Misplaced Pages

Sino-Tibetan languages: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:00, 19 April 2005 editPablo-flores (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,695 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 19:04, 19 April 2005 edit undoKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,367 edits touching up Matisoff's classificationNext 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 ] (which is usually considered an ]). '''Sino-Tibetan languages''' form a ] of about 250 languages of ], second only to ] in terms of the number of speakers. Many of the languages are ], which however is usually considered to be an ] rather than evidence of a genealogical relationship.


James Matisoff's widely accepted classification is as follows:
⚫ * ]: many of which are 'monosyllabic', ]s
* ]: (Refer to for more details)
⚫ ** Kamarupan
⚫ ** Himalayish
⚫ ** Qiangic
** Kachinic
⚫ ** Lolo-Burmese
⚫ ** Karenic


'''Sino-Tibetan'''
Some ] believe the ] or ] 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:
⚫ *''']''' (more or less monosyllabic and ])
*''']'''
⚫ **'''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'''

Some ], especially in China, believe the ] and ] belong in Sino-Tibetan as well, though this view has fallen out of favor in the West, with the similarities being credited to borrowings and areal features.

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 ]. The following classification from George van Driem is one:


'''Tibeto-Burman''' '''Tibeto-Burman'''
Line 27: Line 41:
**Tamangic **Tamangic
**(several isolates) **(several isolates)
*'''A number of other small families and isolates''' (Newari, Qiang, Nung, Magar, ''etc.'')


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. 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== ==External links==


* * - James Matisoff
* - George van Driem * - George van Driem


Revision as of 19:04, 19 April 2005

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.

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

Some linguists, especially in China, believe the Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien languages belong in Sino-Tibetan as well, though this view has fallen out of favor in the West, with the similarities being credited to borrowings and areal features.

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
    • Kachinic (includes Jingpaw)
  • 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

minnan:Hàn-Chōng gí-hē

Categories: