Sino-Tibetan languages

Sino-Tibetan languages form a language family of about 250 languages of East Asia, second only to Indo-European in terms of the number of speakers. Many of the languages are tonal, which however is usually considered to be an areal feature rather than evidence of a genealogical relationship. (Chinese and Tibetan, for example, were not tonal in their earlier stages.)

A few scholars such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Roy A. Miller, and W. S. Coblin question whether the Sinitic languages are related to Tibeto-Burman. No regular sound laws relating the Sino-Tibetan (or Tibeto-Burman) languages have been found. Thus, although the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis enjoys widespread support, it is not as well demonstrated as the Indo-European family. Other linguists, especially in China, believe the Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien languages belong in Sino-Tibetan, though this view has fallen out of favor in the West, with the similarities being credited to borrowings and areal features.

James Matisoff's widely accepted classification is as follows:

Sino-Tibetan

• Chinese (more or less monosyllabic and analytic)
• Tibeto-Burman
  • Kamarupan
    • Kuki-Chin-Naga
    • Abor-Miri-Dafla
    • Bodo-Garo
  • Himalayish
    • Maha-Kiranti (includes Newari, Magar)
    • Tibeto-Kinauri (includes Tibetan, Lepcha)
  • Qiangic
  • Jingpho-Nungish-Luish
    • Kachinic (Jingpho)
    • Nungish
    • Luish
  • Lolo-Burmese-Naxi
  • Karenic
  • Baic

Several recent classifications have demoted Chinese to a sub-branch of Tibeto-Burman, rather as the Semitic component of Hamito-Semitic was demoted to a sub-branch of Afro-Asiatic. The following classification from George van Driem is one:

Tibeto-Burman

• Brahmaputran
  • Dhimal
  • Bodo-Koch (includes Tripuri, Garo)
  • Konyak (includes Nocte)
  • Kachinic (includes Jingpo)
• Southern Tibeto-Burman
  • Lolo-Burmese
  • Karenic
• Sino-Bodic
  • Sinitic (Chinese)
  • Bodish-Himalayish (includes Tibetan)
  • Kirantic
  • Tamangic
  • (several isolates)
• A number of other small families and isolates (Newari, Qiang, Nung, Magar, etc.)

The relationships of the "Kuki-Naga" languages (Kuki, Mizo, Manipuri, etc.), both amongst each other and to the other Tibeto-Burman languages, is unclear, so this classification does not support Matisoff's Kamarupan hypothesis (above).

External links

• Tibeto-Burman languages and their subgrouping - James Matisoff
• Sino-Bodic - George van Driem

Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.

Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor