Guillaume Jacques & Alexis Michaud (2011)[1] argue for a Burmo-Qiangic branch of Sino-Tibetan (Tibeto-Burman) with two primary subbranches, Qiangic and Lolo-Burmese. Similarly, David Bradley (2008)[2] proposes an Eastern Tibeto-Burman branch that includes Burmic (a.k.a. Lolo-Burmese) and Qiangic. Bradley notes that Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic share some unique lexical items, even though they are morphologically quite different; whereas all Lolo-Burmese languages are tonal and analytical, Qiangic languages are often non-tonal and possess agglutinative morphology. However the position of Naic is unclear, as it has been grouped as Lolo-Burmese by Lama (2012), but as Qiangic by Jacques & Michaud (2011) and Bradley (2008).
Sun (1988) also proposed a similar classification that grouped Qiangic and Lolo-Burmese together.
Jacques' & Michaud's (2011) proposed tree is as follows.
Bradley's (2008) proposal is as follows. Note that Bradley calls Lolo-Burmese Burmic, which is not to be confused with Burmish, and calls Loloish Ngwi.
However, Chirkova (2012)[3] doubts that Qiangic is a valid genetic unit, and considers Ersu, Shixing, Namuyi, and Pumi all as separate Tibeto-Burman branches that are part of a Qiangic Sprachbund, rather than as part of a coherent Qiangic phylogenetic branch. This issue has also been further discussed by Yu (2012).[4]
Lee & Sagart (2008)[5] argue that Bai is a Tibeto-Burman language that has borrowed very heavily from Old Chinese. Lee & Sagart (2008) note that word relating to rice and pig agriculture tend to be non-Chinese, and that the genetic non-Chinese layer of Bai shows similarities with Proto-Loloish.
Branchesedit
Yu (2012:206–207)[4] lists the following well-established coherent branches (including individual languages, in italics below) that could likely all fit into a wider Burmo-Qiangic group, in geographical order from north to south.
Additionally, Tangut, now extinct, is generally classified as a Qiangic language.
Yu (2012:215–218)[4] notes that Ersuic and Naic languages could possibly group together, since they share many features with each other that are not found in Lolo-Burmese or other Qiangic groups.
Proto-language reconstructions for some of these branches include:
^ abcJacques, Guillaume, and Alexis Michaud. 2011. "Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages." Diachronica 28:468–498.
^Bradley, David. 2008. The Position of Namuyi in Tibeto-Burman. Paper presented at Workshop on Namuyi, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, 2008.
^Chirkova, Katia (2012). "The Qiangic Subgroup from an Areal Perspective: A Case Study of Languages of Muli." In Languages and Linguistics 13(1):133–170. Taipei: Academia Sinica. 2015-02-03 at the Wayback Machine
^ abcdYu, Dominic. 2012. Proto-Ersuic. Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Department of Linguistics.
^Lee, Y.-J., & Sagart, L. (2008). No limits to borrowing: The case of Bai and Chinese. Diachronica, 25(3), 357–385.
^Chirkova, Ekaterina. 2008. On the Position of Baima within Tibetan: A Look from Basic Vocabulary. Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken and Jeroen Wiedenhof. Rodopi, pp.23, 2008, Evidence and counter-evidence: Festschrift F. Kortlandt. <halshs-00104311>
^Gong Xun (2015). How Old is the Chinese in Bái? Reexamining Sino-Bái under the Baxter-Sagart reconstruction 2021-03-05 at the Wayback Machine. Paper presented at the Recent Advances in Old Chinese Historical Phonology workshop, SOAS, London.
^ abSims, Nathaniel. 2017. The suprasegmental phonology of proto-Rma (Qiang) in comparative perspective. Presented at the 50th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Beijing, China.
^* Wang, Feng (2006). . Language and Linguistics Monograph Series B: Frontiers in Linguistics III. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. ISBN986-00-5228-X. Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2018-06-03.
Bradley, David. 1997. "Tibeto-Burman languages and classification". In D. Bradley (Ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas (Papers in South East Asian linguistics No. 14) pp. 1–71, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. ISBN978-0-85883-456-9.
Bradley, David. 2008. The Position of Namuyi in Tibeto-Burman. Paper presented at Workshop on Namuyi, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, 2008.
Jacques, Guillaume, and Alexis Michaud. 2011. "Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages." Diachronica 28:468–498.
Lama, Ziwo Qiu-Fuyuan (2012), Subgrouping of Nisoic (Yi) Languages, thesis, University of Texas at Arlington (archived)
Sūn, Hóngkāi 孙宏开. 1988. Shilun woguo jingnei Zang-Mianyude puxi fenlei 试论我国境内藏缅语的谱系分类. (A classification of Tibeto-Burman languages in China). In: Tatsuo Nishida and Paul Kazuhisa Eguchi (eds.), Languages and history in East Asia: festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida on the occasion of his 60th birthday 61–73. Kyoto: Shokado.
External linksedit
Burmo-Qiangic 2020-10-22 at the Wayback Machine (Sino-Tibetan Branches Project)
November 23, 2023
burmo, qiangic, languages, burmo, qiangic, eastern, tibeto, burman, languages, proposed, family, sino, tibetan, languages, spoken, southwest, china, myanmar, consists, lolo, burmese, qiangic, branches, including, extinct, tangut, language, burmo, qiangiceaster. The Burmo Qiangic or Eastern Tibeto Burman languages are a proposed family of Sino Tibetan languages spoken in Southwest China and Myanmar It consists of the Lolo Burmese and Qiangic branches including the extinct Tangut language Burmo QiangicEastern Tibeto Burman proposed GeographicdistributionChina BurmaLinguistic classificationSino TibetanTibeto BurmanBurmo QiangicSubdivisionsLolo Burmese QiangicGlottologburm1265 Contents 1 Classification 2 Branches 3 Lexical evidence 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksClassification editGuillaume Jacques amp Alexis Michaud 2011 1 argue for a Burmo Qiangic branch of Sino Tibetan Tibeto Burman with two primary subbranches Qiangic and Lolo Burmese Similarly David Bradley 2008 2 proposes an Eastern Tibeto Burman branch that includes Burmic a k a Lolo Burmese and Qiangic Bradley notes that Lolo Burmese and Qiangic share some unique lexical items even though they are morphologically quite different whereas all Lolo Burmese languages are tonal and analytical Qiangic languages are often non tonal and possess agglutinative morphology However the position of Naic is unclear as it has been grouped as Lolo Burmese by Lama 2012 but as Qiangic by Jacques amp Michaud 2011 and Bradley 2008 Sun 1988 also proposed a similar classification that grouped Qiangic and Lolo Burmese together Jacques amp Michaud s 2011 proposed tree is as follows Burmo Qiangic Lolo Burmese BurmishLoloish Na Qiangic NaicQiangicErsuicBradley s 2008 proposal is as follows Note that Bradley calls Lolo Burmese Burmic which is not to be confused with Burmish and calls Loloish Ngwi Eastern Tibeto Burman Lolo Burmese BurmishLoloishQiangicHowever Chirkova 2012 3 doubts that Qiangic is a valid genetic unit and considers Ersu Shixing Namuyi and Pumi all as separate Tibeto Burman branches that are part of a Qiangic Sprachbund rather than as part of a coherent Qiangic phylogenetic branch This issue has also been further discussed by Yu 2012 4 Lee amp Sagart 2008 5 argue that Bai is a Tibeto Burman language that has borrowed very heavily from Old Chinese Lee amp Sagart 2008 note that word relating to rice and pig agriculture tend to be non Chinese and that the genetic non Chinese layer of Bai shows similarities with Proto Loloish Branches editYu 2012 206 207 4 lists the following well established coherent branches including individual languages in italics below that could likely all fit into a wider Burmo Qiangic group in geographical order from north to south Baima possible Burmo Qiangic substratum 6 Qiang rGyalrong Lavrung Ergong Choyo nDrapa Guiqiong Minyak Ersuic Namuyi Shixing Naish Prinmi Lolo Burmese Bai possible Burmo Qiangic substratum 7 Additionally Tangut now extinct is generally classified as a Qiangic language Yu 2012 215 218 4 notes that Ersuic and Naic languages could possibly group together since they share many features with each other that are not found in Lolo Burmese or other Qiangic groups Proto language reconstructions for some of these branches include Proto Rma Sims 2017 8 Proto Prinmi Sims 2017 8 Proto Ersuic Yu 2012 4 Proto Naish Jacques amp Michaud 2011 1 Proto Lolo Burmese Matisoff 2003 9 Proto Bai Wang 2006 10 Lexical evidence editJacques amp Michaud 2011 1 11 list the following lexical items as likely Burmo Qiangic lexical innovations Gloss rGyalrong Tangut Na Proto Naish Burmese Achang Hanicopula ŋu ŋwu2 ŋi hnang2 ŋɯ star ʑŋgri gjịj1 kɯ kri kray2 khʐe a gɯ forget jmɯt mjɨ 2 mv phaeL MH mi me1 ɲi ɲi be ill ngo lt ngaŋ ŋo2 gu goflint ʁdɯrtsa tse miH tsato hide nɤtsɯ tsɯ Naxi tsuto swallow mqlaʁ ʁv NqU lt Nqakdry spɯ pv Sputhick jaʁ laa1 lo laC2jump mtsaʁ tsho tshaC2winter qartsɯ tsur1 tshi tshu choŋ3 tɕhɔŋ tshɔ ga knee te mŋɑ Situ ŋwer2 ŋwɤ koH ŋwasun ʁmbɣi be2 bi Naxi biSee also editBailang languageReferences edit a b c Jacques Guillaume and Alexis Michaud 2011 Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino Tibetan languages Diachronica 28 468 498 Bradley David 2008 The Position of Namuyi in Tibeto Burman Paper presented at Workshop on Namuyi Academia Sinica Taiwan 2008 Chirkova Katia 2012 The Qiangic Subgroup from an Areal Perspective A Case Study of Languages of Muli In Languages and Linguistics 13 1 133 170 Taipei Academia Sinica Archived 2015 02 03 at the Wayback Machine a b c d Yu Dominic 2012 Proto Ersuic Ph D dissertation Berkeley University of California Berkeley Department of Linguistics Lee Y J amp Sagart L 2008 No limits to borrowing The case of Bai and Chinese Diachronica 25 3 357 385 Chirkova Ekaterina 2008 On the Position of Baima within Tibetan A Look from Basic Vocabulary Alexander Lubotsky Jos Schaeken and Jeroen Wiedenhof Rodopi pp 23 2008 Evidence and counter evidence Festschrift F Kortlandt lt halshs 00104311 gt Gong Xun 2015 How Old is the Chinese in Bai Reexamining Sino Bai under the Baxter Sagart reconstruction Archived 2021 03 05 at the Wayback Machine Paper presented at the Recent Advances in Old Chinese Historical Phonology workshop SOAS London a b Sims Nathaniel 2017 The suprasegmental phonology of proto Rma Qiang in comparative perspective Presented at the 50th International Conference on Sino Tibetan Languages and Linguistics Beijing China Matisoff James A 2003 Handbook of Proto Tibeto Burman System and Philosophy of Sino Tibetan Reconstruction Berkeley University of California Press ISBN 978 0 520 09843 5 Wang Feng 2006 Comparison of languages in contact the distillation method and the case of Bai Language and Linguistics Monograph Series B Frontiers in Linguistics III Taipei Institute of Linguistics Academia Sinica ISBN 986 00 5228 X Archived from the original on 2021 07 30 Retrieved 2018 06 03 Jacques amp Michaud 2011 appendix p 7 Bradley David 1997 Tibeto Burman languages and classification In D Bradley Ed Tibeto Burman languages of the Himalayas Papers in South East Asian linguistics No 14 pp 1 71 Canberra Pacific Linguistics ISBN 978 0 85883 456 9 Bradley David 2008 The Position of Namuyi in Tibeto Burman Paper presented at Workshop on Namuyi Academia Sinica Taiwan 2008 Jacques Guillaume and Alexis Michaud 2011 Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino Tibetan languages Diachronica 28 468 498 Lama Ziwo Qiu Fuyuan 2012 Subgrouping of Nisoic Yi Languages thesis University of Texas at Arlington archived Sun Hongkai 孙宏开 1988 Shilun woguo jingnei Zang Mianyude puxi fenlei 试论我国境内藏缅语的谱系分类 A classification of Tibeto Burman languages in China In Tatsuo Nishida and Paul Kazuhisa Eguchi eds Languages and history in East Asia festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida on the occasion of his 60th birthday 61 73 Kyoto Shokado External links editBurmo Qiangic Archived 2020 10 22 at the Wayback Machine Sino Tibetan Branches Project Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Burmo Qiangic languages amp oldid 1183025332, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
