Classifiers in Kơho: A Mon-Khmer Language

Paper presented to the Rocky Mountain Modern LanguageAssociation Convention, Southeast Asian Languages, Languagesand Literatures session, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 8-10,

2009.

Classifiers in Kơho: A Mon-Khmer Language

Neil H. OlsenUniversity of [email protected]

Does the language have classifiers? In other words does it possess a closed class of nouns which function as the heads of noun phrases when enumeration is involved? If so, list the various classifiers (supplying also their gloss as normal nouns) and describe the semantic classes of nouns associated with each, illustrating amply. Are the classifiers marked for any other semantic feature, e.g. politeness, size? (Comrie & Smith 1971: §2.1.1.9.4)

Abstract

This paper explores Kơho classifier constructions, focusing on numeral classifiers. Kơho numeral classifiers are of theSoutheast Asian type (Chinese type) [after Jones 1970]: numeral + classifier + noun. A review of the classifier literature generally and for Southeast Asia as an areal phenomenon is discussed, and specific studies pertinent to the Austroasiatic family and Mon-Khmer subgroup are summarized. Data for numeral classifiers in Kơho is presented and analyzed. Classifiers in the language select for individuation and anaphoric devices for referent tracking in discourse. No repeater classifiers have been found in the Kơho data so far.

Introduction

mailto:[email protected]

Olsen: Kơho Classifiers - 2

Kơho [kəˈhɔ]1 (ISO 639-3: kpm) is a Mon-Khmer (Austroasiatic) language, spoken by approximately 300,000 people located in Lâm Đồng province in the highland region of Việt Nam.2 Kơho is a South Bahnaric language and, as such, related to Khmer (Cambodian) and more distantly to Vietnamese. Several thousand Kơho-speakers relocated to France and the USA after the collapse of South Viet Nam in 1975. In 1986, and again in 1992, Kơho refugees resettled in North and South Carolina.

Hawkins (1983:284,338) classifies Sre, a dialect of Kơho, asan SVO word order language with prepositions and numeral-noun, noun-adjective (alternatively adjective-noun is a non-basic order), noun-genitive, and noun-relative clause characteristics (NumN, an/NA, NG, NRel). Sre is language type 9 in his Extended Sample typological classification.

Review of relevant classifier literature

T’sou 1976 hypothesizes that the use of nominal classifiers and the use of plural morphemes are in complementary distribution: either a) a natural language has either nominal classifiers or plural morphemes, or b) if a natural language has both kinds of morphemes, then their use is in complementary distribution. He proposes a formal apparatus which compares both the synchronic and diachronic developments of nominal classifiers. In his study, he employs the model in a diachronic approach to Chinese classifiers. However, the model may also be used to analyzeclassifiers synchronically. He proposes a four-way distinction in the kinds of classifiers, characterized by two features: [±entity] and [±exactness] (1217-8):

Entity1 The ethnonym Kơho is derived from a Cham word applied collectively to a group of several peoples speaking mutually intelligible dialects in the southern part of the Central Highlands (Cao Nguyên) of Viêt Nam. The Kơho call themselves kon cau.

2 See the Kơho entry in the Ethnologue: http://www.ethnologue.com.

http://www.ethnologue.com/


+ -Exactnes

s+ I II- III IV

In (I), the measure refers to an exact quantity and involvesdiscrete physical entities. In (II), the measure is exact but it refers to no discrete physical entity. This measure functions to delimit exact amounts of unstructured and non-entity mass. The measure applies to units of measurement and not to entities of the delimited mass. In (III), there is a well-defined discrete or entities, but the quantity is not exact either by design or convention. In (IV), which characterizes mainly abstract nouns, the measure is neither exact nor does it refer to a discrete physical entity. Using the English mass noun cattle as an example, T’sou fillsin the matrix of measures:

I: two head(s) of cattleII: two herds of cattleIII: 20,000 pounds of cattleIV: two kinds of cattle

He notes that natural language exhibits all four kinds of measure, but the range of each varies in different languages. Measure (I), in Asian languages, embodies a complex and rich classificatory system. For measure (I), the number of categories is culture-bound and relatively finite, depending on standard measures of weight, volume, length, temporal extent, etc. Measure (IV) universally has few categories, but (III) is relatively open-ended, including what are often termed as temporary measures (e.g. three tables full of paper). In English, measure (IV) involves a complex and idiosyncratic array of classifiers: two prides of lions, three schools of fish, a horde of savages, two gaggles of geese, etc. These terms are derived from a refined tradition of sport hunting where colorful inventory-taking or enumeration was an inherent part of the sport. These classifiers are used only in these special contexts. The general classifier


group can be substituted in colloquial speech for the specialized classifiers listed above.

