Content deleted Content added
→History: More appropriate term. |
|||
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
== Overview ==
|