Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.
Unsaved Work Found!
It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?
Total Categories: 5
The nomenclature of the Tibeto-Burman language group is derived from the Tibetan and Burmese languages.
Answer: True
The designation 'Tibeto-Burman' is derived from the Tibetan and Burmese languages, which are prominent members of this linguistic family.
Proto-Tibeto-Burman is posited as the reconstructed ancestral language for the Tibeto-Burman linguistic branch.
Answer: True
Linguistic reconstruction posits Proto-Tibeto-Burman as the hypothetical common ancestor from which the diverse Tibeto-Burman languages evolved.
The ISO 639-5 code designated for the Tibeto-Burman language group is 'st'.
Answer: False
The ISO 639-5 code assigned to the Tibeto-Burman language group is 'tbq', not 'st'.
The 'Authority control databases' section provides links to standardized identifiers for the topic to ensure consistency.
Answer: True
The 'Authority control databases' section serves to link the topic (Tibeto-Burman languages) to standardized identifiers across diverse library and database systems, thereby promoting terminological consistency and aiding research.
The 'Sino-Tibetan branches' navbox visually organizes and links various proposed subgroups within the Sino-Tibetan family.
Answer: True
A 'Sino-Tibetan branches' navbox visually delineates and connects proposed subgroups and proto-languages within the Sino-Tibetan family, frequently organized by geographical areas such as the Himalayas, the Myanmar border region, East/Southeast Asia, and Arunachal Pradesh.
How are the Tibeto-Burman languages primarily defined within the broader linguistic landscape?
Answer: The non-Chinese members of the Sino-Tibetan language family.
Tibeto-Burman languages constitute the non-Chinese branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family, comprising more than 400 distinct languages distributed across various regions of Asia.
What is the approximate number of speakers for the Tibeto-Burman language family globally?
Answer: Around 60 million
Approximately 60 million individuals speak Tibeto-Burman languages. The group's designation is derived from Burmese and Tibetic, both of which are distinguished by extensive literary traditions extending back centuries.
What is the designation for the reconstructed proto-language of the Tibeto-Burman linguistic family?
Answer: Proto-Tibeto-Burman
Proto-Tibeto-Burman is the term used for the hypothetical common ancestor language from which the diverse Tibeto-Burman languages are believed to have evolved.
What is the ISO 639-5 code assigned to the Tibeto-Burman language group?
Answer: tbq
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has assigned the code 'tbq' to the Tibeto-Burman language group under its 639-5 standard.
How is the Tibeto-Burman language group relationally situated within the larger Sino-Tibetan language family?
Answer: Tibeto-Burman languages constitute the non-Chinese branch of the Sino-Tibetan family.
Tibeto-Burman languages form the non-Chinese component of the Sino-Tibetan language family, comprising more than 400 distinct languages distributed across various regions of Asia.
Tibeto-Burman languages are exclusively confined to the geographical region of East Asia.
Answer: False
Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken across a broader geographical area than just East Asia, encompassing parts of Southeast Asia and South Asia as well.
The Lolo-Burmese language group is primarily concentrated in the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia.
Answer: False
The Lolo-Burmese languages are predominantly spoken in Myanmar and the highlands of southwest China, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, not primarily in the Indian subcontinent or Central Asia.
Tibetic languages are spoken by over eight million individuals, predominantly on the Tibetan Plateau and in adjacent areas such as Nepal and Bhutan.
Answer: True
The statement accurately reflects the demographic and geographic distribution of Tibetic languages, spoken by more than eight million people across the Tibetan Plateau and neighboring regions.
The Tani languages are predominantly located in the mountainous regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Answer: False
The Tani languages are primarily spoken in Arunachal Pradesh, India, and adjacent regions of Tibet, not in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The highest concentration of diversity within the Tibeto-Burman language family is found in the lowlands of Southeast Asia.
Answer: False
The greatest diversity of Tibeto-Burman languages and subgroups is actually concentrated in the highlands of Southeast Asia, particularly in the region known as 'Zomia'.
"Zomia" is a term referring to a specific language spoken in the Himalayas.
