Misplaced Pages

#358641

69-662: The Kuki-Chin languages (also called Kuki-Chin-Mizo , Kukish or South-Central Tibeto-Burman languages ) are a branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family spoken in northeastern India , western Myanmar and southeastern Bangladesh . Most notable Kuki-Chin-speaking ethnic groups are referred to collectively as the Zo people which includes: the Mizo of Mizoram , the Kuki of Manipur , Assam , Nagaland , Tripura and Bangladesh and

138-561: A lexicostatistical comparison of 36 languages which are well known enough to exclude loanwords, finds little evidence for internal branching, though he did find an area of increased contact between the Bahnaric and Katuic languages, such that languages of all branches apart from the geographically distant Munda and Nicobarese show greater similarity to Bahnaric and Katuic the closer they are to those branches, without any noticeable innovations common to Bahnaric and Katuic. He therefore takes

207-480: A detailed classification, with six top-level divisions: 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. James Matisoff abandoned Benedict's Tibeto-Karen hypothesis: Some more-recent Western scholars, such as Bradley (1997) and La Polla (2003), have retained Matisoff's two primary branches, though differing in

276-575: 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 . 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 ninth century, in conjunction with an invasion by Nanzhao that shattered

345-588: A few specialized exceptions in other Austroasiatic branches. The Austroasiatic languages are further characterized as having unusually large vowel inventories and employing some sort of register contrast, either between modal (normal) voice and breathy (lax) voice or between modal voice and creaky voice . Languages in the Pearic branch and some in the Vietic branch can have a three- or even four-way voicing contrast. However, some Austroasiatic languages have lost

414-489: 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: 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 some parallels between the morphology of Old Chinese and

483-523: 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: George 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

552-535: A large language family spoken throughout Mainland Southeast Asia , South Asia and East Asia . These languages are natively spoken by the majority of the population in Vietnam and Cambodia , and by minority populations scattered throughout parts of Thailand , Laos , India , Myanmar , Malaysia , Bangladesh , Nepal , and southern China . Approximately 117 million people speak an Austroasiatic language, of which more than two-thirds are Vietnamese speakers. Of

621-425: A prototypical example of the isolating morphological type, southern Chinese languages express this trait far more strongly than northern Chinese languages do. Initial consonant alternations related to transitivity are pervasive in Sino-Tibetan; while devoicing (or aspiration) of the initial is associated with a transitive/ causative verb, voicing is linked to its intransitive/ anticausative counterpart. This

690-547: A provisional classification of the remaining languages: Following that, because they propose that the three best-known branches may 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". A team of researchers led by Pan Wuyun and Jin Li proposed

759-586: A range of other sources. Some proposals were based on cognates in other Sino-Tibetan languages, though workers have also found solely Chinese evidence for them. For example, recent reconstructions of Old Chinese have reduced Karlgren's 15 vowels to a six-vowel system originally suggested by Nicholas Bodman . 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. A growing number of scholars believe that Old Chinese did not use tones and that

SECTION 10

#1732782703359

828-486: 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. The descriptions of non-literary languages used by Shafer and Benedict were often produced by missionaries and colonial administrators of varying linguistic skills. Most of

897-526: A special relationship between Chinese and Bodic. Van Driem has also proposed a "fallen leaves" model that lists dozens of well-established low-level groups while remaining agnostic about intermediate groupings of these. In the most recent version (van Driem 2014), 42 groups are identified (with individual languages highlighted in italics ): He also suggested (van Driem 2007) that the Sino-Tibetan language family be renamed "Trans-Himalayan", which he considers to be more neutral. Orlandi (2021) also considers

966-479: A stressed, full syllable. This reduction of presyllables has led to a variety of phonological shapes of the same original Proto-Austroasiatic prefixes, such as the causative prefix, ranging from CVC syllables to consonant clusters to single consonants among the modern languages. As for word formation, most Austroasiatic languages have a variety of derivational prefixes, many have infixes , but suffixes are almost completely non-existent in most branches except Munda, and

1035-513: A survey in the 1937 Chinese Yearbook , Li Fang-Kuei described the family as consisting of four branches: 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

1104-769: A taxon altogether, making it synonymous with the larger family. Scholars generally date the ancestral language to c.  3000 BCE  – c.  2000 BCE with a homeland in southern China or the Mekong River valley. Sidwell (2022) proposes that the locus of Proto-Austroasiatic was in the Red River Delta area around c.  2500 BCE  – c.  2000 BCE . Genetic and linguistic research in 2015 about ancient people in East Asia suggest an origin and homeland of Austroasiatic in today southern China or even further north. The name Austroasiatic

1173-640: Is argued to reflect morphological derivations that existed in earlier stages of the family. Even in Chinese, one would find semantically-related pairs of verbs such as 見 'to see' ( MC : kenH ) and 現 'to appear' ( ɣenH ), which are respectively reconstructed as *[k]ˤen-s and *N-[k]ˤen-s in the Baxter-Sagart system of Old Chinese . Austroasiatic languages The Austroasiatic languages ( / ˌ ɒ s t r oʊ . eɪ ʒ i ˈ æ t ɪ k , ˌ ɔː -/ OSS -troh-ay-zhee- AT -ik, AWSS- ) are

1242-510: Is as follows. Peterson's Northeastern branch corresponds to VanBik's Northern branch, while Peterson's Northwestern corresponds to the Old Kuki branch of earlier classifications. Sino-Tibetan languages 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

1311-641: Is better preserved in the Katuic languages , which Sidwell has specialized in. Linguists traditionally recognize two primary divisions of Austroasiatic: the Mon–Khmer languages of Southeast Asia , Northeast India and the Nicobar Islands , and the Munda languages of East and Central India and parts of Bangladesh and Nepal . However, no evidence for this classification has ever been published. Each of

1380-423: Is by far the oldest recorded Sino-Tibetan language, with inscriptions dating from around 1250 BC and a huge body of literature from the first millennium BC. However, the Chinese script is logographic and does not represent sounds systematically; it is therefore difficult to reconstruct the phonology of the language from the written records. Scholars have sought to reconstruct the phonology of Old Chinese by comparing

1449-457: Is closely related to Mru rather than to Kuki-Chin languages. The Mruic languages constitute a separate Tibeto-Burman branch, and are not part of Kuki-Chin. Kenneth VanBik's (2009:23) classified the Kuki-Chin languages based on shared sound changes (phonological innovations) from Proto-Kuki-Chin as follows. David A. Peterson's (2017:206) internal classification of the Kuki-Chin languages

SECTION 20

#1732782703359

1518-756: 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 overtly excluded Vietnamese (placing it in Mon–Khmer) as well as Hmong–Mien and Kra–Dai (placing them in Austro-Tai ). He otherwise retained

1587-652: The Northwestern branch added from Scott DeLancey , et al. (2015), and the Khomic branch (which has been split off from the Southern branch) from Peterson (2017). Darlong and Ranglong are unclassified Kuki-Chin language. The recently discovered Sorbung language may be mixed language that could classify as either a Kuki-Chin or Tangkhul language (Mortenson & Keogh 2011). Anu-Hkongso speakers self-identify as ethnic Chin people , although their language

1656-950: 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. 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. Gong Hwang-cherng has compared Old Chinese, Tibetic, Burmese, and Tangut to establish sound correspondences between those languages. He found that Tibetic and Burmese /a/ correspond to two Old Chinese vowels, *a and *ə. While this has been considered evidence for

1725-859: The Chamic languages of Vietnam, and the Land Dayak languages of Borneo (Adelaar 1995). Diffloth 's widely cited original classification, now abandoned by Diffloth himself, is used in Encyclopædia Britannica and—except for the breakup of Southern Mon–Khmer—in Ethnologue . Peiros is a lexicostatistic classification, based on percentages of shared vocabulary. This means that languages can appear to be more distantly related than they actually are due to language contact . Indeed, when Sidwell (2009) replicated Peiros's study with languages known well enough to account for loans, he did not find

1794-685: The Chin of Chin State , Myanmar . Kuki-Chin is alternatively called South-Central Trans-Himalayan (or South Central Tibeto-Burman) by Konnerth (2018), because of negative connotations of the term "Kuki-Chin" for many speakers of languages in this group. Kuki-Chin is sometimes placed under Kuki-Chin–Naga , a geographical rather than linguistic grouping. The Karbi languages may be closely related to Kuki-Chin, but Thurgood (2003) and van Driem (2011) leave Karbi unclassified within Sino-Tibetan. The Kuki-Chin branches listed below are from VanBik (2009), with

1863-642: 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. The highlands stretching from northeast India to northern Myanmar contain over 100 highly diverse Sino-Tibetan languages. Other Sino-Tibetan languages are found along the southern slopes of the Himalayas and

1932-611: The Lolo-Burmese group. While Benedict contended that Proto-Tibeto-Burman would have a two-tone system, Matisoff refrained from reconstructing it since tones in individual languages may have developed independently through the process of tonogenesis . Sino-Tibetan is structurally one of the most diverse language families in the world, including all of the gradation of morphological complexity from isolating ( Lolo-Burmese , Tujia ) to polysynthetic ( Gyalrongic , Kiranti ) languages. While Sinitic languages are normally taken to be

2001-703: The Pyu city-states . Other Burmish languages are still spoken in Dehong Prefecture in the far west of Yunnan. By the 11th century, their Pagan Kingdom had expanded over the whole basin. The oldest texts, such as the Myazedi inscription , date from the early 12th century. The closely related Loloish languages are spoken by 9 million people in the mountains of western Sichuan, Yunnan, and nearby areas in northern Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam. The Tibetic languages are spoken by some 6 million people on

2070-670: The Tibetan Plateau and neighbouring areas in the Himalayas and western Sichuan . 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 seventh century. Although the empire collapsed in the ninth century, Classical Tibetan remained influential as the liturgical language of Tibetan Buddhism . The remaining languages are spoken in upland areas. Southernmost are

2139-598: 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. Ernst Kuhn envisaged a group with two branches, Chinese-Siamese and Tibeto-Burman. August Conrady called this group Indo-Chinese in his influential 1896 classification, though he had doubts about Karen. Conrady's terminology

Kuki-Chin languages - Misplaced Pages Continue

2208-679: The Austroasiatic languages, only Vietnamese , Khmer , and Mon have lengthy, established presences in the historical record. Only two are presently considered to be the national languages of sovereign states: Vietnamese in Vietnam, and Khmer in Cambodia. The Mon language is a recognized indigenous language in Myanmar and Thailand, while the Wa language is a "recognized national language" in

2277-463: The Yangshao and/or Majiayao cultures. Sagart et al. (2019) performed another phylogenetic analysis based on different data and methods to arrive at the same conclusions to the homeland and divergence model but proposed an earlier root age of approximately 7,200 years ago, associating its origin with millet farmers of the late Cishan culture and early Yangshao culture. Several low-level branches of

2346-423: The 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 gives an impression of coherence which is at best misleading. In their view, many such languages would for now be best considered unclassified, or "internal isolates" within the family. They propose

2415-535: The conservative view that the thirteen branches of Austroasiatic should be treated as equidistant on current evidence. Sidwell & Blench (2011) discuss this proposal in more detail, and note that there is good evidence for a Khasi–Palaungic node, which could also possibly be closely related to Khmuic. If this would the case, Sidwell & Blench suggest that Khasic may have been an early offshoot of Palaungic that had spread westward. Sidwell & Blench (2011) suggest Shompen as an additional branch, and believe that

