Talk:Rung languages

Incorporate this material into Tibeto-Burman languages
This article actually seems to be part of the ongoing discussion about how the many Tibeto-Burman languages are related to one another. Many of these languages are not yet well studied, so such questions are far from settled. This is not just an issue of what frameworks or theories work best; it is also factual. The underlying "facts" (vocabulary, usage and grammatical structures) of many of these languages are not yet sufficiently collected by linguists. This makes relationships conjectural and highly subject to revision as new "facts" come in.

So, can this material be incorporated into the article mentioned, and compared to other classification schemes there? LADave (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why should it not? Or are you proposing a merge? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)