Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:05:29.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sino-Bodic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

George Van Driem
George Van Driem
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In terms of number of speakers, Tibeto-Burman vies with Indo-European for the title of the world's largest language family. Yet by comparison little is known of its past. In linguistic terms, eastern Eurasia has always been much more of a terra incognita than western Eurasia. Speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages occupy a vast area in the heartland of eastern Eurasia, but Tibeto- Burman peoples are by no means the only inhabitants of the Orient. Yet at one time it was believed that virtually all languages spoken by what was impressionistically called ‘the Mongoloid race’ or ‘Mongolian races’ belonged to a vast language family known as Turanian. In the middle of the last century, Friedrich Max Müller, a celebrated champion of this theory, divided the languages of the Old World into three language families.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , October 1997 , pp. 455 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avery, John. 1885. ‘The Tibeto-Burman group of languages’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, xvi, Appendix (Morning Session, Wednesday, July 8, 1885, New Haven, Connecticut), xvii–xix.Google Scholar
Bàrtoli, Matteo. 1942. ‘Figure similari e norme spaziali’, Bollettino dell' Atlante linguistico italiano, iii: 1–22.Google Scholar
Bàrtoli, Matteo. 1945. Saggi di linguistica spaziale. Torino: Vicenza Bona.Google Scholar
Baxter, William Hubbard, iii. 1980. ‘Some proposals on Old Chinese phonology’, van Coetsem, Frans and Waugh, Linda R. (ed.), Contributions to historical linguistics: issues and materials. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 1–33.Google Scholar
Baxter, William Hubbard, iii. 1992. A handbook of Old Chinese phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, William Hubbard, iii. 1994. ‘Some phonological correspondences between Chinese and Tibeto-Burman’, in Kitamura, Hajime, Nishida, Tatsuo and Nagano, Yasuhiko (ed.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Ōsaka: Organizing Committee of the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics: 25–35.Google Scholar
Baxter, William Hubbard, iii. 1995. ‘Ongoing research: Old Chinese version 1.1’.Paper presented at the Old Chinese Seminar held at Leiden UniversityJuly 14th and 17th, 1995.Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert S.P. 1990. Vergelijkende taalwetenschap—tussen Sanskrit en Nederlands. Utrecht: Uitgeverij Het Spectrum.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul King. 1939. ‘Semantic differentiation in Indo-Chinese’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 4: 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul King. 1942. ‘Thai, Kadai, and Indonesia: A new alignment in southeastern Asia’, American Anthropologist, 44: 576–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul King. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul King. 1976. ‘Sino-Tibetan: another look’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96/2: 167–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Paul King. 1991. ‘Austric: an “extinct” proto-language’, Davidson, Jeremy H. C. S. (ed.), Austroasiatic languages: essays in honour of H. L. Shorto. London: School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London: 7–11.Google Scholar
Benedict, Paul King. 1994. ‘Proto-Tibeto-Burman/Proto-Sino-Tibetan pronominals/pronominalization: a note on systemic dyschronicity’, in Kitamura, Hajime, Nishida, Tatsuo and Nagano, Yasuhiko (ed.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Ōsaka: Organizing Committee of the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics: 633–636.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1995. ‘An Austronesianist looks at Sino-Austronesian’, in Wang, (ed.), 283–298.Google Scholar
Bodman, Nicholas Cleaveland. 1980. ‘Proto-Chinese and Sino-Tibetan: data towards establishing the nature of the relationship’, in van Coetsem, Frans and Waugh, Linda R. (eds.), Contributions to historical linguistics: issues and materials. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 34–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwight, Bolinger. 1975. Aspects of language (second ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.Google Scholar
