The ancestry of Tibetan

The Tibeto-Burman linguistic phylum was identified in 1823. However, the term “Tibeto-Burman” was later used with two different mean- ings, 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 propin- quity 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 ethnolinguis- tic prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding regions?

Ethnolinguistic survey of westernmost Arunachal Pradesh: A field worker's impressions

The area between Bhutan in the west, Tibet in the north, the Kameng river in the east and Assam in the south is home to at least six distinct phyla of the Trans-Himalayan (Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan) language family. These phyla encompass a minimum of 11, but probably 15 or even more mutually unintelligible languages, all showing considerable internal dialect variation. Previous literature provided largely incomplete or incorrect accounts of these phyla. Based on recent field research, this article discusses in detail the several languages of four phyla whose speakers are included in the Monpa Scheduled Tribe, providing the most accurate speaker data, geographical distribution, internal variation and degree of endangerment. The article also provides some insights into the historical background of the area and the impact this has had on the distribution of the ethnolinguistic groups.