Sino-Tibetan languages

The Sino-Tibetan languages form with approximately 1.3 billion speakers, the second largest language family on earth. The total of about 340 languages are spoken in China, the Himalayas and Southeast Asia. They share the opinion of most researchers in the two main branches of Sinitic ( "Chinese languages ", eight languages 1.22 billion speakers ) and Tibetobirmanisch (330 languages with 70 million speakers ) on. The Sino Tibetan is quite compare in terms of time depth, internal diversity and cultural significance with the Indo-European language family.

Formerly the Tai - Kadai languages, the Hmong - Mien languages were common ( Miao - Yao languages also called ) and expected the Vietnamese to Sino Tibetan. Since about 1950, however, the majority of researchers assumes that the Tai and Hmong - Mien languages form their own genetic units and not more closely related to Sino Tibetan, while the Vietnamese has been recognized as an Austro- Asiatic language. The similarities in phonology, syntax, and vocabulary between these languages and the Sino Tibetan attributable to borrowings and long-term areal contacts.

4.1 beginnings in the 19th century
4.2 Conrady, Konow and Li
4.3 Benedict and Shafer
4.4 James A. Matisoff
4.5 George van Driem
4.6 Current classification
4.7 Discussion of proposed units

5.1 Tai - Kadai, Miao - Yao and Vietnamese
5.2 Kusunda
5.3 Na - Dene and Sino-Tibetan
5.4 Sino - Dene - Caucasian and

6.1 syllable structure and tone
6.2 Word order
6.3 Morphological diversity

7.1 syllable structure and phoneme
7.2 derivational
7.3 Common Vocabulary

9.1 Sino-Tibetan
9.2 Classification History
9.3 Sino - Dene - Caucasian and

Distribution and main languages

According to the number of speakers ( 1.3 billion ) is the Sino Tibetan behind the Indo-European ( 2.7 billion speakers) is the second largest language family on earth. According to the number of their languages ( about 340 ) takes it a world in fifth place, behind Niger - Congo, Austronesian, Trans - New Guinea, and Afro-Asiatic.

The division into the two main branches is very unbalanced. During the Sinitic only eight Chinese languages (better dialect bundle) include, but combine the 1.2 billion speakers in China and Taiwan to the Tibeto-Burman branch has around 330 languages with only 70 million speakers, of which about half to a single language - the Burmese (or Myanmar ) - concentrated. The Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken in the Himalayan region and the adjacent South East Asia, especially in Tibet ( now part of China), South China, Burma (now also Myanmar called ), Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim and North India, isolated in the northern parts of the country of Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as in Southeast Asian countries Laos, Vietnam and Thailand.

The largest Sino-Tibetan languages are, with the exception of the Burmese all the Sinitic branch. The speaker richest language is Mandarin ( standard Chinese ) with 875 million speakers. The following are the Sinitic languages Wu (80 million), Cantonese (70 million), Min ( 60 million), Jinyu (45 million), Xiang (36 million), Hakka ( Kejia ) (33 million) and Gan ( 21 million). The speaker most Tibeto-Burman languages are the Burmese languages (spoken by 35 million native speakers and another 15 million secondary speakers in Burma), the South China Yi ( 4.2 million), Tibetan ( 2 million native speakers; together 4.5 million speakers with Kham and Amdo Tibetan), the language SGaw (2 million speakers in Kayin State of Myanmar ) and Meithei with almost 2 million speakers in the Indian states of Manipur, Assam and Nagaland.

The article includes an appendix with a table of all Sino-Tibetan languages with at least 500,000 speakers in the classification and the range of such languages is described. The web link below provides the complete classification and the current numbers of speakers of all Sino-Tibetan languages.

Written languages and writing systems

Chinese is a written language with a 3500 -year-old independent ideographic script and a correspondingly extensive written tradition in all fields of science, literature and religion. In addition to the Chinese Tibetan and Burmese are the best researched Sino-Tibetan languages. They have the longest and most extensive written tradition with a focus of Buddhist texts that were written with Indian -derived typefaces alphabets. The Tibetan script dates from the 7th century AD, their oldest longer texts - from the 9th century - were found in the cave monasteries of Dunhuang. The earliest evidence of the Burmese writing are inscriptions from the 12th century. The great majority of the other Tibeto-Burman languages - even today - schriftlos, only Newari, Meithei and Lepcha had their own developed based on the Devanagari scripts in which historical and religious texts were fixed. This special developments have since been abandoned, the three languages are today - as well as other Tibeto-Burman languages in India and Nepal - written in Devanagari or Nepali script.

In the Chinese area adjacent to the dominant Chinese writing some special systems has been developed: the ajar of Chinese characters Tangut font for the extinct language Xixia ( Tangut ) and a pictographic - syllabic writing of the Naxi ( Moso ), a variant of which was for the neighboring Yi ( Lolo ) used. Worth mentioning is also the so-called woman writing ( Nüshu ), which was developed by women in Hunan Province in the 15th century.

Subunits

Internal structure

Due to the current state of research - as summarized in van Driem 2001, Matisoff 2003 and Thurgood 2003 - can the following internal structure of the Sino Tibetan reasons, though not yet have all the subunits of a complete consensus was reached:

Internal Structure of the Sino Tibetan

Sino-Tibetan Sinitic
Tibetobirmanisch Bodisch with the subunits Tibetan, Tamang Ghale, Tshangla, Takpa, Dhimal -Toto
Westhimalayisch
Mahakiranti with Kiranti, Magar - Chepang, Newari Thangmi
North Assam with Tani ( Abor - Miri - Dafla ) Khowa - indstry education, Mijuisch, Idu - Digaru
Hrusisch
Bodo - Konyak - Jingpho with Bodo - Koch ( Barisch ), Konyak (North- Naga ), Jingpho - Sak ( Kachin Luisch )
Kuki - Chin- Mizo - Kuki - Naga Chin, Ao, Angami - Pochuri, Zeme, Tangkhul, Meithei ( Manipuri ), Karbi ( Mikir )
Qiang Qiang Gyalrong with Xixia and Gyalrong
Nungisch
Karenisch
Lolo - Burmese with Lolo ( Yipho ) and Burmese
Individual languages : Pyu †, † Dura, Lepcha, Mru, Naxi, Tujia, Bai

A detailed discussion of these units available in the section "Classification: Historical Overview ".

Statistical and geographical data

The following table provides a statistical and geographical overview of the subunits of the Sino Tibetan. The data are based on van Driem 2001 and the below web link " classification of Sino-Tibetan languages ". The number of languages is significantly lower than in Ethnologue, there Ethnologue - explains many dialects into independent languages - contrary to the majority opinion research.

The subunits of the Sino Tibetan with number of languages and speakers and their main areas of distribution

The primary branches of the Tibeto-Burman are printed, semi-bold, behind each of which follows the subunits.

Classification: Historical Overview

Beginnings in the 19th century

The beginnings of a study of the Sino-Tibetan languages are available only in the middle of the 19th century. Various explorers and missionaries combined the languages of China, Southeast Asia and the Himalayan region to a language group Indo -Chinese together, the Chinese, the Taisprachen, Miao - Yao (now called Hmong - Mien ) which Karenisch, Tibetobirmanisch and partly also the Mon - Khmer included. This grouping was defined substantially above typological features such musical language and monosyllabic. The Tibeto-Burman has been recognized as a group in 1818 by BH Hodgson, first internal breakdown experiments of this group came from Frederick Max Muller (1854 ).

Conrady, Konow and Li

Towards the end of the 19th century, the Mon-Khmer languages were generally not expected to Indo- China, with the exception of Vietnam, whose membership has been recognized for Mon-Khmer until much later. Conrady 1896 divided the Indo- Chinese in three primary branches, namely Sinitic, Tai and Tibetobirmanisch. The Miao - Yao he graduated from. At the beginning of the 20th century, the term Sino-Tibetan built in place of the Indo- Chinese, the 1909 also includes when Sinitic Konow, Tai and Tibetobirmanisch, the Taisprachen by him were moved closer to the Sinitic.

Sino-Tibetan according to Konow 1909

Sino-Tibetan Sino -Tai Sinitic
Tai

A similar structure proposed catch - Kuei Li in 1937, but he counted again the Miao - Yao as a third sub-group for Sino -Tai added, a tradition that has been preserved in Chinese linguistics in part to this day.

Benedict and Shafer

In his fundamental work from 1942 Thai, Kadai and Indonesian: A New Alignment in Southeastern Asia Paul K. Benedict closes the association of the Tai and Miao - Yao to Sino Tibetan categorically. He recognizes that many existing certainly lexical and phonological similarities between the Taisprachen and the Chinese early on borrowings due to areal contacts, but not on a common genetic origin go back. The basic vocabulary of the two groups facing Benedict almost no similarities. He notes:

"The real problem- Has been so why anyone Has ever taken seriously the Kam -Tai and / or Miao - Yao languages to be true ' blood cousins ' of Sino -Tibetan, givenName the almost total lack of any basic ties in the respectivement Lexicons. "

( Emphasis must be here on basic ties are, as the lexicon of Taisprachen knows quite a lot of borrowings from Chinese. ) This work Benedicts the foundation for the view was laid, which is generally prevalent today: Sino-Tibetan consists of the two primary branches of Sinitic and Tibetobirmanisch. Within the Tibeto-Burman Benedict emphasized in today's spoken Myanmar Karen languages so that he came to the following classification:

Classification of Benedict 1942

Sino-Tibetan Sinitic
Tibeto- Karen Karenisch
Tibetobirmanisch

The language groups that Benedict had taken out of the Sino Tibetan - Tai and Miao - Yao - he held for relatives of the Austronesian and Asian Austr. He summarized these four groups as a new unit together Austrisch, a hypothesis that is now shared by only a few researchers ( see the article on the macro family Austrisch ).

In the following years, especially the positioning of the Karen languages and Bai played a role. As a third primary branch of the Sino Tibetan often understood - Karenisch was - unlike Benedict. Shafer 1955 takes this further and triggers the Tibeto-Burman node completely. For him, the issue of the attribution of Tai was not yet fully decided.

Classification according to Shafer 1955

Sino-Tibetan Sinitic
Bodisch ( Tibetan)
Burmese
" Barisch " (containing today's units Tani, Kuki - Chin- Naga, Bodo - Konyak - Jingpho )
Karenisch

James A. Matisoff

James Matisoff noted the work Benedicts again and led them as employees at the Conspectus ( Benedict 1972) to a preliminary conclusion. For the Sino- Tibetan research Matisoff is recognized primarily by the launched by him and funded primarily stedt project of significance ( Sino -Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus ) by which the greatest possible number sinotibetischer languages to be thoroughly explored, genetic relationships and Proto forms are to be reconstructed. A preliminary review of the unfinished project put Matisoff 2003 before his Handbook of Proto - Tibeto- Burman. In the classification, he tends to be relatively large units, such as Himalayisch and Kamarupan, the (still) are not recognized by the majority of the other researchers.

George van Driem

Whereas almost all researchers represented Benedicts standpoint of division of the Sino Tibetan in the primary branches Sinitic and Tibetobirmanisch and possibly the position of the Karenischen plays a different role, attacked George van Driem approaches from the 19th century and positioned the Sinitic as a subunit of the Tibeto-Burman, pari passu with the many other branches of this group. He saw in earlier work particularly close to the Sinitic Bodischen ( Tibetan in the broader sense ), which led him to the subunit Sino - Bodisch. This hypothesis has been disputed by, among others, Matisoff 2000 and is now largely isolated. A summary of the research of all the languages of the Himalayan region (in the broadest sense) provides van Driems two-volume work Languages of the Himalayas from 2001 dar. In it, he discusses the linguistic position of almost all known Sino-Tibetan languages and separates the Tibeto-Burman recognized in many small genetic units. As secured large groups only accept Lolo - Burmese and Bodo - Konyak - Jingpho, with reservation Bodisch and North Assam, which is referred to by van Driem as Brahmaputranisch.

Current classification

While the Sinitic consists of eight closely related languages or dialects bundles - so its internal structure is relatively unproblematic - the internal classification of the Tibeto-Burman languages about 330 can not be taken for granted today. The most important recent review papers - van Driem 2001, Thurgood 2003 and Matisoff 2003 - offer to quite different models. Here, the research does have a number of smaller genetic units can some - including Tibetan, Kiranti, Tani, Bodo - Koch, Karenisch, Jingpho - Sak, Kuki -Chin and Burmese - but could the question of medium and larger subgroups that these summarized smaller units, are not yet clear consensus. The reasons are a lack of detailed research, grammars and dictionaries in many Tibeto-Burman languages single, intense reciprocal areal influences that obscure the genetic correlations, and the large number of languages to be compared. The extensive stedt Project ( Sino -Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus) by Matisoff has been designed to bring more clarity to these questions to establish genetic intermediate groups and to reconstruct total Protosprachen for all intermediate groups and the Tibeto-Burman.

