text:
Sino-Tibetan languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"Trans-Himalayan" redirects here. For the mountains, see Transhimalaya.
Sino-Tibetan
Trans-Himalayan
Geographic
distribution
East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Northeast India
Linguistic classification
One of the world's primary language families
Subdivisions
Some 40 well-established subgroups, of which those with the most speakers are:
Chinese
Lolo-Burmese
Tibetic
Karenic
Bodo–Garo
Kuki-Chin
Tamangic
Bai
Meithei
Jingpho–Luish
ISO 639-2 / 5
sit
Linguasphere
79- (phylozone)
Glottolog
sino1245
Major branches of Sino-Tibetan:
Chinese
Lolo-Burmese
Tibetic
Karen
others
The Sino-Tibetan languages, in a few sources also known as Trans-Himalayan, are a family of more than 400 languages spoken in East Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia. The family is second only to Indo-European in terms of the number of native speakers. The Sino-Tibetan languages with the most native speakers are the varieties of Chinese (1.3 billion speakers), Burmese (33 million), and the Tibetic languages (6 million), but many Sino-Tibetan languages are spoken by small communities in remote mountain areas and as such are poorly documented. Unlike Western linguists, Chinese linguists generally include Kra–Dai and Hmong-Mien languages within Sino-Tibetan.
Several low-level subgroups have been securely reconstructed, but reconstruction of a proto-language for the family as a whole is still at an early stage, so the higher-level structure of Sino-Tibetan remains unclear. Although the family is traditionally presented as divided into Sinitic (i.e. Chinese) and Tibeto-Burman branches, a common origin of the non-Sinitic languages has never been demonstrated. Several links to other language families have been proposed, but none has broad acceptance.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Early work
1.2 Shafer and Benedict
1.3 Study of literary languages
1.4 Fieldwork
2 Distribution
2.1 Contemporary languages
2.2 Homeland
3 Classification
3.1 Li (1937)
3.2 Benedict (1942)
3.3 Shafer (1955)
3.4 Matisoff (1978, 2015)
3.5 Starostin (1996)
3.6 van Driem (1997, 2001)
3.7 van Driem (2001, 2014)
3.8 Blench and Post (2014)
4 Development of dialects and languages
4.1 Change in word structure
4.2 Change in tone
5 Typology
5.1 Word order
5.2 Morphology
5.3 Classifiers and definite marking
6 Vocabulary
7 External classification
8 Notes
9 References
9.1 Works cited
9.2 General
10 External links
History[edit]
A genetic relationship between Chinese, Tibetan, Burmese and other languages was first proposed in the early 19th century and is now broadly accepted. The initial focus on languages of civilizations with long literary traditions has been broadened to include less widely spoken languages, some of which have only recently, or never, been written. However, the reconstruction of the family is much less developed than for families such as Indo-European or Austroasiatic. Difficulties have included the great diversity of the languages, the lack of inflection in many of them, and the effects of language contact. In addition, many of the smaller languages are spoken in mountainous areas that are difficult to access, and are often also sensitive border zones.[1]
Early work[edit]
During the 18th century, several scholars had noticed parallels between Tibetan and Burmese, both languages with extensive literary traditions. Early in the following century, Brian Houghton Hodgson and others noted that many non-literary languages of the highlands of northeast India and Southeast Asia were also related to these. The name "Tibeto-Burman" was first applied to this group in 1856 by James Richardson Logan, who added Karen in 1858.[2][3] The third volume of the Linguistic Survey of India, edited by Sten Konow, was devoted to the Tibeto-Burman languages of British India.[4]
Studies of the "Indo-Chinese" languages of Southeast Asia from the mid-19th century by Logan and others revealed that they comprised four families: Tibeto-Burman, Tai, Mon–Khmer and Malayo-Polynesian. Julius Klaproth had noted in 1823 that Burmese, Tibetan and Chinese all shared common basic vocabulary but that Thai, Mon, and Vietnamese were quite different.[5][6] Ernst Kuhn envisaged a group with two branches, Chinese-Siamese and Tibeto-Burman.[a] August Conrady called this group Indo-Chinese in his influential 1896 classification, though he had doubts about Karen. Conrady's terminology was widely used, but there was uncertainty regarding his exclusion of Vietnamese. Franz Nikolaus Finck in 1909 placed Karen as a third branch of Chinese-Siamese.[7][8]
Jean Przyluski introduced the French term sino-tibétain as the title of his chapter on the group in Meillet and Cohen's Les langues du monde in 1924.[9][10] He divided them into three groups: Tibeto-Burman, Chinese and Tai,[9] and was uncertain about the affinity of Karen and Hmong–Mien.[11] The English translation "Sino-Tibetan" first appeared in a short note by Przyluski and Luce in 1931.[12]
Shafer and Benedict[edit]
In 1935, the anthropologist Alfred Kroeber started the Sino-Tibetan Philology Project, funded by the Works Project Administration and based at the University of California, Berkeley. The project was supervised by Robert Shafer until late 1938, and then by Paul K. Benedict. Under their direction, the staff of 30 non-linguists collated all the available documentation of Sino-Tibetan languages. The result was eight copies of a 15-volume typescript entitled Sino-Tibetan Linguistics.[4][b] This work was never published, but furnished the data for a series of papers by Shafer, as well as Shafer's five-volume Introduction to Sino-Tibetan and Benedict's Sino-Tibetan, a Conspectus.[14]
Benedict completed the manuscript of his work in 1941, but it was not published until 1972.[15] Instead of building the entire family tree, he set out to reconstruct a Proto-Tibeto-Burman language by comparing five major languages, with occasional comparisons with other languages.[16] He reconstructed a two-way distinction on initial consonants based on voicing, with aspiration conditioned by pre-initial consonants that had been retained in Tibetic but lost in many other languages.[17] Thus, Benedict reconstructed the following initials:[18]
TB
Tibetan
Jingpho
Burmese
Garo
Mizo
S'gaw Karen
Old Chinese[c]
*k k(h) k(h) ~ g k(h) k(h) ~ g k(h) k(h) *k(h)
*g g g ~ k(h) k g ~ k(h) k k(h) *gh
*ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ y *ŋ
*t t(h) t(h) ~ d t(h) t(h) ~ d t(h) t(h) *t(h)
*d d d ~ t(h) t d ~ t(h) d d *dh
*n n n n n n n *n ~ *ń
*p p(h) p(h) ~ b p(h) p(h) ~ b p(h) p(h) *p(h)
*b b b ~ p(h) p b ~ p(h) b b *bh
*m m m m m m m *m
*ts ts(h) ts ~ dz ts(h) s ~ tś(h) s s(h) *ts(h)
*dz dz dz ~ ts ~ ś ts tś(h) f s(h) ?
*s s s s th th θ *s
*z z z ~ ś s s f θ ?
*r r r r r r γ *l
*l l l l l l l *l
*h h ∅ h ∅ h h *x
*w ∅ w w w w w *gjw
*y y y y tś ~ dź z y *dj ~ *zj
Although the initial consonants of cognates tend to have the same place and manner of articulation, voicing and aspiration is often unpredictable.[19] This irregularity was attacked by Roy Andrew Miller,[20] though Benedict's supporters attribute it to the effects of prefixes that have been lost and are often unrecoverable.[21] The issue remains unsolved today.[19] It was cited together with the lack of reconstructable shared morphology, and evidence that much shared lexical material has been borrowed from Chinese into Tibeto-Burman, by Christopher Beckwith, one of the few scholars still arguing that Chinese is not related to Tibeto-Burman.[22][23]
Study of literary languages[edit]
Ancient Chinese text on bamboo strips
Old Chinese is by far the oldest recorded Sino-Tibetan language, with inscriptions dating from 1200 BC and a huge body of literature from the first millennium BC, but the Chinese script is not alphabetic. Scholars have sought to reconstruct the phonology of Old Chinese by comparing the obscure descriptions of the sounds of Middle Chinese in medieval dictionaries with phonetic elements in Chinese characters and the rhyming patterns of early poetry. The first complete reconstruction, the Grammata Serica Recensa of Bernard Karlgren, was used by Benedict and Shafer.[24]
Karlgren's reconstruction was somewhat unwieldy, with many sounds having a highly non-uniform distribution. Later scholars have revised it by drawing on a range of other sources.[25] Some proposals were based on cognates in other Sino-Tibetan languages, though workers have also found solely Chinese evidence for them.[26] For example, recent reconstructions of Old Chinese have reduced Karlgren's 15 vowels to a six-vowel system originally suggested by Nicholas Bodman on the basis of comparisons with Tibetic.[27] Similarly, Karlgren's *l has been recast as *r, with a different initial interpreted as *l, matching Tibeto-Burman cognates, but also supported by Chinese transcriptions of foreign names.[28] A growing number of scholars believe that Old Chinese did not use tones, and that the tones of Middle Chinese developed from final consonants. One of these, *-s, is believed to be a suffix, with cognates in other Sino-Tibetan languages.[29]
Old Tibetan text found at Turfan
Tibetic has extensive written records from the adoption of writing by the Tibetan Empire in the mid-7th century. The earliest records of Burmese (such as the 12th-century Myazedi inscription) are more limited, but later an extensive literature developed. Both languages are recorded in alphabetic scripts ultimately derived from the Brahmi script of Ancient India. Most comparative work has used the conservative written forms of these languages, following the dictionaries of Jäschke (Tibetan) and Judson (Burmese), though both contain entries from a wide range of periods.[30]
There are also extensive records in Tangut, the language of the Western Xia (1038–1227). Tangut is recorded in a Chinese-inspired logographic script, whose interpretation presents many difficulties, even though multilingual dictionaries have been found.[31]
Gong Hwang-cherng has compared Old Chinese, Tibetic, Burmese and Tangut in an effort to establish sound correspondences between those languages.[16][32] He found that Tibetic and Burmese /a/ correspond to two Old Chinese vowels, *a and *ə.[33] While this has been considered evidence for a separate Tibeto-Burman subgroup, Hill (2014) finds that Burmese has distinct correspondences for Old Chinese rhymes -ay : *-aj and -i : *-əj, and hence argues that the development *ə > *a occurred independently in Tibetan and Burmese.[34]
Fieldwork[edit]
The descriptions of non-literary languages used by Shafer and Benedict were often produced by missionaries and colonial administrators of varying linguistic skill.[35][36] Most of the smaller Sino-Tibetan languages are spoken in inaccessible mountainous areas, many of which are politically or militarily sensitive and thus closed to investigators. Until the 1980s, the best-studied areas were Nepal and northern Thailand.[37] In the 1980s and 1990s, new surveys were published from the Himalayas and southwestern China. Of particular interest was the discovery of a new branch of the family, the Qiangic languages of western Sichuan and adjacent areas.[38][39]
Distribution[edit]
Most of the current spread of Sino-Tibetan languages is the result of historical expansions of the three groups with the most speakers – Chinese, Burmese and Tibetic – replacing an unknown number of earlier languages. These groups also have the longest literary traditions of the family. The remaining languages are spoken in mountainous areas, along the southern slopes of the Himalayas, the Southeast Asian Massif and the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau.
Contemporary languages[edit]
Proportion of first-language speakers of larger branches of Sino-Tibetan[40]
Chinese (94.28%)
Lolo-Burmese (3.39%)
Tibetic (0.44%)
Karen (0.30%)
others (1.59%)
By far the largest group are the 1.3 billion speakers of varieties of Chinese, most of whom live in the eastern half of China. The first records of Chinese are oracle bone inscriptions from c. 1200 BC, when Old Chinese was spoken around the middle reaches of the Yellow River.[41] Chinese has since expanded throughout China, forming a family whose diversity has been compared with the Romance languages. Diversity is greater in the rugged terrain of southeast China than in the North China Plain.[42]
Burmese is the national language of Myanmar, and the first language of some 33 million people. Burmese speakers first entered the northern Irrawaddy basin from what is now western Yunnan in the early 9th century, when the Pyu city-states had been weakened by an invasion by Nanzhao.[43] Other Burmish languages are still spoken in Dehong Prefecture in the far west of Yunnan.[44] By the 11th century their Pagan Kingdom had expanded over the whole basin.[43] The oldest texts, such as the Myazedi inscription, date from the early 12th century.[44]
The Tibetic languages are spoken by some 6 million people on the Tibetan Plateau and neighbouring areas in the Himalayas and western Sichuan.[45] They are descended from Old Tibetan, which was originally spoken in the Yarlung Valley before it was spread by the expansion of the Tibetan Empire in the 7th century.[46] Although the empire collapsed in the 9th century, Classical Tibetan remained influential as the liturgical language of Tibetan Buddhism.[47]
The remaining languages are spoken in upland areas. Southernmost are the Karen languages, spoken by 4 million people in the hill country along the Myanmar–Thailand border, with the greatest diversity in the Karen Hills, which are believed to be the homeland of the group.[48] The highlands stretching from northeast India to northern Myanmar contain over 100 high-diverse Sino-Tibetan languages. Other Sino-Tibetan languages are found along the southern slopes of the Himalayas, southwest China and northern Thailand.[49]
Homeland[edit]
There have been a range of proposals for the Sino-Tibetan urheimat, reflecting the uncertainty about the classification of the family and its time depth.[50] James Matisoff (1991) places it in the eastern part of the Tibetan plateau around 4000 BC, with the various groups migrating out down the Yellow, Yangtze, Mekong, Salween and Brahmaputra rivers.[51] George van Driem (2005) proposes that Sino-Tibetan originated the Sichuan Basin before 7000 BC, with an early migration into northeast India, and a later migration north of the predecessors of Chinese and Tibetic.[52] Roger Blench and Mark Post (2014) have proposed that the Sino-Tibetan homeland is northeast India, the area of greatest diversity, around 7000 BC.[53]
Roger Blench (2009)[54] proposes that the earliest speakers of Sino-Tibetan were not agriculturalists, since agriculture cannot be reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan. Rather, early Sino-Tibetan speakers were highly diverse foragers who were living in northeast India up to 10,000 years ago. Tibetic, Sinitic, and Burmic were all the results of later expansions.
Classification[edit]
Several low-level branches of the family, particularly Lolo-Burmese, have been securely reconstructed, but in the absence of a secure reconstruction of a Sino-Tibetan proto-language, the higher-level structure of the family remains unclear.[55][56] Thus, a conservative classification of Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman would posit several dozen small coordinate families and isolates; attempts at subgrouping are either geographic conveniences or hypotheses for further research.
Li (1937)[edit]
In a survey in the 1937 Chinese Yearbook, Li Fang-Kuei described the family as consisting of four branches:[57][58]
Indo-Chinese (Sino-Tibetan)
Chinese
Tai (later expanded to Kam–Tai)
Miao–Yao (Hmong–Mien)
Tibeto-Burman
Tai and Miao–Yao were included because they shared isolating typology, tone systems and some vocabulary with Chinese. At the time, tone was considered so fundamental to language that tonal typology could be used as the basis for classification. In the Western scholarly community, these languages are no longer included in Sino-Tibetan, with the similarities attributed to diffusion across the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area, especially since Benedict (1942).[58] The exclusions of Vietnamese by Kuhn and of Tai and Miao–Yao by Benedict were vindicated in 1954 when André-Georges Haudricourt demonstrated that the tones of Vietnamese were reflexes of final consonants from Proto-Mon–Khmer.[59]
Many Chinese linguists continue to follow Li's classification.[d][58] However, this arrangement remains problematic. For example, there is disagreement over whether to include the entire Kra–Dai family or just Kam–Tai (Zhuang–Dong excludes the Kra languages), because the Chinese cognates that form the basis of the putative relationship are not found in all branches of the family and have not been reconstructed for the family as a whole. In addition, Kam–Tai itself no longer appears to be a valid node within Kra–Dai.
Benedict (1942)[edit]
Benedict overtly excluded Vietnamese (placing it in Mon–Khmer) as well as Hmong–Mien and Kra–Dai (placing them in Austro-Tai). He otherwise retained the outlines of Conrady's Indo-Chinese classification, though putting Karen in an intermediate position:[60][61]
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese
Tibeto-Karen
Karen
Tibeto-Burman
Shafer (1955)[edit]
Shafer criticized the division of the family into Tibeto-Burman and Sino-Daic branches, which he attributed to the different groups of languages studied by Konow and other scholars in British India on the one hand and by Henri Maspero and other French linguists on the other.[62] He proposed a detailed classification, with six top-level divisions:[63][64][e]
Sino-Tibetan
Sinitic
Daic
Bodic
Burmic
Baric
Karenic
Shafer was sceptical of the inclusion of Daic, but after meeting Maspero in Paris decided to retain it pending a definitive resolution of the question.[65][66]
Matisoff (1978, 2015)[edit]
James Matisoff abandoned Benedict's Tibeto-Karen hypothesis:
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese
Tibeto-Burman
Some more-recent Western scholars, such as Bradley (1997) and La Polla (2003), have retained Matisoff's two primary branches, though differing in the details of Tibeto-Burman. However, Jacques (2006) notes, "comparative work has never been able to put forth evidence for common innovations to all the Tibeto-Burman languages (the Sino-Tibetan languages to the exclusion of Chinese)"[f] and that "it no longer seems justified to treat Chinese as the first branching of the Sino-Tibetan family,"[g] because the morphological divide between Chinese and Tibeto-Burman has been bridged by recent reconstructions of Old Chinese.
The internal structure of Sino-Tibetan has been tentatively revised as the following Stammbaum by Matisoff (2015: xxxii, 1123-1127) in the final print release of the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus (STEDT).[67][68] Matisoff (2015: xxxi) acknowledges that the position of Chinese as either a sister branch of Tibeto-Burman or a branch within Tibeto-Burman remains an open question.
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese
Tibeto-Burman
Northeast Indian areal group
“North Assam”
Tani
Deng
Kuki-Chin
“Naga” areal group
Central Naga (Ao group)
Angami–Pochuri group
Zeme group
Tangkhulic
Meithei
Mikir / Karbi
Mru
Sal
Bodo–Garo
Northern Naga / Konyakian
Jingpho–Asakian
Himalayish
Tibeto-Kanauri
