Chatterji uses Bodo for both the umbrella group as well as the Boro: "the Bodo speeches- Boro, Moran,Mech, Rabha, Garo, Kachari and Tipra and a few more" (Chatterji 1974:23) Chatterji, S. K. (1974). Kirata-Jana-Krti. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.
"The media at the regional and national level; officials at the Centre and the state political parties of all hues and the people, in general, have accepted what may be termed as a contraction of the original denotion." (Choudhury 2007, p. 1) Choudhury, Sujit (2007). The Bodos: Emergence and Assertion of an ethnic minority. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. ISBN9788179860540.
But recent developments make it imperative to redefine the term Bodo and its wider denotation deserves to be abandoned in recognition of the emerging socio-political vocabulary; the Bodo means the plain tribes of western and northern Assam known earlier as the Bodo-Kacharis of the Brahmaputra Valley.(Choudhury 2007) Choudhury, Sujit (2007). The Bodos: Emergence and Assertion of an ethnic minority. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. ISBN9788179860540.
"There is general agreement, among Tibeto-Burman communities in Assam and their traditions as well as among scholars, that Tibeto-Burman languages came into the Assam plain from the north and probably east, though opinions differ about how far north and/or east the original center of dispersal for the family is.(DeLancey 2013:56) DeLancey, Scott (12 December 2013). "Creolization in the Divergence of the Tibeto-Burman Languages". In Owen-Smith, Thomas; Hill, Nathan (eds.). Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN978-3-11-031083-2.
"There are two very striking things about Boro–Garo, which make it stand out from other units of comparable size and divergence. One is its extreme creoloid grammar. The other is its considerable geographical spread: from the Meche language of Nepal in the west to Dimasa in eastern Assam is over 1200 kilometers." (DeLancey 2013:55) DeLancey, Scott (12 December 2013). "Creolization in the Divergence of the Tibeto-Burman Languages". In Owen-Smith, Thomas; Hill, Nathan (eds.). Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN978-3-11-031083-2.
"Bodo | people". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 3 November 2020.
cam.ac.uk
himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk
"As (Hodgson) admits in the end, his way of seeing the "Bodos" is twofold: he starts by using "Bodo" to designate a wide range of people (“a numerous race”), then wonders if some others are not "Bodos in disguise". He ends on a cautionary note and refrains from unmasking the dubious tribes, registering only the Mechs and Kacharis,..." (Jacquesson 2008:21) Jacquesson, François (2008). "Discovering Boro–Garo"(PDF). History of an Analytical and Descriptive Linguistic Category. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 August 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
" ...the long privilege of Boro as a core language for the group, dies out." (Jacquesson 2008:42) Jacquesson, François (2008). "Discovering Boro–Garo"(PDF). History of an Analytical and Descriptive Linguistic Category. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 August 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
(Jacquesson 2008:45) Jacquesson, François (2008). "Discovering Boro–Garo"(PDF). History of an Analytical and Descriptive Linguistic Category. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 August 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
Endle was clear about what is to be understood by “Kachari”. He explains that we have Plains Kacharis, viz. the Bodos (or Boros), and the Hills Kacharis, viz. the Dimasas.(Jacquesson 2008:28) Jacquesson, François (2008). "Discovering Boro–Garo"(PDF). History of an Analytical and Descriptive Linguistic Category. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 August 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
doi.org
"The term Bodo is also used to denote a large number of tribes-the Garos of Meghalaya, Tippera of Tripura, and Boro Kachari, Koch, Rabha, Lalung, Dimasa, Hajong, Chutia, Deuri, and Moran of Assam and other parts of the Northeast. (M N Brahma, "The Bodo-Kacharis of Assam---A brief Introduction" in Bulletin of the Tribal Research Institute [Gauhati], 1:1 [1983], p.52)" (George 1994, p. 878f) George, Sudhir Jacob (1994). "The Bodo Movement in Assam: Unrest to Accord". Asian Survey. 34 (10). University of California Press: 878–892. doi:10.2307/2644967. JSTOR2644967.
"[T]here is no question that whenever the first Tibeto-Burman speakers may have entered, the Brahmaputra valley was already well populated. Accounts of the prehistory of Assam and Bengal usually begin with Austroasiatic populations. (Kakati (1962) [1941], van Dreim (1997))" (DeLancey 2012:12) DeLancey, Scott (2012). Hyslop, Gwendolyn; Morey, Stephen; w. Post, Mark (eds.). "On the Origin of Bodo-Garo". Northeast Indian Linguistics. 4: 3–20. doi:10.1017/UPO9789382264521.003. ISBN9789382264521.
"(T)he valley was not deserted when the first (known) speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages arrived; they encountered people who spoke Mon-Khmer languages, of which the Khasi languages are the remnants. (Jacquesson 2017:117) Jacquesson, François (2017) [2006]. "The linguistic reconstruction of the past: The case of the Boro–Garo languages". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 40 (1). Translated by van Breugel, Seino: 90–122. doi:10.1075/ltba.40.1.04van.
(Zhang et al. 2020): According to the “Northern China origin” hypothesis, the Sinitic languages form the primary branch near the root of Sino-Tibetan tree and all non-Sinitic languages descended from an ancient common ancestor (i.e. proto-Tibeto-Burman)6,7,8. Previously17, the initial divergence of Sino-Tibetan languages was associated with the geographic spread of millet agriculture from the Yellow River basin, based on the inferred age of Sino-Tibetan phylogenies. Here our inference replicates an early bifurcation into the Sinitic clade and the Tibeto-Burman clade and Sinitic languages forming the primary branch near the root. Zhang, Hanzhi; Ji, Ting; Pagel, Mark; Mace, Ruth (27 November 2020). "Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic origin of Sino-Tibetan languages". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20792. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1020792Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4. ISSN2045-2322. PMC7695722. PMID33247154. S2CID227191604.
"Briefly, I propose, following a suggestion by Burling (2007), that the Proto-Boro–Garo first as a lingua franca used for communication across the various linguistic communicates of the region and its striking simplicity and transparency reflect a period when it was widely spoken by communities for whom it was not a native language." (DeLancey 2012:3) DeLancey, Scott (2012). Hyslop, Gwendolyn; Morey, Stephen; w. Post, Mark (eds.). "On the Origin of Bodo-Garo". Northeast Indian Linguistics. 4: 3–20. doi:10.1017/UPO9789382264521.003. ISBN9789382264521.
"The Garo, the Rabha and at least some of the Koch are, like the Khasi, matrilineal and uxorilocal. These features are not attested elsewhere in populations speaking Tibeto–Burman languages. These cultural features are best explained either by the deep and long influence of Khasi people on those Garo, Rabha, and Koch (all people now living around Meghalaya), or by the event of language shift, if we suppose that at least some of these people had Khasi ancestors. They would have abandoned their earlier Mon-Khmer languages because of the influential new Tibeto-Burman speaking neighbours, but would have retained some important features of their social organization." (Jacquesson 2017:99) Jacquesson, François (2017) [2006]. "The linguistic reconstruction of the past: The case of the Boro–Garo languages". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 40 (1). Translated by van Breugel, Seino: 90–122. doi:10.1075/ltba.40.1.04van.
"The Tibeto-Burmification of the Valley must have been more a matter of language replacement than the wholesale population replacement." (DeLancey 2012:13) DeLancey, Scott (2012). Hyslop, Gwendolyn; Morey, Stephen; w. Post, Mark (eds.). "On the Origin of Bodo-Garo". Northeast Indian Linguistics. 4: 3–20. doi:10.1017/UPO9789382264521.003. ISBN9789382264521.
"The Garo, the Rabha and at least some of the Koch are, like the Khasi, matrilineal and uxorilocal. These features are not attested elsewhere in populations speaking Tibeto-Burman languages. These cultural features are best explained either by the deep and long influence of Khasi people on those Garo, Rabha, and Koch (all people now living around Meghalaya), or by the event of language shift, if we suppose that at least some of these people had Khasi ancestors. They would have abandoned their earlier Mon-Khmer languages because of the influential new Tibeto Burman-speaking neighbours, but would have retained some important features of their social organization." (Jacquesson 2017:99) Jacquesson, François (2017) [2006]. "The linguistic reconstruction of the past: The case of the Boro–Garo languages". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 40 (1). Translated by van Breugel, Seino: 90–122. doi:10.1075/ltba.40.1.04van.
"The Y haplogroup O2a is represented at a frequency of 77% in Austroasiatic groups in India and 47% in Tibeto-Burman groups of northeastern India (Sahoo et al. 2006). This patterning could suggest that Tibeto-Burman paternal lineages may have partially replaced indigenous Austroasiatic lineages in the northeast of the Indian Subcontinent and that Austroasiatic populations preceded the Tibeto-Burmans in this area, as linguists and ethnographers have speculated for over a century and a half." (van Driem 2007:237) van Driem, G (2007). "The diversity of the Tibeto-Burman language family and the linguistic ancestry of Chinese". Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics. 1 (2): 211–270. doi:10.1163/2405478X-90000023.
