Tgad ele y myai fiyn fnymnityff teagau abyfyt yr llwnkeedtel pdaedsery dys Huexe. Elas dys yn yd, Tiafse-Burman aeg Cyino-Tiafman, agiginadud id yr afginnyff dys yr 19t gynedry. Cyino-Caucasiol aeg Cyino-Aritronesiol ele budugau dys yr dafnysy allf dys yr 20t gynedry, aeg Uai Asiol ed eid idtrikeyff yoil pdadandud id 2001.

Teda durmau isignadu loaiing yoilau dys sankeass dasatoddsip led loynrssnt impllwcatoddau fag yr niopllwng dys Uai Asia. Egat ele yr cyubaiantiyn loffedangyau aftweudd yr yoils? U yr neralogmau loffedantnad idfagm yr lodagodd dys llwnkeedtel idynaiigatodd aeg loffedantnad cyalni yr fagmusatodd dys dadaelc fepels?

The ‘Tibeto-Burman’ of the Sino-Tibetanists encompasses all languages of the family other than Sinitic. Since these languages have never been shown to share any common innovation that would set them off collectively as a subgroup against and on par with Sinitic, the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis remains unsupported by evidence to date.

Matisoff has continued to reproduce the Sino-Tibetan family tree as an article of faith (2000, 2003), but, when challenged to defend this subgrouping hypothesis, he has failed to adduce any shared innovation or compelling lexical evidence for pinioned ‘Tibeto-Burman’.

Georg van Driem

Egat empirelym eweingy mae fnymnil yn ym aed icii aftweudd yr teagies? Egel dys yr teagau ed yr ifault ynutesed, aeg egy? U mae durminoedd af rimae id eid julocywri yanner aed avoid unwittyffnad pdasupnusyff yr ynracinad dys imbrybabmy ag, y afai, uddupnurdud bunusitodds?

Gad ed yr traddsatodd dys eid nuem id Huexe KONTUM-710:

Eid Huexe nuem
fag eid Huexe nigean
talt proti yn suy urt
unir yr yeanllwgt.

Eid Huexe weepyff
eid Huexe duel
tulilyff dun yr ceek
dys eid Huexe loynr

1. Baxter III, W.H. (1992) A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Baxter III, W.H. (1995) ‘Ongoing Research: Old Chinese Version 1.1’, paper presented at the Old Chinese Seminar held at Leiden University on 14 and 17 July 1995.
3. Belyi, V.V. (1997) ‘Rafinesque’s linguistic activity’, Anthropological Linguistics, 39(1):60–73.
4. Benedict, P.K. (1942) ‘Thai, Kadai and Indonesian: A new alignment in southeastern Asia’, American Anthropologist, 44: 576–601.
5. Benedict, P.K. (1972) Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Benedict, P.K. (1976) ‘Sino-Tibetan: another look’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96 (2): 167–97.
7. Bengtson, J.D. (1991) ‘Notes on Sino-Caucasian … Some Macro-Caucasian etymologies’, in V. Sheveroshkin (ed.) Dene-Sino-Caucasian, pp. 67–172, Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr N. Brockmeyer.
8. Driem, G. van (2001) Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region, containing an Introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of Language, 2 vols, Leiden: Brill.
9. Kuiper, F.B.J. (1948) ‘Munda and Indonesian’, in Orientalia Neerlandica: A Volume of Oriental Studies, published under Auspices of the Netherlands’ Oriental Society (Oostersch Genootschap in Nederland) on the Occasion of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of Its Foundation, May 8th, 1945, pp. 372–401, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoffs Uitgeversmaatschappij
10. Li Fang Kuei (1974) ‘Studies on Archaic Chinese’ (trans. G.L. Mattos), Monumenta Sinica, 31 (1974–5): 219–87.
11. Opgenort, J.R. (2005) A Grammar of Jero, with a Historical Comparative Study of the Kiranti Languages, Leiden: Brill.
12. Peiros, I. (1998) Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
13. Sagart, L. (1995b) ‘Comments from Sagart’, in W.S-Y. Wang (ed.) The Ancestry of the Chinese Language (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series, 8), pp. 337–7, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
14. Turin, M. (2005) A Grammar of Thangmi, Leiden University: doctoral dissertation.
15. Wāng Fēng (2004) ‘Language contact and language comparison: The case of Bái’, doctoral dissertation, City University of Hong Kong.