Ladakh (Tib. la-dwags "land of mountain passes") is located in the extreme north-west of the Republic of India (part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir), at the "junction" of three states of India, Pakistan and China and four cultural traditions: actually Indian (i.e. mainly Hindu), Indo-Muslim, Tibetan (Buddhist) and (indirectly) Chinese.

For many centuries Ladakh was part of the Tibetan (Buddhist) cultural world and an important transit point on the Great Silk Road. In Modern times, Ladakh found itself on the periphery of the Mughal Empire and was influenced by its culture, without interrupting ties with Central Tibet. In the first half of the XIX century. Ladakh was absorbed into the principality of Jammu, whose culture was a combination of Hindu and Muslim elements. By the second half of the century, Ladakh, along with the entire principality, became part of the British Indian Empire and remained part of it for about a century, being a remote province of the peripheral "autochthonous state" ("native state") and therefore experienced a rather insignificant influence of the European metropolis. In 1947 Kashmir became a bone of contention between the new states: India and Pakistan. After the end of the military conflict, part of the territory of historical Ladakh was in Pakistan. Another part of it, Aksai Chin, became the subject of disputes between India and China in the early 1960s and is now considered a disputed territory (controlled by the PRC). After being established in the late 1950s. The centuries-old ties between Ladakh and Tibet were disrupted and almost nullified after China's complete control over Tibet (now the Tibet Autonomous Region of China). However, in India, a fairly large Tibetan diaspora has formed, led by the Dalai Lama, who sometimes visits Ladakh.

Despite the unique culture and history of the region, the world scientific community has not paid much attention to Ladakh for a long time. On the one hand, this is due to the fact that until the 1970s Ladakh remained a closed border region, where foreigners were banned from entering, and on the other hand, Ladakh is located at the junction of various Oriental studies disciplines. For Tibetologists (not only in Russia) Ladakh is just a" fragment " of Tibet in India, and for indologists it is a peripheral phenomenon of the Indian world.

In Ladakh, along with the classical (written) Tibetan language, local spoken forms of the language began to develop quite a long time ago, which, as the modern researcher Bettina Zeisler [Zeisler, 2005] established, were not derived from classical Tibetan, but had other pedigrees; in addition, the local oral speech was constantly supplemented with borrowings from the languages of merchants who followed it. through Ladakh on the Great Silk Road. Colloquial forms of the language co-existed with written Tibetan in the form of diglossia. Apparently, there was a certain superdialect variant of the language in which local storytellers, both Buddhists and Muslims, told the epic about Geser, which was first recorded by A. G. Frank at the turn of the XIX and XX centuries. But for the time being, the spoken language was not used for written purposes. The Indian researcher Sanyukta Koshal, in her book" Grammar of Ladakh", published in 1979, argued that if the Ladakh people need to write something, they resort to classical Tibetan, and actually use Ladakh only in oral speech (Koshal, 1979, p. 2-3).

Over the past thirty-plus years, this situation has changed significantly. A number of books, both original and translated, have been created in Ladakh. An attempt was made, though not entirely successful, to publish a magazine in spoken Ladakh. The question of whether Ladakh should be turned into a full-fledged written (literary) language is hotly debated

page 178
It is being discussed in today's Ladakh and is attracting more and more attention inside and outside the region.

According to the 2001 Indian Census, Ladakh was spoken by 104-618 people. Data from the 2011 census are not yet available, but according to B. Zeisler, by 2006, approximately 180 thousand people spoke Ladakh (Zeisler, 2006, p. 176).

Despite such a large number of people speaking it, Ladakh is constantly "crowding" other languages: Urdu (the official language of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir), Hindi (the official language for all of India), English (the second, and in fact the main official language of India and the language of international communication and education), as well as classical Tibetan (the language of Buddhism), adopted as the only standard of written language among those Ladakhians who have received a traditional Buddhist education.

Ladakhi exists within the same geographical and social boundaries as languages whose official status is significantly higher than that of Ladakh itself. Because of this, as well as for other reasons (which will be discussed later), the scope of its use is quite limited. First of all, this applies to written forms of the language. At the moment, the overwhelming majority of officials and education professionals in Ladakh are of the view that Ladakh is not a separate language, but only an oral form of classical Tibetan, which it should remain. When official sources refer to something written in Ladakhi, it should be understood that the work is written in classical Tibetan, and "Ladakhi" is only a geographical marking that specifies the origin of the author.

One of the problems with the development of written Ladakh is that it is written in the same sacred script as the Buddhist canon, so written texts in Ladakh are often perceived as illiterate texts in classical Tibetan, and any attempt at spelling and grammatical changes in the classical language is perceived as an encroachment on the holy. The use of" incorrect " forms in oral speech does not cause any complaints, since from time immemorial there were many oral dialects, but the classical language remained the written norm. Now that Ladakhi is gradually becoming a written language, people who advocate for its development have to deal with many problems related to the fact that Ladakhi has long existed as a " low " language in diglossia.

It is still an open question whether Ladakh is an independent language or a dialect of Tibetan. There is no definitive answer to this question. Modern linguists, such as S. Koshal and B. Zeisler (whose works will be discussed later), tend to believe that Ladakh is an independent language, but most Ladakhians do not share this view. They distinguish between two terms: chos-skat (chos-skat / chos - skad - "the language of dharma (religion)", i.e. classical Tibetan) and phal-skat (phal-skat / phal-skad - "spoken language").1. And among the locals, it is widely believed that phal-skat is only a variant of classical Tibetan with "spoiled" (or completely absent) grammar and incorrect pronunciation.

Despite numerous attempts, linguists have not developed uniform and generally accepted criteria for distinguishing between "language" and "dialect"2. We can say that in the modern

1 A word in classical written Tibetan ('language') is transliterated as skad (in Lhasa pronunciation, yu) according to the generally accepted transliteration according to the Wylie system (1959). However, in Ladakh (at least Mers, in Lshs), this word is pronounced as [skat], because in Ladakh, only the deaf are possible in the final position of the bowed ones [Koshal, 1979, p. 19]. And in English texts, Ladakhians write chos-skat and phal-skat (see, for example, the discussion about the language on the Ladakh Student's Forum website: http://www.orkut. com / Main#CommMsgs?tid=2528228843795659539&cmm=18320272&hl=cn-GB). The terms chos-skad and phal-skad are not specifically Ladakhi, but generally Tibetan. Chos-skad is a common name for a classical written language, and the linguonym phal-skad can be used in relation to any colloquial form. Tibetans, obviously, have long been aware of the linguistic diversity of their cultural world. T. Wylie quotes a Tibetan proverb: "Every district has its own dialect, every lama has his own doctrine" (Wylie, 1959, p. 261).

2 G. V. Stepanov wrote in the mid-1970s: "Despite the tradition of studying the formula "yazykdialekt", the distinction between the concepts of "language" and "dialect" remains one of the most difficult in modern linguistics " [Stepanov, 1976, p. 102, note 30], there is also a link to the bibliography of the question, which is presented below. since then, of course, it has expanded a lot.

page 179
linguistics is dominated by a relativistic perception of these terms, i.e. recognition of the fact that the distinction "language" and "dialect" is rather conditional: historically and situationally determined. To avoid making a specific choice when describing a particular language situation, scholars often use the terms "idiom" 3 or "language / dialect".

There are two types of criteria for distinguishing between "language" and "dialect": sociolinguistic criteria and structural criteria, or, to use the terminology of f. de Saussure, external and internal linguistic criteria. Therefore, when naming an idiom as a language or dialect, it is important to specify which criteria formed the basis for this choice. Often, sociolinguistic criteria are crucial, due to the political, ethnic and religious situation in the area of distribution of the idiom.

Language is often one of the main factors of self-identification of ethnic groups, and therefore the question related to linguistic taxonomy ("language" or "dialect"?) It often goes beyond structural (internal linguistic) criteria and moves into the field of politics or political history. In this connection, we can refer to the famous American linguist L. Bloomfield, who in his book "Language" writes:: "The ratio of local dialects does not allow us to draw a border between what we call German and what we call Dutch-Flemish: linguistically, the Dutch-German language area is united, it is mainly divided politically, and this border can only be called linguistic in the sense that countries that differ politically use and use different languages. different literary languages" [Bloomfield, 1968, p. 69]). Similarly, there is a single language continuum in North India, from which various literary languages have emerged for various political and religious reasons. For example, Punjabi differs from standard Hindi no more than other "dialects of Hindi". But, as in the case of Dutch, the historical isolation of Punjabis also led to the isolation of their language.

Max Weinreich (1894-1969) gave a half-joking definition of "language" as opposed to "dialect": "A language is a dialect that has an army and a navy"4. This definition is not very applicable to the case of Ladakh and in general to the Indian (South Asian) situation, because the languages in this region were formed and are being formed within multilingual (multi-ethnic) state entities. But Ladakh, like many other South Asian languages, has a different facetious definition of" language "as opposed to" dialect", as proposed by the modern Danish linguist Ole Stig Andersen: "A language is a dialect with a missionary "5, which can be translated as" A language is a dialect that has attracted attention". attention missionary."

In any case, in the case of Ladakh, various judgments about the nature and status of this idiom are due to various historical, religious and political circumstances.

As for the actual scientific study of Ladakh, at the moment we have a very modest amount of research devoted to it. Almost all scientific works on Ladakh are written by foreigners or, more precisely, non-Ladakhians, although often with the help of Ladakh residents.

The study of Ladakh began with the writings of the Moravian missionary A. G. Francke (1870-1930), who arrived in Ladakh in 1896. In 1901, he published the first essay on the grammar of Ladakh [Francke, 1901].6 Later, Francke expanded it by adding a grammar description of the classical Tibetan language [Francke, 1901/1979], and was the first to write down the Ladakh version of the Heseriad [Francke, 1905] .7
The next stage of studying Ladakh is associated with the name of George Abraham Grierson (1851-1941), the compiler of the Linguistic Survey of India (hereinafter - LSI).

3 It is believed that the term "idiom" was introduced into the Russian-language linguistic literature by the Croatian linguist and political figure Dalibor Brozovic (1927-2009) in the article "Slavic standard languages and the comparative method": "The term idiom is chosen as general, qualitatively and hierarchically neutral, i.e. not having a specific meaning" (Brozovic, 1967, p. 3The word "idiom "in this sense is probably borrowed from the Italian language, in which the word" idioma "(Masculine) means" language"," dialect"," adverb", and"dialect".

4 См.: Ihttp://cn.wikipcdia.Org/wiki/A language is a dialect with an army and navy].

5 См.: [http://www.olcstig.dk/rcvicws/cthnologuc.html].

6 Nst electronic version: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/42478983/Kranckc-1901-Ladakhi-Skctch-Grammar].

7 For more details on the contribution of the Moravian brothers to the development of the Ladakhi language (see Komissaruk, 2012).

page 180
The third volume of this multi-volume publication is dedicated to the Tibeto-Burman family of languages. The first part of this volume describes "the Tibeto-Burman languages of Tibet, the Himalayas, and Northern Assam" [LSI, vol. III, pt. 1]. The introductory article to this part states that the sections on "Tibeto-Burman languages of Tibet" (as well as Northern Assam) were written by the Norwegian linguist Sten Konov (1867-1948) [ibid., p. 3]. Further, that the above-mentioned A. G. Franke also participated in the work on the section on "Tibetan dialects" [ibid., p. 14]. So the LSI section we are interested in is a collective work of three scientists (and their informants).

In the introductory volume of the LSI, published in 1927, J. A. Grierson devoted a short section to a discussion of the relativity of the terms "language" and" dialect": which he compared with the words "mountain " and" hill " [LSI, vol. I, pt. I., p. 22-23 («"Language" and "dialect"»).However, in the third volume, published in 1908, in the section entitled "Tibetan or Bhotia" [LSI, vol. III, pt. 1, p. 14-31]," language "refers only to" Tibetan or Bhotia "in general, and the associated "idioms"."(in the LSI, of course, this term does not exist) are called "dialects" ("dialects"). The discussion about linguonyms and ethnonyms Tibetan and Bhotia is noteworthy:

"The name' Bhotia ' is now used by them (the Indians) in reference to the Tibetans who live on the borders between India and Tibet, and the population of Tibet proper is called Huniyas, while the country is called Hundes. It was suggested that the language should be called [in LSI] Bhotia and that its sub-dialects should be distinguished by adding the names of the localities where they are spoken, i.e., Bhotia of Tibet (proper Tibetan), Bhotia of Bhutan (Drug-ka), Bhotia of Sikkim (Dflnjong-kfl), Bhotia of Sikkim (Dflnjong-kfl), and Bhotia of Ladakh (Ladakhi), etc."

But further arguments are given against this use of words, and the following conclusion is made: "Therefore, I prefer to use the name Tibetan as a general designation for this language (the language)... The fact that this language is also spoken outside of Tibet is not an argument against such naming. After all, no one is shy about calling the French language spoken in Belgium French" [LSI, vol. III, pt. 1, p. 14].

The idea of naming a certain number of related languages in northern India by a single name-not Bhotia, but Bhoti-gained many supporters in India itself by the end of the twentieth century and may have had its origin in the LSI. But by this time, the linguonym "Tibetan" was perceived as politically incorrect.

Under the general heading "Tibetan or Bhotia", LSI describes several "dialects": Balti or Bhotia of Baltistan (p. 32-41), Purik (p. 42-50), Ladakhi (p. 51-68), Lahul dialect (p. 69-71), Central Tibet (p. 72-82), Spiti dialect (p. 83-85), Nyamkat (in classical spelling-mnyam-skad) (p. 86-90), Jad dialect (p. 91-99), Garhwal dialect (p. 100-105), Kagate (p. 106-112), Sharpa (p. 113-118), Danjong-ka or Bhotia of Sikkim (p 119-138), Lhoke or Bhotia of Bhutan (p. 129-135), Khams dialect (p. 136-137).

The presentation of Ladakh follows the usual LSI pattern: general information (including statistics from the 1891 and 1901 censuses), a brief description of the language itself (p. 52-59) based on A. G. Francke's "Sketch of Ladakhi Grammar" (Francke, 1901), including brief descriptions of the language itself. information on the" dialects " of Ladakhi itself, and two samples of texts in Ladakh (pp. 60-68). It is noteworthy that in the 1901 census Ladakhi appeared under the name Budhi and almost 30 thousand speakers of this language/dialect were registered (almost all, of course, in Ladakh) [LSI, vol. III, pt. 1, p. 51].

In the mid-1930s, the Indian linguist Biren Bannerjee, relying on LSI, wrote two articles on the phonology and morphology of "Tibeto-Burman dialects", including Ladakh, trying to establish the degree of their relationship [Bonnerjea, 1936; Bonnerjea, 1937]. In an article devoted to the phonology of these "dialects", B. Bannerji writes:: "This work can be considered the first attempt at such research, and it is hoped that it will be followed by more in-depth and detailed works of those who are familiar with the languages described here" (Bonnerjea, 1936, p. 258).

Unfortunately, the situation has not changed much since the publication of this article. A. G. Franke, J. A. Grierson and S. Konov, who worked at the beginning of the XX century, did not leave behind "successors" who would continue to study the Ladakhi language.

A new wave of interest in Ladakh emerged in the 1970s when the Indian government opened the borders of Ladakh, a previously closed border region. First sre-

8 Apparently, this " I "should be understood as the collective" I " of J. A. Grierson and S. Konov, and perhaps also of A. G. Franke.

page 181
Among the new generation of scholars, S. Koshal (1941-2010)began studying Ladakh9, who conducted research with the support of the Central Institute of Indian Languages in Mysore.

In the preface to his "Outline of the Grammar of Ladakh", A. G. Franke wrote that before starting to study his reference book, the reader should familiarize himself with the grammar of the classical Tibetan language, since many examples in the book are given with the expectation of this knowledge. 10 A more complete and completely independent grammar of Ladakh was published only in 1979 by S. Koshal [Koshal, 1979], who also wrote a work on Ladakh phonetics [Koshal, 1976], a detailed self-help guide to the Ladakh language [Koshal, 1982], and a short phrasebook [Koshal, 2006]. Another Ladakhi phrasebook was published by an American living in Ladakh, Rebecca Norman [Norman, 1994]; she is currently working on compiling a Ladakhi-English dictionary [Norman, 2010].

Separately, it is worth noting the modern German researcher B. Zeisler, who has been studying the Ladakhi language for more than fifteen years. Every year, she comes to Ladakh and conducts field research. She has written numerous articles on Ladakh 11. In particular, B. Zeisler investigated the question of the origin of the Ladakhi language and its relationship with other languages of the Tibeto-Burmese language family [Zeisler, 2005; Zeisler, 2009(2)], borrowing in Ladakhi [Zcisler, 1999] , as well as the problems associated with the fact that local residents consider Tibetan and Ladakhi to be one language [Zeisler, 2009(1)]. She is currently studying the dialects of Ladakh (Zeisler, 2011). Perhaps now B. Zeisler is the only professional linguist who deals with this language.

Currently, there are two published Ladakh dictionaries: the Ladakhi-English Dictionary compiled by Helena Norberg - Hodge and Thupstan Paldan [Norberg-Hodge, Thupstan Paldan, 1991], and the Ladakhi-English-Urdu Dictionary by Abdul Hamid [Hamid, 1998].

Three master's theses are devoted to the Ladakhi language: Indian B. C. Chowdhury's master's theses [Chowdhury, 1974] and American B. Keller [Keller, 1986] and Dr. Tashi's Konchoka [Tashi, 2010].

It is noteworthy that the first Ladakh grammar guide written by a Ladakhian appeared only in 2005 (Bakula Rangdol Nima, 2005). Its author is Monk Nima Rangdol Bakula Rinpoche, who translated the Dhammapada from Tibetan into Ladakh (Dhammapada, 2010).

As for domestic (Russian) science, it has so far paid very little attention to Ladakh. In the well-known series "Languages of Asia and Africa", two books devoted to the Tibetan language were published:" The Tibetan Language "by Yu. N. Roerich [Roerich, 1961] and "The Tibetan Written Language" by Yu. M. Parfionovich [Parfionovich, 1970], but there was no book about Ladakh or any other " Tibetan dialect". Yu. N. Roerich in his book, in the section "Linguistic map of Tibet" [Roerich, 1961, p. 19-25], writes: "The Tibetan language includes several groups of adverbs". What follows is an overview of nine "groups of adverbs", distinguished by their geographical distribution. Two subgroups are distinguished in the "group of Western Tibetan dialects": "The second subgroup includes the dialects of the extreme west of the highlands: Baltistan, Ladakh, Zankar, Purig and Garj'a (upper Chandrabhaga River)... The Garj'a dialect is characterized by some transitional features, while the Balti dialect is extremely archaic" (Roerich, 1961, p. 22). The "Ladakh dialect" is not considered separately.

This approach was obviously common in Russian Tibetology. Thus, in 1975 E. I. Kychanov and L. S. Savitsky wrote: "The spoken Tibetan language is currently not unified. It is divided into several groups of adverbs (dialects)... The groups of West Tibetan, North Tibetan, and East Tibetan dialects are significantly archaic; in addition, they were influenced by the languages of neighboring peoples " (Kychanov and Savitsky, 1975, p. 240). Ladakhi is not named separately.

9 As Professor Uday-Narayan Singh, former director of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, kindly reported in an email, "the late Ms S was a Punjabi speaker who specialized in the languages of J&K and Himachal Pradesh."

10 "In offering a Sketch of Ladakhi Grammar to the public, I wish to draw attention to the fact, that a thorough study of the Ladakhi Tibetan dialect (sic! - E.K.) presupposes a certain amount of knowledge of the classical Tibetan language" [Franckc, 1901, Preface, no pagination].