Answer: False
'Zomia' refers to a geographical region, the Southeast Asian Massif, not a specific language.
In the context of Tibeto-Burman linguistic studies, what geographical area is commonly designated as 'Zomia'?
Answer: The Southeast Asian Massif.
'Zomia' is a conceptual term designating the Southeast Asian Massif, a highland area characterized by a high prevalence of Tibeto-Burman language speakers.
In which geographical areas is the Lolo-Burmese language group predominantly spoken?
Answer: Myanmar and the highlands of southwest China, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam.
The Lolo-Burmese languages constitute a well-defined group comprising roughly 100 languages, predominantly spoken in Myanmar and the highland regions of Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, and southwest China.
What are the primary geographical locations where the Tani languages are spoken?
Answer: In Arunachal Pradesh, India, and adjacent regions of Tibet.
The Tani languages constitute the majority of Tibeto-Burman languages found within Arunachal Pradesh, India, and adjacent territories of Tibet.
Where is the greatest concentration of diversity among Tibeto-Burman languages and their subgroups found?
Answer: The highlands stretching from northern Myanmar to northeast India.
The greatest concentration of diversity within the Tibeto-Burman language family is located in the highlands extending from northern Myanmar into northeast India.
The Karen languages are primarily spoken in the highlands of China and Vietnam.
Answer: False
Karen languages are predominantly spoken along the Burma-Thailand border, not primarily in China and Vietnam.
Burmese holds the distinction of being the most widely spoken Tibeto-Burman language, possessing a literary tradition that dates back to the 12th century.
Answer: True
This statement is accurate; Burmese is the most populous Tibeto-Burman language and has a documented literary history commencing in the 12th century.
Prominent Tibeto-Burman language groups situated on the southern slopes of the Himalayas include the Tani and Lolo-Burmese languages.
Answer: False
While Tani languages are found on the southern Himalayan slopes, Lolo-Burmese languages are primarily located further south and east. Other significant groups in the Himalayan region include Kiranti and Tamangic languages.
The Newar language, also known as Nepal Bhasa, is characterized by a substantial speaker population and a literary corpus dating back to the 12th century.
Answer: True
This assertion is correct; Newar possesses a significant number of speakers and a literary tradition originating in the 12th century.
The linguistic classification known as "Sal languages," or Brahmaputran, encompasses the Boro–Garo and Konyak language groups.
Answer: True
The 'Sal languages,' also referred to as Brahmaputran, are indeed recognized as including the Boro–Garo and Konyak language families.
What distinguishing characteristic do the Burmese and Tibetic languages share within the Tibeto-Burman linguistic family?
Answer: They possess extensive literary traditions dating back centuries.
Burmese and Tibetic are notable within the Tibeto-Burman family for their extensive literary traditions, dating back centuries (Burmese from the 12th century, Tibetic from the 7th century).
Which Tibeto-Burman language is the most widely spoken and serves as the national language of Myanmar?
Answer: Burmese
Burmese, the national language of Myanmar, is the most widely spoken Tibeto-Burman language, boasting over 32 million speakers and a literary tradition originating in the 12th century.
Identify a major Tibeto-Burman language group situated on the southern slopes of the Himalayas.
Answer: Kiranti
Kiranti languages represent a major Tibeto-Burman group found on the southern slopes of the Himalayas, alongside others like West Himalayish and Tamangic.
The significance of the Newar language (Nepal Bhasa) lies in its:
Answer: A million speakers and literature dating back to the 12th century.
The Newar language (Nepal Bhasa) is significant due to its approximately one million speakers and a literary tradition that dates back to the 12th century.
Which of the following language families are classified under the 'Sal languages,' also known as Brahmaputran?
Answer: Boro–Garo and Konyak
The 'Sal languages,' also termed Brahmaputran, encompass at minimum the Boro–Garo and Konyak language families, spoken across northern Myanmar and into northeastern India.
Which of the following is NOT listed as a major Tibeto-Burman group found on the southern slopes of the Himalayas?
Answer: Lolo-Burmese
While West Himalayish, Tamangic, and Kiranti are major Tibeto-Burman groups found on the southern Himalayan slopes, Lolo-Burmese languages are primarily located further south and east.
According to James Matisoff, why is the Jingpho–Nungish–Luish group considered central to the Tibeto-Burman family?
Answer: It contains features found in many other branches and is geographically central.
James Matisoff regarded the Jingpho–Nungish–Luish group as central to the Tibeto-Burman family due to its possession of features common to many other branches and its geographically central position within the Tibeto-Burman speaking territories.
In James Matisoff's 2015 classification, what does the 'Northeast Indian areal group' encompass?
Answer: A classification including languages like Tani, Kuki-Chin, and Sal languages.
Matisoff's 2015 classification designates the 'Northeast Indian areal group' to include languages such as Tani, Deng (Digaro), Kuki-Chin, various Naga languages, Meithei, Karbi, Mru, and the Sal languages.
What does the term 'Himalayish' signify within certain Tibeto-Burman classification schemes?
Answer: A grouping of languages from the Himalayan region, like Tibeto-Kanauri and Kiranti.
In specific classification frameworks, such as Matisoff's 2015 work, 'Himalayish' denotes a grouping of languages originating from the Himalayan region, including Tibeto-Kanauri, Newar, Kiranti, and Kham-Magar-Chepang languages.
The term 'Tibeto-Burman' was initially proposed by James Logan during the 20th century.
Answer: False
James Logan first proposed the term 'Tibeto-Burman' in the mid-19th century, specifically in 1856, not the 20th century.
The 'Indo-Chinese' language family, as conceptualized by Ernst Kuhn and August Conrady, comprised exclusively Tibeto-Burman languages.
Answer: False
The 'Indo-Chinese' family proposed by Kuhn and Conrady included both Tibeto-Burman languages and the Chinese-Siamese (Tai) languages, not solely Tibeto-Burman.
In 2015, Scott DeLancey advanced the concept of a 'Central branch' within Tibeto-Burman, predicated on phonological evidence.
Answer: False
Scott DeLancey's 2015 proposal for a 'Central branch' of Tibeto-Burman was based on morphological evidence, not phonological evidence.
In his 1955 classification, Robert Shafer posited Sinitic as a primary branch of equal standing to Tibeto-Burman within the Sino-Tibetan family.
Answer: True
Shafer's influential 1955 classification framework treated Sinitic as a distinct primary branch, parallel to Tibeto-Burman, within the Sino-Tibetan macrofamily.
Paul K. Benedict's 1972 classification posited that the Tibeto-Burman languages diverged first from the Sino-Tibetan proto-language.
Answer: False
Benedict's 1972 classification proposed that Chinese (Sinitic) was the first major branch to diverge from Sino-Tibetan, followed by a 'Tibeto-Karen' group.
James Matisoff's classification framework designates the Karen languages as a primary branch distinct from Tibeto-Burman.
Answer: False
Contrary to the statement, James Matisoff's classification demoted Karen from a primary branch, placing it within the Tibeto-Burman group.
George van Driem's linguistic model equates the Tibeto-Burman language family with the entirety of the Sino-Tibetan language family.
Answer: True
George van Driem proposes a controversial view where the Tibeto-Burman family is considered synonymous with the Sino-Tibetan language family.
Brian Houghton Hodgson played a pivotal role in gathering data on Himalayan languages and identifying their connections to Tibetan and Burmese.
Answer: True
Brian Houghton Hodgson's extensive work collecting data on Himalayan languages was crucial in establishing their relationship to Tibetan and Burmese.
Paul K. Benedict's 1972 classification proposed that Karen languages constituted a primary branch co-equal with Tibeto-Burman, forming a 'Tibeto-Karen' grouping.
Answer: True
Benedict's influential 1972 model indeed posited a 'Tibeto-Karen' group, wherein Karen languages were considered a primary branch alongside Tibeto-Burman.
George van Driem advocates for the highest-level division of the Sino-Tibetan language family into Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman branches.
Answer: False
George van Driem's perspective challenges the traditional split, proposing instead that Tibeto-Burman and Sino-Tibetan are essentially equivalent.