2484-489: 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

2553-590: The de facto autonomous Wa State within Myanmar. Santali is one of the 22 scheduled languages of India . The remainder of the family's languages are spoken by minority groups and have no official status. Ethnologue identifies 168 Austroasiatic languages. These form thirteen established families (plus perhaps Shompen , which is poorly attested, as a fourteenth), which have traditionally been grouped into two, as Mon–Khmer, and Munda . However, one recent classification posits three groups (Munda, Mon-Khmer, and Khasi–Khmuic ), while another has abandoned Mon–Khmer as

2622-547: 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)" and that "it no longer seems justified to treat Chinese as the first branching of the Sino-Tibetan family," 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

2691-538: The eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau . The branch with the largest number of speakers by far is the Sinitic languages , with 1.3 billion speakers, most of whom live in the eastern half of China. The first records of Chinese are oracle bone inscriptions from c.  1250 BC , when Old Chinese was spoken around the middle reaches of the Yellow River . Chinese has since expanded throughout China, forming

2760-536: The eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau. The 22 official languages listed in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India include only two Sino-Tibetan languages, namely Meitei (officially called Manipuri) and Bodo . There has been a range of proposals for the Sino-Tibetan urheimat , reflecting the uncertainty about the classification of the family and its time depth. Three major hypotheses for

2829-453: The entire family "Tibeto-Burman", a name he says has historical primacy, but other linguists who reject a privileged position for Chinese nevertheless continue to call the resulting family "Sino-Tibetan". 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

Kuki-Chin languages - Misplaced Pages Continue

2898-658: The families that is written in boldface type below is accepted as a valid clade. By contrast, the relationships between these families within Austroasiatic are debated. In addition to the traditional classification, two recent proposals are given, neither of which accepts traditional "Mon–Khmer" as a valid unit. However, little of the data used for competing classifications has ever been published, and therefore cannot be evaluated by peer review. In addition, there are suggestions that additional branches of Austroasiatic might be preserved in substrata of Acehnese in Sumatra (Diffloth),

2967-545: The family is traditionally presented as divided into Sinitic (i.e. Chinese languages) and Tibeto-Burman branches, a common origin of the non-Sinitic languages has never been demonstrated. The Kra–Dai and Hmong–Mien languages are generally included within Sino-Tibetan by Chinese linguists but have been excluded by the international community since the 1940s. Several links to other language families have been proposed, but none have broad acceptance. A genetic relationship between Chinese, Tibetan, Burmese, and other languages

3036-451: 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. 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. In

3105-611: The following Stammbaum by Matisoff in the final print release of the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus (STEDT) in 2015. Matisoff acknowledges that the position of Chinese within the family remains an open question. 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

3174-472: The following phylogenetic tree in 2019, based on lexical items: Except for the Chinese, Bai , Karenic , and Mruic languages, the usual word order in Sino-Tibetan languages is object–verb . However, Chinese and Bai differ from almost all other subject–verb–object languages in the world in placing relative clauses before the nouns they modify. Most scholars believe SOV to be the original order, with Chinese, Karen, and Bai having acquired SVO order due to

3243-526: 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. The third volume of the Linguistic Survey of India , edited by Sten Konow , was devoted to the Tibeto-Burman languages of British India . Studies of

3312-416: The following initials: Although the initial consonants of cognates tend to have the same place and manner of articulation , voicing and aspiration are often unpredictable. This irregularity was attacked by Roy Andrew Miller , though Benedict's supporters attribute it to the effects of prefixes that have been lost and are often unrecoverable. The issue remains unsolved today. It was cited together with

3381-484: 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 reach and are often also sensitive border zones. There is no consensus regarding the date and location of their origin. During the 18th century, several scholars noticed parallels between Tibetan and Burmese, both languages with extensive literary traditions. Early in

3450-484: The influence of neighbouring languages in the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area . This has been criticized as being insufficiently corroborated by Djamouri et al. 2007, who instead reconstruct a VO order for Proto-Sino-Tibetan. Contrastive tones are a feature found across the family although absent in some languages like Purik . Phonation contrasts are also present among many, notably in

3519-505: The internal (branching) structure below. Diffloth compares reconstructions of various clades, and attempts to classify them based on shared innovations, though like other classifications the evidence has not been published. As a schematic, we have: Remo Savara Kharia – Juang Korku Kherwarian Khmuic Pakanic Palaungic Khasian Vietic Katuic Bahnaric Khmer Pearic Nicobarese Aslian Monic Or in more detail, Paul Sidwell (2009), in

SECTION 50

#1732782703359

3588-493: 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. Benedict also reconstructed, at least for Tibeto-Burman, prefixes such as the causative s- , the intransitive m- , and r- , b- g- and d- of uncertain function, as well as suffixes -s , -t and -n . Old Chinese

3657-548: The manuscript of his work in 1941, but it was not published until 1972. 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. 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. Thus, Benedict reconstructed

3726-601: The modern Bodic languages. Second, there is a body of lexical cognates between the Chinese and Bodic languages, represented by the Kirantic language Limbu . 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

3795-579: 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. Karlgren's reconstruction was somewhat unwieldy, with many sounds having a highly non-uniform distribution. Later scholars have revised it by drawing on

3864-467: The outlines of Conrady's Indo-Chinese classification, though putting Karen in an intermediate position: 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. He proposed

3933-566: The place and time of Sino-Tibetan unity have been presented: Zhang et al. (2019) performed a computational phylogenetic analysis of 109 Sino-Tibetan languages to suggest a Sino-Tibetan homeland in northern China near the Yellow River basin. The study further suggests that there was an initial major split between the Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages approximately 4,200 to 7,800 years ago (with an average of 5,900 years ago), associated with

4002-494: The reconstruction of Proto-Mon–Khmer in Harry L. Shorto 's Mon–Khmer Comparative Dictionary . Little work has been done on the Munda languages , which are not well documented. With their demotion from a primary branch, Proto-Mon–Khmer becomes synonymous with Proto-Austroasiatic. Paul Sidwell (2005) reconstructs the consonant inventory of Proto-Mon–Khmer as follows: This is identical to earlier reconstructions except for *ʄ . *ʄ

4071-411: The register contrast by evolving more diphthongs or in a few cases, such as Vietnamese, tonogenesis . Vietnamese has been so heavily influenced by Chinese that its original Austroasiatic phonological quality is obscured and now resembles that of South Chinese languages, whereas Khmer, which had more influence from Sanskrit, has retained a more typically Austroasiatic structure. Much work has been done on

4140-495: The similarities attributed to diffusion across the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area , especially since Benedict (1942) . 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 . Many Chinese linguists continue to follow Li's classification. However, this arrangement remains problematic. For example, there

4209-585: 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 . In the 1980s and 1990s, new surveys were published from the Himalayas and southwestern China. Of particular interest was the increasing literature on the Qiangic languages of western Sichuan and adjacent areas. Most of

SECTION 60

#1732782703359

4278-409: 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 . 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 . Benedict completed

4347-413: The subclassification or even ST affiliation in 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

4416-494: 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. 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

4485-415: The van Driem's Trans-Himalayan fallen leaves model to be more plausible than the bifurcate classification of Sino-Tibetan being split into Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman. 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

4554-679: Was coined by Wilhelm Schmidt ( German : austroasiatisch ) based on auster , the Latin word for "South" (but idiosyncratically used by Schmidt to refer to the southeast), and "Asia". Despite the literal meaning of its name, only three Austroasiatic branches are actually spoken in South Asia: Khasic , Munda , and Nicobarese . Regarding word structure, Austroasiatic languages are well known for having an iambic "sesquisyllabic" pattern, with basic nouns and verbs consisting of an initial, unstressed, reduced minor syllable followed by

4623-423: 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

4692-697: Was uncertain about the affinity of Karen and Hmong–Mien . The English translation "Sino-Tibetan" first appeared in a short note by Przyluski and Luce in 1931. 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,

4761-508: 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. 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. He divided them into three groups: Tibeto-Burman, Chinese and Tai, and

#358641