List of branch data coverage

Note: Low or incomplete coverage in STEDT is not checked in the STEDT column if there are more complete resources available elsewhere.

The relative underdevelopment of Sino-Tibetan classification and reconstruction (vis-a-vis Austronesian or even Austroasiatic) is due many factors, including:

• • Heavy phonological erosion in many branches, such as Tujia, "Qiangic", Angami-Pochuri, etc.

  • Loss of morphology in many branches, leading to difficulties in using morphology as a diagnostic for subgrouping.

  • A "messy" star-like expansion involving many linkages, and hence heavy mixing and mutual influence among Sino-Tibetan branches; there is no neatly nested branching structure. This makes it absolutely necessary to view Sino-Tibetan groups as linkages and convergence areas rather than actual unified branches with reconstructable proto-languages. However, instead traditional classifications have consistently tried to pigeonhole every language into coherent branches on neatly ramified trees.

  • Significant internal diversity and age (5,000-10,000 years B.P.), comparable to that of Niger-Congo or Trans-New Guinea.

  • Copious loanwords from Sinitic and Tibetic within the last 2,000 years or so, making it cumbersome to sort out loanwords from languages such as Tshangla, Guiqiong, Choyo, Tujia, West Himalayish, etc.

  • Substrate influences in many branches, including from Austroasiatic. Hence, this site proposes a "pyramid" diagram to help visualize linguistic layers in Sino-Tibetan branches.

  • Paucity of data for many branches, particularly in South Asia; much data remains trapped as gray literature (e.g., Cai-Long, Gongduk, Ole) or in unpublished spreadsheets (e.g., Anu-Hkongso, Myanmar "Naga" languages, etc.)

  • Persistent misclassification of many branches with classifications repeated from outdated sources over many decades without adequate supporting evidence (e.g., Gong, Mru-Hkongso, etc.).

  • Persistent usage of outdated classifications that use general geographical groupings and posit a Sinitic-"Tibeto-Burman" split. Remarkably, Benedict's (1972) Sino-Tibetan branches remain in widespread usage and had hardly been changed by Matisoff, even though such groupings (e.g., "Himalayish") are likely not valid. In the light of new data during the 21st century, Sino-Tibetan classification ought to be radically revised rather than continue to be based on classifications from the data-sparse times of many decades ago.

  • Historical lack of attempts at comprehensive subgrouping. Most projects focused on figuring out historical relationships within branches, rather than among branches. Although the STEDT project was remarkable for its scope and depth, its main goal was to reconstruct to reconstruct Proto-Tibeto-Burman roots rather than to flesh out a detailed subgrouping analysis of the Sino-Tibetan tree and try to classify every single subgroup. Instead, STEDT mainly stuck to Benedict's (1972) classification and only made occasional modifications as necessary, with subgroups placed into broader branches. This lacuna in our knowledge of Sino-Tibetan classification has recently been pointed out in various papers, but little has been done to rectify this problem. As a result, this website was set up to help give Sino-Tibetan classification a new head start.

  • Lack of attention on basal ("divergent") branches that provide important insights for Sino-Tibetan phylogeny (e.g., Gong, Mru-Hkongso, Arunachal languages, etc.). For example, Gong has been assumed to be "just another Lolo-Burmese language," and its importance for Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics has been continually ignored.

  • General lack of funding and interest after the STEDT project came to a close in 2015. Today, there are various scholars who are now producing excellent grammars and field reports after Matisoff's retirement. Nevertheless, there are currently no scholars actively trying to piece together a comprehensive picture of Sino-Tibetan classification through detailed, lengthy historical-comparative work. Austronesian has its Bob Blust and Austroasiatic has its Paul Sidwell, but Sino-Tibetan does not currently have any such figures.

  • "Specialists' myopia": There are very few scholars with a broad knowledge of Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics beyond a few select branches; most scholars stick to very particular niches and do not venture out into other areas. This results in new or divergent Sino-Tibetan languages being classified into whatever branch the linguist is most familiar with. For instance, in China, many divergent languages are usually classified as simply "Qiangic" or "Yi." Due to all the shared lexical, morphological, and phonological retentions among Sino-Tibetan branches, it is absolutely necessary to have a "bird's-eye view" of Sino-Tibetan by tabulating data for many representative branches, which this project aims to achieve. However, this has not been standard practice in Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics, where scholars simply note a few similarities with neighboring branches, and then leave it at that. There is also a general lack of communication and collaboration between the "Sinosphere" and "Indosphere" linguists; hence, a linguist working on Tujia is likely not going to have much exposure to Kuki-Chin or West Himalayish.

  • Historically, lack of willingness to make data open to the public; databases and word lists often remained locked in private hands.