11 The full bibliography of the author's works can be found on the website: [http://www.uni-tucbingcn.de/fakultacten/ philosophischc-fakultact/fachbcrcichc/aoi/indologic-vgl-rcligionswisscnschaft/mitarbcitcr/bcttina-zcisler/ publikationcn.html].

page 182
G. A. Zograf, who was a major expert on Indo-Aryan languages, but did not deal specifically with the Tibeto-Burman languages, mainly followed LSI in his two books on the languages of South Asia [Zograf, 1960; Zograf, 1990], in the chapters devoted to Tibeto-Burman languages: "On the southern slopes of the Himalayas, in Nepal and India, a number of its (Tibetan) dialects are used, which are united here under the general name of bhotia... The Western subgroup is represented by the dialects of Balti, Purik and Ladakhi (in Baltistan and Ladakh) " [Zograf, 1960, p. 102]12.

B. A. Zakharyin's book "Typology of South Asian Languages" contains a paragraph entitled "Tibetan and Ladakh as late-ergative languages" (Zakharyin, 1987, pp. 61-70). In his analysis of Ladakh, as well as in its elevation to the rank of a separate language, B. A. Zakharyin relies on the book by S. Koshal (1979).

These references, as far as I know, exhaust references to Ladakh in the Russian scientific literature.

The language situation in Ladakh is dynamic, and it is quite difficult to give an accurate forecast of whether Ladakhs will be able to defend their rights. Of course, the processes associated with the formation of the written language of Ladakh are not unique. Similar stages of development took place, for example, in European languages many centuries ago, and Asian languages that are in a situation of diglossia are now passing through. But the language situation in Ladakh has its own peculiarities. It can be considered that the struggle for the establishment of the written language of Ladakh and the creation of translations and literature in it is the first attempt among languages/dialects of Tibetan origin (at least in India) to get out of the influence of classical Tibetan and create their own written tradition.13
The future of Ladakh as a separate written (literary) language depends on a number of circumstances: the socio-political development of Ladakh; how the relations of various social (and religious) groups will develop in it; what decisions will be made at the level of local authorities and at the level of the central government; on the development of situations in the neighboring Himalayan states of India, and maybe it depends on the situation in neighboring Nepal and Bhutan, where there are also "Tibeto-speaking" Buddhists; finally, on the socio-political and cultural development of the Republic of India as a whole.

list of literature

Bloomfield L. Yazyk [Language], translated from English, Moscow: Progress Publ., 1968.

Brozovich D. Slavyanskie standartnye yazyki i sravnitel'nyi metod [Slavic standard languages and the comparative method].
Zakhar'in B. A. Tipologiya iazykov Yuzhnoi Azii [Typology of the Languages of South Asia]. Moscow: MSU Publishing House, 1987.

Zograf G. A. Languages of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Nepal. Moscow: Vostochny lit., 1960.

Zograf G. A. Yashki Yuzhnoi Azii [Yashki of Southern Asia]. Moscow: Nauka; GRVL, 1990.

Komissaruk E. Moravian Church in Ladakh. Contribution of the Moravian brothers to the development of the Ladakhi language // Bulletin of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2012, No. 20.
Kychanov E. I., Savitsky L. S. People and gods of the land of snows. Essay on the history of Tibet and its Culture, Moscow: Nauka; GRVL, 1975.
Parfionovich HUME. Tibetan Written Language, Moscow: Nauka; GRVL, 1970.
Roerich Yu. N. Tibetskiy yazyk [The Tibetan Language], Moscow: Vostochny lit., 1961.

Stepanov G. V. Tipologiya yazykovykh sostoyaniy i situatsii v stranakh romanskoi rechi [Typology of language states and situations in the countries of Romance speech].
Bakula R.N. A Ladakhi Grammar. Achinathang: Cultural Preservation & Promotion Society, 2005.

Bonnerjca B. Phonology of Some Tibcto-Burman Dialects of the Himalayan Region // T'oung Pao. Second Scries. 1936. Vol. 32. Livr. 4.

Bonnerjca B. Morphology of Some Tibcto-burman Dialects of the Himalayan Region // T'oung Pao. Second Scries. 1937. Vol. 33. Livr. 5.

Chowdhury B.Ch. Segmental Phonemes of Ladakhi: M.A. Thesis. New Delhi, 1974.

Dhammapada / Translated into Ladakhi by Rangdol Nima Rinpochc. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 2010.