"[I]t seems that the term Bodo is used particularly to denote sections of people having an agnatic relationship in terms of speech practices and a strong sense of shared ancestry. This term the Bodo is more anthropological in its usage." (Bathari 2014:14) Bathari, Uttam (2014). Memory History and polity a study of dimasa identity in colonial past and post colonial present (PhD). Gauhati University. hdl:10603/115353.
(Bathari 2014:15) The term Bodo finds its textual space first time in the book by Brian Hodgson, who wrote about a section of Tibeto-Burman speech group claiming themselves as Bodo. Bathari, Uttam (2014). Memory History and polity a study of dimasa identity in colonial past and post colonial present (PhD). Gauhati University. hdl:10603/115353.
(Bathari 2014:14) Bathari, Uttam (2014). Memory History and polity a study of dimasa identity in colonial past and post colonial present (PhD). Gauhati University. hdl:10603/115353.
"One section of the same stock, Garo, a Tribe called themselves “Mande” means Man: another word Arleng (Karbi) is popularly used among Karbis, which literally means Man." (Brahma 2008:1–2) Brahma, Nirjay Kumar (2008). Socio political institutions in bodo society (PhD). Gauhati University. hdl:10603/66535.
"The inception of the term 'Boro' may be traced from a Tibetan word 'Hbrogpa' an inhabitant of steppes belongs to Mongolean race." (Brahma 2008:2) Brahma, Nirjay Kumar (2008). Socio political institutions in bodo society (PhD). Gauhati University. hdl:10603/66535.
"While all the sub-groups in this section of people reiterate their kindred affinities, a tendency is witnessed amongst them to establish their separate identities. In recent times, there has been an effort from a section of the Boros in resolving this ambivalence in nomenclature by adopting the common name of ‘Bodo’. This has been viewed with contempt by several sections of the groups as a design by the Boros to establish their pre-dominance over numerically and otherwise weaker sections of the group. Most of the resistance has come from the Dimasas, who often accuse the Boros of appropriating the history and language of the Dimasas." (Bathari 2014, pp. 14–15) Bathari, Uttam (2014). Memory History and polity a study of dimasa identity in colonial past and post colonial present (PhD). Gauhati University. hdl:10603/115353.
"On the other hand, for the larger part of history, this group of people is referred to as Kacharis." (Bathari 2014:14) Bathari, Uttam (2014). Memory History and polity a study of dimasa identity in colonial past and post colonial present (PhD). Gauhati University. hdl:10603/115353.
harvard.edu
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu
(Zhang et al. 2020): According to the “Northern China origin” hypothesis, the Sinitic languages form the primary branch near the root of Sino-Tibetan tree and all non-Sinitic languages descended from an ancient common ancestor (i.e. proto-Tibeto-Burman)6,7,8. Previously17, the initial divergence of Sino-Tibetan languages was associated with the geographic spread of millet agriculture from the Yellow River basin, based on the inferred age of Sino-Tibetan phylogenies. Here our inference replicates an early bifurcation into the Sinitic clade and the Tibeto-Burman clade and Sinitic languages forming the primary branch near the root. Zhang, Hanzhi; Ji, Ting; Pagel, Mark; Mace, Ruth (27 November 2020). "Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic origin of Sino-Tibetan languages". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20792. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1020792Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4. ISSN2045-2322. PMC7695722. PMID33247154. S2CID227191604.
"The term Bodo is also used to denote a large number of tribes-the Garos of Meghalaya, Tippera of Tripura, and Boro Kachari, Koch, Rabha, Lalung, Dimasa, Hajong, Chutia, Deuri, and Moran of Assam and other parts of the Northeast. (M N Brahma, "The Bodo-Kacharis of Assam---A brief Introduction" in Bulletin of the Tribal Research Institute [Gauhati], 1:1 [1983], p.52)" (George 1994, p. 878f) George, Sudhir Jacob (1994). "The Bodo Movement in Assam: Unrest to Accord". Asian Survey. 34 (10). University of California Press: 878–892. doi:10.2307/2644967. JSTOR2644967.
Burling (2007) Burling, Robbins (2007). "The Lingua Franca Cycle: Implications for Language Shift, Language Change, and Language Classification". Anthropological Linguistics. 49 (3/4): 207–234. JSTOR27667609.
(Zhang et al. 2020): According to the “Northern China origin” hypothesis, the Sinitic languages form the primary branch near the root of Sino-Tibetan tree and all non-Sinitic languages descended from an ancient common ancestor (i.e. proto-Tibeto-Burman)6,7,8. Previously17, the initial divergence of Sino-Tibetan languages was associated with the geographic spread of millet agriculture from the Yellow River basin, based on the inferred age of Sino-Tibetan phylogenies. Here our inference replicates an early bifurcation into the Sinitic clade and the Tibeto-Burman clade and Sinitic languages forming the primary branch near the root. Zhang, Hanzhi; Ji, Ting; Pagel, Mark; Mace, Ruth (27 November 2020). "Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic origin of Sino-Tibetan languages". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20792. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1020792Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4. ISSN2045-2322. PMC7695722. PMID33247154. S2CID227191604.
(Zhang et al. 2020): According to the “Northern China origin” hypothesis, the Sinitic languages form the primary branch near the root of Sino-Tibetan tree and all non-Sinitic languages descended from an ancient common ancestor (i.e. proto-Tibeto-Burman)6,7,8. Previously17, the initial divergence of Sino-Tibetan languages was associated with the geographic spread of millet agriculture from the Yellow River basin, based on the inferred age of Sino-Tibetan phylogenies. Here our inference replicates an early bifurcation into the Sinitic clade and the Tibeto-Burman clade and Sinitic languages forming the primary branch near the root. Zhang, Hanzhi; Ji, Ting; Pagel, Mark; Mace, Ruth (27 November 2020). "Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic origin of Sino-Tibetan languages". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20792. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1020792Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4. ISSN2045-2322. PMC7695722. PMID33247154. S2CID227191604.
(Zhang et al. 2020): According to the “Northern China origin” hypothesis, the Sinitic languages form the primary branch near the root of Sino-Tibetan tree and all non-Sinitic languages descended from an ancient common ancestor (i.e. proto-Tibeto-Burman)6,7,8. Previously17, the initial divergence of Sino-Tibetan languages was associated with the geographic spread of millet agriculture from the Yellow River basin, based on the inferred age of Sino-Tibetan phylogenies. Here our inference replicates an early bifurcation into the Sinitic clade and the Tibeto-Burman clade and Sinitic languages forming the primary branch near the root. Zhang, Hanzhi; Ji, Ting; Pagel, Mark; Mace, Ruth (27 November 2020). "Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic origin of Sino-Tibetan languages". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20792. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1020792Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4. ISSN2045-2322. PMC7695722. PMID33247154. S2CID227191604.
"As (Hodgson) admits in the end, his way of seeing the "Bodos" is twofold: he starts by using "Bodo" to designate a wide range of people (“a numerous race”), then wonders if some others are not "Bodos in disguise". He ends on a cautionary note and refrains from unmasking the dubious tribes, registering only the Mechs and Kacharis,..." (Jacquesson 2008:21) Jacquesson, François (2008). "Discovering Boro–Garo"(PDF). History of an Analytical and Descriptive Linguistic Category. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 August 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
" ...the long privilege of Boro as a core language for the group, dies out." (Jacquesson 2008:42) Jacquesson, François (2008). "Discovering Boro–Garo"(PDF). History of an Analytical and Descriptive Linguistic Category. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 August 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
(Jacquesson 2008:45) Jacquesson, François (2008). "Discovering Boro–Garo"(PDF). History of an Analytical and Descriptive Linguistic Category. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 August 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
Endle was clear about what is to be understood by “Kachari”. He explains that we have Plains Kacharis, viz. the Bodos (or Boros), and the Hills Kacharis, viz. the Dimasas.(Jacquesson 2008:28) Jacquesson, François (2008). "Discovering Boro–Garo"(PDF). History of an Analytical and Descriptive Linguistic Category. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 August 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
(Zhang et al. 2020): According to the “Northern China origin” hypothesis, the Sinitic languages form the primary branch near the root of Sino-Tibetan tree and all non-Sinitic languages descended from an ancient common ancestor (i.e. proto-Tibeto-Burman)6,7,8. Previously17, the initial divergence of Sino-Tibetan languages was associated with the geographic spread of millet agriculture from the Yellow River basin, based on the inferred age of Sino-Tibetan phylogenies. Here our inference replicates an early bifurcation into the Sinitic clade and the Tibeto-Burman clade and Sinitic languages forming the primary branch near the root. Zhang, Hanzhi; Ji, Ting; Pagel, Mark; Mace, Ruth (27 November 2020). "Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic origin of Sino-Tibetan languages". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20792. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1020792Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4. ISSN2045-2322. PMC7695722. PMID33247154. S2CID227191604.
"... (it shows) that in Ancient Assam there were three languages viz. (1) Sanskrit as the official language and the language of the learned few, (2) Non-Aryan tribal languages of the Austric and Tibeto-Burman families, and (3) a local variety of Prakrit (ie a MIA) wherefrom, in course of time, the modern Assamese language as a MIL, emerged." Sharma, Mukunda Madhava (1978). Inscriptions of Ancient Assam. Guwahati, Assam: Gauhati University. pp. xxiv–xxviii. OCLC559914946.