Bopp, Franz. 1816. Ueber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache, nebst Episoden des Ramajan und Mahabharat in genauen metrischen Uebersetzungen aus dem Originaltexte und einigen Abschnitten aus den Veda's, Frankfurt am Main: Die Andreäische Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 1994a. ‘Tibeto-Burman’, in Mosely, Christopher and Asher, R. E. (ed.), Atlas of the world's languages. London: Routledge: 168–181.Google Scholar
Bradley, David. 1994b. ‘The subgrouping of Proto-Tibeto-Burman’, in Kitamura, Hajime, Nishida, Tatsuo and Nagano, Yasuhiko (ed.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Ōsaka: Organizing Committee of the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics: 59–78.Google Scholar
Brown, N. 1837. ‘Comparison of Indo-Chinese languages’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 6/2: 1023–1038.Google Scholar
Burling, Robert. 1983. ‘The Sal languages’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7/2: 1–32.Google Scholar
Chalmers, John. 1866. The origin of the Chinese: an attempt to trace the connection of the Chinese with Western nations in their religion, superstitions, arts, language and traditions. Hong Kong: De Souza & Co.Google Scholar
Civil, Miguel. 1973. ‘The Sumerian Writing System: Some Problems’, Orientalia, New Series 42: 21–34.Google Scholar
Coblin, Weldon South. 1986. A Sinologist's handlist of Sino-Tibetan lexical comparisons. (Monumenta Serica Monograph Series, xviii.) Nettetal: Steyler Verlag.Google Scholar
Coblin, Weldon South. 1995. ‘Review article: William H. Baxter, A handbook of Old Chinese phonology’, Monumenta Serica: Journal of Oriental Studies, xliii: 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coblin, Weldon South and Norman, Jerry L.. 1995. ‘A new approach to Chinese historical linguistics’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115/4: 576–584.Google Scholar
Cœdès, Georges. 1948. ‘Les langues de l'lndochine’, Conférences de l'Institut de Linguistique de l'Université de Paris viii (Années 1940–1948): 63–81.Google Scholar
Conrady, August. 1896. Eine indochinesische Causativ-Denominate-Bildung und ihr Zusammenhang mit den Tonaccenten: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Grammatik der indochinesischen Sprachen, insonderheit des Tibetischen, Barmanischen, Siamesischen und Chinesischen. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Conrady, August. 1916. ‘Eine merkwürdige Beziehung zwischen den austrischen und den indochinesischen Sprachen’, Aufsätze zur Kultur-und Sprachgeschichte vornehmlich des Orients: Ernst Kuhn zum 70. Geburtstage am 7. Februar 1916 gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern. München: Verlag von M. & H. Marcus, 475–504.Google Scholar
Conrady, August. 1922. ‘Neue austrisch-indochinesische Parallelen’, Asia Major: Hirth Anniversary Volume. London: Robsthan and Company: 23–66.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1955. ‘La geografía lingüística’, Revista de la Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias (Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo), 14: 29–69.Google Scholar
Courant, Maurice. 1903. ‘Note sur l'existence, pour certains caracteres chinois, de deux lectures, distinguées par les finales k-ṅ, t-n, p-m’, Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, xii: 67–72.Google Scholar
De Lacouperie, Terrien. 1887. ‘The languages of China before the Chinese’, Transactions of the Philological Society (London), 1885–87: 394–538.Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gérard. 1994. ‘The lexical evidence for Austric, so far’, Oceanic Linguistics, 33/2: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downer, G. B. 1959. ‘Derivation by tone change on Classical Chinese’, BSOAS, 22/2: 258–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. West Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1990. ‘The fall and rise of the phoneme /r/ in Eastern Kiranti: sound change in Tibeto-Burman’, BSOAS, 53/1: 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1991. Guide to official Dzongkha romanization. Thimphu: Royal Government of Bhutan.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1993a. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1993b. ‘The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system’, BSOAS, 56/2: 292–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 1995a. ‘Black Mountain conjugational morphology, Proto-Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax. and the linguistic position of Chinese’, in Nishi, Yoshio, Matisoff, James Alan and , Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.), New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax. (Senri Ethnological Studies, 41.) Ōsaka: National Museum of Ethnology: 229–259.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1995b. Een eerste grammaticale verkenning van het Bumthang, een taal van Midden-Bhutan—met een overzicht van de talen en volkeren van Bhutan. Leiden: Centrum voor Niet-Westerse Studiën.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. (forthcoming a.) ‘Neolithic correlates of ancient Tibeto-Burman migrations’, in Blench, Roger (ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. (forthcoming b.) ‘The Toto language of the Bhutanese duars’.Google Scholar
Finck, Franz Nikolaus. 1909. Die Sprachstämme des Erdkreises. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Forbes, C. J. F. S. 1878. ‘On Tibeto-Burman languages’, JRAS, N.S. x: 210–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, C. J. F. S. 1882. Comparative grammar of the languages of Further India: a fragment and other essays. London: W. H. Allen and Company.Google Scholar
Forchhammer, Emile. 1882. ‘Indo-Chinese languages’, Indian Antiquary, xi: 177–189.Google Scholar
Gernet, Jacques. 1984. ‘La vie et l'œuvre’, in Hommage à Henri Maspéro 1883–1945. Paris: Fondation Singer-Polignac: 15–24.Google Scholar
Gong, Yushu, 1993. Studien zur Bildung und Entwicklung der Keilschriftzeichen. (Schriftenreihe Antiquates, Bd. 7.) Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovaĉ.Google Scholar
Green, M. W. 1991. ‘Early cuneiform’, in Senner, Wayne M. (ed.), The origins of writing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 43–57.Google Scholar
Grierson, George Abraham (ed.). 1909. Linguistic Survey of India (Vol. iii. Part I, Tibeto-Burman family: Tibetan dialects, the Himalayan dialects and the North Assam group). Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India.Google Scholar
Grube, Wilhelm. 1881. Die sprachgeschichtliche Stellung des Chinesischen. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr.. 1980. ‘The gradual decline of case in Romance substantives’, van Coetsem, Frans and Waugh, Linda R. (ed.), Contributions to historical linguistics: issues and materials. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1954. ‘De l'origine des tons en viētnamien’, Journal Asiatique, 242: 68–82.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Brian Houghton. 1849. ‘On the Aborigines of Nor-Eastern India’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, cciii (May 1849): 451–460.Google Scholar
Hunter, William W. 1868. A comparative dictionary of the non-Aryan languages of India and High Asia. London: Trübner and Company.Google Scholar
Jaxontov, Sergej Evgenieviĉ. 1959. ‘Fonetika kitajskogo jazyka I tysjaĉeletija do n.è. (sistema finalej)’, Problemy Vostokovedenija, 2: 137–147.Google Scholar
Jaxontov, Sergej Evgenieviĉ. 1965. Drevnekitajskij jazyk. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1920. ‘Le proto-chinois, langue flexionnelle’, Journal Asiatique, xie Serie, Tome xv: 205–232.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1923. Analytic dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese. Paris: Geuthner.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1933. ‘Word families in Chinese’, Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 5: 9–120.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernahrd. 1957. Grammata Serica Recensa ( = Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 29: 1–332).Google Scholar
Keping ( = von Kepping), Borisovna, Ksenija. 1985. Tangutskij jazyk: morfologija. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Keping ( = von Kepping), Borisovna, Ksenija. 1994. ‘The conjugation of the Tangut verb’, BSOAS, 57/2: 339–346.Google Scholar
Klaproth, Julius. 1823. Asia Polyglotta. Paris: A. Schubart.Google Scholar
Krecher, Joachim. 1967. ‘Die sumerischen Texte in “syllabischer” Orthographie’, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 58: 16–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Ernst. 1883. Ueber Herkunft und Sprache der transgangetischen Völker. Festrede zur Vorfeier des AHerhöchsten Geburts-und Namensfestes Seiner Majestät des Königs Ludwig II., gehalten in der öffentlichen Sitzung der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München am 25. Juli 1881. München: Verlag der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Ernst. 1889. ‘Beiträge zur Sprachenkunde Hinterindiens’ (Sitzung vom 2. März 1889), Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (München), Philosophisch-philologische Classe ii: 189–236.Google Scholar
Labat, René. 1948. Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne (signes, syllabaire. idéogrammes). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
Lepsius, . 1861. ‘Über die Umschrift und Lautverhältnisse einiger hinterasiatischer Sprachen, namentlich der Chinesischen und der Tibetischen’. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin aus dem Jahre 1860, 449–496.Google Scholar
