77–117.

Zhang Jichuan 張濟川

 * (2009) 藏語詞族研究 Zangyu cizu yanjiu [Tibetan Word Family Research]. Beijing: Shehui kexue chubanshe.
 * (2009) 藏語詞族研究 Zangyu cizu yanjiu [Tibetan Word Family Research]. Beijing: Shehui kexue chubanshe.
 * (2009) 藏語詞族研究 Zangyu cizu yanjiu [Tibetan Word Family Research]. Beijing: Shehui kexue chubanshe.

Zhang Liansheng

 * (1985) The phonetic structure of ABCB type words in modern Lhasa Tibetan. Soundings in Tibetan civilization. B.N. Aziz, M. Kapstein, eds. Delhi: Manohar. 20-34.
 * (1986). “The puzzle of da-drag in Tibetan.” Linguistics of the Tibeo-Burman Area 9/1:47-64
 * (1987). “The consonant system of middle-old Tibetan and the tonogenesis of Tibetan.” Ph.D. thesis University of California, Berkeley
 * (1988)“A quantative study of the Preservation in Modern Tibetan of Ancient Tibetan Final stop *-k.” Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 4th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies Schloss Hohenkammer — Munich 1985. Helga Uebach and Jampa L. Panglung, eds. (Studia Tibetica 2). Munich: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 567-582.

Zhang Yisun 张怡荪 / Krang dpyi sun

 * (1985). Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo / 藏汉大辞典 Zang Han Da Cidian. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun kang / 民族出版社 Minzu Chubanshe, 1985, 1993, 2000.

Zhaxi Cairang 札西才譲

 * (2011) 日本語とアムド・チベット語の使役表現の対照研究 Nihongo to Amudo Chibettogo no shieki hyōgen no taishō kenkyū. [A comparative study of causatives in Japanese and Amdo Tibetan] Tokyo: 笠間書院 Kasama Shoin.

Zhou Maocao 周毛草

 * (2003) 玛曲藏语研究 Maqu Zangyu yanjiu. Beijing: 民族出版社 Minzu chubanshe, 2003.

Zhou Li

 * (1986) Bod yig gi sgra sbyor slob deb: Lha sa'i skad / 藏文拼音教材Zangwen-pinyin-jiaocai. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.

Choix III 1990: Yoshiro Imaeda and Tsuguhito Takeuchi, Choix de documents tibétains conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale, Tome III, Corpus syllabique. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale. Choix IV 2001: Yoshiro Imaeda, Tsuguhito Takeuchi, Izumi Hoshi, Yoshimichi Ohara and Iwao Ishikawa, Choix de documents tibétains conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale, Tome IV, Corpus syllabique, Tokyo: ILCAA, Université des Langues Étrangères de Tokyo.

Franke, Herbert, ed. (2005-). Wörterbuch der tibetischen Schriftsprache. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kommission beim Verlag C. H. Beck.

Richardson, Hugh (1985). A Corpus of Early Tibetan Inscriptions. (James G. Forlong series 29). London: Royal Asiatic Society.

Sagart, Laurent (2006). [Review of Matisoff 2003] Diachronica 23.1: 206-223

Schroeter, Rev. Frederic Christian Gotthelf 1826. A Dictionary of the Bhotanta or Boutan Language. Serampore.

Simon, Walter (1964). "Tibetan Lexicography and Etymological Research." Transactions of the Philological Society : 85-107.

Snellgrove, David (1954). (review of Marcelle Lalou's) “Manuel elementaire de tibétain classique.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16.1: 198-199.

[Zhongguo zangxue lunwen 1999] 中国藏学论文资料索引 Zhongguo Zangxue lunwen zi liao suoyin. 1872-1995. Beijing : Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe 中国藏学出版社, 1999.


 * [Zhongguo zangxue lunwen 2006] 中国藏学论文资料索引 Zhongguo Zangxue lunwen zi liao suoyin 1996-2004. Beijing : Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe 中国藏学出版社, 1999.

[Zhongguo zangxue shumu (1994).] 中国藏学书目Zhongguo Zangxue shumu 1949-1991 / Krung-goʾi Bod rig paʾi dpe chaʾi dkar chag, 1949-1991 / Catalogue of Chinese Publications in Tibetan Studies, 1949-1991. Beijing: 外文出版社Waiwen chubanshe 1994.

