Abstract
The Tibeto-Burman linguistic phylum was identified in 1823. However, the term "Tibeto-Burman" was later used with two different meanings, one by scholars following Klaproth's polyphyletic framework and another by scholars operating within the Indo-Chinese paradigm. Yet the enduring failure of Sino-Tibetanists to produce any evidence for the Indo-Chinese phylogenetic model compels us to conclude that there is no such language family as Sino-Tibetan. Instead, Tibetan forms part of the Trans-Himalayan linguistic phylum, or Tibeto-Burman in Klaproth's sense. Robert Shafer coined the terms "Bodic" and "Bodish" for subgroups including Tibetan and languages with varying degrees of linguistic propinquity to Tibetan, and Nicolas Tournadre has also recently coined the term "Tibetic." What are Tibetic, Bodish, and Bodic? Which languages are the closest relatives of Tibetan? What do we know about the structure of the Trans-Himalayan linguistic phylum as a whole? Based on the phylogeny of the language family, which inferences can be made about the ethnolinguistic prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding regions?
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 363-397 |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |
| Event | Third International Conference on Tibetan Language - New York, United States of America Duration: 9 Dec 2011 → 14 Dec 2011 |
Conference
| Conference | Third International Conference on Tibetan Language |
|---|---|
| City | New York, United States of America |
| Period | 9/12/11 → 14/12/11 |
Keywords
- Language in Time and Space (incl Historical Linguistics, Dialectology)
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The Ancestry of Tibetan'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver