Misplaced Pages

Sino-Tibetan languages: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:59, 19 February 2007 editJhsBot (talk | contribs)25,244 editsm robot Adding: no:Sinotibetanske språk← Previous edit Revision as of 02:51, 25 February 2007 edit undoJapanese biplane (talk | contribs)5 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
]
<!--
] ]
The '''Sino-Tibetan languages''' form a putative ] composed of ] and the ], including some 250 languages of ]. They are second only to the ] in terms of their number of speakers. The '''Sino-Tibetan languages''' form a putative ] composed of ] and the ], including some 250 languages of ]. They are second only to the ] in terms of their number of speakers.
Line 44: Line 46:
**''']c''' **''']c'''


Not all of the "branches" of Matisoff's classification are intended as genealogic nodes. For example, Matisoff makes no claim that the families in the Kamarupan or Himalayish branches have a special relationship to one another other than a geographic one. They are intended rather as categories of convenience pending more detailed comparative work. Not all of the "branches" of Matisoff's nded as genealogic nodes. For example, Matisoff makes no claim that the families in the Kamarupan or Himalayish branches have a special relationship to one another other than a geographic one. They are intended rather as categories of convenience pending more detailed comparative work.


Like Matisoff, ] acknowledges that the relationships of the "Kuki-]" languages (], ], ], etc.), both amongst each other and to the other Tibeto-Burman languages, remain unclear. However, rather than placing them in a geographic grouping, as Matisoff does, van Driem leaves them unclassified. Like Matisoff, ] acknowledges that the relationships of the "Kuki-]" languages (], ], ], etc.), both amongst each other and to the other Tibeto-Burman languages, remain unclear. However, rather than placing them in a geographic grouping, as Matisoff does, van Driem leaves them unclassified.
Line 127: Line 129:
] ]
] ]
-->
]
]

Revision as of 02:51, 25 February 2007

hinomaru!
Sino-Tibetan languages: Difference between revisions Add topic