Dictionary of Meaning
<<Back
Please select a letter:
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
Y |
Z |
0-9
Click here for Shopping
Sino-Tibetan Languages
*** Shopping-Tip: Sino-Tibetan Languages
The '''Sino-Tibetan languages''' form a
language family composed of
Chinese language Chinese and the
Tibeto-Burman languages, including some 250 languages of
East Asia. They are second only to the
Indo-European languages in terms of their number of speakers.
Many of the better known Sino-Tibetan languages are
tone (linguistics) tonal. However, tone may evolve quickly and is often an
areal feature (linguistics) areal feature, and thus poor evidence for a genealogical relationship. For example, while standard Lhasa
Tibetan language Tibetan is tonal, other Tibetan dialects are not; and several reconstructions of
Old Chinese do not require tone: Tone appears to have developed to compensate for the loss of
consonantal distinctions.
Validity
A few scholars, such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Roy A. Miller, and W. South Coblin, question whether Chinese is related to Tibeto-Burman. They typically point to a putative absence of regular sound correspondences. However, an increasing body of scholarship by scholars such as
James Matisoff and
Gong Hwang-cherng has revealed some regular correspondances. Thus while the genetic unity of the Sino-Tibetan family is not as well demonstrated as that of the Indo-European family, in that a convincing reconstruction of Proto-Sino-Tibetan has never been proposed, there is good evidence that Sino-Tibetan is a valid family.
The other tonal language families of East Asia,
Tai-Kadai languages Tai-Kadai and
Hmong-Mien languages Hmong-Mien, are sometimes included in Sino-Tibetan. This view fell out of favor in the West in the mid twentieth century, with the similarities credited to borrowings and areal features, but it is still widely held in China.
Classification
James Matisoff's widely accepted classification is as follows:
'''Sino-Tibetan''' (Matisoff)
*'''
Chinese languages Chinese'''
*'''
Tibeto-Burman languages Tibeto-Burman'''
**'''Kamarupan'''
***Kuki-Chin-
Naga (people) Naga
***Abor-Miri-Dafla
***
Bodo (people) Bodo-
Garo (tribe) Garo
**'''Himalayish'''
***Maha-
Kiranti languages Kiranti (includes
Newari,
Magar,
Rai (ethnic group) Rai))
***Tibeto-Kinauri (includes
Tibetan language Tibetan,
Lepcha)
**'''
Qiangic languages Qiangic'''
**'''Jingpho-Nungish-Luish'''
***
Kachinic (
Jingpo Jingpho)
***Nungish
***Luish
**'''
Yi Lolo-
Burmese language Burmese-
Nakhi Naxi'''
**'''
Karen people Karenic'''
**'''
Baic'''
It should be noted that not all of the "branches" of Matisoff's classification are intended as genealogic nodes. For example, Matisoff makes no claim that the families in the Kamarupan or Himalayish branches have a special relationship to one another other than a geographic one. They are intended rather as categories of convenience pending more detailed comparative work.
Like Matisoff,
George van Driem acknowledges that the relationships of the "Kuki-
Naga (people) Naga" languages (
Kuki,
Mizo,
Meithei Manipuri, etc.), both amongst each other and to the other Tibeto-Burman languages, remain unclear. However, rather than placing them in a geographic grouping, as Matisoff does, van Driem leaves them unclassified.
Certain linguists, most notably van Driem, have proposed that Chinese owes its traditional privileged place in the Matisoffian classification to cultural rather than linguistic criteria, much as
Semitic languages Semitic was once considered a primary branch of a "
Hamito-Semitic" family; and just as Semitic was later demoted to a sub-branch of
Afro-Asiatic languages Afro-Asiatic, several recent classifications have demoted Chinese to a sub-branch of Tibeto-Burman.
Roger Blench comments that
:it is hard not to suspect that Chinese does not have the distinct status accorded it by the Matisoffian model, but whatever evidence exists for other schemas has failed to win significant assent from the scholarly community. The second major issue is the status of the problematic ‘remnant’ languages of the Himalaya, Gongduk, Magaric and others. Either these are early branchings from the Sino-Tibetan tree or they are ‘
Kusunda Kusundic’, remnants of earlier language phyla that have been Sino-Tibetanised.
:(The
Kusunda language of western Nepal is often thought to a remnant of the pre-Tibeto-Burman indigenous languages of the southern Himalayas. Kusunda is thought to be on the verge of extinction, if not extinct.)
Van Driem's classification is typical of this view:
'''Tibeto-Burman''' (van Driem)
*'''Brahmaputran'''
**Dhimal
**
Bodo (people) Bodo-Koch (includes
Kakborok Tripuri,
Garo (tribe) Garo)
**Konyak (includes
Nocte)
**
Kachinic (includes
Jingpo)
*'''Southern Tibeto-Burman'''
**
Yi_language Lolo-
Burmese language Burmese
**
Karen people Karenic
*'''Sino-Bodic'''
**Sinitic (
Chinese languages Chinese)
**Bodish-Himalayish (includes
Tibetan language Tibetan)
**
Kiranti languages Kirantic
**
Tamangic
**(several isolates within Sino-Bodic)
*'''A number of other small families and isolates''' as primary branches of Tibeto-Burman
(
Newari,
Qiang, Nung,
Magar, ''etc.'')
The essential part of this model is called the ''Sino-Bodic'' hypothesis, for it proposes that the closest relatives of Chinese are the Bodic languages such as Tibetan.
Sino-Bodic
Advocates of the Sino-Bodic hypothesis point 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.
Opponents of the Sino-Bodic hypothesis present two rebuttals. First, they note that the existence of shared lexical material only serves to establish an absolute relationship between two linguistic groups, not their relative relationship to one another. While it is true that some of the cognate sets presented by supporters of the Sino-Bodic hypothesis are confined to Chinese and Bodic, many others are found in Tibeto-Burman languages generally and thus do not serve as evidence for a special relationship between Chinese and Bodic.
Second is the reconstruction of Proto-Tibeto-Burman produced by Benedict and refined by later scholars. This was largely based on data from literary
Tibetan, literary
Burmese,
Mizo (Lushai), and
Jingpho (Kachin). From the reconstructed forms, reflexes in each of these and many other Tibeto-Burman languages may be derived by the application of regular sound laws. If Chinese had an especially close relationship to Bodic, and therefore to literary Tibetan, any reconstruction that accounted properly for both Tibetan and languages outside of Bodic (such as Mizo and Jingpho) should be able to account for Chinese as well; however, Chinese forms may ''not'' be derived from these reconstructions through regular sound laws. Thus Sino-Bodic is not supported as a group distinct from Sino-Tibetan in this view.
External links
-
Tibeto-Burman languages and their subgrouping - James Matisoff
-
Sino-Bodic - George van Driem
-
Mother Tongue newsletter description of van Driem's proposed reordering of the Sino-Tibetan language group into a new Tibeto-Burman classification.
Category:Sino-Tibetan languages *
ast:Llinguas sino-tibetanas
zh-min-nan:Hà n-ChÅ?ng gÃ-hÄ“
br:Yezhoù sinek-tibetek
ca:Llengua sinotibetana
de:Sino-tibetische Sprachen
es:Lenguas sino-tibetanas
eu:Sino-tibetar
fr:Langues sino-tibétaines
hi:चीनी-तिबà¥?बती à¤à¤¾à¤·à¤¾-परिवार
id:Bahasa Sino-Tibet
lt:Kinų-tibetieÄ?ių kalbų Å¡eima
hu:Sino-tibeti nyelvcsalád
nl:Sino-Tibetaanse talen
ja:シナ・�ベット語�
nn:Sinotibetanske språk
pl:Języki chińsko-tybetańskie
pt:LÃnguas sino-tibetanas
ru:Сино-тибетÑ?кие Ñ?зыки
sk:Sinotibetské jazyky
fi:Sinotiibetiläiset kielet
sv:Sinotibetanska språk
vi:Hệ ngôn ngữ Hán-Tạng
zh:汉è—?è¯ç³»
{{catmore}}
Category:Language families
id:Kategori:Bahasa Sino-Tibet
de:Kategorie:Sino-tibetische Sprache
es:CategorÃa:Lenguas sino-tibetanas
ko:분류:중êµí‹°ë² 트어족
ka:კ�ტეგ�რი�:ჩინურ-ტიბეტური ენები
nl:Categorie:Sino-Tibetaanse taalfamilie
pl:Kategoria:Języki chińsko-tybetańskie
pt:Categoria:LÃnguas sino-tibetanas
sv:Kategori:Sinotibetanska språk
vi:Category:Hệ ngôn ngữ Hán-Tây Tạng
zh:Category:漢�語系
see
Sino-Tibetan languages
*** Shopping-Tip: Sino-Tibetan Languages