Franckc A.H. Sketch of Ladakhi Grammar // Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 70. Part 1. Extra No. 2. 1901. (reprinted.: Ladakhi and Tibetan Grammar. Delhi: Sccma Publications, 1979).

12 In the book [Zograf, 1990, p. 163], this passage is practically the same.

13 Although Dzong-ke is recognized as the official language in Bhutan, despite government support and appeals, literature continues to be written in classical Tibetan (see, for example, Van Driem 1993).

page 183
Irancke A.H. A Lower Ladakhi Version of the Kesar Saga. New Delhi, 1905.

Gricrson G.A. Linguistic Survey of India. Vols. I-III. Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1927.

Hamid A. Ladakhi English Urdu Dictionary. Lch: Mclong Publication, 1998.

Keller B.A. Qualitative approach to the study of language and identity in Ladakh: M.A. Thesis. Arlington, 1986.

Koshal S. Ladakhi Phonetic Reader. Mysore: Publication Unit, Central Institute of Indian Languages, 1976.

Koshal S. Ladakhi Grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979.

Koshal S. Conversational Ladakhi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982.

Koshal S. Guide to learn Ladakhi language: a phrase hook for learning Ladakhi language. Delhi: Hanish & Co., 2006.

Norberg-Hodge H., Paldan Th. Ladakhi English Dictionary. Leh: The Ladakh Ecological Development Group and the Ladakh Project, 1991.

Norman R. Getting Started in Ladakhi: A Phrase Book for Learning Ladakhi. Lch: Mclong Publication, 1994.

Norman R. A Dictionary of the Language Spoken by Ladakhis. 2010. (unpublished)14.

Tashi K. Polysemy in Ladakhi: PhD thesis. Mysore, 2010.

Van Dricm G. Language Policy in Bhutan. London: SOAS, 1993.

Wylic T.V. A Standard System of Tibetan Transcription // Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. Vol. 22. Dec. 1959.

Zcislcr B. Borrowed Language: Passive Assimilation or Active Incorporation of Modern Concepts // Recent Research on Ladakh: Proceedings of the Eighth Colloquium of the International Association for Ladakh Studies held at Moesgaard, Aarhus University, 5-8 June 1997 / Ed. by M. van Beck, K. Brix Bcrtclscn and P. Pcdcrscn. Aarhus, 1999.

Zeisler B. On the position of Ladakhi and Balti in the Tibetan language family // Ladakhi History: Local and Regional Perspectives / Ed. by J. Bray. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Zeisler B. Why Ladakhi must not be written Being part of the Great Tradition: another kind of global thinking // Lesser-known Languages of South Asia: Status and Policies, Case studies and Applications of Information Technology / Ed. by Anju Saxcna, Lars Borin. Berlin: Mouton dc Gruytcr, 2006.

Zeisler B. Mainstream linguistics for minor(ity) languages? Or: What is it like to speak Ladakhi? // Multilingualism: Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics at Uppsala University 1-3 October 2008 / Ed. by Anju Saxena & Eke Viberg. Uppsala, 2009(1).

Zeisler B. Reducing phonctical complexity and grammatical opaqueness: Old Tibetan as a lingua franca and the development of the modern Tibetan dialects // Creole Language Library (Vol. 35): Complex Processes in New Languages / Ed. by. O. Enoch. Aboh and Norval Smith. Amsterdam, 2009(2).

Zeisler B. East of the moon and west of the sun? Approaches to a land with many names, north of ancient India and south of Khotan // The Tibet Journal 34.3-4/35.1-2, Special Issue: The Earth Ox Papers. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Tibetan and Himalayan Studies, Held at the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, September 2009 on the Occasion of the 'Thankyou India' Year / Ed. by R. Vitali. 2010.

Zeisler B. Kenhat, the Dialects of Upper Ladakh and Zanskar // Brill's Tibetan Studies Library (Vol. 5/12): Himalayan Languages and Linguistics. Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax / Ed. by Mark Turin & Bettina Zeisler. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Library (Vol. 5/12): Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax / Ed. by Mark Turin & Bcttina Zeisler. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

14 An electronic copy of the dictionary is kindly provided to the author by Rebecca Norman. - E. K.

page 184

Permanent link to this publication: