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 23:25, 12 May 2005 editMekong Bluesman (talk | contribs)764 editsm +vi← Previous edit Revision as of 00:15, 13 May 2005 edit undoKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,345 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''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. '''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.)


James Matisoff's widely accepted classification is as follows: James Matisoff's widely accepted classification is as follows:
Line 7: Line 7:
*''']''' *''']'''
**'''Kamarupan''' **'''Kamarupan'''
***Kuki-Chin-Naga ***Kuki-Chin-]
***Abor-Miri-Dafla ***Abor-Miri-Dafla
***Bodo-Garo ***]-]
**'''Himalayish''' **'''Himalayish'''
***Maha-Kiranti (includes Newari, Magar) ***Maha-] (includes ]i, ])
***Tibeto-Kinauri (includes Tibetan, Lepcha) ***Tibeto-Kinauri (includes ], ])
**'''Qiangic''' **''']ic'''
**'''Jingpho-Nungish-Luish''' **'''Jingpho-Nungish-Luish'''
***Kachinic (Jingpho) ***]ic (])
***Nungish ***Nungish
***Luish ***Luish
**'''Lolo-Burmese-Naxi''' **''']-]-]'''
**'''Karenic''' **''']'''
**'''Baic''' **''']c'''


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. 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.
Line 29: Line 29:
*'''Brahmaputran''' *'''Brahmaputran'''
**Dhimal **Dhimal
**Bodo-Koch (includes Tripuri, Garo) **]-Koch (includes ], ])
**Konyak **Konyak (includes ])
**Kachinic (includes Jingpaw) **]ic (includes ])
*'''Southern Tibeto-Burman''' *'''Southern Tibeto-Burman'''
**Lolo-Burmese **]-]
**Karenic **]
*'''Sino-Bodic''' *'''Sino-Bodic'''
**Sinitic (Chinese) **Sinitic (])
**Bodish-Himalayish (includes Tibetan) **Bodish-Himalayish (includes ])
**Kirantic **]
**]ic
**Tamangic
**(several isolates) **(several isolates)
*'''A number of other small families and isolates''' (Newari, Qiang, Nung, Magar, ''etc.'') *'''A number of other small families and isolates''' (]i, ], Nung, ], ''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). The relationships of the "Kuki-]" languages (], ], ], 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==

Revision as of 00:15, 13 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.)

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: