Sino-Tibetan languages (Sino-Tibetan languages). Structural characteristics of the Sino-Tibetan languages
Sino-Tibetan languages, otherwise called Sino-Tibetan, is a language family in Asia. It ranks second in the world in terms of the number of speakers after the Indo-European languages. The Sino-Tibetan languages are spoken primarily in the PRC, northeastern India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Bhutan, as well as in Bangladesh, Laos, and Thailand; in addition, tens of millions of Chinese who retain their language live in almost all countries of the South East Asia(in Singapore they make up more than 75% of the population); a sizable Chinese diaspora is spread throughout the world.
The number of languages included in the Sino-Tibetan family has been variously estimated, most often around 300. Uncertainty is associated not only with traditional problem delimitation of language and dialect, but also with the sociolinguistic and cultural-historical heterogeneity of the family. On the one hand, it includes the world's largest in terms of the number of people speaking it as a native language and having a multi-thousand-year cultural tradition, writing and literature, the Chinese language, as well as two other fairly large old-written languages - Burmese and Tibetan. On the other hand, many small and completely unstudied tribal languages belong to the Sino-Tibetan family.
The literature presents several classifications of Sino-Tibetan languages, which differ significantly from each other. Genealogical links within the Sino-Tibetan family have not been sufficiently studied, which is due to a number of reasons: the lack of empirical material, the absence of any long written tradition in most Sino-Tibetan languages and, consequently, information about their state in the past, as well as structural features of these languages: the underdevelopment of morphology and the widespread use of tones, which until recently were poorly recorded in descriptions - and all this against the background of a significant typological similarity of their phonological structure. This combination of typological similarity (which the Sino-Tibetan languages share with a number of geographically neighboring language families) with the insufficient development of historical reconstruction resulted in the obscurity of the very boundaries of the Sino-Tibetan language family. For a long time, it included the Thai languages \u200b\u200b(which include, in particular, Thai and Lao) and the Miao-Yao languages, now recognized as independent language families; the issue of belonging to the Sino-Tibetan language Bai, or Minjia in the Chinese province of Yunnan (about 900 thousand speakers out of 1.6 million ethnic Bai; Chinese borrowings in the dictionary of this language reach 70%) remains debatable.
The first classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages that gained fame in European science belongs to the Norwegian scientist S. Konov (1909), one of the authors of the fundamental multi-volume Linguistic Survey of India. The other two standard classifications belong respectively to the American scientists R. Schaefer and P. Benedict, under whose leadership a project on the comparative study of the phonetics of the Sino-Tibetan languages was carried out at the University of California in the USA in 1934–1940. The results of this project have been published: Introduction to the study of Sino-Tibetan languages R. Schaefer (in 5 parts) was published in 1966-1974, and the book of P. Benedict Sino-Tibetan languages. Abstract- in 1972. In the late 1970s, the classification schemes of G. Mayer and B. Mayer, S.E. Yakhontov also appeared; there are other classifications.
The genetic commonality of the Sino-Tibetan languages is currently generally recognized, although material (in the form of morphemes that have common origin) there are significant differences between them. Glottochronological analysis shows that the time of their divergence can reach 10 thousand years (some researchers consider this figure to be too high).
In all classifications, starting with the Konovian, the Chinese branch, consisting of the Chinese and Dungan languages, and the Tibeto-Burmese branch are singled out and opposed to each other. (Chinese is actually a group of dialects that have diverged so much that if it were not for the strong national identity of the Chinese, the common culture and the presence in China of a supra-dialect written norm and a single statehood, then they should be considered independent languages; Dungan is precisely the only Chinese dialect for which the status of a language is recognized.) The Tibeto-Burman branch, the number of speakers of which exceeds 60 million people, includes all Sino-Tibetan languages minus Chinese and Dungan. Sometimes, along with these two branches, the Karen branch is also distinguished as an independent branch in the Sino-Tibetan family (the languages \u200b\u200bincluded in it with a total number of speakers slightly more than 3 million are common in southern Burma and in adjacent regions of Thailand). In Benedict, the Karen group is combined with the Tibeto-Burman sub-branch into the Tibeto-Karen branch opposed to the Chinese; at Shafer's so-called. The "Karen section" is part of the Tibeto-Burman branch along with the Tibetan, Burmese and Bara (Bodo-garo) sections. Tibeto-Burmese languages in all classifications have a complex internal articulation.
At the intermediate tiers, the classifications diverge so strongly that any definite correspondences between them are not established or are not distinguished by visibility. One can only indicate several genetic groups that are distinguished more or less unambiguously, but in different ways (and sometimes under different names) embedded in various classifications. These include the following.
The Lolo-Burmese group is the most studied grouping of the Sino-Tibetan languages, for which there are reconstructions of the proto-language (in particular, the reconstruction of J. Matisoff). The languages of this group are distributed mainly in Burma and southern China, several languages also in Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. In addition to Burmese, the Lolo-Burmese group includes such relatively major languages like hani in China's Yunnan and neighboring countries(the number of "official nationality" is about 1.25 million people; the number of speakers of Hani proper is less); the Akha language, closely related to the previous one (about 360 thousand people in the same area); the Lahu languages, common at the junction of China, Burma and Thailand (it has two very different dialects: the Black Lahu dialect - about 580 thousand, according to 1981, and the Yellow Lahu dialect - about 14.5 thousand) and Lisu (the number of which is estimated at about 657 thousand). The last two languages, especially Lahu, are well described, and their material played important role in syntactic typology.
The Bodo-Garo group, which includes about a dozen languages spoken in eastern India and Bangladesh, in particular, the Bodo languages themselves (about 1 million speakers) and Garo (up to 700 thousand). For Bodo-Garo, there is a reconstruction of the phonetics of the parent language , published in 1959 by R. Berling.
The Kuki-Chin group (about 40 languages), mainly in India and Burma, which includes, among others, the Meithei or Manipuri languages (the second is the name of the state of Manipur; Meithei acts as a lingua franca and is spoken by about 1, 3 million people in almost all states in eastern India), lush (at least 517 thousand people in eastern India and partly in Burma) and rong, or lepcha (about 65 thousand mainly in India and Bhutan; some authors identify lepcha in a separate group).
Genetically distributed between these two groups are the languages of the Naga peoples living in northeastern India (the states of Nagaland, Minipur, Mizoram, Assam, the union territory of Arunachal Pradesh and neighboring regions of Burma). Southern Nagas (about a dozen tribes each with their own language, the largest - Angami, Lhota, or Lotha, Sema, Rengma) speak languages \u200b\u200bthat are close to the Kuki-Chin languages, and about the same number of tribes in the north of this region speak the so-called languages cognac (the largest are ao and cognac itself; in relation to the Naga, “largest” means a population of about 100 thousand people). The Kuki-Chin languages are combined with the languages of the southern Nagas into the Naga-Kuki(-Chin) group, and the Bodo-garo languages with the Konyak languages are combined into the Konyak-Bodo-Garo group. The latter is sometimes combined with the Kachin group, which actually includes one Kachin language, or Jingpo (over 650 thousand speakers, mainly in Myanmar and partly in the PRC) into a baric sub-branch.
The most controversial are the classifications of the languages of the northwestern part of the Tibeto-Burman area - relatively speaking, Tibeto-Himalayan, common in northern India, Nepal, Bhutan and China (in Tibet). Sometimes they are combined under the name "Bodic" (Bodic - from the self-name of Tibet). Here the Tibetan group stands out, which includes approx. 30 languages, including Tibetan proper with a number of closely related languages (according to other interpretations - Tibetan dialects), whose speakers are officially included in the "Tibetan nationality"; amdo (about 800 thousand people in various autonomous entities of the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan; sometimes this language is considered as a Tibetan dialect that has retained archaic features); not too numerous, but well known in the world for reasons of an extralinguistic nature, the Sherpa language (about 34 thousand people); the Ladakhi language (about 100,000 people in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir), etc. This group naturally includes the classical Tibetan language. The Gurung group (in Nepal) also stands out, which includes, among others, the rather large languages Gurung (two very different dialects, ca. 180 thousand people) and Tamang (four very different dialects, over 900 thousand people: in Tamang spoken by the Gurkhas, known for their service in the British Army); several "Himalayan" groups with quite a large number the languages included in them, among which the most significant is the Newari language (over 775 thousand people in Nepal); as well as a number of smaller groups, sometimes consisting of one language.
AT various classifications other groups are also distinguished; the place of some languages in the classification, while certain of their belonging to the Sino-Tibetan, remains unclear.
In addition to the listed living languages, the Tangut language, which was also part of the Tibeto-Burman branch, is also well known. official language the state of Xi Xia (10th-13th centuries), destroyed by the Mongol conquerors. The language was reconstructed as a result of deciphering the monuments discovered by the expedition of P.K. Kozlov in the dead city of Khara-Khoto in 1908-1909. In texts of the 6th–12th centuries. a now dead Pyu language survives in Myanmar.
S.A. Starostin put forward a hypothesis about the distant relationship of the Sino-Tibetan languages in general with the North Caucasian (Abkhaz-Adyghe and Nakh-Dagestanian), as well as the Yenisei languages (of the entire Yenisei language family, only the Ket language is currently preserved, which is spoken by about a thousand people in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, and 2–3 last speakers of the Yug language; other Yenisei languages \u200b\u200bdied out in the 18–19 centuries) and a number of reconstructions have been proposed.
The structural characteristic of the Sino-Tibetan languages is usually counted from Chinese, which is actually a reference syllabic isolating language; acquaintance with it just led to the formation of the concept of an isolating language ( cm. TYPOLOGY LINGUISTIC). The syllable in languages of this type is the main phonetic unit, the structure of which is subject to strict laws: at the beginning of the syllable, a noisy consonant follows, then a sonant, intermediate and main vowels and a final consonant, and all elements except the main consonant are optional. Number of possible final consonants less than number initial, and in a number of languages only open (ending in a vowel) syllables are generally allowed. Many languages have several semantic tones ( cm. LANGUAGE PROSODY).
Whether and whether all the Sino-Tibetan languages were always arranged in this way is not a completely clear question. The data of the Tibetan language, for which from the 7th c. there is a syllabic script capable of accurately conveying the sound composition of a word, one suspects that, at least in this language, at the time of the creation of writing, the structure of the syllable was much more complex. If we assume that all signs of Tibetan writing were used to designate sounds (there are arguments in favor of such a point of view, in particular, the data of the Amdo language), then we must assume that Tibetan had numerous structures such as brgyad"nine" or bslabs"he studied science" (they are obtained by transliterating Tibetan words). Subsequently, the initial and final combinations of consonants were greatly simplified, and the repertoire of vowels expanded and tones appeared. Typologically, this is similar to what took place in the history of English or French, where the distance between spelling and pronunciation is also large, and there are much more vowel phonemes than special letters denoting them. In some respect (the specific way in which smooth r and l to the preceding vowel) in Tibetan there is even a material resemblance to the processes that took place in the history of the English language.
A morpheme, and often a word, in the "ideal" Sino-Tibetan language is usually equal to a syllable. There is no inflection (declension, conjugation), and to express syntactic relations, function words and the order of words in a phrase and sentence are used. Classes of words (parts of speech) are distinguished solely on syntactic grounds; for example, an adjective is a word that can serve as a definition. At the same time, conversion is widespread: without any change in form, a word can change its syntactic functions and thus refer to different parts speech. Service morphemes are more often postpositive and can form not only words, but also phrases.
In reality, many of the Sino-Tibetan languages differ from this standard to one degree or another, and elements of inflection are observed in them (in classical Tibetan, for example, several stems were distinguished in the verb, for the formation of which non-syllabic and therefore obviously included in the syllable-stem prefixes and suffixes).
The syntax of the Sino-Tibetan languages is quite diverse. Many of them are characterized by the construction of a sentence not in accordance with the structure "subject - predicate", but in accordance with the structure "topic - comment" (or, in other terminology, "topic - rheme"): a word that occupies the syntactically distinguished first position in the sentence , can be in completely different semantic (so-called role-playing: the producer of the action, the addressee, the recipient, etc.) relations to the verb-predicate; it is important that this word names the subject of speech and thus limits the scope of what will be said next. In Russian, these are constructions with a "nominative theme" like Department store « Moscow» I'll get there? (instead of the normative I will drive to the department store« Moscow»?), which belong to colloquial speech; in Sino-Tibetan languages (at least in some of them: in Chinese, Lisu, Lahu - the so-called "languages with the advancement of the topic") such constructions are the norm.
The sociolinguistic status of most Sino-Tibetan languages is low; they are used mainly in colloquial-everyday function. The exceptions are Chinese and Burmese ( state languages with a full range of functions, with Chinese in several countries), and partly also Tibetan (the language of interethnic communication and office work), Newari (which includes the prestigious Kathmandu dialect, named after the capital of Nepal, in which it is used), Meithei.