T’sou (1224-6) lists a group of attributes from which the semantic features for subdividing measure (I) [+entity, +exact] nouns in the classificatory systems of Asian languages may be drawn (see Appendix 2).

Allan 1977 distinguishes four types of classifier languages:1) numeral classifier languages (ex. Thai), 2) concordial classifier languages (ex. many Bantu and Australian languages), 3) predicate classifier languages (ex. Navajo), and 4) intra-locative classifier languages (ex. only 3 known: Toba, Eskimo, and Dyirbal) (286-8). Focusing on numeral classifier languages, he notes that only four sequences are permissible for the paradigm combination of quantifier (Q), classifier (CL), and noun (N) (288):

Q+CL+N: Amerindian languages, Bengali, Chinese, Semiticlanguages, Vietnamese

N+Q+CL: Burmese, Japanese, ThaiCL+Q+N: Kiriwina (Oceanic)N+CL+Q: Louisiade archipelago (Oceanic)

Kơho numeral classifiers fall into Allan’s first category: Q+CL+N (see below for examples).

Allan observes that “[i]f classifiers were meaningless, the use of different classifiers with the same noun would have no semantic effect; but in fact, it does, and different classifiers are used with the same noun (or noun stem), bothin straightforward discourse and in verbal play, to focus ondifferent characteristics (or imputed characteristics) of the referent” (288).

Allan states that languages do vary considerably in the number of their classifiers, but seven categories of classification can be identified: 1) material, 2) shape, 3) consistency, 4) size, 5) location, 6) arrangement, and 7)


quanta (297). The first five occur only in classifier languages. He notes that “[by] and large, it is the senses of both sight and touch which are involved in the perceptionof the characteristics of noun classes manifest in the sevencategories of classification”. Allan proposes a universal constraint (298):

The characteristics denoted by the categories of classification must be perceivable by more than one of the senses alone.

Most of the seven categories delineated by Allan have a number of subcategories; these are listed in Appendix 3. Heconcludes that a classifier has meaning because it indicatesthe perceived characteristics of the entities which it classifies. That is, that classifiers are linguistic correlates to perception, and when the perception of a givenobject changes, the classifier may change concomitantly—though there are constraints on how this may come about (308).

Senft (2000) discusses the semantic bases for the classification of nominal referents (nouns). He notes that languages with numeral classifiers differ from other languages primarily with respect to the following characteristic feature: in counting inanimate as well as animate referents the numerals (obligatorily) concatenate with a certain morpheme, which is the so-called ‘classifier’(15). Classifiers are generally defined as morphemes that classify and quantify nouns according to semantic criteria. Senft distinguishes the difference between classifiers and quantifiers: classifiers classify a noun inherently (i.e., theydesignate and specify semantic features inherent to the nominal denotatum and divide the set of nouns of a certain language into disjunct classes); quantifiers classify a noun temporarily (i.e., they can be combined with different nounsin a rather free way and designate a specific characteristicfeature of a certain noun which is not inherent to it) (21).He also discusses and defines the terms ‘sortal classifier’


(a classifier which individuates whatever it refers to in terms of the kind of entity it is) and ‘mensural classifier’(a classifier which individuates in terms of quantity).

Senft states that in classifier languages, nominal referentsare classified and categorized according to their specific characteristics. They are based on semantic principles which result in the ordering of objects, living beings, concepts, action, and events. One can refer to the units ofthis classification as ‘semantic systems’ or ‘semantic domains’. He then lists the descriptions of the criteria that structure classifying languages including the followingfeatures: ±Human; Human & Social Status; Human & Kinship relation; ±Animate; Sex; Shape/Dimension; Size; Consistency;Function; Arrangement; Habitat; Number/Amount/Mass/Group; Measure; Weight; Time; Action; ±Visible (23-24). These features correlate significantly with T’sou’s and Allan’s inventory of features (listed in Appendices 2 and 3).

Aikhenvald (2000) notes that numeral classifiers do not haveto appear on any constituent outside the numeral noun phrase; so, there is no agreement in numeral classifier between the noun and another constituent. She notes that numeral classifiers have other, contingent properties (98):

1) The choice of a numeral classifier is predominantly semantic

2) Numeral classifier systems differ in the extent towhich they are grammaticalized. Numeral classifiers can be an open lexical class.

3) In some numeral classifier languages, not every noun can be associated with a numeral classifier. Some nouns take no classifier at all; other nouns may have alternative choices of classifier, depending on which property of the noun is in focus.

Aikhenvald divides numeral classifiers into ‘sortal’ and ‘mensural’ types. Sortal numeral classifiers describe


inherent properties of referents and mensural classifiers describe the way they can be measured. Sortal classifiers tend to use inherent properties (1-7, below) more, while mensural classifiers prefer temporary ones (286-293). The choice of sortal classifiers is often based on animate, humanness, or, more rarely, sex (1). Further classificationof humans is often based on social status or age (2). Additional properties employed in numeral classifiers are (3) physical properties, (4) functional properties, and (5) arrangement and quanta. Mensural classifiers (6) combine these.

(1) Animacy, humanness, and sex in numeral classifiersa) humans, non-humans, and inanimatesb) animacy and sex

(2) Further classification of humans(3) Physical properties

a) shape and dimensionalityb) extendedness, interioricity, and boundednessc) directionality or orientation

(4) Functional properties(5) Arrangement and quanta(6) Semantic properties of mensural classifiers

The classifier phenomenon in Southeast Asia: literature review

There is an extensive literature on classifiers in SoutheastAsian languages. Some of the more important works include: an areal study of the classifier phenomenon (Jones 1970); Thai (Haas 1942); Burmese (Haas 1951); and Nùng (Saul 1965).For Austroasiatic classifiers (Adams 1986); Mon-Khmer classifiers (Adams 1992); Cambodian /Khmer (Jacob 1968); Vietnamese (Daley 1998; Nguyễn Đinh Hoa 1957; Nguyễn Phú Phong 1975; Thompson 1965); Pacoh (Alves 2006); Stiêng (Miller 1976); Minor Mlabri (Rischel 1995); Sedang (Smith 1975); Kammu (Sönderberg 2006); Chrau (Thomas 1971); Kơho (Evans and Bowen 1962; Manley 1972).


Kơho classifiers

The source of the data for this study derives from Evans andBowen (1962), Manley (1972), and my own field notes, which include an unpublished grammar and dictionary.

Manley in his Outline of Sre structure (1972) categorizes nine Kơho-Sre classifiers in the following manner using an eclectic set of morphosyntactic features reflecting a lexicase framework (102):3

[+noun, +common, +classifier][+concrete]

[+human] naɁ ‘humans’[-human]

[+measure][+volume]

[+liquid] liɁ ‘liter’[-liquid] səɁ ‘basketfull’

[-volume][+weight] kiɁ ‘kilogram’[-weight] thək ‘meter’

[-measure][+roundish, solid object] naj

‘roundish, solid objects’

[-roundish, solid object] nəm ‘non-human animate

creatures and all

other inanimateobjects not comprehended

under

3 The lexicase framework was developed by Stanley Starosta (1939-2002) and his students at the University of Hawai‘i from the early 1970s on. It is a lexically focused, monostratal grammar that makes use of case and lexical features (Alves 2006:5fn).


nay’[-concrete]

[+linguistic] jənaw ‘words, languages,

songs, poetry, legends’

[-linguistic] bəta ‘for all others’

Manley divides classifiers into two groups—those with the feature [+concrete] and those with the feature [-concrete], which he terms abstract. All Sre [Kơho] concrete nouns can be counted and must (with certain exceptions…) be preceded by a classifier when being enumerated. He divides concrete classifiers into three major subcategories:

naɁ for humansnaj for roundish, solid objects (such as fruit, rocks,

footballs, grains of rice or wheat, etc.)nəm for non-human animate creatures and all other

inanimate objects not comprehended under naj

In addition to these three classifiers, there are other, more specialized classifiers that are not used that much andappear to be dying out. The three basic classifiers listed above are taking over the more specialized classifiers’ functions. Examples are baɁ, nkɔŋ, paŋ, rɔːt, and tap. Examples of these classifier constructions are below:

baːr naɁ caw Ɂuːrtwo CL person woman‘two women’

pɛ naj luɁthree CL rock‘three rocks’

praw nəm sraɁsix CL book


‘six books’

All nouns with the feature matrix [+noun, +common, -classifier, ±concrete, -count] must be preceded by a measureclassifier when being counted. Most of these measure classifiers are of recent borrowing from French (often via Vietnamese):

lit literkiɁ kilogramthək meter

There are also traditional indigenous measure classifiers, among them:

boːŋ one length (standing with arm upraised)laːs one length (distance, when arms outstretched and

fingers also extended, from fingertips of one to fingertip of the other)

nɗɑːmone span (distance from thumb to middle finger of spread hand)

tal one cubit (length from elbow to fingertips of the same arm)

Examples of these classifier constructions are below:

baːr lit tərnɑːmtwo CL rice wine‘two liters of wine’

pwan kiɁ pwacfour CL meat‘four kilograms of meat’

ɟət thək baːjten CL cloth‘ten meters of cloth’


All abstract nouns with the feature matrix [+noun, +common, -classifier, ±concrete, +count] must be preceded by a classifier when counted. Two classifiers fall into this category:

ɟənaw for words, languages, songs, poetry, legendsbəta for all others

Examples of these classifier constructions are below:

baːr ɟənaw pənɗiktwo CL poem‘two poems’

pɛ bəta kəlin gətwathree CL war‘three wars’

Using the lexicase syntactic framework, Manley sets up a series of rules that prevent two classifiers, of whatever type, from co-occurring, and ensures that classifiers will always be preceded by a numeral or a specifier. Finally, there is a rule that stipulates classifiers must agree with the nouns which follow them with respect to the features [human], [roundish, solid object], [linguistic], and [weight] (123).

Evans and Bowen 1962, in their discussion of Kơho classifiers, demonstrate the anaphoric function of classifiers in discourse (14a):

bol khaj bləj pɛ nəm Ɂjar, Ɂaɲ kɔɲ bləj do nəm.3PL.PN buy three CL chicken 1SG.PN want buy one

CL‘They are buying three chickens, I want to buy one.’

ɟət naj krwac nɗɑː ɗɔŋ tajh Ɂaɲ kɔɲ ɟət najten CL orange how.much coin Q 1SG.PN want ten CL‘How much are ten oranges? I want ten.’


teŋ dɔ gəs pram naɁ caw, pɛ naɁ nɛh re raw.place close have five CL people three CL PAST return

already‘There are five people here; three have gone home

already.’

They also show the quantifiable specificity associated with the use of a particular classifier:

do blah sraɁ one sheet of paperdo dap sraɁ one book (dap = CL for books)do pang sraɁ one sheet of paper

do naɁ caw one persondo mpol/ɲcəm caw a group of peopledo seng caw a line of people

Summary

Kơho numeral classifiers are semantically determined by the specificity of the noun individuated or categorized. The classifiers are not rigid in their application and can applyin several related or overlapping contexts with respect to the noun. The traditional system of specialized classifiersin a specific context is being diachronically simplified in the language. Further field work and investigation into thecontemporary use of these classifiers is needed.

Appendix 1: Inventory of Kơho classifiers

Orthographic form

Phonetic form

Scope Examplenouns

Comments

bă baɁ spatial points, particular locations (e.g.

bal, mir, sre, tiah


ricefields)blah2 blah layers of

s.t. (clothing, paper)

ao, sră, ôi

bơta bəta all non-linguistic categories,things, or events

hơ (jơh ală bơta hơ), tọmpà khà, kơnhơl, đơs-chọ, ñô tơrnọm, pơndut, pơrjòt, do, boh-lam cau kwang dê, bơtê, kon kơnhơl, kơlin gơtoă, gơlongbol glar

reifying classifier (usage as opposed to nominalizing infixes); (maybe bơta isa categorial [after Thompson 1965:§§8.61-2])

dang3 daŋ strings, beads

ñong, che nom. infix dơrñang (?)

