| Revision as of 09:44, 27 May 2005 editKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,352 edits better than hypothetical← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:53, 27 May 2005 edit undoKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,352 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. (] 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.) | ||
| A few scholars such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Roy A. Miller, and W. S. Coblin question whether the Sinitic languages are related to Tibeto-Burman. No regular sound laws relating the Sino-Tibetan (or Tibeto-Burman) languages have been found. Thus, although the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis enjoys widespread support, it is not as well demonstrated as the Indo-European family. Other ], 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. | |||
| James Matisoff's widely accepted classification is as follows: | ]'s widely accepted classification is as follows: | ||
| '''Sino-Tibetan''' | '''Sino-Tibetan''' | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| **''']c''' | **''']c''' | ||
| ⚫ | 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 ] is one: | ||
| 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''' | ||
Revision as of 09:53, 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.)
A few scholars such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Roy A. Miller, and W. S. Coblin question whether the Sinitic languages are related to Tibeto-Burman. No regular sound laws relating the Sino-Tibetan (or Tibeto-Burman) languages have been found. Thus, although the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis enjoys widespread support, it is not as well demonstrated as the Indo-European family. Other 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.
James Matisoff's widely accepted classification is as follows:
Sino-Tibetan
- Chinese (more or less monosyllabic and analytic)
- Tibeto-Burman
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
- Southern Tibeto-Burman
- Sino-Bodic
- 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
- Tibeto-Burman languages and their subgrouping - James Matisoff
- Sino-Bodic - George van Driem