I. Introduction

Lithang County is located in thecentral area of Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China. Mainly Tibetans live there. This area is considered as Kham from the viewpoint of the traditional Tibetan geography. In Kham, there are many minor languages spoken other than Tibetic1languages, and their geographical distribution is complicated.2For the Tibetans’ languages in Lithang County, the litang xianzhi(Annals of Lithang County, 19963; henceforth xianzhi) mentions that three fangyan (dialects) are spoken: Khams, Amdo, and Yalong. It deals with the three in parallel; however, the first two are Tibetic, whereas the last, Choyu, is a Qiangic language. Additionally, the description of the linguistic features does not reflect the reality. Therefore, we need a more detailed presentation regarding the languages in Lithang by collecting data through fieldwork.

This article primarily provides a more detailed linguistic description of the three languages in Lithang, referring to information on surrounding languages in order to understand the mutual relationships and the position of each language. At present, Lithang County has 24 towns and townships: Gaocheng(Le thang), Junba(Gyang pa), Hayi(lHa yul), Gake(dGa’ khog), Rongba(Rong pa), Juewu(Jo bo), Yahuo(Yar shod), Moba(Mo pa), Benge(dPon skor), Cunge(Tsho ’khor), Heni(Hor ra rnying pa), Qudeng(mChod rten), Jiawa(’Ja’ ba), Xiongba(Gyang pa), Zangba(bZang pa), Dewu(De bo), Shang Mula(Mo la), Zhong Mula, Xia Mula, Gemu(Ge mo), Labo(sNa po), Maiwa(sMad ba), Lamaya(Bla ma yag), and Zhangna(’Gram sna).

The article’s description is ordered as Choyu, Amdo, and Khams. Other than the citations from the xianzhi and other references, the data presented here are the results of my fieldwork. All the data are written with the phonetic alphabet.4

+[σ(α(y)),σ([x,z])]+δ[σ(α(z)),[σ(x),σ(y)]]-δ[σ(α(z)),σ([x,y])]

20年来，我国零售行业迅猛发展，但近年来呈现出后劲不足的态势，虽然近年来电子商务发展很快，但在社会总零售额中，绝大部分的流量和消费仍然在线下。新零售概念的提出，为实体零售业和电商提供了共同的契机。

由于本次A修汽封间隙调整得较小，为使启动过程碰磨可控在控，启动委员会组织检修、运行人员进行技术交底、方案措施讨论、编制专项控制方案，并邀请科学院专家到场监测、指导。

Based on the sound correspondences of word forms, we can find significant differences between the Northern type and Southern type. The Western type(Reke) can be distinguished from the Northern type based on lexical features, which is closer to the Southern type. Even though this article cannot provide sufficient data for dialect classification, I present a preliminary classification of Khams Tibetan, dividing it into six groups: Xiaba-Junba(Northern), Gake, Gaocheng(county seat), Reke(Western), Zhuosang-Mula-Dewu(Southern), and Labo. Among them, the Southern group and Labo belong to the Muli-Daocheng group, and the others belong to the Southern Route group. However, this conclusion needs to be examined using a rigorous methodology.

The xianzhi successfully points out several word forms which are peculiar to Choyu with the Tibetan script. The following is a contrastive word list from the xianzhi, in Hayi(Gayibuli village), and Rongba(Azong village):

 

Table 1: Choyu words

  

meaningXianzhiHayiRongbaonetirogtә rotә rosixchirogtɕhәroˊtɕhәrosevengna rogn。aron。a roeightbyarogɕarofsa rotengatirogqadәroˊqadәrotodaypiphyipәɕәpәʃәtomorrowasrigˊʔaseˊʔasebookdgodɦgɵɦgwəmeatthogn。thon。thogogshigɕiˊɣə ɕe

III. Amdo Tibetan

纳米药物载体介导的联合给药逆转肿瘤多药耐药的研究进展 ……………………………………………… 曹晓孚等（5）：716

The xianzhi states that: “[Amdo] is distributed in four townships of Maoya(’Bum nyag) District and a part of Zhangna and Gemu townships, and also that the speakers are pastoralists”.7However, we should note that pastoralists in Zhangna do not speak Amdo but Khams(see Section Ⅳ).

Due to the lifestyle of Amdo speakers, who traditionally practise transhumance without any fixed sedentary places, their languages are classified by tshowa(tsho ba) alliances.8 In Lithang County, we find the following tshowas: gYon ru, sDe gzhung ma, sKyabs shul, and O thog. Their languages are uniformly called Ghake(wa skad), and they originated from the Ghakhu(Wa shul, dBa’ shul, dBal shul, or dPal shul) tshowa alliance.9 It is locally not called ’brog skad (pastoralists’ language). The gYon ru tshowa alliance is distributed in Benge, Cunge, and Heni townships. The sDe gzhung ma tshowa alliance is distributed in Qudeng township. The sKyabs shul tshowa alliance is distributed in a part of Gemu township, and the O thog tshowa alliance is distributed in the east side of Huoqu(hor chu), mainly in Kela(Hor ra), Honglong(Hor lung), and Decha(sDe tsha) townships of Yajiang County.

Compare word forms with more dialects in Table 4.

选煤厂的生产费用包括两部分：一是生产成本(由固定成本和流动成本组成)；二是处理废气的成本。若生产者不治理污染，社会将会付出成本。从微观角度而言，由于大气污染所造成的社会成本与企业成本相背离而引起的经济效益的损害是普遍存在的。所以，如果人们只顾眼前利益，盲目地降低生产成本所造成的巨大隐性成本是无法估量的。因此企业节能减排是发展低碳经济的必然。

There are no critical problems with communication among the different tshowa alliances in Lithang. However, in looking at linguistic features, we notice that the Ghakhu in Lithang does not speak a single dialect. Following is a contrastive word list of gYon ru(Cunge), sDe gzhung ma(Qudeng), and O thog(Honglong):

 

Table 2: Amdo Tibetan words

  

meaninggYonrusDegzhungmaOthogheadŋgomgoŋgoeyeɦȵikʁȵikɦȵikhandloqχwalaqχwalɐqχɐTibetanWowotwopighaqhaqhaqhorsehtargenʂtaɦahtɐchickenɸɕaɸɕaɕɐwolfhpɑŋkhəɸwaŋkəhpɐŋkhəmeatɧhaɧhaɧhɐcloudɸʈənpʈənm。uɸaonehtsikχtɕikhtɕikeightwɟetwɟɛtɦɟelgoɲɟoɲɟoɲɟo

IV. Khams Tibetan

医保要保障医疗需求合理增长，不能单纯持平或者降低医疗机构医保资金，随着患者医疗需求逐年的增长，预算中应当允许医疗机构费用的合理增长，并且对医疗机构结余资金留用作为鼓励。同时，要加强监管，有效控制不合理费用。对事关大众健康、保健的基本医疗服务,制定严格的收费标准和宽松的报销政策,而对于有市场需求的特需服务如点名手术、高档病房、整形美容、全程特护医保不予支付[7]。

The xianzhi states that: “[Khams] is mainly distributed in Mula, Zhuosang, Labo, Junba, Xiaba, and Lamaya in Reke...in these areas, the pronunciation is mostly similar”. In addition, the “Khams-speaking area is divided into two: Litang and Labo”.11Even though the description of the range of Khams is nearly exact, the counterpart of linguistic features is not easily accepted.

Choyu is a non-Tibetic language and belongs to Qiangic.5 Its geographical distribution extends along the Yalongjiang River, from Youlaxi(gYang la gshis) Township of Xinlong(Nyag rong) County to Bendazong(sPun zla rdzong) village in Yajiang(Nyag chu kha) County. In Lithang County, Choyu is spoken in Rongba and Hayi townships as well as in a small part of Gake township.

In Lithang County, Khams Tibetan is mainly spoken by sedentary Tibetans, and its dialectal differences are quite large. Its distribution is separated by a pastoral area and mountain ranges, and we count five areas: Northern(Junba, Xiaba, and Gake), Central(county seat only), Southern(Zhuosang and Mola), Southernmost(Labo), and Western(Reke). Among them, the last one differentiates between farmers’ and pastoralists’ varieties; the Gake’s variety is related to several kinds of speeche in Yajiang; the Mula’s variety is close to Decha’s speech(Yajiang); Labo’s speech is close to varieties spoken in Muli and Daocheng counties. These dialectal differences can be found if one compares the word forms cited in Xianzhi and various dialects(Table 3):

 

Table 3: Khams Tibetan word forms compared with xianzhi

  

meaningXianzhiJuewuGaochengJiawaLaboZhangnafiremye｀ȵe｀ȵeˊȵeȵiˊȵego gyoˊɳɖoˊɳɖoˊɳɖoˊɳɖu｀ɳɖohorsertarganhtahtaɦgɛ～htahtohtaɦgɛ～cat ocheˊmotsheˊɦotsheˊwoɦdzeʔulilɵlɵchildnyagnyog＾ȵɑːȵoʔ＾ȵɑːȵoʔˊȵɑːȵo～＾wɑʈhɯlʉ＾ȵɑʔȵoʔmoonzlazhagˊɦdaɣaˊɦdaɦɑːˊɦdaɣɑˊɦdoɦɑˊɦdaɣa

According to oral history, the Amdo speakers in Lithang are descendants of migrants from Qinghai Lake; however, the exact time of their migration is not clear. Among the tshowa alliances, gYon ru has a clear relationship with the gYon ru who reside in Jianzhatan(gCan tsha thang) in Jianzha(gCan tsha) County. The sDe gzhung ma and O thog tshowa alliances are said to be descendants of the Mongols. They share a common identity: Ghakhu. Ghakhu’s centre is regarded as Seda(gSer rta); however, there are several different existing views, even in Tibetan literature. At present, the gYon ru in Qinghai has no clear relationship with the Ghakhu, but some scholars consider it as a part of the Ghakhu.10

 

Table 4: Khams Tibetan word forms in various dialects

  

dialecteyeHandsunMoonwindcatJuewuɦȵiʔɦdoˊlɑʔpaˊȵəmaˊɦdaɣa｀ɦluːˊmotsheJunbaɦȵiʔɦdo＾lɑʔpa＾ȵəmaˊndakɑɦlo～ɦɣələGakeɦȵiʔˊlɑʔ＾ȵəmaˊɦdawɑɦlo～ˊɦotsheGaocheng｀ɦȵiʔˊlɑːpaˊȵəmaˊɦdaɦɑːɦlo～ˊɦotsheJiawa｀ɦȵiʔˊjɑŋgoˊȵəwa～ˊɦdaɣɑɦlo～ˊwoɦdzeShangMula｀ɦȵiʔˊjɑŋgoˊȵəwa～ˊɦdəɣɑɦjo～ləˊwoɦdzeDewu｀ɦȵiʔˊjɑŋgoˊȵəmaˊɦdɑːɦlo～｀ʔoruLabo｀ɦȵiʔˊjuɦɑˊȵəmo～ˊɦdoɦɑɦlo～ʔuliZhangna｀ɦmiʔˊlɑʔpaˊȵəwa～ˊɦdaɣaɦlu～lɵlɵRanrika｀ɦȵiʔˊlɑʔpaˊȵəwaˊɦdaɣaɦlo～｀lələZebaɦmiʔˊlɑːpaˊȵəmaˊɦdaɣaɦlu～lələ

The xianzhi calls Choyu “Yalong fangyan”(Yalong dialect). Moreover, it mistakenly calls this language Zhaba, which might be based upon the work of Lu Shaozun’s “zhabayu gaikuang”(Brief Introduction to Zhaba Language).6This work actually describes a variety of Choyu spoken in Yajiang County.

V. Conclusion

砖子心里暗叫苦，心想那些男人女人要是知道电话都是我女人赵仙童打的，我在小城真没脸呆下去了。赵仙童啊赵仙童，你这是怎么啦，现在人人生活都有压力，可谁也没像你这样变得叫人恐惧，你这样非把我头脑搞坏不可。我虽然写不出东西，虽然也累，虽然迎合你搞什么生活实验，可你这哪是生活实验啊，你这是实验自绝于小城人的生活。

This article presented the languages of Tibetans in Lithang based on my fieldwork. There are three languages spoken: Khams Tibetan, Amdo Tibetan, and Choyu. Khams Tibetan has six subgroups(Xiaba-Junba, Gake, Gaocheng, Reke, Zhuosang-Mula-Dewu, and Labo) belonging to two groups, the Southern Route and Muli-Daocheng. Amdo Tibetan is not classified in detail. However, the speech of the sDe gzhung ma tshowa alliance has clear sound differences from the other tshowa alliances’. Choyu has quite similar features to the varieties spoken outside Lithang County, just with a small number of phonetic, lexical discrepancies.

Key Words:Tibetan; dialectology; Khams; Ganzi Prefecture

Notes:

1. Tournadre, Nicolas.The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill(eds.) Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, 105-129. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 2014.

4. The phonetic alphabet is not only based on International Phonetic Alphabet but also on the Chinese system. See Zhu Xiaonong. Yuyinxue .Beijing: shangwu yinshuguan, 2010. For a suprasegmental description, the following symbols are used: ˉ: high-level; ′: rising; ^: rising-falling; `: falling(for Khams) as well as ˉ: high-level; ′: rising; ’: stress on the preceding syllable(for Choyu).

3. litang xianzhi Compilation Committee. litang xianzhi. Chengdu:sichuan renmin chubanshe, 1996.

II. Choyu

2. Roche, Gerald and Hiroyuki Suzuki.Mapping the Linguistic Minorities of the Eastern Tibetosphere.Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VI —Means to Count Nouns—, 26-40, 2017.

相对于传统的讲授法而言，合作-探究性学习不是减轻了教师的教学任务，而是对任课教师的教学管理提出了更高的要求。除了课堂教学，教师必须花费大量的时间和精力于课下的组织和指导。否则，就会流于形式，表面热闹，实际效果差。在教学实践中，我们发现，有些教学模式改革的失效，并非新模式本身的问题，而是忽视了对教学改革管理的研究，相应的配套管理措施没跟上，导致成效不明显，甚至不及原来的模式。这些年，在尝试运用合作-探究性学习模式教学时，我们十分注重以下三个环节的管理：

5. Wang Tianxi.Queyuyu. In Qingxia Dai et al. zangmianyu shiwuzhong. 1991.

6.Lu Shaozun.zhabayu gaikuang. Minzu Yuwen 1985.2.

7.Litang Xianzhi, 1996, p. 474.

8. Tsering Samdrup and Hiroyuki Suzuki.Migration history and tsowa divisions as a supplemental approach to dialectology in Amdo Tibetan: A case study on Mangra County. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VII —Tone and Accent—, 57-65, 2017.

因而，刑事立法政策的本质属性决定了其在制定时，必须科学联合刑法和其他人文社会科学，广泛听取来自民间的声音。当前，我国正在构建社会主义和谐社会，同时又处于社会矛盾尖锐、突发的转型期，围绕刑事立法政策的对与错、利与弊以及善与恶等问题进行讨论吸纳民意，能够促使决策的制定者采取修改、调整甚至废止政策的行为。此时的刑事立法政策即成为加强政府与民众沟通的桥梁、化解社会矛盾促进社会和谐的手段。而要实现这一目的，关键在于实现从社会本位向个人本位的理念转变，更多的从社会个体角度考量国家政策的合目的性和有效性。

9.dMu dge bSam gtan rGya mtsho.Bod kyi lo rgyus kun dga’i me long”. rJe dmu dge bsam gtan rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum, Vol.3, 23-405, mTsho sngon Mi rigs dPe skrun khang, 1997.

10.dMu dge bSam gtan rGya mtsho.Bod kyi lo rgyus kun dga’i me long”. In rJe dmu dge bsam gtan rgya mtsho’i gsung ’bum, Vol.3, 23-405, Zi ling: mTsho sngon Mi rigs dPe skrun khang, 1997.

11.litang xianzhi, 1996, p. 473.

References:

See page 44.