Editing Sino-Tibetan languages (section)

==Typology==
===Word order===
Except for the Chinese, [[Macro-Bai languages|Bai]], [[Karenic languages|Karenic]], and [[Mruic languages|Mruic]] languages, the usual word order in Sino–Tibetan languages is [[subject–object–verb|object–verb]].{{sfnp|Dryer|2003|p=43}} 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.{{sfnp|Dryer|2003|pp=50}} Most scholars believe SOV to be the original order, with Chinese, Karen, and Bai having acquired SVO order due to the influence of neighbouring languages in the [[Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area]].{{sfnp|Dryer|2003|pp=43–45}}<ref>{{cite journal|author=Charles N. Li & Sandra A. Thompson|title=An explanation of word order change SVO > SOV|year=1974|journal=Foundations of Language|volume=12|pages=201–214}}</ref> This has been criticized as being insufficiently corroborated by Djamouri et al. 2007, who instead reconstruct a VO order for Proto–Sino–Tibetan.<ref>{{cite journal |given1=Redouane |surname1=Djamouri |given2=Wautraud |surname2=Paul |given3=John |surname3=Whitman |year=2007 |title=Reconstructing VO constituent order for proto-Sino-Tibetan |journal=8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics}}</ref>

===Phonology===
Contrastive [[Tone (linguistics)|tones]] are a feature found across the family although absent in some languages like [[Purgi language|Purik]].{{sfnp|Benedict|1972|p=85}} [[Phonation]] contrasts are also present among many, notably in the [[Lolo-Burmese languages|Lolo–Burmese]] group.{{sfnp|Matisoff|2003|p=241}} While Benedict contended that [[Proto-Tibeto-Burman language|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 [[Tone (linguistics)#Origin and developmen|tonogenesis]].{{sfnp|Matisoff|2003|p=12}}

===Morphology===
====The structure of words====
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 languages|Lolo–Burmese]], [[Tujia language|Tujia]]) to polysynthetic ([[Gyalrongic languages|Gyalrongic]], [[Kiranti languages|Kiranti]]) languages.{{sfnp|Sagart|Jacques|Lai|Ryder|2019|pp=10319–10320}} While [[Sinitic languages|Sinitic]] languages are normally taken to be a prototypical example of the [[Isolating language|isolating]] morphological type, southern Chinese languages express this trait far more strongly than northern Chinese languages do.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Arcodia|first1=Giorgio Francesco|last2=Basciano|first2=Bianca|date=2020-01-30|title=Morphology in Sino-Tibetan Languages|url=https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/oso/viewentry/10.1093$002facrefore$002f9780199384655.001.0001$002facrefore-9780199384655-e-530|access-date=2021-11-26|website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.530|isbn=978-0-19-938465-5|language=en}}</ref>

====Voice and Voicing alternation====
Initial consonant [[Alternation (linguistics)|alternations]] related to [[Transitivity (grammar)|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.{{sfnp|LaPolla|2003|pp=23}}{{sfnp|Zhang|Jacques|Lai|2019|p=74}} This is argued to reflect [[morphological derivation]]s that existed in earlier stages of the family. Even in Chinese, one would find semantically-related pairs of verbs such as 見 'to see' ([[Middle Chinese|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]].{{sfnp|Zhang|Jacques|Lai|2019|p=74}}{{sfnp|Baxter|Sagart|2014|p=54}}

====Ergativity====
In [[morphosyntactic alignment]], many Tibeto–Burman languages have [[ergative case|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.{{sfnp|LaPolla|2003|pp=34–35}}

====Person indexation====
Many Sino–Tibetan languages exhibit a system of person indexation.{{sfnp|Jacques|Pellard|2021|p=2}} Notably, [[Gyalrongic languages|Gyalrongic]] and [[Kiranti languages|Kiranti]] have an [[Direct–inverse alignment|inverse]] marker prefixed to a transitive verb when the agent is lower than the patient in a certain person hierarchy.{{sfnp|Jacques|Pellard|2021|pp=3–4}}

Hodgson had in 1849 noted a dichotomy between "pronominalized" ([[Synthetic language|inflecting]]) languages, stretching across the [[Himalaya]]s from [[Himachal Pradesh]] to eastern [[Nepal]], and "non-pronominalized" ([[isolating language|isolating]]) languages. Konow (1909) explained the pronominalized languages as due to a [[Munda languages|Munda]] [[Substrata (linguistics)|substratum]], with the idea that Indo–Chinese languages were essentially isolating as well as tonal. Maspero later attributed the putative substratum to [[Indo-Aryan languages|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|proto–language]].{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=430}}{{sfnp|LaPolla|2003|pp=29–32}}

===Evidentiality, mirativity, and egophoricity===
Although not very common in some families and [[Sprachbund|linguistic areas]] like [[Standard Average European]], fairly complex systems of [[evidentiality]] (grammatical marking of information source) are found in many [[Tibeto-Burman languages|Tibeto–Burman languages]].{{sfnp|Aikhenvald|LaPolla|2007|p=3}} The family has also contributed to the study of [[mirativity]]{{sfnp|DeLancey|1997}}{{sfnp|Aikhenvald|LaPolla|2007|p=11}} and [[egophoricity]],{{sfnp|San Roque|Floyd|Norcliffe|2018|pp=5–6}} which are relatively new concepts in [[linguistic typology]].