dơm dəm necklaces, beads

ñong

đọm ɗɑːm trees chi, ñong Cf. tọm2

gơnar ɡənar small roundobjects (seeds, pills, grains)

dơngoi, gar, ñong, sơnơm

<gar2 ‘seed, pill, bullet’

jơnau (?) ɟənau abstract nouns for words, languages, songs, poetry, andlegends

cau

kĭ (?) kiɁ measure forweight: kilogram

Current term (<French); cf.kơr


kơlnac kəlnac string of beads (as anecklace tied together inback)

ñong

kơr kər measure forweight: kilogram

<object to be weighed>

Older term, cf. kĭ

kọl kɑːl small roundpiece of a solid substance

saƀong nom. infix > kơrnọl (?)

làs laːs measure of length: fathom

<object to be measured>

lit lit measure forliquids: liter

<object to be measured>

<French

lǒ2 lɔɁ wet ricefields

sre

mpôl mpol group of people (clan)

cau

mpung mpuŋ clump of bamboo

gle

nă naɁ counting human beings

cau

nai naj small, round objects (fruit, rocks, balls, grains of rice or wheat)

kroac can be used with plai

nđàm nɗaːm measure of <object to be


length: handspan

mesaured>

nđo nɗɔ one ear or stalk of a plant

dơngoi

nkong nkoŋ stalk-like things (vines, corn or wheat stalks)

<no example>

nơm nəm non-human animate creatures and all other inanimate objects notclassified by nai

gle, jơlu, mơngan, so, đao, sơgơn

nrang nraŋ one piece of cut, green foliage

gle, tao

ñcơm ɲcəm a group of people

cau

ngkơr ŋkər long, straight objects

saƀong, ñjring1, sung, tao, tà1, đao, yoas

pang paŋ flat, sheet-like things (cloth, mats, paper)

sră, ôi, mpan

pet pɛt small pieces of food

piang-lă, poac, rơpung


plai plaj small, spherical objects (fruits, hearts, balls, etc.)

blơn, bơ-ò, bơ-ôs, bơlhong, bơnang2, ƀơĭ > ƀơm, kroac, kuit, la2, leh, lơ-u, mil, mơsut, nùs, ñca, pơnat1, prìt

pơnai pənaj rocks luròt roːt longhouses hiurơnang rənaŋ husbands bauseng1 sɛŋ objects

occurring in a sequence orlinear order

cau, hiu

sơ səɁ measure of volume based on capacity (~20 kg. paddy)

<quantity to be measured>

sơmpring səmpriŋ necklaces, beads

ñong

sruh sɾuh fishnetstal (?) tal measure of

length: cubit

bài

tap2 (?) tap things occurring in layers (chapters of a book, stories of a building)

<no example>

tơnap tənap eggs tap ada < tap ‘egg‘


tọm2 tɑːm trees, plant stalks

kriang Cf. đọm

wang waŋ one bracelet

kong tê

yô1 (?) joː a pair; twoof s.t.

rpu

Source: Evans and Bowen 1962:14a, 90-92; Manley 1972:119-123; Olsen field notes.

Appendix 2: T’sou’s list of attributes from which the semantic features for subdividing measure (I) [±entity, ±exact] nouns in the classificatory systems of Asian languages may be drawn (1224-6).

1) Geometrical shape/forma) spherical or roundb) long, slender, or cylindricalc) possessing flat surface, with or without

thicknessd) horizontal (vs. vertical) orientation

2) Natural attributesa) faunab) florac) arboreald) heade) tailf) marine (vs. land-based)

3) Qualitative attributesa) rigidity (flexible vs. rigid)b) size/bulkc) meritoriousd) stationary/mobile

4) Social attributesa) politenessb) social statusc) sex (male/female)

5) Cultural attributesa) literary/written records


b) culinaryc) clothingd) instrumentale) edificef) mechanicalg) vehicularh) domesticated

6) Congregational attributesa) duality (pair)b) set (non-uniform objects)c) set (uniform objects)

7) Inherent attributesa) animateb) human/animal (non-human)

Appendix 3: Allan’s Seven categories and their subcategories (1977:298)

