Revision as of 15:46, 13 January 2024 edit Florian Blaschke (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 39,970 edits →‎Overview ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:25, 3 February 2024 edit undo Billposer (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 8,361 edits →‎History: More appropriate term. Next edit →
Line 59: The link between Tibeto-Burman and Chinese is now accepted by most linguists, with a few exceptions such as [[Roy Andrew Miller]] and [[Christopher I. Beckwith\|Christopher Beckwith]].{{sfnp\|Miller\|1974}}{{sfnp\|Beckwith\|1996}}{{sfnp\|Beckwith\|2002}} More recent controversy has centred on the proposed primary branching of Sino-Tibetan into Chinese and Tibeto-Burman subgroups. In spite of the popularity of this classification, first proposed by Kuhn and Conrady, and also promoted by [[Paul K. Benedict\|Paul Benedict]] (1972) and later [[James Matisoff]], Tibeto-Burman has not been demonstrated to be a valid ~~family~~subgroup in its own right.{{sfnp\|Handel\|2008\|p=431}} == Overview ==

Tibeto-Burman languages: Difference between revisions