| Revision as of 13:30, 21 March 2005 editKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,379 edits added alternative classification← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:00, 19 April 2005 edit undoPablo-flores (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,695 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Sino-Tibetan languages''' form a ] of about 250 languages of ], in number of speakers worldwide second only to ]. Many of them are ]. | '''Sino-Tibetan languages''' form a ] of about 250 languages of ], in number of speakers worldwide second only to ]. Many of them are ] (which is usually considered an ]). | ||
| * ]: many of which are 'monosyllabic', ]s | * ]: many of which are 'monosyllabic', ]s | ||
Revision as of 16:00, 19 April 2005
Sino-Tibetan languages form a language family of about 250 languages of East Asia, in number of speakers worldwide second only to Indo-European. Many of them are tonal (which is usually considered an areal feature).
- Chinese languages: many of which are 'monosyllabic', analytic languages
- Tibeto-Burman languages: (Refer to Tibeto-Burman languages and their subgrouping for more details)
- Kamarupan
- Himalayish
- Qiangic
- Kachinic
- Lolo-Burmese
- Karenic
Some linguists believe the Tai-Kadai languages or Hmong-Mien languages deserve a place within an expanded version of this family, though this view is falling out of favor. Several recent classifications have demoted Chinese to a sub-branch of Tibeto-Burman. The following classification from George van Driem is one:
Tibeto-Burman
- Brahmaputran
- Dhimal
- Bodo-Koch (includes Tripuri, Garo)
- Konyak
- Kachinic (includes Jingpaw)
- Southern Tibeto-Burman
- Lolo-Burmese
- Karenic
- Sino-Bodic
- Sinitic (Chinese)
- Bodish-Himalayish (includes Tibetan)
- Kirantic
- Tamangic
- (several isolates)
In addition, van Driem's Tibeto-Burman includes a number of small families and isolates, such as Newari, Qiang, Nung, and Magar, as primary branches. 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 the "Kamarupan" hypothesis is not supported.
External links
- Tibeto-Burman languages and their subgrouping
- Sino-Bodic - George van Driem