While Matisoff 1996 and 2003, the summary fairly large units " dares " tends van Driem 2001 to the other extreme: he divided the Tibeto-Burman into many small sub-groups, making only vague information about broader relationships. A middle way is Thurgood 2003 The representation of this Article based -. What the intermediate units in terms - especially on Thurgood, for the detailed outline on the extensive work of van Driem 2001, which all now familiar Tibeto-Burman languages and their immediate family relationships to be treated. Overall, a relatively small-scale structure of the Tibeto-Burman in genetically -backed devices. Future research - especially the stedt project of the Working Group to Matisoff - will make by constructing corresponding proto languages ( such as already in the Kiranti or Lolo - Burmese ) certainly larger units consensus.

Classification of the Sino Tibetan

Sino-Tibetan Sinitic
Tibetobirmanisch Bodisch: Tibetan, Tamang Ghale, Tshangla, Takpa, Dhimal -Toto
Westhimalayisch
Mahakiranti: Kiranti, Newari Thangmi, Magar - Chepang
North Assam: Tani ( Abor - Miri - Dafla ) Khowa - indstry education, Mijuisch ( Deng), Idu - Digaru
Hrusisch
Bodo - Konyak - Jingpho: Bodo - Koch ( Barisch ), Konyak (North- Naga ), Jingpho - Sak ( Kachin Luisch )
Kuki - Chin- Naga: Mizo - Kuki -Chin, Ao, Angami - Pochuri, Zeme, Tangkhul, Meithei ( Manipuri ), Karbi ( Mikir )
Qiang Gyalrong: Xixia - Qiang, Gyalrong
Nungisch
Karenisch
Lolo - Burmese: Lolo ( Yipho ), Burmese
Individual languages : Pyu †, † Dura, Lepcha, Mru, Naxi, Tujia, Bai

Discussion of proposed units

Himalayisch is a hypothetical unit of United Matisoff 2003, which Bodisch, Westhimalayisch and Mahakiranti covers. As this summary has not been accepted by the majority of the researchers, it was resolved in the present classification into its components, which are widely accepted as genetic units in the literature.

Mahakiranti: The backed genetic units Kiranti, Newari and Maga - Chepang are summarized here according to van Driem 2001, Thurgood 2003 Mahakiranti that represents a reasoned through shared innovation subunit of Mati offs Himalayisch. For the Kirantische a proto-language has been reconstructed. Recently, van Driem reengaged of his proposal ( in Saxena 2004).

Kamarupan: Matisoff 2003 summarizes Kuki - Chin- Naga, Bodo - Koch, Tani and some individual languages with caution to a large unit Kamarupan (after a Sanskrit term for " Assam " ) together. Kamarupan is not considered here, since all the other recent classifications do not support this group and - summarize the Jingpho - Sak with the Bodo - Koch and Konyak Naga to medium sized unit Bodo - Konyak - Jingpho - unlike Matisoff.

North Assam: van Driem also sees a special closeness of here grouped under North Assam secured genetic units Tani, Khowa - indstry education, Mijuisch and Idu - Digaru. He calls this grouping Brahmaputranisch. At Matisoff forming a subunit of Kamarupan.

Kuki - Chin- Naga: A now well recognized mid-sized unit, it comprises in addition to the Chin and Nagasprachen of northeastern India, the large individual languages Meithei (including Manipuri, one of the 19 Indian languages) and Karbi (formerly pejorative Mikir ). The sometimes counted to this group North Naga or Konyak - Naga languages are now placed to Bodo - Koch and Jingpho - Sak general.

Bodo - Konyak - Jingpho: Both shown at Thurgood as well as van Driem medium-sized grouping of three genetic units backed Bodo -Koch (formerly Barisch ), Konyak Naga and Jingpho - Sak (formerly Kachin Luisch ). Only Matisoff deviates by compiling Jingpho - Sak with the Nungischen, on the other hand, also recognizes the close relation of the Konyak Naga Jingpho.

Rung: The Great Rung - grouping Thurgoods and LaPollas found elsewhere in the literature so far no support, she was - following the arguments of van Driems and Mati Offs - broken down into their components secured Qiang Gyalrong, Nungisch, Kiranti and Westhimalayisch.

Qiang Gyalrong: A kinship of languages spoken in Sichuan Qiang and Gyalrong languages is now being adopted by almost all professionals. The membership of the extinct Tangut language for Qiang is generally accepted.

Nungisch: If more detail provided by the Thurgood Qiang Gyalrong, joined by Matisoff with the Jingpho - Sak. Both approaches are otherwise controversial. According to van Driem Nungisch forms a separate unit of the Tibeto-Burman.

Lolo - Burmese: A generally accepted medium-sized group (with a large number of speakers ) within the Tibeto-Burman, which summarizes the Lolo languages of southern China and the closely related to the Burmese Burmese languages to a unit for which successful a proto- language could be reconstructed. Some researchers belonging to the single language Naxi is postulated to this group of specialists from the Naxi it is rejected.

Karenisch: The formerly often postulated special position of the languages spoken in Burma Karen languages was abandoned, they are now generally classified as equivalent main branch within the Tibeto-Burman. One reason for the special position was mainly the word order SVO, which differs from that of all other Tibeto-Burman languages with the exception of Bai.

Bai: The position of the languages spoken in southern China Single Language Bai long remained controversial since it was exposed to strong Chinese influence and is. Some researchers (eg Benedict ), they counted so the Sinitic. Others regarded them as independent third branch of the Sino Tibetan. Matisoff, van Driem Thurgood and arrange them as a separate subunit of the Tibeto-Burman.

Naxi and other individual languages : For the Tibeto-Burman languages single Lepcha, Tujia, Naxi, Mru and the extinct languages Pyu and dura can be provisionally detected no generally accepted close relationship with other groups. Some researchers put the Naxi to Lolo - Burmese, the other Pyu to Sak ( subunit of Jingpho - Sak ).

External relations

Tai - Kadai, Miao - Yao and Vietnamese

As illustrated in the history of classification, the Tai - Kadai and Hmong - Mien languages, and the Vietnamese were initially set with the Sino Tibetan into a closer relationship. Since the 1950s (due to the works of Paul Benedict ), the similarities of the Sino Tibetan with these language families are attributed to long-term areal contacts, a genetic connection seems impossible according to the current state of research.

Kusunda

This also applies to Kusunda, one as isolated to be considered language that is spoken in Nepal by only very few people. Its classification as a Sino Tibetan language in Ethnologue is not sustainable and is rejected by the experts of this language (see van Driem 2001). Kusunda belongs - as the Nahali spoken in India - the oldest layer of language of the Indian subcontinent and has been over time strongly influenced by the Sino-Tibetan languages of the Mahakiranti group, which explains the large proportion of Sino-Tibetan loanwords.

Na - Dene and Sino-Tibetan

Since around 1920, part of the Americanists Edward Sapir and some of his students the theory of a genetic relatedness of the Sino Tibetan with the North American Na - Dene languages, the ent - in the 1980s by Sergei Anatoljevich Starostin and others on the Sino- Caucasian and finally to Caucasian hypothesis has been extended.

Sapir was convinced of a genetic relationship of the Na - Dene languages with the Sino Tibetan. In a letter to the Americanists Alfred Kroeber 1921 he wrote:

"If the morphological and lexical accord Which I find on every hand in between Nadene and Indo- Chinese (meaning Sino-Tibetan ) is accidential, then every analogy on God's earth is an accident. "

Sapir published his opinion on this issue not because he foresaw the part of conservative Americanists by zukämen which hostility towards him. Campbell 1997 rated the analogies Sapir as not very extraordinary and says that they all have non-genetic, typological explanations. Sapir's thesis was also based on the fact that many sino Tibetan and Na - Dene languages are tonal languages . It has now been demonstrated that the tone development in both the Sino Tibetan as well as in Na - Dene was a secondary process that is not attributable to each one of the proto languages. For this anyway rather typological argument is omitted completely. Sapir's thesis was pursued by Shafer (1952, 1969) and supported by Swadesh in some work. However, Campbell 1997 evaluates the entire etymological material as unconvincing and the statements on morphology rather than typological.

Sino - Dene - Caucasian and

The ent - Caucasian macro family is based on the Sino -Caucasian macro family, Sergei Starostin founded in 1984. He came from a genetic relationship of the Sino Tibetan with the North Caucasus and the Siberian Jenisseischen, based on his reconstructions of the respective proto- languages. Later this macro family in 1988 extended by some ancient oriental components ( Hurrian - Urartian, Hattish, Sumerian, and others), Basque (1985 ) and finally by S. Nikolajev to the North American Na - Dene languages to ent - kaukausischen macro family. With the last step, followed up on the hypotheses Sapir on the relationship of the Sino Tibetan with the Na - Dene. The composition of the ent -Caucasian macro family is subject to some variation depending on the author. The table below shows the current majority opinion of the " Dene Kaukasisten " again.

Dene - Caucasian Basque
Nordkaukasisch
Hattish †
Hurrian - Urartian †
Sumerian †
Jenisseisch ( Ket )
Burushaski
Nahali
Sino-Tibetan
Na - Dene

As already probably has the Sino Tibetan protolanguage an age of 8,000 years, would have an ent - Caucasian proto-language at least 15,000 years of age, with their ultra-wide geographical distribution probably even older. By the majority of linguists doubts that can be detected substantial similarities of phonetics, grammar and vocabulary after such a long time yet. The results of the Dene - Kaukasisten are therefore not accepted by the majority of historical linguists.

Typological diversity

The striking typological differences of the Sino-Tibetan languages are based on their intensive contacts with neighboring language groups, as well as the effect of substrate languages that were superimposed on the Sino-Tibetan languages. Since the Sinitic very early - probably over 5,000 years ago - has separated from the Tibeto-Burman languages , learned the two branches of Sino Tibetan very different influences that have also had a typologically. At times these typological differences have been overstated, that despite the great similarities in the vocabulary and other genetic features Chinese and Tibetobirmanisch were not considered as a genetic unit.

Syllable structure and tone

The Chinese languages are monosyllabic (almost all morphemes consist of a syllable ), many Tibeto-Burman languages have words with more than one syllable, which is, however, often can be traced by analysis to monosyllabic constituents.

The Sinitic languages are tonal languages of the same type as the Tai - Kadai and Hmong - Mien languages, or the Vietnamese. A number of Tibeto-Burman languages , however, do not exhibit significant differentiating sounds, including the western Tibetan languages , Amdo, Newarisch, Bodo - Garo and Burmese languages. A reconstruction of the tones for the proto-language is because of these differences is not possible, not even a statement if the Proto - Sino Tibetan was a tonal language. There is much evidence that the expression of phonemic tones was a secondary process and not due to the proto-language. It has some condition factors for the development of Tondifferenzierungen determined (eg, certain forms of syllable ending, replacement of the feature pair voiced - voiceless by tonal differences, reduction of initial consonant clusters ), but they result in the different language groups to different expressions of tonality and also find application in neighboring language families, which are not genetically related to the Sino Tibetan.

Word order

Today's Chinese has the regular word order SVO ( subject-verb - object), on the other hand, the Tibeto-Burman languages usually SOV on, only Karenisch and Bai differ and, like the Chinese the SVO position. The non- genetically related neighboring languages are structured differently here: Tai - Kadai and Austro Asian prefer SOV, Mia- Yao contrast SVO. The word order languages today so areal or substrate influences seem to have been crucial to reconstruct the word order of the Proto - Sino Tibetan is due to the different expression hardly possible. However, some traces also point to a SOV order, which could be an argument for a corresponding set arrangement of the proto-language in the ancient Chinese. One consequence of word order is the positioning of determiner and determinate in a noun phrase: the Sino-Tibetan SOV - languages follow the rule definite before determiner (ie, " the Father's House " ), the SVO - languages determiner before determinate (ie, " house of the Father ", "Great House "). The neighboring languages here have very different structures.

Morphological diversity

While Chinese languages are of insulating type - that is as good as having no Morphology - possess many Tibeto-Burman languages, the typical structure of agglutinative SOV languages , with sometimes very complex verbal formations by Affixketten. While today's Tibeto-Burman languages primarily use suffixes (they have, if at all, only very few productive prefixes ), show older language stages - although these are known only in a few languages - also quite extensive Präfixverwendung. Prefixes and suffixes can therefore be restored in the verbal morphology of the Proto - Tibeto-Burman. This is - in the opinion of the majority of researchers - an innovation of the Tibeto-Burman over the Proto - Sino Tibetan.

A number tibetobirmanischer languages shows concordance between subject and predicate - it is therefore the grammatical person, or number (singular, plural or dual ) consistently in the subject and predicate - but in very different degrees and forms. So there are Tibeto-Burman languages which a concordance only with certain grammatical persons (preferably the 1st and 2nd person ) for expression.

In the nominal morphology of the Tibeto-Burman languages distinguish a number of case ( " cases " ), including the ergative (eg the Gurung ), the related only to persons ergative ( Gyalrong, Kham ), the ergative used only in certain aspects ( Newari ), but also nominative - accusative systems ( Lolo - Burmese, Meithei, Jingpho ). ( Nominative - accusative languages is consistently the one case - the " nominative ." - The subject of a sentence and another case " accusative " for the direct object means they comply with the situation in German or Latin, and in most European languages contrast. Ergativsprachen have a case " ergative ", which is only used as a subject or agent of transitive verbs, and another case - usually called " absolutive ." - which is used both as an object of transitive verbs and intransitive verbs as the subject If the ergative - absolutive construction is not used in one language for all tenses, aspects and people alike, it is called split ergativity or the split - ergative. More details in the article ergative ).

Pronouns and verb differ in conservative languages singular, plural and dual, they have the categories " inclusive" and "exclusive" in the first person plural (see Inclusive and exclusive we ).

This show not only Sinitic and Tibetobirmanisch completely different morphological structures, even within the Tibeto-Burman is the typological span very large. The only morphological features that can contribute something to the question of the genetic unit, certain consonantal prefixes and suffixes that are detectable in almost all Sino-Tibetan groups in the same or similar function (see below: derivational ).

Sino-Tibetan as a genetic unit

Is the Sino Tibetan despite the great typological differences between the Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman and also between subgroups of Tibeto-Burman a genetic unit, so all Sino-Tibetan languages from a common ancestor language, Proto - Sino Tibetan originate from? All scientists who deal today with the Sino-Tibetan languages professionally, and all current summaries - Benedict 1972, Hale 1982, van Driem 2001, Matisoff 2003 and Thurgood 2003 - are in this respect an opinion: Sino-Tibetan is a genetic unit. The Sino-Tibetan proto- forms could be reconstructed on a large scale. The common lexical material is very extensive and is by researching other languages increasingly reliable (see the table of word equations). In addition to the lexical material there is plenty of phonological and grammatical similarities that will underpin the genetic unity of the Sino Tibetan. A comprehensive overview of the comparative material - both lexically phonologically - offers Matisoff 2003.

The following are the phonological, grammatical and lexical similarities of the Sino-Tibetan languages are represented.

Syllable structure and phoneme

The Proto - Sino Tibetan was a consistently monosyllabic language. His syllable structure can be described as

Reconstruct (potential positions are indicated by brackets ). The first two consonants are initially meaningless relevant " prefixes ", the real root has the form K (G ) V ( K), the Schlusskonsonant needs of the group / p, t, k, s, m, n, ŋ, l, r, w, j / originate -final vowel is rare. The vowel can be short or long, the length is phonemic. Can a weak vowel / ɘ Between the Präfixkonsonanten and the Initialkonsonant / are ( a so-called schwa ). This original syllable structure in the classical Tibetan and some modern western Tibetan languages and occupied in Gyalrong (which are therefore especially important for the reconstruction), less complete in Jingpho and Mizo. The complex initial clusters have been reduced in many languages, Chinese has plosives in Silbenauslaut largely lost. This structure simplification obviously led often develop differentiating sounds.

After Benedict in 1972 and Matisoff, 2003, the consonant inventory of Proto - Sino Tibetan - which was mainly used for the initial consonant of the root to the full extent - for the following phonemes:

As Initialkonsonant the root word these phonemes found in each group following regular sound correspondences:

The alternative correspondences are usually secondary to aspiration can occur under certain conditions, it is not phonemic. Based on the above table is Benedict in 1972, where listed for this sound correspondences appropriate word equations.

The Sino- Tibetan vowel system was as / a, o, u, i, e / reconstructed. Vowels may appear in the syllable center and Silbenauslaut, not at the beginning of a syllable. However, other vowels as / a / in the proto-language Silbenauslaut very rare to find. In contrast, endings / Vw / and / PY / very frequently.

Derivational

A classic relational morphology (ie a systematic morphological change of nouns and verbs with categories such as case, number, tense, aspect, person, diathesis, and others) there has not been unanimous opinion of the research in the proto-language. The observable today especially among the Tibeto-Burman languages relational morphology of nouns and verbs is to be regarded as an innovation, which is due to areal influence of neighboring languages or to the effect of substrates. As a result of very different influences very different morphological types could emerge.

But certainly can be a derivational elements for the Proto - Sino Tibetan reconstruct their reflections can be detected in many Sino-Tibetan languages. It is consonantal prefixes and suffixes and Anlautalternationen, but modify the meaning of verbs and nouns. The existence of common derivational and Anlautalternationen with identical or similar semantic effect in almost all groups of the Sino Tibetan is a strong indication of its genetic unit. (The examples come from Benedict 1972, Matisoff 2003 and Thurgood 2003; transcription directed by Benedict and Matisoff, instead of / y /, as in Thurgood / j / used. )

S- prefix

The s- prefix has a causative and denominative function, which was originally a more general " directive " is meaning based. Examples:

" Be gone " ancient Chinese Mjang, smangs "lose", lit. " Let it be gone " ( causative )
Ancient Chinese mɘk "ink", smɘk "black"; Klass. Tibetan smag "dark" ( causative )
Ancient Chinese tjuʔ " broom ", stuʔ " sweep " ( denominative )
Ancient Chinese ljek " Replace ", "give" sljeks ( direktiv )
Klass. Tibetan grib "shadow", sgrib " shade, darken " ( denominative )
Klass. Tibetan gril " role ", " curl " sgril - ( denominative )
Klass. Tibetan RIN " be long ", " extend " SRIN - ( causative )
Jingpho lot " be free " slot " blank " ( causative )
Jingpho dam " get lost ", sɘdam " mislead " ( causative )
Lepcha nak " just be ", njak < * snak " just do " ( causative, metathesis sK > Kj )

In other Tibeto-Burman languages (such as Burmese languages , Lolo languages, Lahu ) got lost s- prefix, but causes changes in the initial consonant or tonal differentiations. For weak initial consonants but still an s- prefix may also be recognizable in these languages, for example

Burmese ʔip " sleep," sip " euthanize "
Burmese WAN " enter " Swan " bring in "

Anlautalternierung

In almost all Sino-Tibetan languages, there are pairs of semantically related words that are phonetically differ only in that the Anlautkonsonant is unvoiced or voiced. The voiceless variant is then usually a transitive, voiced an intransitive meaning. There is a theory that the Anlautveränderung by an original * h - prefix - had been effected ( Edwin G. Pulleyblank 2000) - a non- syllabic, pharyngeal glide.

Examples:

Ancient Chinese kens "see" gens " be visible "
Ancient Chinese prats " defeat " brats " be defeated "
Tibetan kril " wrap around " gril " wound be "
Bahing kuk " bow ", " to be bent " guk
Bodo Phen " just do ", Ben " just be "

N suffix

The n suffix (also in the variant / m / ) is primarily a nominalisierende, sometimes a collective and function. Examples:

Klass. Tibetan rgyu "flow", rgyun " the river "
Klass. Tibetan GTSI " urinate ", gtsin " urine "
Klass. Tibetan rku "steal" ( nominalization supported by the ending- ma), rkun - ma " thief "
Klass. Tibetan nje " (to be) close " Njen "relative"
Lepcha zo "eat", AZoM " food" ( nominalization supported by anlautendes / a / )
Lepcha bu " bear " abun "vehicle"

S suffix

Also the s- suffix has mainly a nominalisierende, but also direction-changing function. Examples:

Klass. Tibetan grang - "count", grangs " number"
Klass. Tibetan thag - " weave ", taghs "tissue"; related to
Ancient Chinese tjɘk " weave ", tjɘks " woven cloth "
Ancient Chinese mreʔ " buy ", mres "sell"
Ancient Chinese djuʔ "receive", "give" Djus

More derivational

In addition to the above, there are other for the Sino Tibetan postulated derivational suffixes, such as / t /, / j / and / k /. None of these suffixes, however, a satisfactory functional description does not at present specify that would be valid at least in some units of the Sino Tibetan. For more details, please refer to LaPolla ( in Thurgood 2003) and Matisoff 2003.

Common Vocabulary

The following word equations - only a small part of the developed since 1940 and now well confirmed by the research etymologies - show more clearly the genetic relationship of the Sino-Tibetan languages. They are based on Peiros - Starostin 1996, Matisoff 2003 and the given below online database Starostins. For the word selection, the list of " stable etymologies " of Dolgopolsky and some words from the Swadesh list is based on, which loanwords and onomatopoeia are largely excluded. Each word equation has representatives from up to seven languages or language units: Old Chinese or proto - Sinitic (reconstruction Starostin ), Classical Tibetan, Classic Burmese, Jingpho ( Kachin ), Mizo ( Lushai ), Lepcha, Proto - Kiranti (reconstruction Starostin ), Proto - Tibetobirmanisch ( Matisoff 2003) and Proto - Sino-Tibetan ( Starostin 1989, Matisoff 2003). The transcription is also carried out by Matisoff and the underlying database.

Sino Tibetan word equations