Editing Sino-Tibetan languages (section)

==Proposed external relationships==
Beyond the traditionally recognized families of Southeast Asia, some [[Classification schemes for Southeast Asian languages|possible broader relationships]] have been suggested.

===Austronesian===
{{main|Sino-Austronesian languages}}
Laurent Sagart proposes a "Sino–Austronesian" family with Sino–Tibetan and [[Austronesian languages|Austronesian]] (including [[Kra–Dai languages|Kra–Dai]] as a [[Austro-Tai languages|subbranch]]) as primary branches. [[Stanley Starosta]] has extended this proposal with a further branch called "Yangzian" joining Hmong–Mien and Austroasiatic. The proposal has been largely rejected by other linguists who argue that the similarities between Austronesian and Sino–Tibetan more likely arose from contact rather than being genetic.<ref name="Li 1995">{{cite book |surname=Li |given=Paul Jenkuei |title=The Ancestry of the Chinese Language |publisher=Chinese University Press |year=1995 |editor-surname=Wang |editor-given=William S-Y. |series=''Journal of Chinese Linguistics'' Monograph Series |volume=8 |pages=92–112 |chapter=Is Chinese genetically related to Austronesian? |jstor=23826144 |issue=8}}</ref><ref name="Blust 2009">{{cite book |surname=Blust |given=Robert |title=The Ancestry of the Chinese Language |publisher=Chinese University Press |year=1995 |editor-surname=Wang |editor-given=William S-Y. |series=''Journal of Chinese Linguistics'' Monograph Series |volume=8 |pages=283–298 |chapter=An Austronesianist looks at Sino-Austronesian |jstor=23826144 |issue=8}}</ref><ref name="Vovin 1997">{{cite journal |year=1997 |title=The comparative method and ventures beyond Sino-Tibetan |journal=Journal of Chinese Linguistics |volume=25 |pages=308–336 |jstor=23756693 |given=Alexander |surname=Vovin |number=2}}</ref>

===Dene–Yeniseian===
{{Further|Dene–Yeniseian languages}}

[[Edward Vajda|Edward Vajda's]] [[Dene–Yeniseian languages|Dene–Yeniseian]] proposal outlined in ''A Siberian link with Na-Dene languages'' included a footnote where he dismissed hypothetical language families such as [[Altaic languages|Altaic]], [[Amerind languages|Amerind]], [[Khoisan languages|Khoisan]], [[Nilo-Saharan languages|Nilo–Saharan]], and [[Haida language|Haida]] with [[Na-Dene languages|Na–Dene]] (Athabaskan–Eyak–Tlingit) as "urban legends". However, he suggested that the possibility of a relationship between Sino–Tibetan and Na–Dene or [[Yeniseian languages|Yeniseian]] might warrant serious investigation.{{sfnp|Vajda|2010|p=55}}

As noted by Tailleur<ref name="tail94">See [[Yeniseian languages#tail94|Tailleur 1994]]</ref> and Werner,<ref name="wern04">See [[Yeniseian languages#wern04|Werner 1994]]</ref> some of the earliest proposals of genetic relations of [[Yeniseian languages|Yeniseian]], by [[Matthias Castrén|M.A. Castrén]] (1856), James Byrne (1892), and G.J. Ramstedt (1907), suggested that Yeniseian was a northern relative of the Sino–Tibetan languages. These ideas were followed much later by Kai Donner<ref name="donn30">See [[Yeniseian languages#donn30|Donner 1930]]</ref> and Karl Bouda.<ref name="boud36">See [[Yeniseian languages#boud36|Bouda 1963]] and [[Yeniseian languages#boud57|Bouda 1957]]</ref> A 2008 study found further evidence for a possible relation between Yeniseian and Sino–Tibetan, citing several possible [[cognates]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sedláček |first=Kamil |date=2008 |title=The Yeniseian Languages of the 18th Century and Ket and Sino-Tibetan Word Comparisons |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41928491 |journal=Central Asiatic Journal |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=219–305 |doi=10.13173/CAJ/2008/2/6 |issn=0008-9192 |jstor=41928491 |s2cid=163603829}}</ref> Gao Jingyi (2014) identified twelve Sinitic and Yeniseian shared etymologies that belonged to the basic vocabulary, and argued that these Sino–Yeniseian etymologies could not be loans from either language into the other.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=高晶一 |first=Jingyi Gao |date=2017 |title=Xia and Ket Identified by Sinitic and Yeniseian Shared Etymologies // 確定夏國及凱特人的語言為屬於漢語族和葉尼塞語系共同詞源 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/centasiaj.60.1-2.0051 |journal=Central Asiatic Journal |volume=60 |issue=1–2 |pages=51–58 |doi=10.13173/centasiaj.60.1-2.0051 |issn=0008-9192 |jstor=10.13173/centasiaj.60.1-2.0051 |s2cid=165893686}}</ref>

