| Revision as of 17:53, 24 February 2005 editCFynn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,396 editsm →External links: - added link to Sino-Bodic← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:30, 21 March 2005 edit undoKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,379 edits added alternative classificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ** Karenic | ** Karenic | ||
| Some ] believe the ] |
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: | ||
| '''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== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 13:30, 21 March 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.
- 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