Leyden, J. 1808. ‘On the languages and literature of the Indo-Chinese nations’, Asiatic Researches, x: 158–289.Google Scholar
Li, Fang Kuei [ = Lî Fānggui]. 1974. ‘Studies on Archaic Chinese’ (tr. by Mattos, G. L.), Monumenta Serica, xxxi (1974–1975): 219–287.Google Scholar
Li, Fang Kuei [ = Lî Fānggui]. 1977. A Handbook of comparative Tai (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication, no. 15.) Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Li, Fang Kuei [ = Lî Fānggui]. 1983. ‘Archaic Chinese’, in Keightley, David N. (ed.), The origins of Chinese civilization. Berkeley: University of California Press: 393–408.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jenkuei. 1995. ‘Is Chinese genetically related to Austronesian’, in Wang, (ed.), 93–112.Google Scholar
John, Logan. 1858. ‘The West-Himalaic or Tibetan tribes of Asam, Burma and Pegu’, Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia (Singapore), ii/1: 68–114.Google Scholar
Lubotsky, Alexander, (forthcoming). ‘Tocharian loan words in Old Chinese: Chariots, chariot gear and town building’.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Colonel George Byres. 1876. A grammar of the Róng (Lepcha) language, as it exists in the Dorjiling and Sikim Hills. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Colonel George Byres. 1889. Dictionary of the Lepcha language (revised and completed by Albert Grünwedel). Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.Google Scholar
Maspéro, Henri Paul Gaston. 1912. ‘Études sur la phonétique historique de la langue annamite’, Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient, xii/1: 1–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maspéro, Henri Paul Gaston. 1948 (posthumous). ‘Notes sur la morphologie du tibéto-birman et du munda’, Bulletin de la Sociétê Linguistique de Paris, xliv: 155–185.Google Scholar
Maspéro, Henri Paul Gaston. 1952 (posthumous). ‘Langues de l'Asie du sud-est’, in (ed.) Meillet, Antoine and Cohen, Marcel, Les langues du monde. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: 523–644.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1994. ‘Manner vs. place of articulation in the Kiranti initial stops’, in Kitamura, Hajime, Nishida, Tatsuo and Nagano, Yasuhiko (eds.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Ōsaka: Organizing Committee of the 26th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, 59–78.Google Scholar
Miller, Roy Andrew. 1988. ‘The Sino-Tibetan hypothesis’, Bulletin of the School of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, lix/2: 509–540.Google Scholar
Müller, Friedrich Max. 1855. Languages of the seat of war in the East, with a survey of the three families of language, Semitic, Arian, and Turanian (frontispiece title: Max Mütter's Survey of languages) (second ed.) London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Müller, Friedrich Max. 1881. Selected essays on language, mythology and religion (2 vols.). London: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
Müller, Friedrich Max. 1901 (posthumous). My autobiography. London: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
Pott, August Friedrich. 1887. Zur Litteratur der Sprachenkunde Europas. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1962. ‘The consonantal system of Old Chinese’, Asia Major (New Series) ix/1: 58–144, (2) 206–265.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1973a. ‘Some further evidence regarding Old Chinese -s and its time of disappearance’, BSOAS 36/2: 368–373.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1973b. ‘Some new hypotheses concerning word families in Chinese’, Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 1: 111–125.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1984. Middle Chinese: a study in historical phonology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Earlv Mandarin. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1995. ‘Comments from Pulleyblank’, in Wang, (ed.), 325–335.Google Scholar
Rask, Rasmus Kristian. 1834 (posthumous). Samlede tildels forhen utrykte afhandlinger. (2 vols.) Copenhagen: det Poppske Bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A. 1994. ‘Morphological evidence for Austric’, Oceanic Linguistics, 33/2: 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiner, Erica. 1973. ‘How we can read cuneiform texts’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, xxv/1: 3–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1990. ‘Chinese and Austronesian are genetically related’.Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (5 to 7 October), University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1994. ‘Proto-Austronesian and Old Chinese evidence for Sino-Austronesian’, Oceanic Linguistics 33/2: 271–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1995a. ‘Some remarks on the ancestry of Chinese’, in Wang, (ed.), 195–223.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1995b. ‘Comments from Sagart’, in Wang, (ed.), 337–372.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1978 [first published 1921]. Language: an introduction to the study of speech. London: Granada Publishing.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich. 1808. Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein Beitrag zur Begruendung der Alterthumskunde, nebst metrischen Uebersetzungen indischer Gedichte. Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Gustave. 1902. Siamese studies. (T' oung-pao, New Series II, Vol. ii, Supplement.) Leiden.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes. 1872. Die Verwantschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1906. ‘Die Mon-Khmer Völker, ein Bindeglied zwischen Volkern Zentral-Asiens und Austronesiens’, Archiv für Anthropologie, Neue Folge, v, 59–109.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1926. Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde. [2 vols., the second of which is an atlas]. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1930. ‘Die Beziehungen der austrischen Sprachen zum Japanischen’, Wiener Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik, Veröffentlichungen des Institutes für Völkerkunde an der Universität Wien, i, 239–251.Google Scholar
Schott, Wilhelm. 1856. ‘Uuml;ber die sogenanten indo-chinesischen Sprachen insonderheit das Siamische’, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin aus dem Jahre 1856 (philosophisch-historische Klasse), 161–179.Google Scholar
Schüssler, Axel. 1976. Affixes in Proto-Chinese. (Münchener Ostasiatische Studien, 18.) Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Schüssler, Axel. 1987. A dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1954. ‘The linguistic position of Dwags’, Oriens, Zeitschrift der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Orientforschung, 7: 348–356.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1955. ‘Classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages’, Word, Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York, 11: 94–111.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Shaughnessy, Edward L. 1988. ‘Historical perspectives on the introduction of the chariot into China’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 48/1: 189–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Walter. 1929. ‘Tibetisch-chinesische Wortgleichungen, ein Versuch’, Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin, xxxii/1: 157–228.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergej Anatol'eviĉ. 1989. Rekonstrukcija drevnekitajskoj fonologiĉeskoj sistemy. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergej Anatol'eviĉ. 1994. ‘The reconstruction of Proto-Kiranti’.Paper presented at the 27éme Congrés International sur les Langues et la Linguistique Sino-Tibétaines, Centre International d'Études Pédagogiques à Sévres,14 octobre 1994.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergej Anatol'eviĉ. 1995a. ‘Old Chinese vocabulary: A historical perspective’, in Wang, (ed.), 225–251.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergej Anatol'eviĉ. 1995b. ‘Comments from Starostin’, in Wang, (ed.), 393–404.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Marie-Louise. 1984. The Sumerian language, an introduction to its history and grammatical structure. (Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studíes in Assyriology, 10.) København: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 1985. ‘Pronouns, verbal agreement systems, and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burmana’, in Thurgood, Graham, Matisoff, James Alan and Bradley, David (ed.), Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area: the state of the art—papers presented to Paul K. Benedict for his list birthday. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics: 376–400.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. (ed.). 1995. The ancestry of the Chinese language. (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series, no. 8.) Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Wulff, K. 1934. Chinesiscli und Tai: Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen. (Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser, xx, 3.) Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Xylander, Joseph Ritter von. 1835. Die Sprache der Albanesen oder Schkipetaren. Frankfurt am Main: Die Andreäische Buchhandlung.Google Scholar