10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14379
This paper provides a first description of comparative constructions in Suansu, an unreported Tibeto-Burman language spoken in northeastern India, and frames the characteristics of Suansu comparative constructions from a typological perspective (following Stassen’s 1985 classification). To this purpose, comparative constructions from a sample of 25 Tibeto-Burman languages of the area are collected in an ad-hoc designed database and typologically discussed. Results reveal the presence of two main types that cluster geographically in the region, as well as high internal variation with respect to the subtypes. Based on the classification, Suansu is assigned to the Exceed comparative type, the only representative of this type in the sample.
application/pdf
2785-0943
14379
1
en
Jessica Katiuscia Ivani
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
language documentation
Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of northeastern India
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
2
Research articles
2022-04-14
2022-02-09
2022-04-14
2022-04-14
65-93
LTC
Jessica Katiuscia Ivani
2022/04/14
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14379
65
University of Zurich
2785-0943
1
language documentation
en
93
Wright, Jonathan Michael. 2009. <em>Hkongso grammar sketch</em>. PhD dissertation, Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics.
Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of northeastern India
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/14379/14094
2
           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93   ISSN 2785-0943



   Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of
                                   northeastern India

                                       JESSICA K. IVANI
                                      UNIVERSITY OF ZÜRICH


                    Submitted: 28/10/2021        Revised version: 27/01/2022
                      Accepted: 09/02/2022           Published: 14/04/2022




                                             Abstract
This paper provides a first description of comparative constructions in Suansu, an unreported
Tibeto-Burman language spoken in northeastern India, and frames the characteristics of
Suansu comparative constructions from a typological perspective (following Stassen’s 1985
classification). To this purpose, comparative constructions from a sample of 25 Tibeto-
Burman languages of the area are collected in an ad-hoc designed database and typologically
discussed. Results reveal the presence of two main types that cluster geographically in the
region, as well as high internal variation with respect to the subtypes. Based on the
classification, Suansu is assigned to the Exceed comparative type, the only representative of
this type in the sample.


Keywords: Suansu; Tibeto-Burman; typology; comparative constructions; language
documentation.



1. Introduction


Comparison can be defined as a “mental act where two elements occupy a symmetric
or asymmetric position on a specific property predicative scale” (Treis 2018: I): this
mental act is linguistically encoded by comparison constructions. Several types of
comparison structures have been distinguished in the literature. Based on the
subdivision proposed by Fuchs (2014) and implemented in Treis (2018), this study
focusses on comparison of inequality, and specifically on comparison of relative
superiority. The default template for constructions of relative superiority (hence,
comparative constructions) is exemplified by structures such as X is bigger than Y or X
is more intelligent than Y.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14379                                              65
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                       Comparative constructions in Suansu


    The linguistic literature has proposed several terms to define the elements of
prototypical comparative constructions. The terminology adopted in this study relies
on Treis (2018: I), where the following elements are distinguished: COMPAREE (the
entity being compared: X); STANDARD (what the compared is being compared to: Y);
standard marker (grammatical function of the standard: than); PARAMETER (the
property of comparison: tall, intelligent); DEGREE (the degree of presence of a property
in the comparee: -er, more).
    This aim of the present study is two-fold. Firstly, to describe the comparative
constructions in Suansu, a virtually undescribed Tibeto-Burman language from
northeastern India. The second objective is to explore the structural variation of
comparative constructions of other 241 Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in the same
area, to frame their typology, and outline the geographical distribution of the
identified types.
    The paper is structured as follows. Section 1.1. summarizes and discusses the
classification of comparative constructions outlined in Stassen (1985), that is the
typology adopted in this study. In Section 2, I briefly introduce Suansu language, and
report a first profile of Suansu comparative constructions (2.1.). The second part of
the study (Section 3) is dedicated to the description of comparative constructions
across 24 Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in northeastern India. In Section 3.1., the
methodological approach used for the cross-linguistic data exploration and the
database design are briefly illustrated. Section 3.2. describes the expression of
comparative constructions in the Tibeto-Burman sample. Section 4 discusses the types
attested in the area, and Suansu comparative constructions are included in the
typology. The paper concludes (Section 5) with a summary of the typological findings
and sets the ground for further typological research on the topic.


1.1. Background

There is broad and rich literature available on the expression of comparative
constructions, from theoretical approaches to language specific overviews, as well as
typological research. Typological classifications of comparative constructions have a
long tradition and include the works of Ultan (1972), Heine (1997), Stassen (1985),
and Dixon (2008), among others (see Stolz 2013 & Treis 2018 for a review).


1
 In an earlier version of this study, the sample included three more languages from the Tani subgroup (Tawrã,
Upper Adi and Mising), which were later excluded because the cited grammars have been contested as unreliable.


                                                                                                           66
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


   The present study follows the typology of comparative constructions outlined by
Stassen (1985), with additional input from Stolz (2013). The types identified in
Stassen’s typology are summarized in Table 1.


 Taxonomy                                  Types
 Fixed-case comparatives                       a) Exceed
                                               b) Adverbial
                                                          •    Allative
                                                          •    Locational
                                                          •    Separative
 Derived-case comparatives                     a) Conjoined
                                               b) Particle


                              Table 1: Taxonomy of Stassen’s typology.


Stassen’s typology (as well as several other classifications, e.g., Dixon 2008) is mostly
grounded on the etymological and semantic properties of the constructions found on
the standard of comparison. Based on these properties, Stassen distinguishes between
two main types: derived-case and fixed-case comparatives, with the main criterion
behind the partition being whether the case of the standard is dependent or
independent from the comparee.
   Within the fixed-case comparatives, Stassen differentiates further in Exceed and
Adverbial comparatives (the latter relabeled Locational in Stassen 2013). Derived-
case comparatives include Conjoined and Particle comparatives subtypes.
   Exceed comparatives are characterized by the presence of a transitive verb with
the meaning of ‘exceed’ and ‘surpass’, with the comparee and the standard of
comparison being the subject and the object, respectively. Conjoined comparatives,
on the other hand, are formed by two independent clauses, one containing the
comparee and the other the standard, with the parameter present in both; the clauses
are in adversative relation.
   Most     of    the    languages      identified        in    this      study   fall   into   Stassen’s
Adverbial/Locational (henceforth, Adverbial) and Particle types. The Adverbial
comparative type includes three subtypes: the Separative comparatives (Stassen 1985:
114–135), where the standard of comparison is marked through a morpheme of
source and origin. Stassen provides as examples of standard markers ablative forms




                                                                                                      67
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                  Comparative constructions in Suansu


such as ‘from’.2 Comparatives of this subtype are found in Kambaata (Afroasiatic,
Cushitic, Treis 2018) and several Athabascan languages (Koyukon, Tanana and Athan
among others, Tuttle 2018).
     The second subtype within the Adverbial type is the Allative comparative. In
Stassen’s classification, Allative comparatives mark the standard of comparison as a
goal, benefactive or direct object (Stassen 1985: 136–145).
     The third subtype within the Adverbial type is the Locative comparative (Stassen
1985: 146–152), and the standard is marked with an element that indicates contact
or static location (‘on’, ‘at’, ‘beside’), usually derived from locational adverbs.
     Derived-case comparatives include the above-mentioned Conjoined comparatives
and Particle comparatives. The Particle type, according to Stassen’s classification,
includes a comparative marker that “does not influence the case marking of the
standard” (Treis 2018: II). These heterogeneous particles include, among others,
disjunctive forms, negators and coordinators.
     The above typology leaves some questions unresolved (c.f. Stassen 1985; Heine
1997; Stolz 2013). One potential source of ambiguity pertains to the heterogeneity of
the types identified in the typology: Stassen explicitly mentions “sources of
indeterminacy” (Stassen 1985: 36) with respect to the Adverbial comparatives,
stressing the semantic variation of the standard markers categorized under this type,
and which further segmentation would lead to “a proliferation of other subclasses”
(Stassen 1985: 36). The Particle type encounters similar limitations, being “not a
homogeneous class” (Stassen 1985: 46), and often characterized by “etymologically
nontransparent forms” (Heine 1997: 120), which at times “cannot be associated with
any co-existing functional element of the language in which they occur” (Stolz 2013:
21). The heterogeneous nature of the Particle type, combined with a general
opaqueness of the constructions included to the type, prompted the introduction of
further subclassifications. Additional subtypes have indeed been proposed, and only
two types are relevant to this study. The first is the Pure comparative type introduced
by Stolz (2013: 22), that includes the constructions in which the standard is marked
by a dedicated comparative marker. The second subtype is the Companion Schema
by Heine (1997: 93–94), that comprises constructions with comitative and
instrumental forms marked on the standard of comparison. Comitative marking on
the standard, considered typologically rare, is tentatively included by Stassen (1985:
37) under the Separative comparatives, but it is not discussed further.

2
    In Stassen’s terminology, marking is intended in broad morphological and non-morphological sense.


                                                                                                   68
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


    Both Heine and Stassen, as well as most of the typological classifications, do not
include in their respective typologies the forms found outside the standard (one
exception being Bobaljik 2012). Parameters such as the presence or the morphological
characteristics of the degree markers are often discarded (Treis 2018: IX). This study
follows Stassen’s typology, and therefore the degree markers will not be discussed in
detail nor incorporated in the classification. However, considering potential future
updates in the typology of comparative constructions, the variables and properties
related to the degree, comparee, and parameter have been collected in a detailed
database (Section 3.1).


2. Suansu language


Suansu is an endangered Tibeto-Burman language spoken in a small cluster of villages
in Manipur, northeastern India. Suansu has approximately 22003 speakers, located in
the Ukhrul district of Manipur, not far from the Myanmar border.
    Suansu is currently virtually undescribed in the literature. Suansu features
comprise strict verb-final word order, a rich case marking system, and ergative -
absolutive alignment. Ergative marking appears to be motivated by pragmatic and/or
semantic factors, consistent with several other Tibeto-Burman languages (DeLancey
2011). Further features align Suansu to the scarce typology available on the languages
of the eastern border area (Burling 2003b: 173). These include the presence of three
lexical tones, noun compounding strategies and frequent “frozen prefixes” (Marrison
1967: 108) attached to verbs, nouns and adjectives (with unclear semantic
distribution). Other common traits within the languages of the area and attested in
Suansu include a rich verb morphology, with several affixes (mostly suffixes), and the
absence of verb agreement altogether.
    The linguistic data on Suansu used in this study has been collected between 2017
and 2019, during several fieldwork trips to Pune, Maharashtra, where a
heterogeneous Suansu speaking community works and lives. Part of the data has been
time-aligned, transcribed and annotated; specific examples here reported are drawn
from a corpus that includes narratives, folk tales and elicited examples from three
different native speakers.



3
    According   to   the   most   recent   public   Census   available,   the   2011   Indian   Census:
http://censusindia.gov.in.


                                                                                                    69
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                  Comparative constructions in Suansu


2.1. Comparative constructions in Suansu


The present Section outlines a first report on comparative constructions in Suansu.
Being a first report on the language, the description that follows should be treated as
preliminary, and has no claim of exhaustivity.
   The word order template for Suansu comparative constructions is structured as
follows: COMPAREE - STANDARD - PARAMETER - DEGREE MARKER. An example is illustrated
in (1).


(1)   ha-ʃi-ne             nɔ-ʃi-di           tʰazu       mɛn-le
      1PL-house-ERG 2SG-house-ABS beautiful more-be.PRS
      ‘Our house is more beautiful than your house.’


The comparee is morphologically marked by the suffix ne, which is used in Suansu to
mark ergative case and A in general (2). The standard immediately follows the
comparee and is suffixed by the absolutive marker di, which covers P (2), S (3), and
experiencer (4).


(2)   ba-ne          klui-di     kətərum-no     huamsuɛ
      3SG-ERG        rope-ABS tree-LOC          tie.PST
      ‘She/He tied the rope to the tree.’


(3)   hai     həma-di      mari-də    samhai
      DET     pot-ABS      iron-INS   make.PST
      ‘This pot is made of iron.’


(4)   gəpʰem-di miŋə-le
      ice-ABS        melt-PRS
      ‘Ice melts.’


The word order template illustrated above is not strict, and the standard can be found
preceding the comparee, as illustrated in (5). Further research is needed for a better
understanding of the word order distributions in Suansu.




                                                                                                   70
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


(5)   pjəs-di       kaminta-ne       am:etokʰ       mɛn-le          ʔasə
      onion-ABS tomato-ERG expensive more-be.PRS today
      ‘Tomatoes are more expensive than onions today.’


Overt marking on the comparee is not obligatory in Suansu comparative constructions
(6), as ergative marking can be optional in general (7); more data is required to
account for the distributional trends and occurrences of this marker, although first
insights from the data available seem to suggest that the presence of agent marking
is motivated by pragmatic contexts.


(6)   ha-ʃi         nɔ-ʃi-di           tʃutʃu       mɛn-le
      1PL-house 2SG-house-ABS small                 more-be.PRS
      ‘Our house is smaller than yours.’


(7)   ba      tatʃu-di    dukan-də          lu-le
      3SG rice-ABS        market-ABL        buy-PRS
      ‘She/He buys rice at (from) the market.’


The parameter is followed by the particle mɛn: the meaning can be linked, based on
the occurrences of the form found elsewhere in the grammar, to ‘more’ (8).


(8)   ha      ɬo    tʃõ   mɛn        laŋe           dorgatʰe   le
      1PL field CLF       more       cultivate need            be.PRS
      ‘We need to cultivate more land.’


At the state of the art, the origin of mɛn is unclear: it is not linked to any spatial nor
locational particle found in the data and it does not find correspondences in Tangkhul,
the predominant linguistic neighbor. The particle mɛn, used in combination with the
verb le, ‘to be’, acquires the meaning of ‘to be more’, ‘exceed’, as shown in the
following non-comparative example (9).


(9)   asserikom-va        taciu-di     assokom-va-ne                mɛn-le
      last.year-GEN       grain-ABS present.year-GEN-ERG more-be.PRS
      ‘This year’s harvest surpassed last year’s harvest.’




                                                                                       71
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                    Comparative constructions in Suansu


Similar particles, possibly related, are attested in the neighboring languages spoken
in the Ukhrul district. Examples include Huishu (kʰə-mu ‘more than’, Mortensen
2013), Kachai (kʰə-mi ‘more than’, Mortensen 2013), Tusom (cũ-kʰə-ma ‘more than’,
Mortensen 2013), Ukhrul (kʰə-mɐj ‘to be more’, Mortensen 2013). These forms suggest
a hypothesized Proto-Tangkhulic *mej ‘more’ (Mortensen 2013: 402). Data on these
languages is limited to wordlists and does not contain grammatical information on
these forms.
     In Suansu comparative constructions, the standard is constructed as the direct
object, with the comparee as the subject. The transitive predicate suggests a meaning
related to ‘exceed’, ‘surpass’, construed through the particle mɛn and the verb form le,
‘to be’.
     Thus, Suansu comparative constructions can be assigned to the Exceed comparative
type defined in Stassen’s typology. This assignment confirms Stassen’s findings on the
geographical distribution of this type, whose presence seems restricted to two
geographical areas, sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. In the following Section,
I turn to other languages of the eastern border area and the respective comparative
constructions.


3. Comparative constructions in the languages of northeastern India


3.1. Methodology


In what follows, I present data on comparative constructions from 24 Tibeto-Burman
languages (25 including Suansu). With a few exceptions, the languages are spoken in
northeastern India: the sample includes languages spoken in the fringes of this region,
such as Myanmar and the Himalayan range.
     The languages of the sample belong to different branches within the Tibeto-Burman
sub-family.4 Kuki-Chin-Naga and Brahmaputran are the most represented subgroups
in the sample, followed by Mruic. Other genealogical subgroups, such as Bodic,
Kiranti, Burmo-Qiangic, Karenic, Macro-Tani, and Raji, are also represented, although
with fewer languages. The main criteria for language selection include their location
(northeastern India) and the availability of the sources. The detailed sample, grouped
by linguistic subgroup, is illustrated in Table 2.


4
    Genealogical affiliations follow the classification reported on Glottolog (Hammarström et al. 2020).


                                                                                                      72
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


    Subgroup                               Languages
    Bodic (1)                              Bunan (gahr1239)
    Brahmaputran (7)                       Atong (aton1241), Chothe (chot1239), Garo (garo1247),
                                           Kadu (kado1242), Konyak (kony1248), Turung (sing1264),
                                           Rabha (rabh1238)
    Kiranti (2)                            Chintang (chhi1245), Yakkha (yakk1236)
    Karenic (2)                            Geba Karen (geba1237), Kayah Monu (kaya1316)
    Kuki-Chin-Naga (6)                     Karbi (karb1241), Mao Naga (maon1238), Mongsen Ao
                                           (aona1235), Moyon (moyo1238), Suansu (suan1234),
                                           Tangkhul (tang1336)
    Macro-Tani (3)                         Apatani (apat1240), Galo (galo1242), Tangam (tang1377)
    Mruic (2)                              Hkongso (anuu1241), Mru (mruu1242)
    Burmo-Qiangic (1)                      Burmese (nucl1310)
    Raji-Raute (1)                         Raji (rawa1264)


                          Table 2: Language sample by genealogical subgroup.


The linguistic data is collected in a multivariate typological database. The primary
goal of the database is to collect information on comparative constructions at the
most refined level of detail. 5 The methodology adopted in designing the database
relies on the autotypologizing method and the late aggregation principles. The
autotypologizing method (Bickel & Nichols 2002) describes a bottom-up, data-driven
approach that starts at the earliest stages of data collection. Instead of “fitting” the
structures found in the languages of the sample in a “conceptual grid” of traits
established a priori, the constructions are collected dynamically, along with the data
collection process (in a multivariate approach fashion, cf. Bickel 2010a; Bickel
2010b). Results from the data are eventually framed within the types identified in the
literature at a later phase (following the principle of late aggregation, see Bickel et al.
2016). These methods have shown their potential in several typological databases
(Bickel et al. 2017; Ivani & Zakharko 2019); in addition, the granularity of the data
collected enables its reusability for further research.
      The data collection procedure is structured as follows. For each language, I describe
in detail the structures that characterize the respective comparative construction. The
forms and types illustrated in the database encompass both morphological and non-


5
    The database is stored and freely accessible on GitHub (https://github.com/jkivani/coi-neils). The
dataset version for the present study (Ivani 2020) is available on the public access Zenodo repository
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4274488).


                                                                                                   73
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                       Comparative constructions in Suansu


morphological means used to define the relations among the comparee, the standard
and the parameter.
     Each construction is stored with a set of metadata information: these include an
identifier, the respective language name (with the related Glottocode), and the
language genealogical subgroup. The identifier is unique, but it can be shared by
several constructions in different languages in cases of attested cognacy relationships.
Linguistic information includes the language specific form, the type of marker, the
locus, and the function or meaning (when available), associated to the form in the
grammar. Table 3 exemplifies the coding sheet for Atong language. The forms
individuated during the data collection process are then assigned to the pre-existing
typology described in Section 1.1. and then discussed further.


    ID     Glottocode    Language      Subgroup        Form Type         Locus        Function Source

    ID003 aton1241       Atong         Brahmaputran    -na     suffix    standard     goal        Van
                                                                                                  Breugel
                                                                                                  2014

    ID004 aton1241       Atong         Brahmaputran    -khal   suffix    parameter    more        Van
                                                                                                  Breugel
                                                                                                  2014


                                 Table 3: Coding sheet for Atong language.


3.2. Data overview


The data available on comparative constructions in the languages of the sample
reveals interesting structural variation. In what follows, I present cases from
individual languages by genealogical subgroup, and describe the strategies used to
express the respective comparative constructions.6
     The Tani languages of the sample, spoken mostly in Arunachal Pradesh, are
Apatani, Tangam, and Galo. All the Macro-Tani languages included in the sample
share a degree marker, ya in Apatani, yaŋ in Tangam, and jaa in Galo. The meaning
of this form seems to be ‘more’, as reported in the linguistic sources, and it is linked
to the Proto Tani form *jaŋ (Sun 1993: 122). All three languages show the same

6
    The examples from the individual languages are reported verbatim, with the original glosses described
in the respective sources, without any relabeling, except for minor normalization adjustments.


                                                                                                         74
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


behavior in expressing comparison. In addition to the degree marker, Apatani
comparative constructions have a standard marker, mi (10), and it is linked to
functions such as non-agentive and direct object, among others.7


(10) Apatani (Macro-Tani; Abraham 1985: 136)
        mado      rinyo-mi     ka-pyo      ya-do
        mado      rynio-ACC see-good COMP-exist
        ‘Mado is more beautiful than Rynio.’


Similarly, the standard of comparison in both Tangam and Galo comparative
constructions is marked by a non-agentive relational marker: the form corresponds to
the postposition me in Tangam and the clitic nè in Galo, related in form and function
to the marker found in Apatani. In both languages, the distribution of the non-
agentive and the accusative is semantically controlled by the definiteness and the
animacy of the referent (Post 2017: 102).8 This restriction is reflected in the respective
comparative constructions. In example (11), the only sentence available from Galo
sources where all the elements of the comparative construction are expressed overtly,
the accusative clitic әәm is used on the standard, being the standard of comparison a
non-human noun. The non-agentive postposition is found on the human referent in
the example from Tangam (12).


(11) Galo (Macro-Tani; Post 2007: 548)
        ...takә́=әәm           dór-tə̀-jàa-dó(o)-nà=əə=na
        …squirrel=ACC          CLF:HIGH.ANIMAL-big-COMP-STAT-NZR:SUB=COP.IPFV=DECL

        ‘...you know, they’re bigger than squirrels.’


(12) Tangam (Macro-Tani; Post 2017: 128)
        nodɨ ŋo=me             abəŋ-yaŋ-du(ŋ)
        3SG 1SG=NAGT           mature-COMP-IPFV
        ‘He is elder to me.’


7
    A reviewer suggests caution in using Abraham (1985) as a source and recommends consulting in
parallel other sources and descriptions treating related languages. The functions listed here rely on
Simon (1972: 5) and through comparison with Galo and Tangam.
8
    Both languages include dative and locational forms in their respective referential marking systems.
See Post (2007: 58) for Galo and Post (2017: 108) for Tangam language.


                                                                                                    75
Ivani, Jessica K.                                         Comparative constructions in Suansu


The Brahmaputran languages Atong, Garo and Rabha employ the marker na
(cliticized in Atong) which covers, in the three languages, goal, indirect object, and
beneficiary role. In addition, the languages show variation with respect to the
marking combination in the respective comparative constructions. In Atong, the
dative form is suffixed to the standard (13). The dative suffix in Garo is used in
combination with bate (14), whose meaning is glossed ‘as compared to’. This marker
operates as a dedicated form used in Garo comparative constructions (Burling 1961:
46). Furthermore, Atong presents the suffix khal, that occurs on the parameter. The
form, used for generic intensification and meaning ‘more’, is a degree marker (Burling
2003a: 99).


(13) Atong (Brahmaputran; Van Breugel 2014: 278)
      aŋ      naŋʔ=na      cuŋ-khal=a
      1SG 2SG=GOAL         big-COMP=CUST
      ‘I am bigger than you.’


(14) Garo (Brahmaputran; Burling 1961: 19)
      acak-na-bate      moiyr      da’r-bate
      dog-GOAL-COMP elephant big-COMP
      ‘An elephant is bigger than a dog.’


A suffixal compounding strategy analogous to the one illustrated for Garo, is found in
Rabha (15). Rabha comprises affixal particles and postpositions that are used in
combination with case markers to accomplish a more specific meaning or function.
In Rabha comparative constructions, the dative na on the standard is followed by the
particle kára, ‘above, over’, which appears to be partially grammaticalized (Joseph
2007: 762).


(15) Rabha (Brahmaputran; Joseph 2007: 360)
      e-kai         pan o-kai      pan-na      kára   cuh-a
      this-ATTR tree that-ATTR tree-DAT        more   big-PRS
      ‘This tree is bigger than that tree.’


The other Brahmaputran languages of the sample, Kadu and Konyak, show a range of
strategies in the respective comparative constructions that differ from the cases



                                                                                          76
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


illustrated above. In Kadu, the clitic athá follows obligatorily the standard and is of
unclear origin: its use seems to be restricted to the marking of comparison. A topic
marker, ká, is optionally found on the comparee (Sangdong 2012: 331).
   Konyak (16) uses the form phәy (Nagaraja 2010: 59) suffixed to the standard; phәy
is used elsewhere in the grammar to signal the “inanimate force or object casually
involved in the action or state identified by the verb” (Nagaraja 2010: 62). In
addition, phәy covers sociative and instrumental marking (excluding causal, goal and
source functions, Nagaraja 2010: 69). The marker phәy is homophonous with the
adverb phәy, ‘behind’, used also in combination with the locative marker me such as
in nòkphәyme, ‘behind the house’ (Nagaraja 2010: 68), for which I assume that it is
the etymological source of the standard marker in Konyak. In addition, the form si,
possibly a degree marker, is prefixed to the parameter.


(16) Konyak (Brahmaputran; Nagaraja 2010:155)
      kùy-ә        әmi-phәy si-yòŋ
      dog-NOM cat-with          COMP-big

      ‘The dog is bigger than the cat’


In Turung, the standard is followed by the particle ngga (or nloh), that corresponds to
‘more’. The comparee is marked by the agentive/ergative marker î (17).


(17) Turung (Brahmaputran; Morey 2010:296)
      Kon Kham         î     Kon Seng ngga          coh
      Kon Kham AG            Kon Seng COMP          tall
      ‘Kon Kham is taller than Kon Seng.’


No further information nor additional occurrences are available on the form tre, the
standard marker in Chothe (Singh 2000: 271). The suffix he on the parameter is
reported with the meaning of ‘excessive’ (Singh 2000: 215). The comparee carries the
nominative marker na.
   In Bunan (18), the standard is marked by both the dative clitic tok and the ablative
tɕi. The two forms combined indicate “a motion away from a generic location”
(Widmer 2014: 237). A similar strategy is found in Chintang (Kiranti). Chintang (19)
has an extensive case marking system (Paudyal 2015: 42), and the standard in the
comparative constructions is suffixed by ʔ, that is the marker of focussed, specific



                                                                                    77
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                  Comparative constructions in Suansu


location, followed by ya, that expresses instrumental force (Paudyal 2015: 44). In
Yakkha, the other Kiranti language of the sample, comparative constructions are
expressed through the particles haʔniŋ and haksaŋ (in free distribution). Schackow
(2015: 145) discusses possible meanings of the form, the most likely candidate being
the verbal stem haks ‘send, send up’, but also ‘weigh’.


(18) Bunan (Bodic; Widmer 2014: 328)
      tedzi=tsuk        tete             gi=tok=tɕi        tedzi jen
      big=REL           grandfather 1SG=DAT=ABL big EQ.CJ
      ‘The older grandfather (of yours) is older than me.’


(19) Chintang (Kiranti; Paudyal 2015: 49)
      hani-ʔ-yã         the=kha
      2s-LOC-ABL        big=NZR
      ‘Bigger than you.’


The Mruic languages Hkongso (20) and Mru (21), closely related to each other,
employ the particles luki and lake, that follow the standard in their respective
comparative constructions. These forms have been linked to luk (Wright 2009: 66),
that has the temporal and locative meaning of ‘side’. The particle has the additional
meaning ‘more’, as attested in expressions such as la luk lit. ‘month more’, “next
month” (Wright 2009: 34). Besides, Mru uses the particle lang meaning ‘different’
(Ebersole 1996: 9).


(20) Hkongso (Mruic; Wright 2009: 119)
      dɑi˥ cəʔ˦˨ koko˧         luk˦˨     r̥ʰau˧
      dai TOP koko             COMP      tall
      ‘Dai is taller than Koko.’


(21) Mru (Mruic; Ebersole 1996: 17)
      enning kim           lake        anging kim        lang      iuk
      2PL           house COMP         1PL        house difference big
      ‘Our house is bigger than yours.’




                                                                                                   78
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


Plural markers can be involved in comparative constructions: Raji-Raute language
Raji, spoken in Uttarkand, uses the plural particle jәmma (Krishan 2001: 84), followed
by the parameter (22).


(22) Raji (Raji-Raute; Krishan 2001: 84)
      pәhare           ti       gәdde     ti        jәmma thәnda hwā
      mountain         water    river     water     COMP     cold   COP

      ‘Mountain water is colder than river water.’


The languages belonging to the Kuki-Chin-Naga subgroup show higher internal
diversity, but scarce information is available on the respective comparative
constructions in general. In Moyon, the particle hak is postponed to the parameter
(e.g., irun hək, ‘bigger’, Devi 2010: 174). The particle can be also suffixed to the verbal
root, where it covers an associative/collective function (enno ensaʔhəkne ‘they eat
together’, Devi 2010: 84). The data available does not provide further information
regarding the presence of additional markers in comparative constructions.
   In Mao Naga, comparative constructions show the presence of the marker zhü, with
the meaning of ‘rather’ (Giridhar 1994: 206). Mao Naga uses different particles to
express an increasing level of intensity (Giridhar 1994: 373). The comparee is marked
by ko; no further information is available on the structure of comparative
constructions in Mao Naga.
   Mongsen Ao (23) uses the comitative marker thәn on the standard of comparison
(Coupe 2007: 183). The marker phān found on the standard in Karbi (see example 24)
is glossed as ‘non subject’: it is mainly used to mark O arguments, recipients and
oblique participants (Konnerth 2014: 480).

(23) Mongsen Ao (Kuki-Chin-Naga; Coupe 2007: 293)
     nì   sәnti-pàʔ thәn la      tә-hláŋ-pàʔ
     1SG PN-M         COM TOP NZP-be.long-NR
     ‘I am taller than Sentiba.’


(24) Karbi (Kuki-Chin-Naga; Konnerth 2014: 454)
      methān a-phān-te                  ingnàr      thè-mū
      dog       POSS-NSUBJ-COND?        elephant be.big-COMP
      ‘Elephants are bigger than dogs.’




                                                                                        79
Ivani, Jessica K.                                       Comparative constructions in Suansu


Tangkhul (25) marks the standard NP of comparative constructions with the suffix ki,
which corresponds to the locative form meaning ‘on’ (Stassen 1985: 147).


(25) Tangkhul Naga (Kuki-Chin-Naga; Stassen 1985: 147)
      Themma         hau lu-ki     vi-we
      man            this that-on good-COP
      ‘This man is better than that man’


Data on Karenic languages is limited. In Kayah Monu, comparative constructions
display the particle khlu after the verb and before the standard (Wai 2013: 23). The
particle is attested in Kayan Pekon with an adverbial function and translated with the
meaning ‘more’ (Wai 2013: 35). No other means seem to be used in the expression of
comparison of inequality, as shown in (26).


(26) Kayah Monu (Karenic; Wai 2013: 23)
      hè     sáplá        khlù phàlú
      1SG dejected        ADV    phalu
      ‘I am more dejected than Phalu.’


In Burmese, the only Burmo-Qiangic language of the sample, the standard is suffixed
by the marker hteʔ, meaning ‘over’ (27).


(27) Burmese (Burmo-Qiangic: Stassen 1985: 126)
      Thu-hteʔ       pein-te
      him-over be.thin-NONFUT
      ‘She is thinner than him.’


4. Data discussion


Following Stassen’s classification, the languages discussed in Section 3.2 can be
assigned to the Adverbial and to the Particle types. Suansu is the only language among
the ones described in this study that can be linked to the Exceed type. Table 4
illustrates the types and the related subtypes individuated for the languages of the
sample.




                                                                                        80
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


    Type (No. of languages)        Languages
    Exceed (1)                     Suansu
    Adverbial: Allative (6)        Apatani, Atong, Galo, Garo, Karbi, Tangam
    Adverbial: Locative (5)        Burmese, Hkongso, Mru, Rabha, Tangkhul
    Adverbial: Separative (6)      Bunan, Chintang, Konyak, Mongsen Ao, Moyon, Yakkha
    Particle (7)                   Chothe, Geba Karen, Kayah Monu, Kadu, Mao Naga, Raji, Turung


                                Table 4: Typology and respective languages.


The most common type identified in the sample corresponds to the Adverbial type,
which can be further distinguished in Allative, Separative and Locative subtypes.
      Six languages belong to the Allative subtype. These include the Brahmaputran
languages Atong and Garo, characterized by goal and benefactive forms marked on
the standard of comparison. According to Stassen’s typology, direct object markers
are also classified within the Allative subtype, adding Tangam, Apatani, Galo and
Karbi (Kuki-Chin-Naga) to the subtype.
      Six languages from the sample belong to the Separative subtype within the
Adverbial type. The Separative subtype comprises standard markers of source and
origin. The Kiranti languages Yakkha and Chintang, as well as Konyak and Bunan
belong to the Separative subtype. Comitative markers are also included within the
Separative subtype in Stassen’s typology, and they are attested in Mongsen Ao and
Moyon through the forms thәn and hak respectively. The marker phәy in Konyak has
also a comitative meaning, and it is included in the Separative subtype. However,
phәy somehow challenges the typology, since its original meaning is `behind’, opening
the interpretation of the marker as a locative particle and thus linking the form to the
Locative subtype. Comitative markers used as standard markers in comparative
constructions are found cross-linguistically, for example in Nuer (Nilotic, Ultan 1972),
and Muna (Austronesian, Van Den Berg 2018), and they are considered rare.
      Five languages are assigned to the Locative subtype. These include Rabha
(Brahmaputran), Tangkhul (Kuki-Chin-Naga), Burmese, 9 and the Mruic languages
Hkgonso and Mru. Within the Locative subtype, the markers on the standard have the



9
    Stassen (1985:40) includes Burmese comparative constructions under the Separative type. Since the
form hteʔ indicates a spatial location (‘over’), rather than “a motion away from a location” prototypical
of the Separative subtype, I have reinterpreted Burmese comparative constructions under the Locative
subtype.


                                                                                                      81
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                  Comparative constructions in Suansu


function of a static spatial location ‘on’ and ‘over’ (ki in Tangkhul, kára in Rabha and
hteʔ in Burmese), and ‘side’ (lake in Mruic).
      The distribution of the types (and the related subtypes) reveals interesting aspects.
Comparatives of the Allative subtype are found in 6 languages of the sample. This
subtype is claimed to be rare in typological investigations (Stolz 2013: 19; Ultan 1972:
140). Stassen (1985: 40) reports the presence of the Allative comparative subtype in
7 languages out of the 110 that compose his sample. None of the languages listed by
Stassen under the subtype is a Tibeto-Burman variety.10 Based on his results, Stassen
hypothesizes that the Allative subtype occurs in languages with basic verb-initial
word order (Stassen 1985: 41). The cases illustrated above, from verb-final Tibeto-
Burman languages, suggests that word order in general does not constrain the
assignment to a specific comparative subtype, such as Allative.
      Seven of the Tibeto-Burman languages explored in this study are assigned to the
Particle comparative type. The Particle type is characterized by broad definitory
criteria in Stassen’s classification. The formal heterogeneity of the Particle type,
combined with the scarce data available on the functions and meanings of the
particles, makes this classification and the assignment of comparative constructions
to this type blurred and tentative at times. Only a few languages of the Particle type
provide detailed information on the respective comparative constructions. In some
cases, the markers found in the languages assigned to this type do not seem to appear
elsewhere in the grammar, suggesting the presence of dedicated comparative markers.
Dedicated markers are referred to as Pure comparatives in Stolz’s terms (see Section
1.1.). The particle zhü, glossed as ‘rather’, found in Mao Naga comparative
constructions, appears to be a dedicated comparative marker. A similar specific
comparative function can be hypothesized for the standard marker tre in Chothe.
      Finally, the standard clitic atha found in Kadu comparative constructions, appears
to be a dedicated comparative marker (Sangdong 2012: 331).
      Degree markers do not constitute a parameter in Stassen’s classification, and they
are in general neglected from comparative constructions typologies (e.g., Dixon
2008). Degree markers are often hard to identify in linguistic sources. This aspect has
been pointed out in the literature by Ultan (1972: 127), who has stressed the
difficulties in distinguishing between standard and degree markers within languages.



10
     The languages that are listed by Stassen under the Allative subtype are Breton, Jacaltec, Kanuri,
Maasai, Nuer, Siuslawan, and Tarascan.


                                                                                                   82
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


   Raji comparative constructions offer an example of this ambiguity. The form jәmma
identified in Raji corresponds to the plural marker and is the only instance attested
in the sample of a synchronic fully functional plural marker used in comparative
constructions. This form is assigned to the Particle comparative type. Based on the
shared meaning of ‘moreness’ and increased quantity in general that is conveyed both
in plurality and asymmetric relations of comparison, I hypothesize a developing
multipurpose function of this marker. From this perspective, the form jәmma acquires
the meaning and functional properties of a degree marker rather than a standard
marker, making its assignment to the Particle type more ambiguous.
   Other markers from the languages assigned to the Particle type have a dubious
status. In Turung, the post standard particle is glossed as ‘more’, and thus interpreted
as a degree marker. Both Karenic languages of the sample, Geba Karen and Kayah
Monu, appear to express comparison exclusively through a degree marker, doli and
khlù respectively. These languages are tentatively assigned to the Particle type.
   Degree markers are widespread across the sample and they often co-occur with
other markers in comparative constructions. It is outside the scope of this study to
propose a novel typology that would comprise the presence and the properties of
degree markers, and this enterprise is left to future research. However, I report for
exhaustivity the distribution of degree markers in the sample. Table 5 shows the
number of languages with degree markers distributed over the identified types.


 Type (No. of languages)                     No. of languages with degree markers
 Exceed (1)                                  0
 Adverbial: Allative (6)                     6
 Adverbial: Locative (5)                     0
 Adverbial: Separative (6)                   0
 Particle (7)                                7


                           Table 5: Typology and presence of degree markers.


Degree markers are found in half of the languages of the sample and appear to be
absent in comparative constructions of the Locative and Separative subtypes. In these
subtypes, the asymmetry between the comparee and the standard is made explicit by
‘separative’ and ablative morphemes in general. The Allative type, on the other hand,
comprises standard markers related to goal, direct object and comitative forms,
‘allowing’ the presence of markers that overtly express the degree of comparison. The



                                                                                     83
Ivani, Jessica K.                                             Comparative constructions in Suansu


locus of degree markers is usually on the parameter. Degree markers are also present
in the languages assigned to the Particle type, either as standalone forms or in
addition to other markers.
   The presence of overt marking on the comparee is another parameter usually left
unexplored in typological classifications of comparative constructions. Markers on the
comparee are found on a small subset of 7 languages of the sample. Half of these
languages belong to the Brahmaputran subgroup: the forms include topic markers,
such as ká in Kadu (Sangdong 2012: 315) and cəʔ in Hkgonso (Wright 2009: 119).
Other languages include Konyak, Chothe (Singh 2000: 271), and Suansu.
   As shown in Section 2.1., Suansu comparative constructions (of the Exceed type)
consist of a transitive predicate that takes the comparee as its subject and the standard
as object. Ergative marking on the comparee outside a transitive predicative unit in a
comparative construction is considered a typological oddity. It is found in Turung,
where the ergative/agentive marker î is suffixed to the comparee, while the respective
standard of comparison is followed by a particle meaning ‘more’. A similar use of the
ergative marker in a comparative construction has been reported by Jacques (2016)
in Japhug (a Qiangic language spoken in Sichuan), where the functions and the
possible diachronic pathways of evolution of this marker are presented and discussed
extensively.
   Given the types, it is possible to explore their genealogical and geographic
distribution. Table 6 illustrates the breakdown of the types for each linguistic
subgroup in the sample.


 Subgroup            Allative     Locative      Separative      Particle     Exceed      Total
 Bodic                                               1                                     1
 Brahmaputran           2             1              1                 3                   7
 Burmo-Qiangic                        1                                                    1
 Karenic                                                               2                   2
 Kiranti                                             2                                     2
 Kuki-Chin-Naga         1             1              2                 1        1          6
 Macro-Tani             3                                                                  3
 Mruic                                2                                                    2
 Raji-Raute                                                            1                   1
                                                                                           25


                             Table 6: Types per linguistic subgroup.




                                                                                                84
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


The sample is not genealogically balanced and is not fully representative of each
linguistic subgroup; however, it allows for some qualitative considerations. Data from
the Brahmaputran stock suggests high heterogeneity in the types (and subtypes) found
within a genealogical stock. In the Brahmaputran stock, both the Adverbial and the
Particle types are found, and the Adverbial type is represented by each of the
respective subtypes. The same scenario is observed in Kuki-Chin-Naga, where all the
main types -and subtypes- are found. The Mruic linguistic subgroup consists of 2
languages, Mru and Hkgonso, both included in the sample: they follow the Locative
subtype. The Macro-Tani stock includes 12 languages (according to Glottolog,
Hammarström et al. 2020), and three are included in the sample. These languages
follow the Allative type.
   Comparative structures tend to spread areally (Stassen: 1985; Dixon 2008: 813).
The three main types, Adverbial, Particle and Exceed comparatives are plotted in
Figure 2 to illustrate their geographical distribution.




                           Figure 2: Geographical distribution of the types.




                                                                                   85
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                     Comparative constructions in Suansu


At a visual inspection, the geographical distribution of the main types suggests the
presence of two clusters for the Adverbial and Particle types.11 To assess the presence
of the clusters, I test the plot through a specific visual statistical inference inspection
process (Wickham et al. 2010), followed by a “Line Up” protocol (Kerman et al. 2008).
      Visual statistical inference has the main purpose of bringing statistical support in
quantifying the significance of structure in plots of data. It relies on the human
capacity to spot visual trends in data, avoiding at the same time the risks of over-
interpreting the patterns. Through this procedure, the plot representing the true data
is placed among a set of randomly generated decoy data plots that support the null
hypothesis (in the present case, no clustering). If the true data plot stands out from
the rest in terms of representativity of the current hypothesis (here, the presence of
two areal clusters), based on the judgment of a group of impartial and unbiased
observers, one could consider this result as a rejection of the null hypothesis. This
procedure is known as “Line-up", and the generated plot is found in the Appendix.
The plot is generated using the R package nullabor (Buja et al. 2009). The true data
plot is 12, and it passed the “Line-up” protocol test.
      The Adverbial type clusters in the western part of the region. Comparative
constructions of the Adverbial type are also widespread in the languages and language
families of the Indian subcontinent (Stassen 2013). They are found, for example, in
Hindi, Marathi and Bagri (Indo-Aryan), in the Dravidian languages Tamil and Telugu,
and in Mundari and Santali (both belonging to the Munda branch of Austroasiatic).
The languages of the sample located in the western part of the area contribute to this
Adverbial comparative constructions continuum.
      The Particle type clusters in the eastern part of the region and is assigned mainly
to the Tibeto-Burman languages geographically contiguous to the Myanmar border,
except for Raji, spoken in the western fringes of the targeted area and whose
assignment to the Particle type is dubious. There is no detailed cross-linguistic
information on the comparative types found in the linguistic stocks contiguous to the
languages belonging to the Particle type.
      Suansu is the only representative of the Exceed comparative in the sample. Outside
the sample, comparatives of the Exceed type seem to be restricted to two geographical
areas: South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (Stassen 2013). Within South-East
Asia, the Exceed type is attested in Mandarin, Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese, among
others. Further studies on lesser-known languages are required to assess the presence

11
     No significant clustering can be observed in the geographical distribution of the subtypes.


                                                                                                      86
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


of this type in contiguous geographical areas such as southern China or northern
Myanmar.


5. Concluding remarks


The main contributions of this paper are summarized in the following. Suansu
comparative constructions, described for the first time in this study, can be
typologically assigned to the Exceed comparative type in the classification proposed
by Stassen.
   Comparatives of the Exceed type are not found in Suansu genealogical and
geographical linguistic neighbors. The cross-linguistic exploration of comparative
constructions from a sample of Tibeto-Burman languages of northeastern India rather
shows the presence of two main types: Adverbial and Particle types.
   These types cluster geographically. The Adverbial type is found in the languages
spoken in the western part of the region. This distribution is consistent with the
extensive presence of comparative constructions of the Adverbial type found in the
genealogically diverse languages spoken in South Asia (Indo-Aryan, Dravidian,
Munda) and attested in the literature.
   Comparative constructions of the Particle type are rather found in the eastern part
of the region, and specifically in the languages spoken on the geographical and
cultural border between South Asia and South-East Asia.
   Comparative constructions of the Exceed type are not found outside Suansu;
however, the presence of this type aligns with the assumptions in the cross-linguistic
literature that describe the distribution of this type as geographically restricted to
South-East Asia (and sub-Saharan Africa). The presence of the Exceed type
comparative in Suansu might suggest a larger spread of this type, not limited to the
‘core’ South-East Asia, but also extended to the western fringes of the region.
   A more general contribution to the typology of comparative constructions pertains
to the presence of comparative constructions of the Allative subtype. This type is
described as rare in many typologies and linked to verb-initial word order. The
relative high occurrences of the Allative type found in several verb-final Tibeto-
Burman languages seem to suggest that the Allative subtype is not constrained by any
specific word order frame.
   Several aspects that surfaced in the data discussion call for an updated approach
in the typology of comparative constructions. These aspects include the high internal



                                                                                   87
Ivani, Jessica K.                                                       Comparative constructions in Suansu


diversity attested within the linguistic subgroups, the blurred boundaries among the
types (for example, the double interpretation of the marker phәy in Konyak), and the
tentative assignment of several comparative constructions to the Particle type. A
typology of comparative constructions based exclusively on the marking on the
standard of comparison may suffice to outline broad characteristics of comparative
constructions, but fails in describing the full linguistic diversity of these structures.
As a result, different comparative structures are lumped together in broad types, such
as the Particle type, or several subtypes proliferate with arbitrary definitory criteria.
     A proposed typology, whose implementation is left for future research, supports a
multivariate approach to comparative constructions. In this framework, each
structural variable is considered: all the structures found in a comparative
construction are captured, such as degree markers, parameters markers, word order,
and so on. The premature labelling of the variables should be also avoided, to prevent
potential ambiguities. No variable is discarded a priori, and the set of potential
variables is defined during the data collection process. These variables should then
be described in a granular and systematic way, to ensure a detailed overview of their
diversity. The definition of the types can then be outlined in a latter phase, in order
to capture the systematic similarity of the constructions that are assigned to a specific
type and, at the same time, to facilitate the cross-linguistic viability of the types.



Acknowledgements


My thanks go to the Suansu speaking community and especially to J. V. for their
constant support in explaining and clarifying several aspects of Suansu grammar to
me. I am also grateful to Taras Zakharko for his helpful comments, and to the two
anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback on an earlier draft of this paper.


Abbreviations*


    1 = 1st person                     CUST   = customary aspect             NR   = general nominalizer
    2 = 2 person
         nd
                                       DAT   = dative                        NSUBJ = non-subject



*
  The abbreviations used in the Suansu examples found in Section 2 follows the Leipzig Glossing Rules. The
examples from the other Tibeto-Burman languages described in this study are reported with the original glosses
found in the respective sources, with some minor adjustments for normalization purposes.



                                                                                                           88
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


 3 = 3rd person                      DECL   = declarative           NZP   = nominalizing prefix
 ABS   = absolutive                  DET    = determiner            NZR   = nominalizer
 ABL   = ablative                    EQ    = equative copula        PL   = plural
 ACC   = accusative                  ERG    = ergative              PN   = personal name
 ADV    = adverb                     GEN    = genitive              POSS   = possessive
 AG    = agentive                    GOAL    = goal                 PRS   = present
 ATTR   = attributive                INS   = instrumental           PST   = past
 CJ   = conjunct                     IPFV   = imperfective          PL   = plural
 CLF   = classifier                  LOC    = locative              REL   = relativizing subject
 COM    = comitative                 M   = masculine gender         SG   = singular
 COMP    = comparative               NOM    = nominative            STAT   = stative
 COND    = conditional               NAGT    = non-agentive         SUB   = subject
 COP   = copula                      NONFUT    = non-future tense   TOP   = topic


References


Abraham, P. T. 1985. Apatani grammar. Vol. 12. Central Institute of Indian Languages:
      Grammar Series. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2002. Autotypologizing databases and their use
      in fieldwork. In Peter Austin & Helen Dry & Peter Wittenburg (eds.), Proceedings of
      the International LREC Workshop on Resources and Tools in Field Linguistics.
      Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010a. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage.
      Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause-Hierarchy and Clause-Linking: The Syntax and Pragmatics
      Interface, 51–101. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bickel Balthasar. 2010b. Towards a multivariate typology of reference tracking.
      Presentation given at the Meeting of the Research Group 742, Leipzig, 21 April.
Bickel, Balthasar & Zakharko, Taras & Nichols, Johanna. 2016. Better data with late
      aggregation: Autotyp and beyond. Paper presented at Poznan Linguistics Meeting,
      Poznań, 15-17 September.
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna & Zakharko, Taras & Witzlack-Makarevich,
      Alena & Hildebrandt, Kristine & Rießler, Michael & Bierkandt, Lennart & Zúñiga,
      Fernando & Lowe, John B. 2017. The AUTOTYP typological databases. Version
      0.1.0. (Available online at https://github.com/autotyp/autotyp-data/tree/0.1.0,
      Accessed on 2020-11-10).
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: suppletion,
      superlatives, and the structure of words. Vol. 50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.



                                                                                                   89
Ivani, Jessica K.                                         Comparative constructions in Suansu


Buja, Andreas & Cook, Dianne & Hofmann, Heike & Lawrence, Michael & Lee, Eun-
   kyung & Swayne, Deborah F. & Wickham, Hadley. 2009. Statistical inference for
   exploratory data analysis and model diagnostics. Royal Society Philosophical
   Transactions. 367(1906). 4361–4383.
Burling, Robbins. 1961. A Garo grammar. Vol. 25. Deccan College Monograph Series.
   Poona: Deccan College.
Burling, Robbins. 2003a. The language of the Modhupur Mandi, Garo: Vol. II: The
   Lexicon. New Delhi: Bibliophile South Asia.
Burling, Robbins. 2003b. The Tibeto-Burman Languages of Northeastern India. In
   Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 169-192.
   London/New York: Routledge.
Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
   Gruyter.
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. ‘Optional’ ‘ergativity’ in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics
   of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2). 9-20.
Devi, Kongkham Hemabati. 2010. A descriptive grammar of Moyon. PhD Dissertation,
   Manipur University.
Dixon, Robert. 2008. Comparative constructions: a cross-linguistic typology. Studies
   in Language. 32(4). 787–817.
Ebersole, Harold. 1996. The Mru language: a preliminary grammatical sketch.
   Unpublished manuscript.
Fuchs, Catherine. 2014. La comparaison et son expression en Français. Paris: Éditions
   Ophrys.
Giridhar, P. P. 1994. Mao Naga grammar. Central Institute of Indian Languages:
   Grammar Series. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Hammarström, Harald & Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin & Bank, Sebastian.
   2020. Glottolog 4.2.1. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
   (Available online at https://glottolog.org/, Accessed on 2020-11-10)
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
   Press.
Ivani, Jessica K., & Zakharko, Taras. 2019. Tymber. Database on nominal number
   marking          constructions.   Version     0.1.0.    (Available        online       at
   https://github.com/jkivani/tymber/, Accessed on 2020-10-10)




                                                                                          90
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


Ivani, Jessica K. 2020. Comparative constructions in Tibeto-Burman languages of
   northeastern           India         [Data         set].   (Available   online    at
   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4274488, Accessed on 2020-10-10).
Jacques, Guillaume. 2016. From ergative to comparee marker: multiple reanalyses
   and polyfunctionality. Diachronica 33(1). 1–30.
Joseph, U. V. 2007. Rabha. Vol. 1. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region.
   Leiden: Brill.
Kerman, Jouni & Gelman, Andrew & Zheng, Tian & Ding, Yuejing. 2008. Visualization
   in Bayesian data analysis. In Chun-houh Chen & Wolfgang Hardle & Antony Unwin
   (eds.), Handbook of Data Visualization, 709–24. Berlin: Springer.
Konnerth, Linda. 2014. A grammar of Karbi. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Krishan, Shree. 2001. A sketch of Raji grammar. In Yasuhiko Nagano and Randy J.
   Lapolla (eds.), New Research on Zhangzhung and Related Himalayan Languages, 449–
   497. Bon Studies. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Marrison, Geoffrey Edward. 1967. The classification of the Naga languages of North-East
   India. PhD dissertation, University of London.
Morey, Stephen. 2010. Turung: A variety of Singpho language spoken in Assam. Vol. 614.
   Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Research School of Pacific; Asian Studies, Australian
   National University.
Mortensen, David. 2013. Database of Tangkhulic Languages. Unpublished
   manuscript. Accessed via the STEDT Database (https://stedt.berkeley.edu/) on 2020-
   11-10.
Nagaraja, K. S. 2010. Konyak grammar. Vol. 594. Central Institute of Indian
   Languages: Publication. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Paudyal, Netra Prasad. 2015. Aspects of Chintang syntax. PhD dissertation, Universität
   Zürich.
Post, Mark W. 2007. A grammar of Galo. PhD dissertation, LaTrobe University.
Post, Mark W. 2017. The Tangam language: grammar, dictionary and texts. Leiden: Brill.
Sangdong, David. 2012. A grammar of the Kadu (Asak) language. PhD dissertation, La
   Trobe University.
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 7.
   Berlin: Language Science Press.
Singh, Hidam Brojen. 2000. A descriptive grammar of Chothe. PhD dissertation,
   Manipur University.




                                                                                    91
Ivani, Jessica K.                                          Comparative constructions in Suansu


Simon, Ivan Martin. 1972. An introduction to Apatani. Gangtok: Government of India
   Press.
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stassen, Leon. 2013. Comparative constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin
   Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max
   Planck      Institute   for   Evolutionary   Anthropology.    (Available      online    at
   https://wals.info/chapter/121, Accessed on 2020-11-10).
Stolz, Thomas. 2013. Competing comparative constructions in Europe. Berlin/New York:
   Mouton de Gruyter.
Sun, Tianshin. 1993. A historical-comparative study of the Tani (Mirish) branch in Tibeto-
   Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 16. Ann Arbor: UMI.
Treis, Yvonne. 2018. Comparative constructions: An Introduction. Linguistic
   Discovery 16(1). i-xxvi.
Tuttle, Siri G. 2018. Comparative and superlative constructions in Alaskan
   Athabascan languages. Linguistic Discovery 16(1). 100-116.
Ultan, Russell. 1972. Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working
   Papers on Language Universals (Stanford) 9. 117–162.
Van Breugel, Seino. 2014. A grammar of Atong. Leiden: Brill.
Van Den Berg, René. 2018. More than most: comparative constructions in Muna.
   Linguistic Discovery 16(1). 117-140.
Wai, Lin Aung. 2013. A descriptive grammar of Kayah Monu. Master’s thesis, Payap
   University.
Wickham, Hadley & Cook, Dianne & Hofmann, Heike & Buja, Andreas. 2010.
   Graphical inference for infovis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
   Graphics 16(6). 973–979.
Widmer, Manuel. 2014. A descriptive grammar of Bunan. PhD dissertation, Universität
   Bern.
Wright, Jonathan Michael. 2009. Hkongso grammar sketch. PhD dissertation, Graduate
   Institute of Applied Linguistics.


CONTACT
jessica.ivani@uzh.ch




                                                                                           92
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-1 (2022): 65-93


Appendix




                                                          93