Who is credited with first proposing the term 'Tibeto-Burman' for this language group, and in which year?
Answer: James Logan, 1856
James Logan first proposed the term 'Tibeto-Burman' in 1856, marking an early step in the classification of this language group.
Which language groups were encompassed by the 'Indo-Chinese' family, a concept proposed in the late 19th century?
Answer: Tibeto-Burman and Chinese-Siamese (including Tai)
The 'Indo-Chinese' family, proposed by Ernst Kuhn and August Conrady, incorporated both Tibeto-Burman languages and the Chinese-Siamese (Tai) languages.
What specific type of linguistic evidence formed the basis for Scott DeLancey's 2015 proposal of a 'Central branch' within Tibeto-Burman?
Answer: Morphological evidence
Scott DeLancey's 2015 proposal for a 'Central branch' of Tibeto-Burman was based on morphological evidence.
What was Robert Shafer's 1955 classification's perspective on the relationship between Sinitic (Chinese) and Tibeto-Burman languages?
Answer: Sinitic was a branch on the same level as other Tibeto-Burman branches within Sino-Tibetan.
Shafer's classification treated Sinitic (Chinese) as a distinct primary branch, parallel to other Tibeto-Burman branches, within the overarching Sino-Tibetan family.
Following the initial divergence of Chinese from Sino-Tibetan, what structural arrangement did Paul K. Benedict propose in his 1972 classification?
Answer: Chinese first, then a "Tibeto-Karen" group.
Benedict's classification proposed that Chinese (Sinitic) was the first major branch to diverge from Sino-Tibetan, followed by a 'Tibeto-Karen' group, which subsequently encompassed both Tibeto-Burman languages and Karen languages.
Following the initial divergence of Chinese from Sino-Tibetan, which group did Benedict's influential 1972 classification propose as the subsequent major division?
Answer: Tibeto-Karen
Benedict's influential 1972 classification proposed that after Chinese (Sinitic) diverged, the next major division was the 'Tibeto-Karen' group.
There is universal consensus among historical linguists that Tibeto-Burman constitutes a distinct, unified clade within the Sino-Tibetan family.
Answer: False
The classification of Tibeto-Burman as a single, unified clade within Sino-Tibetan is a subject of ongoing debate among historical linguists, with some questioning the evidence for clear shared innovations across all its branches.
The study of numerous Tibeto-Burman languages is facilitated by their prevalence in urban centers and the existence of standardized written forms.
Answer: False
The study of many Tibeto-Burman languages is often challenging due to their speakers residing in remote areas and the frequent absence of standardized written forms.
The classification of the Bai language is unambiguous and universally recognized as a standard Tibeto-Burman language.
Answer: False
The classification of the Bai language is contentious; some linguists propose it may be more closely related to Chinese or represent a distinct lineage, rather than being a typical Tibeto-Burman language.
Pyu and Tangut are historical Tibeto-Burman languages whose precise affiliations within the family have been definitively established.
Answer: False
The precise affiliations of the historical languages Pyu and Tangut within the Tibeto-Burman family remain uncertain, despite available textual and epigraphic evidence.
The classification of the Tujia language is uncomplicated owing to its minimal borrowing from other languages.
Answer: False
The classification of the Tujia language is complicated by extensive lexical borrowing from other languages, making its precise placement challenging.
James Matisoff observed that the majority of Tibeto-Burman language branches predominantly exhibit Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order.
Answer: False
James Matisoff noted that while two branches (Baic and Karenic) feature SVO word order, most other Tibeto-Burman branches primarily utilize Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) word order.
The 'Pai-lang songs,' dating from the 1st century CE, offer early linguistic evidence for the Lolo-Burmese group, transcribed using Tibetan script.
Answer: False
The 'Pai-lang songs' are significant for containing words believed to be from a Lolo-Burmese language, but they are transcribed in Chinese characters, not Tibetan script.
It is generally simpler to establish a language's membership within the broader Tibeto-Burman family than it is to determine its exact position within the complex subgroupings.
Answer: True
Conversely, it is typically more straightforward to identify a language as belonging to the Tibeto-Burman family than it is to precisely determine its specific subgroup affiliation due to the complexity of internal classifications.
The Karen languages exhibit a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) word order, which is characteristic of many Tibeto-Burman languages.
Answer: False
Karen languages are an exception, typically exhibiting Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order, unlike the more common SOV order found in many other Tibeto-Burman languages.
What is the primary reason some historical linguists express skepticism regarding the classification of Tibeto-Burman as a singular, unified branch of Sino-Tibetan?
Answer: Because the non-Sinitic languages lack clear shared innovations to establish them as a single clade.
Skepticism arises because the non-Sinitic languages, collectively termed Tibeto-Burman, have not consistently demonstrated clear shared innovations in phonology or morphology, which are crucial for establishing a definitive single clade within the Sino-Tibetan phylogenetic tree.
What are the principal obstacles hindering the comprehensive study of numerous Tibeto-Burman languages?
Answer: They are often spoken in remote mountain areas and many lack standardized written forms.
The study of many Tibeto-Burman languages presents challenges due to their speakers' frequent habitation in remote mountainous regions and the common absence of standardized written forms.
What is distinctive about the word order typically found in Karen languages?
Answer: They exhibit Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order.
Karen languages are an exception, typically exhibiting Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order, unlike the more common SOV order found in many other Tibeto-Burman languages.
What is the hypothesized cause for the prevalence of Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order in Karen languages?
Answer: Contact with Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic languages.
The Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order characteristic of Karen languages is widely believed to stem from linguistic contact and influence exerted by neighboring Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic language families.
What aspect of the Bai language's classification renders it controversial among linguists?
Answer: Some linguists propose it might be a sister language to Chinese, not typically Tibeto-Burman.
The Bai language is controversial because certain linguists suggest it may function as a sister language to Chinese, rather than being a typical member of the Tibeto-Burman family.
Identify the historical Tibeto-Burman languages whose precise affiliations within the family remain uncertain.
Answer: Pyu and Tangut
Pyu and Tangut are recognized as historical Tibeto-Burman languages; however, their precise affiliations within the family remain uncertain, notwithstanding the available epigraphic and textual evidence.
What factor complicates the linguistic classification of the Tujia language?
Answer: It has undergone extensive borrowing from other languages.
The classification of the Tujia language is rendered difficult by substantial lexical borrowing from other languages, making its precise placement challenging.
What key observation did James Matisoff make regarding word order variations across Tibeto-Burman language branches?
Answer: Only two branches (Baic and Karenic) have SVO; others are primarily SOV.
James Matisoff observed that two Tibeto-Burman branches, Baic and Karenic, exhibit Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order, whereas the remaining five branches predominantly employ Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) word order.
What is the significance of the 'Pai-lang songs,' dating to the 1st century CE, in linguistic studies?
Answer: Contain words believed to be from a Lolo-Burmese language, transcribed in Chinese characters.
The 'Pai-lang songs,' dating to the 1st century CE and transcribed in Chinese characters, are significant as they are believed to contain vocabulary from a Lolo-Burmese language, providing early linguistic evidence for the group.
According to Blench and Post, what is the primary point of contention concerning the classification of certain languages in Arunachal Pradesh?
Answer: They might have non-Tibeto-Burman origins or be language isolates.
Blench and Post raise the contention that some languages indigenous to Arunachal Pradesh may possess non-Tibeto-Burman origins or exist as language isolates, thereby questioning their definitive placement within the Sino-Tibetan family.
What is the hypothesized origin of the Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order observed in Karen languages?
Answer: It is believed to be due to contact with Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic languages.
The Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order characteristic of Karen languages is widely believed to stem from linguistic contact and influence exerted by neighboring Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic language families.
Which statement regarding the classification of Tibeto-Burman languages is substantiated by the provided source material?
Answer: George van Driem rejects the traditional split between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman.
George van Driem challenges the traditional Sino-Tibetan dichotomy, proposing instead that the Tibeto-Burman family is essentially coextensive with the entire Sino-Tibetan language family.