Editing Sino-Tibetan languages (section)

==History==
A [[Genetic relationship (linguistics)|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 languages|Indo–European]] or [[Austroasiatic languages|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 reach and are often also sensitive border zones.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|pp=422, 434–436}} There is no consensus regarding the date and location of their origin.{{sfnp|Sagart|Jacques|Lai|Ryder|2019|p=10317}}

===Early work===
During the 18th century, several scholars 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 languages|Karen]] in 1858.{{sfnp|Logan|1856|p=31}}{{sfnp|Logan|1858}} The third volume of the ''[[Linguistic Survey of India]]'', edited by [[Sten Konow]], was devoted to the Tibeto–Burman languages of [[British India]].{{sfnp|Hale|1982|p=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 languages|Tai]], [[Mon–Khmer languages|Mon–Khmer]] and [[Malayo-Polynesian languages|Malayo–Polynesian]]. [[Julius Klaproth]] had noted in 1823 that Burmese, Tibetan, and Chinese all shared common basic [[vocabulary]] but that [[Thai language|Thai]], [[Mon language|Mon]], and [[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]] were quite different.{{sfnp|van Driem|2001|p=334}}{{sfnp|Klaproth|1823|pp=346, 363–365}} [[Ernst Kuhn]] envisaged a group with two branches, Chinese–Siamese and Tibeto–Burman.{{efn|{{harvp|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 {{harvp|van Driem|2001|p=264}}.)}} [[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.{{sfnp|van Driem|2001|p=344}}{{sfnp|Finck|1909|p=57}}

[[Jean Przyluski]] introduced the French term ''sino–tibétain'' as the title of his chapter on the group in [[Antoine Meillet|Meillet]] and [[Marcel Cohen|Cohen]]'s ''Les langues du monde'' in 1924.{{sfnp|Przyluski|1924|p=361}}{{sfnp|Sapir|1925|p=373}} He divided them into three groups: Tibeto–Burman, Chinese and Tai,{{sfnp|Przyluski|1924|p=361}} and was uncertain about the affinity of Karen and [[Hmong–Mien]].{{sfnp|Przyluski|1924|p=380}} The English translation "Sino–Tibetan" first appeared in a short note by Przyluski and [[Gordon Luce|Luce]] in 1931.{{sfnp|Przyluski|Luce|1931}}

===Shafer and Benedict===
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]].{{sfnp|van Driem|2014|p=15}} 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''.{{sfnp|Hale|1982|p=4}}{{efn|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.{{sfnp|Miller|1974|p=195}}}} 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''.{{sfnp|Miller|1974|pp=195–196}}{{sfnp|Benedict|1972|p=v}}

Benedict completed the manuscript of his work in 1941, but it was not published until 1972.{{sfnp|Matisoff|1991|p=473}} Instead of building the entire family tree, he set out to reconstruct a [[Proto-Tibeto-Burman language|Proto–Tibeto–Burman language]] by comparing five major languages, with occasional comparisons with other languages.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=434}} 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.{{sfnp|Benedict|1972|pp=20–21}} Thus, Benedict reconstructed the following initials:{{sfnp|Benedict|1972|pp=17–18, 133–139, 164–171}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! TB
! [[Classical Tibetan|Tibetan]]
! [[Jingpho language|Jingpho]]
! [[Burmese language|Burmese]]
! [[Garo language|Garo]]
! [[Mizo language|Mizo]]
! [[S'gaw Karen language|S'gaw Karen]]
! [[Old Chinese]]{{efn|Karlgren's reconstruction, with aspiration as 'h' and 'i̯' as 'j' to aid comparison.}}
|-
| *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 of articulation|place]] and [[manner of articulation]], voicing and aspiration are often unpredictable.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|pp=425–426}} This irregularity was attacked by [[Roy Andrew Miller]],{{sfnp|Miller|1974|p=197}} though Benedict's supporters attribute it to the effects of prefixes that have been lost and are often unrecoverable.{{sfnp|Matisoff|2003|p=16}} The issue remains unsolved today.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|pp=425–426}} It was cited together with the lack of reconstructable shared morphology, and evidence that much shared lexical material has been borrowed from [[Chinese language|Chinese]] into [[Tibeto-Burman|Tibeto–Burman]], by [[Christopher Beckwith]], one of the few scholars still arguing that Chinese is not related to Tibeto–Burman.{{sfnp|Beckwith|1996}}{{sfnp|Beckwith|2002b}}

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''.{{sfnp|Benedict|1972|pp=98–123}}

===Study of literary languages===
[[File:Kǒngzǐ Shīlùn Manuscript from Shanghai Museum 1.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Ancient Chinese text on [[bamboo strips]]]]
[[Old Chinese]] 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 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.{{sfnp|Matisoff|1991|pp=471–472}}

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.{{sfnp|Norman|1988|p=45}} Some proposals were based on cognates in other Sino–Tibetan languages, though workers have also found solely Chinese evidence for them.{{sfnp|Baxter|1992|pp=25–26}} For example, recent [[reconstructions of Old Chinese]] have reduced Karlgren's 15 vowels to a six-vowel system originally suggested by [[Nicholas Bodman]].{{sfnp|Bodman|1980|p=47}} 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.{{sfnp|Baxter|1992|pp=197, 199–202}} 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.{{sfnp|Baxter|1992|pp=315–317}}

[[File:Turfan fragment tibt.jpg|thumb|left|[[Old Tibetan]] text found at [[Turfan]]]]
[[Tibetic 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 language|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 [[Heinrich August Jäschke|Jäschke]] (Tibetan) and [[Adoniram Judson|Judson]] (Burmese), though both contain entries from a wide range of periods.{{sfnp|Beckwith|2002a|pp=xiii–xiv}}

There are also extensive records in [[Tangut language|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.{{sfnp|Thurgood|2003|p=17}}{{sfnp|Hill|2015}}

[[Gong Hwang-cherng]] has compared Old Chinese, Tibetic, Burmese, and Tangut to establish sound correspondences between those languages.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=434}}{{sfnp|Gong|1980}} He found that Tibetic and Burmese {{IPA|/a/}} correspond to two Old Chinese vowels, *a and *ə.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=431}} 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.{{sfnp|Hill|2014|pp=97–104}}

===Fieldwork===
The descriptions of non-literary languages used by Shafer and Benedict were often produced by missionaries and colonial administrators of varying linguistic skills.{{sfnp|Matisoff|1991|pp=472–473}}{{sfnp|Hale|1982|pp=4–5}} 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]].{{sfnp|Matisoff|1991|pp=470, 476–478}} 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.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=435}}{{sfnp|Matisoff|1991|p=482}}