Writing in Chinese (hieroglyphic) has been in use since the 13th–14th centuries. BC. For the Tangut language, hieroglyphic writing was also used from 1036 (the earliest monument is 1094). For Tibetan from the 7th century, for Burmese from the 11th century. syllabic scripts of Indian origin are used, which in turn served as the basis for a number of other scripts, in particular, the Rong script, known since the end of the 17th century. From the 12th century the Newari letter is known; in the past there was writing in Meithei. In relatively recent times, a number of alphabets have been developed in latin based; Dungan uses a Cyrillic-based alphabet.
The history of the study of Sino-Tibetan languages is primarily the history of the study of Chinese and Tibetan languages. China belongs to the countries that created the national linguistic tradition, and Tibet inherited the linguistic tradition ancient india brought along with Buddhism. As for the typological and comparative historical study of the Sino-Tibetan languages, it began only at the end of the 19th century; its main stages are mentioned at the beginning of the article. In Russia, research in this area was carried out, in particular, by S.A. Starostin and S.E. Yakhontov.
Pavel Parshin
The languages of East Asia are included in several of the largest language families in the world. The first place in terms of the number of speakers is the Sino-Tibetan family of languages that has developed in this territory. The Altai family has representatives of all branches here, and the sphere of its formation, although partially, was within the limits of East Asia.
Geographically, the distribution of languages in East Asia can be represented as follows: Sino-Tibetan languages almost completely occupy the entire central and southern parts of this territory. Only in two places on the outskirts among them are interspersed with foreign components: Mon-Khmer in Yunnan and Malayo-Polynesian in Taiwan. The languages of the Altaic family encircle the entire area under consideration along its northern outskirts. This belt is closed in the extreme west by the languages of the mountain Tajiks belonging to the Indo-European family, and in the extreme east by the Ainu language. one
Sino-Tibetan language family
The discrepancy in the vocabulary and grammatical structure between the individual branches and languages of the Sino-Tibetan family is much more distant than in the other language families mentioned here; On the other hand, the numerals are very close, almost the same in languages even of different branches. The reconstruction of any proto-language for the Sino-Tibetan family is comparatively unlikely. Their similar features can rather be explained by the partial preservation of an area with primitive linguistic continuity that once existed here. Repeated migrations have broken this continuity, but traces of it remain in the nature of the differences between the languages.
Common features for the entire Sino-Tibetan family are as follows: with very rare exceptions, each primary unit of speech - the root, which coincides with a single-root word, represents one syllable. Moreover, any such syllable, taken separately, already gives us, if not in the modern living language, then at least in its ancient meaning, a completely finished word - a part or particle of speech. This gives some linguists a reason to characterize the modern Sino-Tibetan languages as monosyllabic, that is, monosyllabic. However, in fact, most of the specific words of any living language of this family are polysyllabic, representing a combination of several root syllables. Cornesylogues - parts of speech, when combined, give complex compound words: for example, in the New Chinese language, the root words ho j / c "fire' and che $ 1. cart', when combined, give a new word hoche train'.
Such two-part words are usually called binomials. Words composed of three or more root syllables can be considered as secondary binomials. So, the word “type on a typewriter” in Chinese is transmitted by the binomial dazi from the root words yes “beat” and zi “sign 7. The concept of "typewriter' consists of three syllables: dazi ji but it is also essentially a binomial of two meanings: dazi "print" and chi "mechanism".
If in Russian and other Indo-European languages there are relatively few such compound words, then in Sino-Tibetan they are most Total vocabulary; root syllables - particles of speech and words that have lost their independent semantic meaning, joining other words, at the beginning or end turn into prefixes or suffixes that serve for word formation and inflection.
Potentially, syllables in Sino-Tibetan languages fall into three elements: a consonant initial consisting of one or more consonants, a vowel (simple or diphthong, triphthong) and a consonant final. The vowel is the bearer of a certain tone and is called the tonal. Tonal is an obligatory element in a word; so, in Chinese, the root syllable man f! canopy' contains an initial simple consonant (initial) m, a simple vowel a (tonal) and a final нъ. There are also possible root syllables ma YL sacrifice ', an VC dusk ' and ppf - interjection. At the same time, it should be noted that all consonants that occur in given language, and in many languages their combinations. Initials - combinations of consonants - were, for example, in the ancient Tibetan language. However, the Sino-Tibetan languages have a tendency to simplify the composition of initials, to contract consonant combinations into simple consonants.
Stop consonants can serve as finals of syllables, and not all of them. For example, in modern literary Chinese, only two finals are preserved - н and нъ. In the Yue dialect (Cantonese), the finals n, r, k are preserved - the remnants of the ancient Chinese wider set of finals. The contraction of finals, inherent in the Sino-Tibetan family as a whole, in some cases ended in their complete disappearance and the transformation of all syllables into open ones.
Since only consonants and their combinations are used in initials, therefore total number theoretically possible syllables (and, consequently, root words) in each language is quite limited. However, this number increases several times due to the presence of tones that are meaningful. So, the word ma “sacrifice” mentioned above, like all the words associated with it, is pronounced with a falling tone (fourth in Chinese). The same sound combination ma, pronounced under the first (even) tone, means Щ
'mother', under the second (ascending) - 'hemp', under the third (descending-ascending) - 'horse'. change in the composition of vowels.
The number of tones varies in different languages and dialects from two to nine or even more, but the general historical trend is more likely to lead to a simplification of the tonal composition.
The grammar of the Sino-Tibetan languages is analytical at its core. As a rule, person, time, subject-object relations are expressed descriptively and through context. Almost all languages of this family are characterized by an abundance of classifiers-particles, which are used to combine numerals and pronouns with nouns and indicate the generic feature of the latter. For example, in Chinese "two tables" - liang zhang zhuo, where liang two ', zhuo "table', zhang is a classifier of all flat objects. Many Sino-Tibetan languages tend to reduce the number of such digits, to use a limited number of universal classifiers.
The Chinese language earlier than other Sino-Tibetan languages became known to European linguists. Monosyllabic character of root words, lack of inflection, apparent grammatical amorphism Chinese gave rise to linguists - supporters of the stadial theory to see in it an example of a lower stage in the development of a language, a state characteristic of the language almost immediately after its inception and preserved to this day. historical study Sino-Tibetan languages refutes this opinion.
The monosyllabic state of the classical Chinese language wenyan ye is primary, but is the result of a simplification of the ancient Chinese language, in which there were elements of agglutination and inflection.
Between classical and modern Chinese there are still centuries of development in the direction of repeated complication and the emergence of new elements of agglutination.
The unity of proto-Chinese tribal languages, one of which was the language of the Shang-Yin tribes (XVI-XI centuries BC), known to us from the inscriptions on fortune-telling bones, is confirmed by the ease of distribution of Yin writing after the 11th century. Due to the hieroglyphic nature of the latter, the phonetic composition of these languages or dialects is difficult to reconstruct. It is possible to restore with sufficient accuracy only the general sound system ancient Chinese.
The development of the Chinese language has been going on throughout the centuries-old history of the Chinese people. The two sides of this process are the development and gradual change of the language in connection with ethnic history and the gradual formation and then absorption of local dialects.
There are significant differences in the phonetics and semantics of the vocabulary of the Chinese language of various historical periods. For example, the word go, which currently means the state, has gone through an interesting path of changing meaning depending on the socio-economic conditions of its existence. It meant successively a fence, an enclosed place, a city, a possession, a kingdom, a state. The word jia "family" sounds like this in the modern literary language; the same word in the south sounds like ka, something like this in ancient Chinese.
The ancient Chinese language developed until the 3rd century BC. BC e., literary language of this time there was a gouven, coinciding with the conversation-pym or close to it; and from the III century. n. e. Old Chinese gradually becomes a dead language and the formation of Middle Chinese begins on the basis of Guwen. At this time, ancient Chinese turns into archaic written wenyan, which is different from colloquial. Then follows a new period - from the 9th century. according to the movement "May 4, 1919", when there is wenyan, but it is already close to spoken language"yuan drama", based on northern dialects. As a result of the struggle for a commonly understood Baihua language, Putonghua, based on the Beijing dialect, is gradually strengthening throughout the country.
The Chinese language includes a number of dialects. Currently, it is customary to distinguish eight main dialects: 1) Beijing, which is spoken by more than half of all Chinese, 2) Jiangnan (i.e., a dialect common in Jiangsu province south of the Yangtze and in Zhejiang province), 3) Guangdong, 4) Hunan , 5) Kejia (or Hakka) dialect, 6) Minnan (i.e. South Fujian), 7) Jiangxi 8) Minbei (i.e. North Fujian).
The names of dialects reflect only the main areas of their distribution. Thus, the provinces of Hubei, Sichuan, Guizhou and Yunnan are also included in the distribution area of the Beijing dialect.
Differences in the dialects of modern Chinese go mainly along the phonetic line; there are lexical differences; there is little difference in grammatical structure. In general, the dialects are uniform, although the major dialects of the Chinese language that have diverged most strongly are mutually incomprehensible.
The geographical distribution of dialects and the periodization of the development of the language are in good agreement with the ethnic history of the Chinese. The development of the languages of clans and tribes was undoubtedly associated with its first stage; within the ethnic territory of the Chinese, these languages were connected by a chain of linguistic continuity.
The main of the modern dialects, obviously, are relics of local tribal languages that existed in ancient times in different parts of China. In addition, in the formation of modern dialects, foreign, non-Chinese substrates, such as Zhuang Tung in the south, could also play some role. long time the peoples of the southeastern coastal strip, who defended their independence, partially perceived the language of the victors, first as the second, then as the only one. And yet, the features of the local languages of the south have survived to this day in local dialects (or, as they are called, Koine g /, Min and Yue).
A significant influx of immigrants from the Central Chinese regions consolidated the process of language adaptation. Already a millennium later, the population of the coastal strip considered itself part of the Chinese people.
The process was different in the north- and south-western regions of the country. The assimilation of local languages of non-Chinese peoples either did not meet with resistance or did not occur. The differences between the dialects of the Chinese language of these regions are so small that it would be more correct to speak of dialects (tuhua).
The modern colloquial and literary Chinese language (the normative language of the Chinese nation) - Putonghua, which literally means "common language", is the largest in terms of the number of speakers in the world.
The Chinese language is polytonal. The Beijing pronunciation, which is accepted as the standard for Putuihua, has four tones.
Mandarin is characterized by the use a large number classifiers, modifiers, modal particles showing changes in number, type, shape, etc. To a large extent, these final auxiliary particles have become suffixes (for example, the indicator plural animated nouns myn, as in the word
tongzhimyn "comrades'). modal particles can express a question, an emotion, a shade in an expression.
There is no inflection of names in Chinese. The plural suffix for names denoting persons, myn, is used only when the plurality is not clear from the context. Only the verb inflection is somewhat developed, but even here there is neither time nor person, but there are forms of aspect and modality. The syntax is built according to the scheme subject-predicate-object. The definition precedes the defined. Prepositional constructions and postpositions have been preserved from the ancient Chinese language. Yes, in modern language very characteristic design, which in literal translation sounds like:
or I, taking a pencil, write '(in a literary translation, I write better with a pencil ').
The Tibeto-Burmese languages have a syntax different from other languages of the Sino-Tibetan family, where there is a rigid subject-object-predicate pattern.
Only in those cases where there is a subject indicator and an object indicator, as for example in the Naxi language, the order of their relative position can be changed.
Usually, the definition precedes the defined (in Tibetan, it can also come after the defined). Additions are introduced by postpositions. The verb has developed tense, participial and participle forms. It is curious to note that all these features are also present in the Altaic family, the probable zone of formation of which is geographically adjacent to the zone of formation of the Tibeto-Burman languages - for the first it is mainly the Altai-Sayan Highlands and the steppes of Mongolia, for the second - the provinces of China - Gansu, Sichuan and Qinghai. It is possible that Altaic languages influenced the branches of the Sino-Tibetan languages that spread to the west, the initial center of the formation of which most likely was the Great Chinese Plain and the Loess Plateau to the west of it.
In a number of respects, the languages of the Tibeto-Burman branch appear to be more archaic than the other Sino-Tibetan languages. So, for example, in them, especially in Jiazhong and a number of dialects of Tibetan, traces of the former polysyllabicity, clusters of consonants in initials and finals, a smaller number of tones and a smaller share of their semantic role are preserved, in some languages - Tibetan and Jingpo - classifiers are of little use. In a number of languages of the Yizu group, on the contrary, they are close to merging with the numeral. The position of classifiers in syntactic construction also differs from that in Chinese. Instead of Chinese scheme numeral (or demonstrative pronoun) -classifier-noun In the Tibeto-Burmese languages, the construction noun-numeral-classifier is common.
Many Tibeto-Burmese languages are characterized by the presence of suffixes.
The Tibeto-Burmese branch of languages within East Asia falls into three groups: Tibetan, Yizu, and Jingpo. 2
In the Tibetan group, one can single out the languages Tibetan, Jiazong, Qiang, Xifan, Dulong, nu; however, the last two languages occupy a special position, and they can be distinguished into a separate subgroup, calling it the Eastern, and the rest of the Tibetan languages - the Western subgroup. The languages of the eastern subgroup converge with another group of the Tibeto-Burman branch, namely with the group of zu, which includes the languages of zu, lisu, nasi, lahu, hani, achan, bai. The Jingpo language alone forms a special group, which, however, sometimes converges and even unites with the Burmese, and on the other hand, was influenced by the languages of the zu group.
Many of the listed languages fall into dialects, sometimes very numerous and so different from each other that the scale of these differences is close to the differences between individual languages. This is especially true for the Tibetan languages, Izu, Hani, Jingpo.
The Zhuang Tung languages make up the Sino-Tibetan language family the third branch, which in Western European linguistics is usually called Thai. It is divided into three groups - Zhuang Thai, Dong Shui and Li group. The first includes the Zhuang languages, which are extremely close to it, especially to its northern dialects, the Bui language and the Tai language. Dong Shui includes the languages of Dong, Mulao, Maonan, and Shui. Li language with its dialects is the only representative of the third group. It should be noted that, with the exception of the peculiar language of Li, the dialectal differences in the languages of the Zhuangdong branch are not very large and, as a rule, even between speakers different languages mutual understanding is possible within the same group.
Usually, speakers of neighboring dialects and languages understand each other better. More difference between the languages of peoples separated by great distances. The nature of the relationship between the Zhuang Tung languages, apparently, makes it possible to speak of their origin from a single language.
In modern Chinese linguistics, the name of the Zhuang-Tung branch, after the names of the most important languages included here, spread on the territory of China, has become stronger behind * this branch. The vocabulary of the Thai, or Zhuang Tung, languages is partially similar to Chinese. This is especially true for numerals, which are generally similar in Chinese, Tibeto-Burman, and Zhuangdong languages. The sentence is built according to the “subject-predicate-object” scheme. The method of definition is sharply different from that adopted in the Tibeto-Burmese and Chinese languages, namely, the definition always follows the one being defined. So, in the language of the bui, a young man’ sounds r’i sa: i literally a young man’; "old man'-r" and 1ai literally old man'. Classifier words are close to becoming prefix articles and are included in the dictionary form of nouns. In the same language bui tu - animal classifier; tu- ma horse', tu- pa "fish'; zwak - bird classifier: zwak- la: in "sparrow', zwak- kau miau "horned owl'. In numeral constructions, the noun-numeral-classifier scheme is common, but with demonstrative pronouns and with the numeral "one" the construction "noun-classifier-pronoun" is used.
The fourth branch - the Miao-Yao languages differ in their vocabulary from both the Chinese language and the Zhuang-Tung languages more than these branches of languages differ from each other, although there are undoubtedly separate common features between the vocabulary of the Miao-Yao and Chinese or Zhuang-Tung languages. However, in the field of grammar, the Miao-Yao languages occupy rather an intermediate position between the Chinese and Zhuang-tung languages. In the Miao-Yao languages, there are several tones - from five to eight. The structure of the phrase "subject-predicate-object" coincides with the Zhuang-dong model. As regards the relative position of the definition and the defined, the “defined-definition” scheme is most common. So, in the Miao language, “short clothes” sounds like<аэ1е "одежда короткая’. Однако некоторые наиболее употребительные прилагательные ставятся перед определяемым словом, например, mien d^ u ^big gate’, wow sa ‘good song’, as well as pronominal definitions, which brings the Miao-Yao syntax closer to Chinese.
Nouns in dictionary form usually appear together with their classifiers, although the latter may be omitted in a phrase; so in the Miao-Yao language, the classifier of kinship terms is a: a-ra 'father',<a- mi mother’, a-r’eu grandfather’.
The composition of numerals in the Miao-Yao languages is very different from the Chinese, Zhuang-Tung and Tibeto-Burman set of numerals, but the developed system of counting words brings them closer to Chinese. As for the demonstrative-pronominal construction, the order "classifier-noun-pronoun" is adopted in the Miao language, and "pronoun-classifier-noun" in the Yao language.
In the Miao-Yao branch, one can distinguish the Miao group (Miao language with its dialects) ^ the Yao group (Yao and She languages); in the third group, the Gelao language, which stands somewhat apart, can be distinguished. The dialects of the Yao and especially the Miao languages are so different from each other that mutual understanding between speakers of different dialects is often impossible.
It seems that these dialects go back to tribal languages and are now only in the process of consolidation into national languages. At the same time, separate groups calling themselves Miao, for example, on about. Hainan, dialects are spoken very close to Yao, and even in a number of clearly Miao dialects, for example, in Mabu Miao, there are some traits gravitating towards Yao. It can be assumed that the differentiation of the Miao-Yao dialects into two groups can be approximately dated to the turn of our era.
However, it is hardly possible to speak of a single proto-language of Miao-Yao. Rather, there was a single area of existence of dialects that were in a state of primitive linguistic continuity. Perhaps some ancient stage of it is recorded in Chinese sources as san-miao. One must think that the Gelao language stood out from it earlier than others. At the same time, one should keep in mind the possibility of the presence in the San Miao of the ancestors of the Zhuang Tung peoples, later called Yue (lo Yue, Nan Yue, etc.). It is natural to assume that the ancient Miao and Yue languages strongly influenced each other, which was manifested in the specific, somewhat intermediate character of the Gelao and Li languages.
If the proximity of the Chinese and Tibeto-Burmese languages in general was not seriously disputed, then the classification of the Thai (Zhuang-Tung) languages and the Miao-Yao languages caused controversy. Thus, in Benedict's work, the Thai languages \u200b\u200bare separated from the Sino-Tibetan family and are considered as belonging to one large community along with the Malayo-Polynesian languages. At the same time, the Kadai group constructed by Benedict, which included the Li language and the Gelao language, was a relic of their common proto-language, indeed, of all the Miao-Yao languages, it is closest to the Zhuangdong languages.
In Davies's work, which had a great influence on the views of European linguists on this issue, the Miao-Yao languages are included in the Mon-Khmer family of languages. There are other points of view, but in general, the struggle of opinions was mainly on the issue of the relationship of the Zhuang-Tung and Miao-Yao languages with the Sino-Tibetan languages, as well as with the Mon-Khmer and Malayo-Polynesian languages. Indeed, in the syntax of the Zhuang-Tung and partly the Miao-Yao languages, and in their vocabulary, one can notice shifts towards convergence with the languages of the Mon-Khmer and Malayo-Polynesian families, which are the closest neighbors.
The Vietnamese language is not considered separately here, since it is mainly spoken outside the study area and is spoken by only a small number of Vietnamese living in the border regions of China. However, the formation of the Vietnamese language is obviously closely related, as well as the formation of the Zhuang-Dun languages, with the Lo-Yue dialects that existed in South China, in Guangxi and adjacent areas. The vocabulary fund brings the Vietnamese language closer to the Mon-Khmer family, but the structural characteristics equally bring it closer to most languages of the Sino-Tibetan family.
), including the Dungan language and Bai language, and Tibeto-Burmese (all other languages). There are more than 1 billion native Chinese speakers.
According to one of the debatable theories, it is assumed that the Sino-Tibetan languages belong to the hypothetical Sino-Caucasian macrofamily.
Genetic commonality of the Sino-Tibetan languages
Given the large typological differences in the Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman branches, as well as in subgroups of the Tibeto-Burman languages, do the Sino-Tibetan languages represent a genetic community, i.e., do they come from a single Proto-Sino-Tibetan language? All modern scholars professionally dealing with Sino-Tibetan languages in their works (Benedict 1972, Hale 1982, van Driem 2001, Matisoff 2003, Thurgood 2003) unanimously confirm: Sino-Tibetan languages are a genetic community. Many Sino-Tibetan proto-forms lend themselves to reconstruction. The general lexical material is extremely rich and more and more refined due to the research of an increasing number of languages (see the table of lexical correspondences). In addition to lexical material, these languages have many similarities in phonology and grammar, confirming their relationship. For a detailed review of comparative material (both lexical and phonological), see Matisoff 2003.
Below are the common phonological, grammatical and lexical features of the Sino-Tibetan languages.
Syllable and phoneme structure
Proto-Sino-Tibetan was a monosyllabic language. The reconstruction of its syllabic structure looks like this:
(C)-(C)- С(G)V(С)-(s) (C consonant, V vowel, G transitive /l,r,y,w/)
(in parentheses are additional sounds that may be present in these places). The first two consonants were originally meaningful “prefixes”, the root itself has the form С(G)V(С), the final consonant is limited to the group /p, t, k, s, m, n, ŋ, l, r, w, y/, the vowel at the end of a syllable is rare. A vowel can be long or short, and its length is phonemically significant. Between the prefixed consonants and the initial consonant, there may be a reduced vowel /ɘ/ (shva). This original syllable structure can be traced in Classical Tibetan and in some modern Western Tibetan and Gyalrong languages (which makes these languages especially important for reconstruction), and in a less complete form in Kachin and Mizo. Polynomial combinations of consonants at the beginning of a syllable have undergone reduction in many languages, and Chinese has lost most of the stop consonants at the end of a syllable. Such a simplification of the structure, obviously, led to the emergence of a meaningful tonality.
According to Benedict 1972 and Matisoff 2003, the Proto-Sino-Tibetan consonant set - which was used in its entirety primarily for root-initial consonants - consisted of the following phonemes:
p, t, k; b, d, g; ts, dz; s, z, h; m, n, ŋ; l, r, w, y.
In different language groups, these phonemes have the following sound correspondences as the initial consonants of the word root:
| Sino-Tib. | Tib. | Kachin. | Burm. | Garo | Mizo |
| *p | p(h) | p(h),b | p(h) | p(h),b | p(h) |
| *t | t(h) | t(h), d | t(h) | t(h), d | t(h) |
| *k | k(h) | k(h), g | k(h) | k(h), g | k(h) |
| *b | b | b, p(h) | p | b, p(h) | b |
| *d | d | d, t(h) | t | d, t(h) | d |
| *g | g | g, k(h) | k | g, k(h) | k |
| *ts | ts(h) | ts, dz | ts(h) | s, ts(h) | s |
| *dz | dz | dz, ts | ts | ts(h) | f |
| *s | s | s | s | th | th |
| *z | z | z | s | s | f |
| *h | h | ø | h | ø | h |
| *m | m | m | m | m | m |
| *n | n | n | n | n | n |
| *ŋ | ŋ | ŋ | ŋ | ŋ | ŋ |
| *l | l | l | l | r | l |
| *r | r | r | r | r | r |
| *w | ø | w | w | w | w |
| *y | y | y | y | ts, ds | z |
Exceptions to these correspondences, as a rule, are minor, aspiration appears only under certain conditions and is not phonemically significant. This table is based on data from Benedict 1972, where lexical comparisons are also given for these sound correspondences.
Sino-Tibetan vowel system reconstructed as /a, o, u, i, e/. Vowels can be in the middle or at the end of a syllable, but not at the beginning. It should be noted that in the proto-language, all vowels, except /a/, are extremely rare at the end of a syllable. And endings in /-Vw/ und /-Vy/, on the contrary, are the most common.
Morphology of word formation
According to the general opinion of researchers of the proto-language, there was no classical syntactic morphology (as well as systemic morphological changes of nouns and verbs in such categories as case, number, tense, person, voice, etc.) in it. The syntactic morphology of nouns and verbs that can be traced in modern Tibeto-Burman languages should be understood as an innovation that they owe to the local influence of neighboring languages, as well as substrate languages. Due to the wide variety of such influences, completely different morphological types could form.
Nevertheless, it is safe to speak about elements of word-formation morphology common to many Sino-Tibetan languages. Among them, one should single out consonant prefixes and suffixes, as well as changes in anlaut that change the meaning of verbs and nouns. The existence of common derivational affixes and alternations in anlaut, which have the same or similar semantic effect in almost all groups of Sino-Tibetan languages, is a convincing sign of their genetic commonality. (Examples are taken from Benedict 1972, Matisoff 2003, and Thurgood 2003; transcriptions from German-language sources use /y/ instead of /j/.)
Prefix s-
The prefix s- has a causative and denominative function, which originally corresponded to a directive meaning. For example:
· Ancient whale. myang"leave" smangs"lose", lit. "let go" (causative)
· Ancient Whale. mɘk"ink", smɘk"black"; Class. Tib. smag"dark" (causative)
· Ancient Whale. tyuʔ"broom", stuʔ"revenge" (denominative)
· Ancient Whale. lyek"exchange", slyeks"to give" (directives)
· Class. Tib. mushroom"shadow", sgrib-"shade, darken" (denominative)
· Class. Tib. gril"roller", grill-"roll up, wind up" (denominative)
· Class. Tib. riŋ-"to be long" sri-"lengthen" (causative)
· Kachinsk. lot"to be free", slot"liberate" (causative)
· Kachinsk. dam"get lost" sɘdam"to mislead" (causative)
Lepcha nak"to be straight" nyak< *snak "straighten" (causative, metathesis sK > Ky)
In other Tibeto-Burman languages (eg Burmese, Loloi, and Lahu), the s- prefix has disappeared, but its effect on changes in initial consonants or on tonal differences has been preserved. In the case of weak initial consonants, the prefix s- can also be distinguished in these languages, for example:
· Burma. ip"sleep", sip"put to sleep"
· Burma. waŋ"enter", swaŋ"bring in"
Changes in unlock
Almost all Sino-Tibetan languages have pairs of semantically related words that differ from each other in their sound only sonority or deafness initial consonant. The voiced version usually has transitional meaning, and deaf - intransitive. There is a theory according to which the changes in anlaut are due to the once existing prefix *h - a non-syllable pharyngeal transitional sound (Edwin G. Pulleyblank 2000).
· Ancient Whale. kens"see", gens"be visible"
· Ancient Whale. prats"win", brothers"to be defeated"
Tib. kril-"to wrap" gril-"to be wrapped"
· Baching kuk"bend over" guk"to be bent"
Bodo pheŋ"straighten", beŋ"be direct"
Suffix -n
The suffix -n (as well as /-m/) performs mainly a nominalizing and sometimes a collective function. Examples:
· Class. Tib. rgyu"flow", rgyun"flow"
· Class. Tib. gtsi"urinate", gtsin"urine"
· Class. Tib. rku"steal", rkun-ma"thief" (nominalization is enhanced by the ending -ma)
· Class. Tib. nye"(to be) close", nyen"relative"
Lepcha zo"there is", Azom"food" (nominalization is enhanced by the sound /a-/ in unlaut)
Lepcha bu"carry" abun"WHO"
Suffix -s
The suffix -s also has a predominantly nominalizing function, as well as a direction change function. Examples:
· Class. Tib. tag-"weave", tags"the cloth"; this word is related
· Ancient Whale. tyɘk"weave", tyɘks"woven handkerchief"
· Ancient Whale. mreʔ"buy", mres"sell"
· Ancient Whale. duʔ"receive", dyus"give"
Other derivational suffixes
Besides those mentioned, there are also other derivational suffixes postulated for Sino-Tibetan languages, such as /-t/, /-y/ and /-k/. However, their functions do not lend themselves to a satisfactory description that would confirm at least some commonality between them in the Sino-Tibetan languages. See LaPolla (quoted in Thurgood 2003) and Matisoff 2003 for details.
General vocabulary
The following lexical comparisons are only a small part of the reliable etymologies established by research since 1940, and they most clearly represent the genetic relationship of the Sino-Tibetan languages. Their basis is the study of Peiros-Starostin 1996, Matisoff 2003 and Starostin's online database. The selection of words is made in accordance with the list of "stable etymologies" by Dolgopolsky and supplemented with several words from the Swadesh list, thereby excluding borrowed words and onomatopoeia from them. Each of the words is represented in several languages or linguistic communities up to seven: Old Chinese or Proto-Sinitic (Starostin's reconstruction), Classical Tibetan, Classical Burmese, Kachin, Mizo (Lush), Lepcha, Proto-Kiranti (Starostin's reconstruction), Proto-Tibeto -Burmese (Matisoff 2003) and Proto-Sino-Tibetan (Starostin 1989, Matisoff 2003).
Sino-Tibetan lexical comparisons
| Meaning | Other- | Class. | Class.
Burmese |
Kachinsk. | Mizo
(Lush) |
Lepcha | Proto-
Kiranti |
Anti-
Tibetan Burmese |
Proto-
sino- |
| tongue) | *laj | lce | hlja | lei | li | *lja | *laj | ||
| eye | *muk | mig | myak | myiʔ | mit | mik | * mik | * mik | *myuk |
| a heart | snyiŋ | hnac | niŋ | *niŋ | *niŋ | *niŋ | |||
| ear | *nhɘʔ | (rna) | nah | na | kna | nyor | *nɘ | *na | *nɘH |
| nose | sna | hna | naʔ | hna | *nɘ | *na:r | *naʔ | ||
| leg (or similar) | *how | rkaŋ | kraŋ | kraŋ | keŋ | kaŋ | *kaŋ | *kaŋ | |
| hand (or similar) | *lɘk | lag | lak | lak | lyok | *lak | *lak | *lak | |
| blood | *switch | swiy, swe | sai | thi | (t)vi | *hi | *s-hywɘy | *ʔ w iy(s) | |
| uncle | *guʔ | khu | "uh | gu | "u | ku | *ku | *khu | *quH |
| the male | *pa | pha | phaʔ | *ba | *pw a | *pa, *ba | |||
| louse | *srit | s(r)ig | ciʔ | hrik | *srik | *r(j)ik | *srik | ||
| dog | *kh w in | khyi | lhwiy | gui | "ui | *khlɘ | *k wey | *qh w iy | |
| sun, day | *nit | nyi(n) | niy | ʃa-ni | ni | nyi | *nɘy | *nɘy | *niy |
| a rock | *nlaŋʔ | nluŋ | luŋ | luŋ | *luŋ | *luŋ | *(n)laŋ, *(n)luŋ | ||
| river | lu | luaiy | lui | lui | *lwiy | *luy | |||
| house | *kuŋ | khyim | "im | ʃe-kum | "in | khyum | *kim | *yim, *yum | *qim, *qiŋ |
| name | *mheŋ | miŋ | miŋ | mjiŋ | hmiŋ | *miŋ | *miŋ | *mieŋ | |
| kill | *srat | gsod | sat | gɘsat | that | *set | *sat | *sat | |
| dead | *smɘŋ | . | mhaŋ | maŋ | maŋ | Mak | *maŋ | *(s)maŋ | |
| long | *pack | "phag | paŋ | pak | *pak, *paŋ | *pack | |||
| short | *tonʔ | thuŋ | tauŋh | ge-dun | tan | *toŋ | *twan | *toŋ | |
| two | *niys | gnyis | ŋi | hni | nyi | *ni(k) | *ni | *niy | |
| I | *ŋha | la | la | ŋai | Lei | *la | *la | ||
| you | *nhaʔ | naŋ | naŋ | naŋ | *naŋ | *naŋ |
possessiveness
possessiveness(possession) in the Sino-Tibetan languages is expressed with the help of possessive postpositions (particles) after the word being defined. For Tibetan and Burmese, the coincidence of these particles is one of the manifestations of their distant relationship.
The Sino-Tibetan languages (Sino-Tibetan languages) are one of the largest language families in the world. Includes over 100, according to other sources, several hundred languages, from tribal to national. The total number of speakers is over 1100 million people.
In modern linguistics, the Sino-Tibetan languages are usually divided into 2 branches, different in the degree of their internal dissection and in their place on the linguistic map of the world, -- Chinese and Tibeto-Burmese. The first is formed by the Chinese language with its numerous dialects and groups of dialects. It is spoken by more than 1050 million people, including about 700 million - in the dialects of the northern group. The main area of its distribution is the PRC south of the Gobi and east of Tibet.
The rest of the Sino-Tibetan languages, numbering about 60 million speakers, are included in the Tibeto-Burmese branch. The peoples who speak these languages inhabit most of Myanmar (formerly Burma), Nepal, Bhutan, vast areas of southwestern China and northeastern India. The most important Tibeto-Burmese languages or groups of closely related languages are: Burmese (up to 30 million speakers) in Myanmar and (over 5.5 million) in Sichuan and Yunnan (PRC); Tibetan (over 5 million) in Tibet, Qinghai, Sichuan (PRC), Kashmir (northern India), Nepal, Bhutan; Karen languages (over 3 million) in Myanmar near the border with Thailand: Hani (1.25 million) in Yunnan; manipuri, or meithei (over 1 million); bodo, or kachari (750 thousand), and garo (up to 700 thousand) in India; jingpo, or kachin (about 600 thousand), in Myanmar and Yunnan; fox (up to 600 thousand) in Yunnan; Tamang (about 550 thousand), Newar (over 450 thousand) and Gurung (about 450 thousand) in Nepal. The disappearing language of the Tujia people (up to 3 million people) in Hunan (PRC) belongs to the Tibeto-Burmese branch, but by now most of the Tujia have switched to Chinese.
The Sino-Tibetan languages are syllabic, isolating, with a greater or lesser tendency to agglutinate. The main phonetic unit is the syllable, and the boundaries of syllables, as a rule, are at the same time the boundaries of morphemes or words. The sounds in the syllable are arranged in a strictly defined order (usually a noisy consonant, sonant, intermediate vowel, main vowel, consonant; all elements except the main vowel may be absent). Combinations of consonants are not found in all languages and are possible only at the beginning of a syllable. The number of consonants occurring at the end of a syllable is much less than the number of possible initial consonants (usually no more than 6-8); in some languages, only open syllables are allowed, or there is only one final nasal consonant. Many languages have a tone. In languages whose history is well known, one can observe the gradual simplification of consonantism and the complication of the system of vowels and tones.
A morpheme usually corresponds to a syllable; the root is usually immutable. However, in many languages these principles are violated. So, in the Burmese language, alternation of consonants in the root is possible; in classical Tibetan there were non-syllabic prefixes and suffixes, expressing, in particular, the grammatical categories of the verb. The predominant method of word formation is the addition of roots. The selection of a word often presents a difficult problem: it is difficult to distinguish a compound word from a phrase, an affix from a functional word. Adjectives in Sino-Tibetan languages are grammatically closer to verbs than to names; sometimes they are included in the verb category as "verbs of quality". The conversion is widespread.
Sino-Tibetan languages(formerly also called Sino-Tibetan listen)) is a large language family, common in East, Southeast and South Asia. Unites about 300 languages. The total number of speakers of these languages is at least 1.2 billion people - thus, in terms of the number of speakers, this family ranks second in the world after the Indo-European.
The Sino-Tibetan family is divided into two subfamilies - Chinese (Sinitic), consisting of several Chinese languages (called dialects for ideological reasons), including the Dungan language and Bai language, and Tibeto-Burmese (all other languages). There are more than 1 billion native Chinese speakers.
There are debatable macro-comparative theories that include the Sino-Tibetan languages in the Sino-Caucasian or macrofamily.
Genetic commonality of the Sino-Tibetan languages[ | ]
According to Benedict 1972 and Matisoff 2003, the Proto-Sino-Tibetan consonant set - which was used in its entirety primarily for root-initial consonants - consisted of the following phonemes:
/p, t, k; b, d, g; ts, dz; s, z, h; m, n, ŋ; l, r, w, j/.
In different language groups, these phonemes have the following sound correspondences as the initial consonants of the word root:
| Sino-Tib. | Tib. | Kachin. | Burm. | Garo | Mizo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *p | p(h) | p(h),b | p(h) | p(h),b | p(h) |
| *t | t(h) | t(h), d | t(h) | t(h), d | t(h) |
| *k | k(h) | k(h), g | k(h) | k(h), g | k(h) |
| *b | b | b, p(h) | p | b, p(h) | b |
| *d | d | d, t(h) | t | d, t(h) | d |
| *g | g | g, k(h) | k | g, k(h) | k |
| *ts | ts(h) | ts, dz | ts(h) | s, ts(h) | s |
| *dz | dz | dz, ts | ts | ts(h) | f |
| *s | s | s | s | th | th |
| *z | z | z | s | s | f |
| *h | h | ø | h | ø | h |
| *m | m | m | m | m | m |
| *n | n | n | n | n | n |
| *ŋ | ŋ | ŋ | ŋ | ŋ | ŋ |
| *l | l | l | l | r | l |
| *r | r | r | r | r | r |
| *w | ø | w | w | w | w |
| *j | j | j | j | ts, ds | z |
Exceptions to these correspondences, as a rule, are minor, aspiration appears only under certain conditions and is not phonemically significant. This table is based on data from Benedict 1972, where lexical comparisons are also given for these sound correspondences.
Sino-Tibetan vowel system reconstructed as /a, o, u, i, e/. Vowels can be in the middle or at the end of a syllable, but not at the beginning. It should be noted that in the proto-language, all vowels, except /a/, are extremely rare at the end of a syllable. And endings in /-Vw/ und /-Vj/ (where V is a vowel), on the contrary, are most common.
Morphology of word formation[ | ]
According to the general opinion of researchers of the proto-language, there was no classical syntactic morphology (as well as systemic morphological changes of nouns and verbs in such categories as case, number, tense, person, voice, etc.) in it. The syntactic morphology of nouns and verbs that can be traced in modern Tibeto-Burman languages should be understood as an innovation that they owe to the local influence of neighboring languages, as well as substrate languages. Due to the wide variety of such influences, completely different morphological types could form.
However, it is safe to speak of elements of word-formation morphology that are common to many Sino-Tibetan languages. Among them, consonant prefixes and suffixes should be highlighted, as well as changes in anlaut that change the meaning of verbs and nouns. The existence of common derivational affixes and alternations in Anlaut, which have the same or similar semantic effect in almost all groups of Sino-Tibetan languages, is a strong indication of their genetic commonality (examples taken from Benedict 1972, Matisoff 2003 and Thurgood 2003; in transcriptions of words from German-language sources, instead of /j/ is used /y/).
Prefix s-
Almost all Sino-Tibetan languages have pairs of semantically related words that differ from each other in their sound only sonority or deafness initial consonant. The voiced version usually has transitional meaning, and deaf - intransitive. There is a theory according to which the changes in anlaut are due to the once existing prefix *h - a non-syllable pharyngeal transitional sound (Edwin G. Pulleyblank 2000).
- Ngarang gi dep - My book.