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 08:59, 27 May 2005 edit134.2.147.103 (talk) Sino-Tibetan hypothesis is widely questioned and remains unproven← Previous edit Revision as of 09:44, 27 May 2005 edit undoKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,333 edits better than hypotheticalNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Sino-Tibetan languages''' form a hypothetical ] 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. (] and ], for example, were not tonal in their earlier stages.) '''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. (] and ], for example, were not tonal in their earlier stages.)


Some scholars such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Roy A. Miller, and W. S. Coblin question whether the Sinic languages are related to Tibeto-Burman. No soudlaws relating the Sino-Tibetan languages (or even the Tibeto-Burman) language has yet been proven. Thus, although the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis enjoys widespread popularity it is hardly as definite as the Indo-European family. Some scholars such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Roy A. Miller, and W. S. Coblin question whether the Sinic languages are related to Tibeto-Burman. No soudlaws relating the Sino-Tibetan languages (or even the Tibeto-Burman) language has yet been proven. Thus, although the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis enjoys widespread popularity it is hardly as definite as the Indo-European family.

Revision as of 09:44, 27 May 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. (Chinese and Tibetan, for example, were not tonal in their earlier stages.)

Some scholars such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Roy A. Miller, and W. S. Coblin question whether the Sinic languages are related to Tibeto-Burman. No soudlaws relating the Sino-Tibetan languages (or even the Tibeto-Burman) language has yet been proven. Thus, although the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis enjoys widespread popularity it is hardly as definite as the Indo-European family.

James Matisoff's widely accepted classification is as follows:

Sino-Tibetan

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

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: