Editing Sino-Tibetan languages (section)

===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}}