Western Himalayish
Bodic
Lepcha
Tamangish
Dhimal
Newar
Kiranti
Kham-Magar-Chepang
Tangut-Qiang
Tangut
Qiangic
rGyalrongic
Nungic
Tujia
Lolo-Burmese–Naxi
Lolo-Burmese
Naxi
Karenic
Bai
Starostin (1996)[edit]
Sergei Starostin proposed that both the Kiranti languages and Chinese are divergent from a "core" Tibeto-Burman of at least Bodish, Lolo-Burmese, Tamangic, Jinghpaw, Kukish, and Karen (other families were not analysed) in a hypothesis called Sino-Kiranti. The proposal takes two forms: that Sinitic and Kiranti are themselves a valid node or that the two are not demonstrably close, so that Sino-Tibetan has three primary branches:
Sino-Tibetan (version 1)
Sino-Kiranti
Tibeto-Burman
Sino-Tibetan (version 2)
Chinese
Kiranti
Tibeto-Burman
van Driem (1997, 2001)[edit]
van Driem, like Shafer, rejects a primary split between Chinese and the rest, suggesting that Chinese owes its traditional privileged place in Sino-Tibetan to historical, typological, and cultural, rather than linguistic, criteria. He calls the entire family "Tibeto-Burman", a name he says has historical primacy,[69] but other linguists who reject a privileged position for Chinese nevertheless continue to call the resulting family "Sino-Tibetan", including Roger Blench.
Like Matisoff, van Driem acknowledges that the relationships of the "Kuki–Naga" languages (Kuki, Mizo, Meitei, etc.), both amongst each other and to the other languages of the family, remain unclear. However, rather than placing them in a geographic grouping, as Matisoff does, van Driem leaves them unclassified. He has proposed several hypotheses, including the reclassification of Chinese to a Sino-Bodic subgroup:
Tibeto-Burman
Western (Baric, Brahmaputran, or Sal): Dhimal, Bodo–Garo, Konyak, Kachin–Luic
Eastern
Northern (Sino-Bodic)
Northwestern (Bodic): Bodish, Kirantic, West Himalayish, Tamangic and several isolates
Northeastern (Sinitic)
Southern
Southwestern: Lolo-Burmese, Karenic
Southeastern: Qiangic, Jiarongic
a number of other small families and isolates as primary branches (Newar, Nungish, Magaric, etc.)
Van Driem points to two main pieces of evidence establishing a special relationship between Sinitic and Bodic and thus placing Chinese within the Tibeto-Burman family. First, there are a number of parallels between the morphology of Old Chinese and the modern Bodic languages. Second, there is an impressive body of lexical cognates between the Chinese and Bodic languages, represented by the Kirantic language Limbu.[70]
In response, Matisoff notes that the existence of shared lexical material only serves to establish an absolute relationship between two language families, not their relative relationship to one another. Although some cognate sets presented by van Driem are confined to Chinese and Bodic, many others are found in Sino-Tibetan languages generally and thus do not serve as evidence for a special relationship between Chinese and Bodic.[71]
van Driem (2001, 2014)[edit]
George van Driem (2001) has also proposed a "fallen leaves" model that lists dozens of well-established low-level groups while remaining agnostic about intermediate groupings of these.[72] In the most recent version (van Driem 2014), 42 groups are identified (with individual languages highlighted in italics):[73]
Bodish
Tshangla
West Himalayish
Tamangic
Newaric
Kiranti
Lepcha
Magaric
Chepangic
Raji–Raute
Dura
'Ole
Gongduk
Lhokpu
Siangic
Kho-Bwa
Hrusish
Digarish
Midžuish
Tani
Dhimalish
Brahmaputran
Pyu
Ao
Angami–Pochuri
Tangkhul
Zeme
Meithei
Kukish
Karbi
Mru
Sinitic
Bai
Tujia
Lolo-Burmese
Qiangic
Ersuish
Naic
rGyalrongic
Kachinic
Nungish
Karenic
van Driem (2007) also suggested that the Sino-Tibetan language family be renamed "Trans-Himalayan", which he considers to be more neutral.[74]
Blench and Post (2014)[edit]
Roger Blench and Mark W. Post have criticized the applicability of conventional Sino-Tibetan classification schemes to minor languages lacking an extensive written history (unlike Chinese, Tibetic, and Burmese). They find that the evidence for the subclassification or even ST affiliation at all of several minor languages of northeastern India, in particular, is either poor or absent altogether.
While relatively little has been known about the languages of this region up to and including the present time, this has not stopped scholars from proposing that these languages either constitute or fall within some other Tibeto-Burman subgroup. However, in absence of any sort of systematic comparison – whether the data are thought reliable or not – such "subgroupings" are essentially vacuous. The use of pseudo-genetic labels such as "Himalayish" and "Kamarupan" inevitably give an impression of coherence which is at best misleading.
—  Blench & Post (2014), p. 3
In their view, many such languages would for now be best considered unclassified, or "internal isolates" within the family. They propose a provisional classification of the remaining languages:
Sino-Tibetan
Karbi (Mikir)
Mruish
(unnamed group)
(unnamed group)
Tani
Nagish: Ao, Kuki-Chin, Tangkhul, Zeme, Angami–Pochuri and Meitei
(unnamed group)
Western: Gongduk, 'Ole, Mahakiranti, Lepcha, Kham–Magaric–Chepang, Tamangic, and Lhokpu
Karenic
Jingpho–Konyak–Bodo
Eastern
Tujia
Bai
Northern Qiangic
Southern Qiangic
(unnamed group)
Chinese (Sinitic)
Lolo-Burmese–Naic
Bodish
Nungish
Following that, because they propose that the three best-known branches may actually be much closer related to each other than they are to "minor" Sino-Tibetan languages, Blench and Post argue that "Sino-Tibetan" or "Tibeto-Burman" are inappropriate names for a family whose earliest divergences led to different languages altogether. They support the proposed name "Trans-Himalayan".
Development of dialects and languages[edit]
Change in word structure[edit]
The phenomenon of drift, proposed by American linguist Edward Sapir, occurred in many languages and dialects in the Sino-Tibetan family. Proto-Chinese and Proto-Tibeto-Burman are both agglutinative languages. The change in Proto-Chinese to Old Chinese around the Shang Dynasty could be found in the Book of songs when the classifications of the noun, verbs, and modifier were all dependent on prefixes such as *s-, *p-, *-k.[75] After the Warring State Period in China, Old Chinese developed and started to use tones as the classification of words.[76] The suffix *-s also presented in the new classification system. The characteristics of Old Chinese were maintained in most dialects of southern China.[77]
The Chinese dialects of Min and Wu which were mainly spoken in southern parts of China, had similarities in pronunciation with reptiles and birds as seen in the Old Tai-Kadai language according to You Rujie's research. The prefixes used for differentiating reptiles and birds in Chinese dialects showed similar features with the Old Tai-Kadai language.[78] The old Tai-Kadai language was mainly used in the Xiangxi and Guizhou areas of China. You believed that these unique prefixes maintained by both the local dialects and the old Tai-Kadai language could be a product of local environmental influence.[79]
Dialects in the Tibeto-Burman language area developed more conservatively; they keep the rules for pronunciation and word structure the same compared to Proto-Tibeto-Burman. The Tibetic languages are classified between fusional and analytic language; the Lolo-Burmese languages are mostly analytic languages, and the Jingpho languages are a mix of an agglutinative and fusional language.[80] The Bodo–Garo and the Kuki-Chin–Naga languages kept some particular characteristics of the Proto-Tibeto-Burman language such as agglutination and vowel prefixes. This phenomenon could be that the two language groups were separated early from the Proto-Tibeto-Burman language therefore did not undergo much development. The same happened to Sinitic, where its agglutinative property was kept even when it developed into an analytic language. Old Tibetan and the Qiangic both exhibit consonant clusters caused by the dropping of vowel prefixes, which is believed to be the same structure Proto-Sino-Tibetan had.[81]
Old Burmese and Old Tibetan dropped the vowel prefixes during the dialect acquisition, leaving only Tibeto-Burmese, Jingpho, the Bodo–Garo and Kuki-Chin–Naga languages that kept the vowel form of prefixes. The Lolo-Burmese languages and other languages from the Bodish-Himalayish language group preferred a suffix structure which they inherited from the Tibetan-Qiangic-Lolo-Burmese group. Their similarities could be proven by example like the phonetics of the Tibetic language for "sun": ŋi ma; Achang for "sun": ni31 mɔ31; the Hakun language for "sun": nɔ55 ma33; and Naxi for "sun": ŋi33 me33. These inherited suffixes were later retained in these languages and became widespread in dialects of Old Tibetan, which caused the usage of the prefix in the modern language to decrease.[82]
According to Dai Qingxia, half of the vocabulary in the Jingpho language are disyllabic as well as most of the nouns of Jingpho. This significant amount of disyllabic words came from the consonant cluster in monosyllabic words and compound words mainly found in the Proto-Tibeto-Burman language.[83] The development of the Sino-Tibetan language had been focused on solving the problem of phoneme rhyme, as well as coordinate the crucial point between monosyllabic morpheme and disyllabic word. Because the Sino-Tibetan language consists of a monosyllabic root, a prefix and suffix are needed for classifying word meaning and point of view (aspect?). The prefix *a- appeared in many Sino-Tibetan dialects to coordinate different morpheme structures. The repetition of a syllable has the same coordination effect.[84]
Change in tone[edit]
Chinese and the Hmong-Mien and Kra–Dai languages are analytic languages that have similar grammar, pronunciation, and syllable structure. They all started with four tones, soon afterward developed into different phonological tones such as checked tone because of the voiced and voiceless properties of the initial. The aspiration of the initial and the length of the vowel in checked tone led to further tone development of dialects in these languages. Cantonese in Jiangyang area for Chinese developed eight different tones because of the length of the vowel. The aspiration property also determined the tone development of Kra-Dai, of which the tone eventually developed into sixteen types of tone.[85] Zongdi dialect of Hmong-Mien had also experienced the change in tone because of the aspiration property.[86]
Typology[edit]
Word order[edit]
Except for the Chinese, Bai, Karenic, and Mruic languages, the usual word order in Sino-Tibetan languages is object–verb. Most scholars believe this to be the original order, with Chinese, Karen and Bai having acquired subject–verb–object order due to the influence of neighbouring languages in the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area.[87] However, Chinese and Bai differ from almost all other VO languages in the world in placing relative clauses before the nouns they modify.[88]
Morphology[edit]
Hodgson had in 1849 noted a dichotomy between "pronominalized" (inflecting) languages, stretching across the Himalayas from Himachal Pradesh to eastern Nepal, and "non-pronominalized" (isolating) languages. Konow (1909) explained the pronominalized languages as due to a Munda substratum, with the idea that Indo-Chinese languages were essentially isolating as well as tonal. Maspero later attributed the putative substratum to Indo-Aryan. It was not until Benedict that the inflectional systems of these languages were recognized as (partially) native to the family. Scholars disagree over the extent to which the agreement system in the various languages can be reconstructed for the proto-language.[89][90]
In morphosyntactic alignment, many Tibeto-Burman languages have ergative and/or anti-ergative (an argument that is not an actor) case marking. However, the anti-ergative case markings can not be reconstructed at higher levels in the family and are thought to be innovations.[91]
Classifiers and definite marking[edit]
This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. In particular, the syntax is garbled. Please help us clarify the section . There might be a discussion about this on the talk page. (March 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
There is no language originally in the Sino-Tibetan family that had classifiers, but some subgroups did develop some properties of classifier,[92][93] such as the Lolo-Burmese languages which had cognate nouns as classifiers.[94] Tibeto-Burman and Sinitic languages also developed classifiers that are used more commonly in South East Asia and are mainly use without numerals, such as in Rawang lègā tiq bok [book one classifier] meaning "one book", lègā bok meaning "the book"; in Cantonese yat55 ga33 che55 [one classifier vehicle] meaning "one car", ga33 che55 meaning "the car" (verbally).[95] Some other classifiers in Tibeto-Burman and Sinitic languages developed the same use as definite or specific marking. Definite marking did not appear in the Proto-Sino-Tibetan language either, but there is some use of it in Qiangic of the Tibeto-Burmese languages,[96] where the markings seem to evolve from demonstratives.[97]
Vocabulary[edit]
See also: List of numbers in various languages
Sino-Tibetan numerals
gloss
Old Chinese[98]
Old Tibetan[99]
Old Burmese[99]
Jingpho[100]
Garo[100]
Limbu[101]
Kanauri[102]
"one" 一 *ʔjit – ac – – – id
隻 *tjek "single" gcig tac – – thik –
"two" 二 *njijs gnyis nhac – gin-i nɛtchi niš
"three" 三 *sum gsum sumḥ mə̀sūm git-tam sumsi sum
"four" 四 *sjijs bzhi liy mə̀lī bri lisi pə:
"five" 五 *ŋaʔ lnga ṅāḥ mə̀ŋā boŋ-a nasi ṅa
"six" 六 *C-rjuk drug khrok krúʔ dok tuksi țuk
"seven" 七 *tsʰjit – khu-nac sə̀nìt sin-i nusi štiš
"eight" 八 *pret brgyad rhac mə̀tshát cet yɛtchi rəy
"nine" 九 *kjuʔ dgu kuiḥ cə̀khù sku – sgui
"ten" 十 *gjəp – kip[103] – – gip –
– bcu chay shī ci-kuŋ – səy
External classification[edit]
Beyond the traditionally recognized families of Southeast Asia, a number of possible broader relationships have been suggested.
One of these is the "Sino-Caucasian" hypothesis of Sergei Starostin, which posits that the Yeniseian languages and North Caucasian languages form a clade with Sino-Tibetan. The Sino-Caucasian hypothesis has been expanded by others to "Dené–Caucasian" to include the Na-Dené languages of North America, Burushaski, Basque and, occasionally, Etruscan. Edward Sapir had commented on a connection between Na-Dené and Sino-Tibetan.[104] A narrower binary Dené–Yeniseian family has recently been well-received, though not conclusively demonstrated.
In contrast, Laurent Sagart proposes a Sino-Austronesian family with Sino-Tibetan and Austronesian (including Kra–Dai as a subbranch) as primary brances.[105] Stanley Starosta has extended this proposal with a further branch called "Yangzian" joining Hmong–Mien and Austroasiatic.[106]
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Kuhn (1889), p. 189: "wir das Tibetisch-Barmanische einerseits, das Chinesisch-Siamesische anderseits als deutlich geschiedene und doch wieder verwandte Gruppen einer einheitlichen Sprachfamilie anzuerkennen haben." (also quoted in van Driem (2001), p. 264.)
Jump up ^ The volumes were: 1. Introduction and bibliography, 2. Bhotish, 3. West Himalayish, 4. West Central Himalayish, 5. East Himalayish, 6. Digarish, 7. Nungish, 8. Dzorgaish, 9. Hruso, 10. Dhimalish, 11. Baric, 12. Burmish–Lolish, 13. Kachinish, 14. Kukish, 15. Mruish.[13]
Jump up ^ Karlgren's reconstruction, with aspiration as 'h' and 'i̯' as 'j' to aid comparison.
Jump up ^ See, for example, the "Sino-Tibetan" (汉藏语系 Hàn-Zàng yǔxì) entry in the "languages" (語言文字, Yǔyán-Wénzì) volume of the Encyclopedia of China (1988).
Jump up ^ For Shafer, the suffix "-ic" denoted a primary division of the family, whereas the suffix "-ish" denoted a sub-division of one of those.
Jump up ^ les travaux de comparatisme n’ont jamais pu mettre en évidence l’existence d’innovations communes à toutes les langues « tibéto-birmanes » (les langues sino-tibétaines à l’exclusion du chinois)
Jump up ^ il ne semble plus justifié de traiter le chinois comme le premier embranchement primaire de la famille sino-tibétaine
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Handel (2008), pp. 422, 434–436.
Jump up ^ Logan (1856), p. 31.
Jump up ^ Logan (1858).
^ Jump up to: a b Hale (1982), p. 4.
Jump up ^ van Driem (2001), p. 334.
Jump up ^ Klaproth (1823), pp. 346, 363–365.
Jump up ^ van Driem (2001), p. 344.
Jump up ^ Finck (1909), p. 57.
^ Jump up to: a b Przyluski (1924), p. 361.
Jump up ^ Sapir (1925), p. 373.
Jump up ^ Przyluski (1924), p. 380.
Jump up ^ Przyluski & Luce (1931).
Jump up ^ Miller (1974), p. 195.
Jump up ^ Miller (1974), pp. 195–196.
Jump up ^ Matisoff (1991), p. 473.
^ Jump up to: a b Handel (2008), p. 434.
Jump up ^ Benedict (1972), pp. 20–21.
Jump up ^ Benedict (1972), pp. 17–18, 133–139, 164–171.
^ Jump up to: a b Handel (2008), pp. 425–426.
Jump up ^ Miller (1974), p. 197.
Jump up ^ Matisoff (2003), p. 16.
Jump up ^ Beckwith (1996).
Jump up ^ Beckwith (2002b).
Jump up ^ Matisoff (1991), pp. 471–472.
Jump up ^ Norman (1988), p. 45.
Jump up ^ Baxter (1992), pp. 25–26.
Jump up ^ Bodman (1980), p. 47.
Jump up ^ Baxter (1992), pp. 197, 199–202.
Jump up ^ Baxter (1992), pp. 315–317.
Jump up ^ Beckwith (2002a), pp. xiii–xiv.
Jump up ^ Thurgood (2003), p. 17.
Jump up ^ Gong (1980).
Jump up ^ Handel (2008), p. 431.
Jump up ^ Hill (2014), pp. 97–104.
Jump up ^ Matisoff (1991), pp. 472–473.
Jump up ^ Hale (1982), pp. 4–5.
Jump up ^ Matisoff (1991), pp. 470, 476–478.
Jump up ^ Handel (2008), p. 435.
Jump up ^ Matisoff (1991), p. 482.
Jump up ^ Lewis, Simons & Fennig (2015).
Jump up ^ Norman (1988), p. 4.
Jump up ^ Norman (1988), pp. 187–188.
^ Jump up to: a b Taylor (1992), p. 165.
^ Jump up to: a b Wheatley (2003), p. 195.
Jump up ^ Tournadre (2014), p. 117.
Jump up ^ Tournadre (2014), p. 107.
Jump up ^ Tournadre (2014), p. 120.
Jump up ^ Thurgood (2003), p. 18.
Jump up ^ Handel (2008), pp. 424–425.
Jump up ^ Handel (2008), p. 423.
Jump up ^ Matisoff (1991), pp. 470–471.
Jump up ^ van Driem (2005), pp. 91-95.
Jump up ^ Blench & Post (2014), p. 89.
Jump up ^ Blench, Roger. 2009. If agriculture cannot be reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan, what are the consequences?. Paper presented at the 42nd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Language and Linguistics (ICSTLL 42), Chiang Mai, November 2-4, 2009. (slides)
Jump up ^ Handel (2008), p. 426.
Jump up ^ DeLancey (2009), p. 695.
Jump up ^ Li (1937), pp. 60–63.
^ Jump up to: a b c Handel (2008), p. 424.
Jump up ^ Matisoff (1991), p. 487.
Jump up ^ Benedict (1942), p. 600.
Jump up ^ Benedict (1972), pp. 2–4.
Jump up ^ Shafer (1955), pp. 94–96.
Jump up ^ Shafer (1955), pp. 99–108.
Jump up ^ Shafer (1966), p. 1.
Jump up ^ Shafer (1955), pp. 97–99.
Jump up ^ van Driem (2001), pp. 343–344.
Jump up ^ Matisoff, James A. 2015. The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus. Berkeley: University of California. (PDF)
Jump up ^ Bruhn, Daniel; Lowe, John; Mortensen, David; Yu, Dominic (2015). Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Database Software. Software, UC Berkeley Dash. doi:10.6078/D1159Q
Jump up ^ van Driem (2001), p. 383.
Jump up ^ van Driem (1997).
Jump up ^ Matisoff (2000).
Jump up ^ van Driem (2001), p. 403.
Jump up ^ van Driem (2014), p. 19.
Jump up ^ van Driem (2007), p. 226.
Jump up ^ Wu (1987).
Jump up ^ Wang (1980), p. 221.
Jump up ^ Wu (2002), pp. 9-10.
Jump up ^ You (1982).
Jump up ^ Wu (2002), p. 12.
Jump up ^ Sun (1996).
Jump up ^ Wu (2002), pp. 10,12.
Jump up ^ Wu (2002), p. 10.
Jump up ^ Dai (1997).
Jump up ^ Wu (2002), p. 11.
Jump up ^ Shi (1991).
Jump up ^ Wu (2002).
Jump up ^ Dryer (2003), pp. 43–45.
Jump up ^ Dryer (2003), pp. 50.
Jump up ^ Handel (2008), p. 430.
Jump up ^ LaPolla (2003), pp. 29–32.
Jump up ^ LaPolla (2003), pp. 34–35.
Jump up ^ Xu (1989), pp. 15-23.
Jump up ^ Dai (1994), pp. 166-181.
Jump up ^ Bradley (2012), pp. 171-192.
Jump up ^ Baron (1973).
Jump up ^ LaPolla & Huang (2003).
Jump up ^ Thurgood & LaPolla (2017), p. 46.
Jump up ^ Baxter (1992).
^ Jump up to: a b Hill (2012).
^ Jump up to: a b Burling (1983), p. 28.
Jump up ^ van Driem (1987), pp. 32–33.
Jump up ^ Sharma (1988), p. 116.
Jump up ^ Yanson (2006), p. 106.
Jump up ^ Shafer (1952).
Jump up ^ Sagart (2005).
Jump up ^ Starosta (2005).
Works cited[edit]
Baxter, William H. (1992), A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-012324-1.
Beckwith, Christopher I. (1996), "The Morphological Argument for the Existence of Sino-Tibetan", Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8–10, 1996, Bangkok: Mahidol University at Salaya, pp. 812–826.
——— (2002a), "Introduction", in Beckwith, Christopher, Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages, Brill, pp. xiii–xix, ISBN 978-90-04-12424-0.
——— (2002b), "The Sino-Tibetan problem", in Beckwith, Christopher, Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages, Brill, pp. 113–158, ISBN 978-90-04-12424-0.
Benedict, Paul K. (1942), "Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A New Alignment in Southeastern Asia", American Anthropologist, 44 (4): 576–601, doi:10.1525/aa.1942.44.4.02a00040, JSTOR 663309.
——— (1972), Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus (PDF), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-08175-7.
Blench, Roger; Post, Mark (2014), "Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of North East Indian languages", in Hill, Nathan W.; Owen-Smith, Thomas, Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–104, ISBN 978-3-11-031083-2. (preprint)
Bodman, Nicholas C. (1980), "Proto-Chinese and Sino-Tibetan: data towards establishing the nature of the relationship", in van Coetsem, Frans; Waugh, Linda R., Contributions to historical linguistics: issues and materials, Leiden: E. J. Brill, pp. 34–199, ISBN 978-90-04-06130-9.
Burling, Robbins (1983), "The Sal Languages" (PDF), Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7 (2): 1–32.
DeLancey, Scott (2009), "Sino-Tibetan languages", in Comrie, Bernard, The World's Major Languages (2nd ed.), Routledge, pp. 693–702, ISBN 978-1-134-26156-7.
van Driem, George (1987), A grammar of Limbu, Mouton grammar library, 4, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-011282-5.
——— (1997), "Sino-Bodic", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 60 (3): 455–488, doi:10.1017/S0041977X0003250X.
——— (2001), Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region, Brill, ISBN 978-90-04-12062-4.
——— (2005), "Tibeto-Burman vs Indo-Chinese" (PDF), in Sagart, Laurent; Blench, Roger; Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia, The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, London: Routledge Curzon, pp. 81–106, ISBN 978-0-415-32242-3.
——— (2007), "The diversity of the Tibeto-Burman language family and the linguistic ancestry of Chinese" (PDF), Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics, 1 (2): 211–270.
——— (2014), "Trans-Himalayan" (PDF), in Owen-Smith, Thomas; Hill, Nathan W., Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 11–40, ISBN 978-3-11-031083-2.
Dryer, Matthew S. (2003), "Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages from a typological and geographical perspective", in Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages, London: Routledge, pp. 43–55, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
Finck, Franz Nikolaus (1909), Die Sprachstämme des Erdkreises, Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.
Gong, Hwang-cherng (1980), "A Comparative Study of the Chinese, Tibetan, and Burmese Vowel Systems", Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 51: 455–489.
Hale, Austin (1982), Research on Tibeto-Burman Languages, State-of-the-art report, Trends in linguistics, 14, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 978-90-279-3379-9.
Handel, Zev (2008), "What is Sino-Tibetan? Snapshot of a Field and a Language Family in Flux", Language and Linguistics Compass, 2 (3): 422–441, doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00061.x.
Hill, Nathan W. (2012), "The six vowel hypothesis of Old Chinese in comparative context", Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics, 6 (2): 1–69, doi:10.1163/2405478x-90000100.
——— (2014), "Cognates of Old Chinese *-n, *-r, and *-j in Tibetan and Burmese", Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale, 43 (2): 91–109, doi:10.1163/19606028-00432p02
Klaproth, Julius (1823), Asia Polyglotta, Paris: B.A. Shubart.
Kuhn, Ernst (1889), "Beiträge zur Sprachenkunde Hinterindiens" (PDF), Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Philologische und Historische Klasse, Sitzung vom 2 März 1889, pp. 189–236.
LaPolla, Randy J. (2003), "Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax", in Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages, London: Routledge, pp. 22–42, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
Lewis, M. Paul; Simons, Gary F.; Fennig, Charles D., eds. (2015), Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Eighteenth ed.), Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
Li, Fang-Kuei (1937), "Languages and Dialects", in Shih, Ch'ao-ying; Chang, Ch'i-hsien, The Chinese Year Book, Commercial Press, pp. 59–65, reprinted as Li, Fang-Kuei (1973), "Languages and Dialects of China", Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 1 (1): 1–13, JSTOR 23749774.
Logan, James R. (1856), "The Maruwi of the Baniak Islands", Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, 1 (1): 1–42.
——— (1858), "The West-Himalaic or Tibetan tribes of Asam, Burma and Pegu", Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, 2 (1): 68–114.
Matisoff, James A. (1991), "Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects", Annual Review of Anthropology, 20: 469–504, doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.20.1.469, JSTOR 2155809.
——— (2000), "On 'Sino-Bodic' and Other Symptoms of Neosubgroupitis", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 63 (3): 356–369, doi:10.1017/s0041977x00008442, JSTOR 1559492.
——— (2003), Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-09843-5.
Miller, Roy Andrew (1974), "Sino-Tibetan: Inspection of a Conspectus", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 94 (2): 195–209, doi:10.2307/600891, JSTOR 600891.
Norman, Jerry (1988), Chinese, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-29653-3.
Przyluski, Jean (1924), "Langues sino-tibétaines", in Meillet, Antoine; Cohen, Marcel, Les langues du monde, pp. 361–384.
Przyluski, J.; Luce, G. H. (1931), "The Number 'A Hundred' in Sino-Tibetan", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 6 (3): 667–668, doi:10.1017/S0041977X00093150.
Sagart, Laurent (2005), "Sino-Tibetan–Austronesian: an updated and improved argument", in Sagart, Laurent; Blench, Roger; Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia, The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, London: Routledge Curzon, pp. 161–176, ISBN 978-0-415-32242-3.
Sapir, Edward (1925), "Review: Les Langues du Monde", Modern Language Notes, 40 (6): 373–375, JSTOR 2914102.
Shafer, Robert (1952), "Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan", International Journal of American Linguistics, 18 (1): 12–19, doi:10.1086/464142, JSTOR 1263121.
——— (1955), "Classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages", Word (Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York), 11 (1): 94–111, doi:10.1080/00437956.1955.11659552.
——— (1966), Introduction to Sino-Tibetan, 1, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, ISBN 978-3-447-01559-2.
Sharma, Devidatta (1988), A Descriptive Grammar of Kinnauri, Mittal Publications, ISBN 978-81-7099-049-9.
Starosta, Stanley (2005), "Proto-East Asian and the origin and dispersal of languages of east and southeast Asia and the Pacific", in Sagart, Laurent; Blench, Roger; Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia, The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, London: Routledge Curzon, pp. 182–197, ISBN 978-0-415-32242-3.
Taylor, Keith (1992), "The Early Kingdoms", in Tarling, Nicholas, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume 1: From Early Times to c. 1800, Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–182, doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521355056.005, ISBN 978-0-521-35505-6.
Thurgood, Graham (2003), "A subgrouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages", in Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages, London: Routledge, pp. 3–21, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
Tournadre, Nicolas (2014), "The Tibetic languages and their classification", in Owen-Smith, Thomas; Hill, Nathan W., Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, De Gruyter, pp. 103–129, ISBN 978-3-11-031074-0.
Wheatley, Julian K. (2003), "Burmese", in Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages, London: Routledge, pp. 195–207, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
Yanson, Rudolf A. (2006), "Notes on the evolution of the Burmese phonological system", in Beckwith, Christopher I., Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages II, Leiden: Brill, pp. 103–120, ISBN 978-90-04-15014-0.
Wu, Anqi (1987), Han Zang yu shi dong he wan cheng ti qian zhui de can cui he tong yuan de dong ci ci gen
Wang, Li (1980), Han Yu shi gao (zhong), Zhong hua shu ju, p. 221
Wu, Anqi (2002), Han Zang yu tong yuan yan jiu, Beijing: Zhong yang min zu da xue chu ban she, pp. 9–12, ISBN 7810566113
You, Rujie (1982), Lun Tai yu liang ci zai Han yu nan fang fang yan zhong de di ceng yi cui
Sun, Hongkai (1996), Lun Zang Mian yu de yu fa xing shi
Dai, Qingxia (1997), Jing Po yu ci de shuang yin jie hua dui yu fa de ying xiang
Shi, Lin (1991), Tong yu sheng diao de gong shi biao xian he li shi yan bian
Xu, Xijian (1987), On the origin and development of noun classifiers in JingPo (PDF), translated by LaPolla, Randy J., Minzu Yuwen, pp. 27–35
Dai, Qingzia (1994), Zangmian yu geti liangci yanjiu [A study on numeral classifiers in Tibeto-Burman], Beijing: Zhongyang MInzu Xueyuan Chubanshe, pp. 166–181
Bradley, David (2012), The characteristics of the Burmic family of Tibeto-Burman (PDF), pp. 171–192
Baron, Stephen P. (1973), The classifier-alone-plus-noun construction: a study in areal diffusion, University of California, San Diego
LaPolla, Randy J.; Huang, Chenglong (2003), A Grammar of Qiang, with Annotated Texts and Glossary, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 9783110197273
Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J. (2017), The Sino-Tibetan languages, New York: Routledge, p. 46, ISBN 978-1-138-78332-4
General[edit]
Bauman, James (1974), "Pronominal Verb Morphology in Tibeto-Burman" (PDF), Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 1 (1): 108–155.
Baxter, William H. (1995), "'A Stronger Affinity ... Than Could Have Been Produced by Accident': A Probabilistic Comparison of Old Chinese and Tibeto-Burman", in Wang, William S.-Y., The Ancestry of the Chinese Language, Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monographs, 8, Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis, pp. 1–39, JSTOR 23826142.
Benedict, Paul K. (1976), "Sino-Tibetan: Another Look", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96 (2): 167–197, doi:10.2307/599822, JSTOR 599822.
Blench, Roger; Post, Mark (2011), (De)classifying Arunachal languages: Reconstructing the evidence (PDF).
Coblin, W. South (1986), A Sinologist's Handlist of Sino-Tibetan Lexical Comparisons, Monumenta Serica monograph series, 18, Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, ISBN 978-3-87787-208-6.
van Driem, George (1995), "Black Mountain Conjugational Morphology, Proto-Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax, and the Linguistic Position of Chinese" (PDF), Senri Ethnological Studies, 41: 229–259.
——— (2003), "Tibeto-Burman vs. Sino-Tibetan", in Winter, Werner; Bauer, Brigitte L. M.; Pinault, Georges-Jean, Language in time and space: a Festschrift for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 101–119, ISBN 978-3-11-017648-3.
Gong, Hwang-cherng (2002), Hàn Zàng yǔ yánjiū lùnwén jí 漢藏語硏究論文集 [Collected papers on Sino-Tibetan linguistics], Taipei: Academia Sinica, ISBN 957-671-872-4.
Jacques, Guillaume (2006), "La morphologie du sino-tibétain", La linguistique comparative en France aujourd'hui.
Kuhn, Ernst (1883), Über Herkunft und Sprache der transgangetischen Völker (PDF), Munich: Verlag d. k. b. Akademie.
Starostin, Sergei; Peiros, Ilia (1996), A Comparative Vocabulary of Five Sino-Tibetan Languages, Melbourne University Press, OCLC 53387435.
External links[edit]
James Matisoff, "Tibeto-Burman languages and their subgrouping"
Guillaume Jacques, "The Genetic Position of Chinese"
Marc Miyake (2014), "Why Sino-Tibetan reconstruction is not like Indo-European reconstruction (yet)"
Andrew Hsiu (2018), "Linking the Sino-Tibetan fallen leaves"
hide
v
t
e
Sino-Tibetan branches
Western Himalayas
(Uttarkhand, Nepal, Sikkim)
West Himalayish
Tamangic
Newaric
Newar
Baram–Thangmi
Kiranti
Lepcha
Greater Magaric
Magaric
Chepangic
Raji–Raute
Dura
Tandrange
Eastern Himalayas
(Tibet, Bhutan, Arunachal)
Bodish
Tibetic
East Bodish
Tshangla
Gongduk
Lhokpu
'Ole
Tani
circum-Myanmar tribal belts
(G–Hk–J–R–C)
Karbi
Kuki-Chin
Mruic
Pyu
Taman
"Naga"
Ao
Angami–Pochuri
Meithei
Tangkhulic
Zeme
Sal
Bodo–Garo
Konyak
Jingpho–Luish
Dhimalish?
Southeast Asia and China
Sinitic
Bai
Tujia
Nungish
Karenic
Gong
Kathu
Burmo-Qiangic
Naic
Ersuic
Qiangic
rGyalrongic
Lolo-Burmese
Mondzish
Burmish
Loloish
Dubious (possible isolates)
(Arunachal)
Hrusish
Kho-Bwa
Puroik
Miju
Greater Siangic
Siangic
Idu–Taraon
Proposed groupings
Central Tibeto-Burman
Greater Bai
Mahakiranti
Rung
Tibeto-Burman
Tibeto-Kanauri
Proto-languages
Proto-Tibeto-Burman
Proto-Loloish
Italics indicates single languages that are also considered to be separate branches.
hide
v
t
e
List of primary language families
Africa
Afro-Asiatic
Austronesian
Khoe
Kx'a
Niger–Congo
Nilo-Saharan?
Tuu
Mande?
Songhay?
Ijaw?
Ubangian?
Kadu?
Isolates
Bangime
Hadza
Jalaa
Sandawe
Kwadi?
Laal?
Shabo?
Sign languages
Arab
BANZSL
French
Lasima
Tanzanian
Others
Europe
and Asia
Afro-Asiatic
Ainu
Austroasiatic
Austronesian
Chukotko-Kamchatkan
Dravidian
Eskimo–Aleut
Great Andamanese
Hmong–Mien
Hurro-Urartian
Indo-European
Japonic
Kartvelian
Koreanic
Mongolic
Northeast Caucasian
Northwest Caucasian
Ongan
Sino-Tibetan
Kra–Dai
Tungusic
Turkic
Tyrsenian
Uralic
Yeniseian
Yukaghir
Dené–Yeniseian?
Altaic?
Austronesian–Ongan?
Austro-Tai?
Sino-Austronesian?
Digaro?
Kho-Bwa?
Siangic?
Miji?
Vasconic?
Isolates
Basque
Burushaski
Elamite
Hattic
Kusunda
Nihali
Nivkh
Sumerian
Hruso?
Miju?
Puroik?
Sign languages
BANZSL
French
German
Japanese
Swedish
Chinese
Indo-Pakistani
Arab
Chiangmai–Bangkok
Others
New
Guinea
and the
Pacific
Arai–Samaia
Arafundi–Piawi
Austronesian
Baining
Binanderean–Goilalan
Border
Bulaka River
Central Solomons
Chimbu–Wahgi
Doso–Turumsa
East Geelvink Bay
East Strickland
Eleman
Engan
Fas
Kaure–Kosare
Kiwaian
Kutubuan
Kwomtari
Lakes Plain
Lower Mamberamo
Lower Sepik
Madang
Mairasi
North Bougainville
Pauwasi
Ramu
Senagi
Sentani
Sepik
Skou
South Bougainville
Teberan
Tor–Kwerba–Nimboran
Torricelli
Trans-Fly
Trans–New Guinea
Turama–Kikorian
West Papuan
Yam
Yawa
Yuat
North Papuan?
Northeast New Guinea?
Papuan Gulf?
Isolates
Abinomn
Anêm?
Ata?
Kol
Kuot
Porome
Taiap?
Pawaia
Porome
Sulka?
Tambora
Wiru
Sign languages
Hawai'i Sign Language
Others
Australia
Arnhem/Macro-Gunwinyguan
Bunuban
Darwin River
Eastern Daly
Eastern Tasmanian
Garawan
Iwaidjan
Jarrakan
Mirndi
Northern Tasmanian
Northeastern Tasmanian
Nyulnyulan
Pama–Nyungan
Southern Daly
Tangkic
Wagaydyic
Western Daly
Western Tasmanian
Worrorran
Yangmanic (Wardaman)
Isolates
Giimbiyu
Malak-Malak
Marrgu
Tiwi
Wagiman
North
America
Algic
Alsea
Caddoan
Chimakuan
Chinookan
Chumashan
Comecrudan
Coosan
Eskimo–Aleut
Iroquoian
Kalapuyan
Keresan
Maiduan
Muskogean
Na-Dene
Palaihnihan
Plateau Penutian
Pomoan
Salishan
Shastan
Siouan
Tanoan
Tsimshianic
Utian
Uto-Aztecan
Wakashan
Wintuan
Yokutsan
Yukian
Yuman–Cochimí
Dené–Yeniseian?
Hokan?
Penutian?
Isolates
Chimariko
Haida
Karuk
Kutenai
Seri
Siuslaw
Takelma
Timucua
Waikuri
Washo
Yana
Yuchi
Zuni
Sign languages
Inuit (Inuiuuk)
Plains Sign Talk
Others
Meso-
america
Chibchan
Jicaquean
Lencan
Mayan
Misumalpan
Mixe–Zoque
Oto-Manguean
Tequistlatecan
Totonacan
Uto-Aztecan
Xincan
Totozoquean?
Isolates
Cuitlatec
Huave
Tarascan/Purépecha
Sign languages
Plains Sign Talk
Mayan
Others
South
America
Arawakan
Arauan
Araucanian
Arutani–Sape
Aymaran
Barbacoan
Boran
Borôroan
Cahuapanan
Cariban
Catacaoan
Chapacuran
Charruan
Chibchan
Choco
Chonan
Guaicuruan
Guajiboan
Jê/Gê
Harákmbut–Katukinan
Jirajaran
Jivaroan
Kariri
Katembri–Taruma
Mascoian
Matacoan
Maxakalian
Nadahup
Nambikwaran
Otomákoan
Pano-Tacanan
Peba–Yaguan
Purian
Quechuan
Piaroa–Saliban
Ticuna–Yuri
Timotean
Tiniguan
Tucanoan
Tupian
Uru–Chipaya
Witotoan
Yabutian
Yanomaman
Zamucoan
Zaparoan
Chimuan?
Esmeralda–Yaruro?
Hibito–Cholón?
Lule–Vilela?
Macro-Jê?
Tequiraca–Canichana?
Isolates
(extant in 2000)
Aikanã?
Alacalufan
Andoque?
Camsá
Candoshi
Chimane
Chiquitano
Cofán?
Fulniô
Guató
Hodï/Joti
Irantxe?
Itonama
Karajá
Krenak
Kunza
Leco
Maku-Auari of Roraima
Movima
Mura-Pirahã
Nukak?
Ofayé
Puinave
Huaorani/Waorani
Trumai
Urarina
Warao
Yamana
Yuracaré
See also
Language isolates
Unclassified languages
Creoles
Pidgins
Mixed languages
Artificial languages
List of sign languages
Families in italics have no living members.
Families with more than 30 languages are in bold.
Authority control
GND: 4120360-4
NDL: 00571002
SUDOC: 027847403
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-Tibetan_languages&oldid=845950566"
Categories:
Language families
Sino-Tibetan languages
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from March 2018
All Wikipedia articles needing clarification
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Wikipedia articles with NDL identifiers
Wikipedia articles with SUDOC identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
Afrikaans
العربية
Aragonés
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
تۆرکجه
বাংলা
Bân-lâm-gú
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
Bikol Central
Български
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Frysk
Gaelg
Galego
客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
ಕನ್ನಡ
ქართული
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
मराठी
მარგალური
Bahasa Melayu
Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄
Монгол
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
नेपाली
日本語
Nordfriisk
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پنجابی
Piemontèis
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Scots
Seeltersk
Simple English
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
Walon
吴语
粵語
Zazaki
Zeêuws
Žemaitėška
中文
Lingua Franca Nova
83 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 15 June 2018, at 07:31 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

values:
/wiki/Meithei_language
mw-redirect
Meithei language

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #e41a1c; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid;page-break-inside: avoid;break-inside: avoid-column

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #4daf4a; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #ffff33; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #a65628; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values:
/wiki/Karen_languages
mw-redirect
Karen languages

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #ff7f00; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0; border: 0; background:transparent; width:100%;

values: Classification schemes for Southeast Asian languages

values:
/wiki/British_India
mw-redirect
British India

values:
/wiki/Mon%E2%80%93Khmer_languages
mw-redirect
Mon–Khmer languages

values:
/wiki/Alfred_Kroeber
mw-redirect
Alfred Kroeber

values:
/wiki/Works_Project_Administration
mw-redirect
Works Project Administration

values:
/wiki/Christopher_Beckwith
mw-redirect
Christopher Beckwith

values: Edit section: Study of literary languages

values:
/wiki/Bamboo_strips
mw-redirect
Bamboo strips

values:
/wiki/Phonology_of_Old_Chinese
mw-redirect
Phonology of Old Chinese

values:
/wiki/Bernard_Karlgren
mw-redirect
Bernard Karlgren

values: Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)

values: position:absolute;width:100px;line-height:0;left:0; top:0; border-width:0 200px 200px 0; border-color:#ff7f00

values: position:absolute;width:100px;line-height:0;left:100px; top:100px; border-width:100px 0 0 997.64217879546px; border-left-color:#a65628

values: position:absolute;line-height:0;border-style:solid;left:0;top:0;border-width:0 200px 100px 0;border-color:#a65628

values: position:absolute;line-height:0;border-style:solid;left:0;top:0;border-width:0 100px 200px 0;border-color:#a65628

values: position:absolute;width:100px;line-height:0;left:100px; top:100px; border-width:100px 0 0 838.12751278753px; border-left-color:#ffff33

values: position:absolute;line-height:0;border-style:solid;left:0;top:0;border-width:0 200px 100px 0;border-color:#ffff33

values: position:absolute;line-height:0;border-style:solid;left:0;top:0;border-width:0 100px 200px 0;border-color:#ffff33

values: position:absolute;width:100px;line-height:0;left:100px; top:100px; border-width:100px 0 0 678.18149783399px; border-left-color:#4daf4a

values: position:absolute;line-height:0;border-style:solid;left:0;top:0;border-width:0 200px 100px 0;border-color:#4daf4a

values: position:absolute;line-height:0;border-style:solid;left:0;top:0;border-width:0 100px 200px 0;border-color:#4daf4a

values: position:absolute;width:100px;line-height:0;left:100px; top:100px; border-width:100px 0 0 266.15852094899px; border-left-color:#e41a1c

values: position:absolute;line-height:0;border-style:solid;left:0;top:0;border-width:0 200px 100px 0;border-color:#e41a1c

values: position:absolute;line-height:0;border-style:solid;left:0;top:0;border-width:0 100px 200px 0;border-color:#e41a1c

values: PieChartTemplate thumb tright thumbinner

values:
/wiki/Dehong_Prefecture
mw-redirect
Dehong Prefecture

values:
/wiki/Tibetan_plateau
mw-redirect
Tibetan plateau

values:
/wiki/Salween_river
mw-redirect
Salween river

values:
/wiki/Brahmaputra_river
mw-redirect
Brahmaputra river

values:
/wiki/Proto-Mon%E2%80%93Khmer_language
mw-redirect
Proto-Mon–Khmer language

values:
/wiki/James_A._Matisoff
mw-redirect
James A. Matisoff

values:
/wiki/Kukish_languages
mw-redirect
Kukish languages

values:
/wiki/Tangkhul_languages
mw-redirect
Tangkhul languages

values:
/wiki/Kachin%E2%80%93Luic_languages
mw-redirect
Kachin–Luic languages

values:
/wiki/Dhimal_languages
mw-redirect
Dhimal languages

values:
/wiki/Kuki-Naga_languages
mw-redirect
Kuki-Naga languages

values:
/wiki/Sinitic_languages
mw-redirect
Sinitic languages

values:
/wiki/Jiarongic_languages
mw-redirect
Jiarongic languages

values:
/wiki/Brahmaputran_languages
mw-redirect
Brahmaputran languages

values:
/wiki/Bai_languages
mw-redirect
Bai languages

values:
/wiki/Ersu_languages
mw-redirect
Ersu languages

values: -moz-column-width: 13em; -webkit-column-width: 13em; column-width: 13em;

values:
/wiki/Macro-Bai_languages
mw-redirect
Macro-Bai languages

values: Edit section: Development of dialects and languages

values:
/wiki/Bodish-Himalayish_languages
mw-redirect
Bodish-Himalayish languages

values: Edit section: Classifiers and definite marking

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-confusing

values:
/wiki/Cantonese_language
mw-redirect
Cantonese language

values:
/wiki/Kanauri_language
mw-redirect
Kanauri language

values:
/wiki/Na-Den%C3%A9_languages
mw-redirect
Na-Dené languages

values:
/wiki/Burushaski_language
mw-redirect
Burushaski language

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: lower-alpha;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://doi.org/10.6078%2FD1159Q

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/663309

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1017%2FS0041977X0003250X

values:
nofollow
http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/15863/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/19139/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.ethnologue.com

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/23749774

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/2155809

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0041977x00008442

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1559492

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F600891

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/600891

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1017%2FS0041977X00093150

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/2914102

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F464142

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1263121

values: refbegin refbegin-hanging-indents columns references-column-width

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/23826142

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F599822

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/599822

values:
/wiki/Weldon_South_Coblin
mw-redirect
Weldon South Coblin

values:
nofollow
external text
https://dds.crl.edu/item/17471

values:
/wiki/Melbourne_University_Press
mw-redirect
Melbourne University Press

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/53387435

values:
/wiki/Orogenic_belts
mw-redirect
Orogenic belts

values: Language isolates and independent language families in Arunachal

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible

values:
/wiki/Ainu_languages
mw-redirect
Ainu languages

values: Old Chiangmai–Bangkok Sign Language family

values:
/wiki/Lower_Sepik_languages
mw-redirect
Lower Sepik languages

values: Northeast New Guinea languages (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Keresan_languages
mw-redirect
Keresan languages

values:
/wiki/Bor%C3%B4roan_languages
mw-redirect
Borôroan languages

values:
nofollow
external text
https://d-nb.info/gnd/4120360-4

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.idref.fr/027847403

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from March 2018

values: Category:All Wikipedia articles needing clarification

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with NDL identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with SUDOC identifiers

values:
/wiki/Sino-Tibetan_languages
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-af
display: none;

values: لغات صينية تبتية – Arabic

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-an
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ast
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-az
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-azb
display: none;

values: চীনা-তিব্বতি ভাষাসমূহ – Bangla

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bn
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-zh-min-nan
display: none;

values: Сіна-тыбецкія мовы – Belarusian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-be
display: none;

values: Сына-тыбэцкія мовы – Belarusian (Taraškievica orthography)

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-be-x-old
display: none;

values: Mga tataramon na Sino-Tibetano – Central Bikol

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bcl
display: none;

values: Сино-тибетско езиково семейство – Bulgarian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bg
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-br
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ca
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-cs
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-cy
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-da
display: none;

values: interlanguage-link interwiki-de badge-Q17437798 badge-goodarticle

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-et
display: none;

values: Σινοθιβετικές γλώσσες – Greek

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-el
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-eo
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-eu
display: none;

values: زبان‌های چینی-تبتی – Persian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fa
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fr
display: none;

values: Sino-Tibetaanske talen – Western Frisian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fy
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-gv
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-gl
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hak
display: none;

values: 중국티베트어족 – Korean

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ko
display: none;

values: Սինատիբեթյան լեզուներ – Armenian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hy
display: none;

values: चीनी-तिब्बती भाषा-परिवार – Hindi

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hr
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ilo
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-is
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-it
display: none;

values: שפות סינו-טיבטיות – Hebrew

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-he
display: none;

values: ಚೀನಿ-ಟಿಬೆಟನ್ ಭಾಷೆಗಳು – Kannada

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-kn
display: none;

values: ჩინურ-ტიბეტური ენები – Georgian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ka
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sw
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-la
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lv
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lt
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-li
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hu
display: none;

values: Синотибетски јазици – Macedonian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-mk
display: none;

values: സൈനോ-തിബെറ്റൻ ഭാഷകൾ – Malayalam

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ml
display: none;

values: चिनी-तिबेटी भाषासमूह – Marathi

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-mr
display: none;

values: ჩინურ-ტიბეტური ნინეფი – Mingrelian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-xmf
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-cdo
display: none;

values: Хятад-Төвөд хэлний язгуур – Mongolian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-mn
display: none;

values: တရုတ်-တိဗက်နွယ် ဘာသာစကားများ – Burmese

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-my
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-nl
display: none;

values: चिनियाँ-तिब्बती भाषा परिवार – Nepali

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ne
display: none;

values: シナ・チベット語族 – Japanese

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ja
display: none;

values: Sinotibeetisk spriaken – Northern Frisian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-frr
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-no
display: none;

values: Sinotibetanske språk – Norwegian Nynorsk

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-nn
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-oc
display: none;

values: ਸੀਨੋ-ਤਿੱਬਤੀ ਭਾਸ਼ਾਵਾਂ – Punjabi

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pa
display: none;

values: چینی تبتی بولیاں – Western Punjabi

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pnb
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pms
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pl
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pt
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ro
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-qu
display: none;

values: Сино-тибетские языки – Russian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sco
display: none;

values: Tibetisk-chinesiske Sproaken – Saterland Frisian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-stq
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-simple
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sk
display: none;

values: Сино-тибетански језици – Serbian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sr
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sh
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fi
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sv
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-tl
display: none;

values: சீன-திபெத்திய மொழிகள் – Tamil

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ta
display: none;

values: ตระกูลภาษาจีน-ทิเบต – Thai

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-th
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-tr
display: none;

values: Сино-тибетські мови – Ukrainian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-uk
display: none;

values: چینی۔تبتی زبانیں – Urdu

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-vi
display: none;

values: Famile des lingaedjes sino-tibetins – Walloon

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-wa
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-wuu
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-zh-yue
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-diq
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-zea
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bat-smg
display: none;

values: Linguas xinotibetan – Lingua Franca Nova

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lfn
display: none;

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Sino-Tibetan_languages rootpage-Sino-Tibetan_languages skin-vector action-view