1) materiala) animacyb) abstract and verbal nounsc) inanimacy

2) shape3) consistency

a) flexibleb) hard or rigidc) non-discrete

4) sizea) bigb) small

5) location6) arrangement

a) object or objects in some specific and non-inherent configuration (thus involving the categories of sharp, size, and consistency)b) object or objects in a specific position, thus intersecting with the category of location (with a minor function here) (e.g. extended perpendicular/horizontal object, objects in parallel, objects in a row)


c) objects in some kind of specific non-inherentdistribution (e.g. heap, clump, bunch, herd)

7) quanta: numeral classifier languages either have no quanta classifiers or else they have a much larger set of quanta classifiers than other kinds of classifier languagesa) grammatical number (applied only to concordial and predicate classifier languages)b) collection (some combine with the arrangementcategory)(e.g. bunch, cluster, crowd, herd, pair, etc.)c) volume (e.g. basketful, handful, stalk)d) instance (e.g. kind of, sort of, etc.)e) partitives (e.g. piece of, sheet of, one of apair)f) measure (dimension, volume, weight, and time), (e.g. handspan, cubit)

References

Adams, Karen. 1986. Numeral classifiers in Austroasiatic. Noun classes and categorization, ed. by Colette Craig, 241-262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Adams, Karen. 1992. A comparison of the numeral classification of humans in Mon-Khmer. Mon-Khmer Studies21.107-129.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allan, Keith. 1977. Classifiers. Language 53,2.285-311/Alves, Mark J. 2006. A grammar of Pacoh: a Mon-Khmer language of

the central highlands of Vietnam. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Comrie, Bernard, and Norval Smith. 1971. Lingua Descriptive Series: Questionnaire. Lingua 42.1-72.

Craig, Colette G. 1992. Classifiers in a functional perspective. Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective, ed. by Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder, & Lars Kristoffersen, 277-301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


Daley, Karen Ann. 1998. Vietnamese classifiers in narrative text. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Evans, Helen E. and Peggy Bowen. 1962. Kơho language course. 2 vol. Dalat: Christian and Missionary Alliance.

Haas, Mary R. 1942. The use of numeral classifiers in Thai. Language 18.201-205. [Reprinted in Language, Culture, and History: Essays by Mary R. Haas, ed. by Anwar S. Dil, 58-64. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1978.]

Haas. Mary R. 1951. The use of numeral classifiers in Burmese. Semitic and Oriental Studies, University of California Publications in Semitic Philology, 11.191-200. [Reprinted in Language, Culture, and History: Essays by Mary R. Haas, ed. by Anwar S. Dil, 65-81. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress, 1978.]

Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.

Jacob, Judith M. 1968. Introduction to Cambodian. London: Oxford University Press.

Jones, R. B., Jr. 1970. Classifier constructions in Southeast Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90.1-12.

Manley, Timothy M. 1972. Outline of Sre structure. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Miller, Vera Grace. 1976. An overview of Stiêng grammar. SIL U. of North Dakota Session Work Papers 2,3.1-64.

Nguyễn Đinh Hoa. 1957. Classifiers in Vietnamese. Word 13,1.124-152.

Nguyễn Phú Phong. 1975. Le problème classificateurs en vietnamien. Cahiers d’Etudes Vietnamiennes 2.65-81.

Rischel, Jørgen. 1995. Minor Mlabri: a hunter-gatherer language of northern Indochina. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Saul, Janice E. 1965. Classifiers in Nùng. Lingua 13.278-290.

Senft, Gunter, ed. 2000. Systems of nominal classification. Language, culture and cognition, 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Smith, Kenneth D. 1975. Phonology and syntax of Sedang: a Vietnam Mon-Khmer Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.

Sönderberg, Sofia. 2006. The semantic domains of numeral classifiers in Kammu. Thesis (paper) for General Linguistics 61-80, Centre for Languages and Literature,Lund University.

Thomas, David D. 1971. Chrau grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Thompson, Laurence C. 1965. A Vietnamese grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press. [Reprinted as A Vietnamese reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1987.]

T’sou, Benjamin K. 1976. The structure of nominal classifier systems. Austroasiatic Studies 2.1215-1247. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Documents

Classifiers in Kơho: A Mon-Khmer Language