[Zhongguo zangxue shumu (1997).] 中国藏学书目续编 Zhongguo Zangxue shumu xubian 1992-1995,/ Kruṅ-goʾi Bod rig paʾi dpe chaʾi dkar chag, 1949-1991 / Catalogue of Chinese publications in Tibetan studies, 1992-1995. Beijing : 外文出版社 Waiwen chubanshe, 1997.

[Zhongguo zangxue shumu (2001).] 中国藏学书目三编 Zhongguo Zangxue shumu sanbian (1996-2000). Kruṅ-goʾi Bod rig paʾi dpe chaʾi dkar chag gsar bsgrigs (1996-2000) / Catalogue of Chinese publications in Tibetan studies (1996-2000). Beijing : 外文出版社 Waiwen chubanshe, 2001.

LaPolla, Randy J. “Phonetic Development of Tibetan.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 11.2 (1988): 93-97.

Review of Inaba in East and West 6.

Delancy, Scott. (1987). "Etymological notes on Tibeto-Burman case particles." Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 8. 59-77.

E. H. C. Walsh ‘The Tibetan Language and Recent Dictionaries’ JASB 72 (1903/4) p. 65-86. (a review of Das?)

in Die Erforschung des Tocharischen (1960-1984) von Werner Thomas. Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GMBH, Stuttgart 1985. we have Ivanov, V. V. Tibetskie kal'ki v tocharskich tekstach [Tibetische Lehnwörter /Lehnübersetzunen/ in den tocharischen Texten] KSINA 57 (1961) 35-40. KSINA : Kratkie soobshchenija instituta narodov Azii.

Simonsson, Nils. "Sanskrit na, Tibetan ma yin" Orientalia Suecana 9 (1960): 11-27. Simonsson, Nils. "On the concept of sentence in ancient Indian and tibetan theory and on the function of case particles in Tibetan according to Tibetan Grammarians," Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 5 (1982): 281-291.

Here are some bibliographic notices from Pavel Poucha's "The Tibetan Language as Example of General Validity of Linguistic Laws" Asienwissenschaftliche Beitrage: Johannes Schubert in memoriam. Eds. Eberhardt Richter and Manfred Taube. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1978: 113-122.

A. A. Dragunov, Voiced plosives and affricates in Ancient Tibetan, Acad. Sinica 7, 1936 (:Buletin of the Institute of History and Philology) pp. 165ff. the same, Osobennosti fonologicheskoj sistemy drevnetibetskogo jazyka, Zapiski Inst. vostokovedenija AN SSR, 7, 1939, p. 284ff. J. H. Edgar, The Tibetan Tonal System, G. W. Ch. Border Res. Soc. 5, 1952, pp. 64ff. Robert Shafer, Prefixed n-, ng- in Tibetan, Sino-Tibetica 1, 1938; Prefixed m- in Tibetan, ib. 3, 1938, p. 11ff. The vocalism of Sino-Tibetan, JAOS 60, 1940, p. 302ff., 61, 1941, pp. 18ff., Problems of Sino-Tibetan phonetics, JAOS, 70, 1950 pp. 96ff. Phonétique comparée de quelques préfixes simples en sino-tibétain, BSL. 46, 1950, pp. 144ff. and other works of this author mentioned in this Bibliography of Sino-Tibetan Languages, Wiesbaden 1957. Further W. Simon, Certain Tibetan suffixes and their combinations, HJAS. 5, 1940, pp. 372ff., The Range of sound alternations in Tibetan word families, AM. Ser. 2, vol. 1, 1949, pp. 3ff. Rolf Stein, Notes d'etymologie tibétaine, BEFEO, 41, 1941. fasc. 2 pp. 203ff. Geza Uray, Some problems of the ancient Tibetan verbal morphology, methodical observations on recent studies, Acta Linguistica 3, Budapest 1953, pp. 37ff. Stuart N. Wolfenden, The prefix m- with certain substantives in Tibetan, Language 4, 1928 pp. 277ff. Significance of early Tibetan wordforms, JRAS, 1928, pp. 896ff. To the B. Laufer's Loan-Words in Tibetan, T'oung Pao 1916, pp. 403ff. there is a supplement by the same authors Sino-Iranica, Chinese contributions to the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran, Chicao 1919, in the chapter "Additional notes on loan words in Tibetan" pp. 591ff. A contribution to the development of Tibetan is also the stud by Chin P'eng, Verbal Inflection in Classical Tibetan and Present-day Lhasa Dialect, Linguistic researches, 1, 1958, pp. 169ff.