Editing Sino-Tibetan languages (section)

===Van Driem (1997, 2001)===
[[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 the entire family "Tibeto–Burman", a name he says has historical primacy,{{sfnp|van Driem|2001|p=383}} 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–Naga" languages]] ([[Kukish languages|Kuki]], [[Mizo language|Mizo]], [[Meitei language|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:

{{tree list}}
*Tibeto-Burman
** Western (Baric, Brahmaputran, or [[Sal languages|Sal]]): [[Dhimal languages|Dhimal]], [[Bodo–Garo languages|Bodo–Garo]], [[Konyak languages|Konyak]], [[Kachin–Luic languages|Kachin–Luic]]
** Eastern
*** Northern (Sino-Bodic)
**** Northwestern (Bodic): [[Bodish languages|Bodish]], [[Kiranti languages|Kirantic]], [[West Himalayish languages|West Himalayish]], [[Tamangic languages|Tamangic]] and several isolates
**** Northeastern ([[Sinitic languages|Sinitic]])
*** Southern
**** Southwestern: [[Lolo-Burmese languages|Lolo-Burmese]], [[Karen languages|Karenic]]
**** Southeastern: [[Qiangic languages|Qiangic]], [[Jiarongic languages|Jiarongic]]
**Some other small families and isolates as primary branches ([[Newar language|Newar]], [[Nungish languages|Nungish]], [[Magaric languages|Magaric]], ''etc.'')
{{tree end}}

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 the modern Bodic languages. Second, there is a body of lexical cognates between the Chinese and Bodic languages, represented by the Kirantic language [[Limbu language|Limbu]].{{sfnp|van Driem|1997}}

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.{{sfnp|Matisoff|2000}}