The "[[Sino-Caucasian|Sino–Caucasian]]" hypothesis of [[Sergei Starostin]] posits that the [[Yeniseian languages]] form a [[clade]] with Sino–Tibetan, which he called '''Sino–Yeniseian'''. The Sino–Caucasian hypothesis has been expanded by others to "[[Dené–Caucasian languages|Dene–Caucasian]]" to include the [[Na-Dené languages|Na–Dene languages]] of North America, [[Burushaski language|Burushaski]], [[Basque language|Basque]] and, occasionally, [[Etruscan language|Etruscan]]. A narrower binary [[Dené–Yeniseian|Dene–Yeniseian]] family has recently been well received. The validity of the rest of the family, however, is viewed as doubtful or rejected by nearly all [[Historical linguistics|historical linguists]].<ref>[[Ives Goddard|Goddard, Ives]] (1996). "The Classification of the Native Languages of North America". In Ives Goddard, ed., "Languages". Vol. 17 of William Sturtevant, ed., ''Handbook of North American Indians''. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. pg. 318</ref><ref>[[Larry Trask|Trask, R. L.]] (2000). ''The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics''. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pg. 85</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Sanchez-Mazas |first1=Alicia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1gKF9iWqt0gC&q=%22sino-austronesian%22+%22sino-caucasian%22&pg=RA1-PT151 |title=Past Human Migrations in East Asia: Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics |last2=Blench |first2=Roger |last3=Ross |first3=Malcolm D. |last4=Peiros |first4=Ilia |last5=Lin |first5=Marie |date=2008 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781134149629 |language=en}}</ref> An updated tree by [[Georgiy Starostin]] now groups Na–Dene with Sino–Tibetan and Yeniseian with [[Burushaski]] ([[Karasuk languages|Karasuk]] hypothesis).<ref>[https://starlingdb.org/new100/eurasia_short.jpg The Preliminary Genealogical Tree For Eurasia (short variant)]</ref>

[[George van Driem]] does not believe that Sino–Tibetan (which he calls "Trans–Himalayan") and Yeniseian are related language families. However, he argues that Yeniseian speakers once populated the [[North China Plain]] and that Proto-Sinitic speakers assimilated them when they migrated to the region. As a result, Sinitic acquired creoloid characteristics when it came to be used as a lingua franca among ethnolinguistically diverse populations.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Driem |first=George van |title=Ethnolinguistic prehistory: the peopling of the world from the perspective of language, genes and material culture |date=2021 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-44837-7 |series=Brill's Tibetan studies library |location=Leiden Boston}}</ref>

A link between the Na–Dene languages and Sino–Tibetan languages, known as '''Sino–Dene''' was first proposed by [[Edward Sapir]]. Around 1920, Sapir became convinced that Na–Dene was more closely related to Sino–Tibetan than to other American families.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ruhlen |first=Merritt |date=1998-11-10 |title=The origin of the Na-Dene |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=95 |issue=23 |pages=13994–13996 |bibcode=1998PNAS...9513994R |doi=10.1073/pnas.95.23.13994 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=25007 |pmid=9811914 |doi-access=free}}</ref> He wrote a series of letters to [[Alfred Kroeber]] where he enthusiastically spoke of a connection between Na–Dene and "Indo–Chinese". In 1925, a supporting article summarizing his thoughts, albeit not written by him, entitled "The Similarities of Chinese and Indian Languages", was published in Science Supplements. The Sino–Dene hypothesis never gained foothold in the [[United States]] outside of Sapir’s circle, though it was later revitalized by Robert Shafer (1952, 1957, 1969) and [[Morris Swadesh]] (1952, 1965).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Orlandi |first=Georg |date=2021-12-01 |title=Once again on the history and validity of the Sino-Tibetan bifurcate model / Еще раз к вопросу об истории и степени обоснованности бинарной модели классификации сино-тибетских языков |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jlr-2021-193-409/html?lang=en |url-status=live |journal=Journal of Language Relationship |language=en |volume=19 |issue=3–4 |pages=263–292 |doi=10.1515/jlr-2021-193-409 |doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 |issn=2219-4029 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109035601/https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jlr-2021-193-409/html?lang=en |archive-date=2024-01-09 |access-date=2024-01-09 |doi-access=free}}</ref> [[Alfredo Trombetti]], who was the first to propose a relationship between the Yeniseian and Na–Dene language families (1923),<ref name="Vajda34">see {{harvp|Vajda|2010|p=34}} who quotes Trombetti, Alfredo. 1923. ''Elementi di glottologia''. Bologna. pp.486, 511</ref> had also independently discovered the idea of Sino–Dene (1923, 1925).<ref name="Vajda34" />

Vadja's Dene–Yeniseian proposal renewed interest among linguists such as [[Geoffrey Caveney]] (2014) to look into support for the Sino–Dene hypothesis. Caveney considered a link between Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian to be plausible but did not support the hypothesis that Sino–Tibetan and Na–Dene were related to the Caucasian languages (Sino–Caucasian and Dene–Caucasian).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Caveney |first=Geoffrey |date=2014 |title=Sino-Tibetan ŋ- and Na-Dene *kw- / *gw- / *xw-: 1st Person Pronouns and Lexical Cognate Sets |journal=Journal of Chinese Linguistics |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=461–487 |jstor=24774894}}</ref>

Csaba Barnabás Horváth proposed that the Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian languages constitute a single macro-family, which he called '''Sino–Dene–Yeniseian'''. Drawing on genetic data supporting the farming–language dispersal model, he hypothesized that this macro-family likely began its expansion in [[Greater Khorasan]] or [[Transoxiana]]. He suggested their eastward spread was driven by the advantages of goat and sheep husbandry that they had adopted in the [[Middle East]] over neighboring hunter-gatherer societies. The Proto–Sino–Dene–Yeniseian population occupied regions including the [[Tarim Basin]], [[Dzungaria]], [[Mongolia]], and [[Qinghai]], before splitting into three branches: one crossed [[Beringia]], transmitting the Na–Dene languages and haplogroups [[Haplogroup Q-M120|Q-M120]] and [[Haplogroup Q-M242|Q-M242]] to [[North America]]; another formed the Yeniseian family on the [[Mongolian Plateau]], dominating the region until the [[Turkic languages|Turkic]] expansion in the 3rd century BCE; and the third gave rise to the Sino–Tibetan family in northern China by merging with [[Hmong–Mien languages|Hmong–Mien]] populations characterized by haplogroup [[Haplogroup O-M122|O-M122]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Horváth |first=Csaba Barnabás |date=2021 |title=HOW EURASIA WAS BORN - A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model |url=https://www.academia.edu/44981646/_How_Eurasia_Was_Born_HOW_EURASIA_WAS_BORN_A_Provisional_Atlas_of_prehistoric_Eurasia_based_on_genetic_data_supporting_the_farming_language_dispersal_model_CSABA_BARNAB%C3%81S_HORV%C3%81TH |journal=International Studies Quarterly}}</ref>

[[:de:Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow|Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow]] stated that he would have liked to see Na–Dene combined with Yeniseian and Sino–Tibetan, as he did not find hypotheses linking Na–Dene to other language families to be promising. [[:de:Jan Henrik Holst|Jan Henrik Holst]] agreed with Pinnow's assessment and referred to this proposed Sino–Dene–Yeniseian language family as "Lakitic," noting that Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian all include languages with a word similar to "lak," meaning "hand." However, the high diversity of the Sino–Tibetan language family makes the reconstruction of the [[Proto-Sino-Tibetan language|Proto–Sino–Tibetan language]] challenging.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mother Tongue 22 Holst Lead Article – Mother Tongue |url=https://www.mother-tongue-journal.org/mother-tongue-22-articles/mother-tongue-22-holst-lead-article/ |access-date=2025-03-07 |language=en}}</ref>

A 2023 analysis by [[David Bradley (linguist)|David Bradley]] using the standard techniques of comparative linguistics supports a distant genetic link between the Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian language families. Bradley argues that any similarities Sino–Tibetan shares with other language families of the East Asia area such as [[Hmong–Mien languages|Hmong–Mien]], [[Altaic languages|Altaic]] (which is a [[sprachbund]]), [[Austroasiatic languages|Austroasiatic]], [[Kra–Dai languages|Kra–Dai]], and [[Austronesian languages|Austronesian]] came through contact; but as there has been no recent contact between the Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian language families, any similarities these groups share must be residual.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bradley |first=David |date=2023-07-24 |title=Ancient Connections of Sinitic |journal=Languages |language=en |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=176 |doi=10.3390/languages8030176 |issn=2226-471X |doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Indo–European===
{{Further|Indo-European languages}}

August Conrad proposed the Sino–Tibetan-Indo–European language family.{{citation needed|date=January 2024}} This hypothesis holds that there is a genetic relationship between the Sino–Tibetan language family and the Indo–European language family. The earliest comparative linguistic study of Chinese and Indo–European languages was by the 18th-century Nordic scholar [[Olaus Rudbeck]]. He compared the vocabulary of Gothic and Chinese and guessed that the two may be of the same origin. In the second half of the 19th century, [[Kong Haogu]], [[Shigude]], [[Ijosser]], etc.{{who?|date=March 2025}} successively proposed that Chinese and European languages are homologous. Among them, Kong Haogu, through the comparison of Chinese and Indo–European domestic animal vocabulary, first proposed an Indo–Chinese language macrofamily (including Chinese, Tibetan, Burmese, and Indo–European languages).{{citation needed|date=March 2025}}

In the 20th century, R. Shafer put forward the conjecture of a Eurasial language super-family and listed hundreds of similar words between Tibeto–Burman and Indo–European languages.<ref>R. Shafer. Eurasial. Orbis. 1963, 12: 19–14.</ref><ref>R. Shafer. The Eurasial Linguistic Superfamily. Anthropos. 1965, 60: 1965.</ref>