User talk:Atanuami

Tibeto-Burman
Tibeto-Burman is not a valid grouping. Chinese (Sinitic) is much more closely related to some branches of 'Tibeto-Burman' than many of its branches. --JorisvS (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * JorisvS, but Tibeto Burman is a distinguished language family, kidnly refer to this http://stedt.berkeley.edu/about-st --Atanuami (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know Tibeto-Burman has a long history, but that does not mean it has to be kept in classifications when it only came about by lumping a disparate group of languages together by only studying a few prominent members and when more-recent and improved studies clearly show that there is no valid evidence in favor (rather the opposite). --JorisvS (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you refer to 1/2 improved studies to us. --Atanuami (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at Sino-Tibetan languages. If you'd read through the classification, you'll see what I mean, including researchers who reject the primary split of Chinese. --JorisvS (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)