Sino-Tibetan
Let an agent handle the Sino-Tibetan family by branch, languages, speakers, scripts and scholarly debate, presenting competing classifications neutrally.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify
Researched by: Claude
Purpose and description
Let an agent handle the Sino-Tibetan family by branch, languages, speakers, scripts and scholarly debate, presenting competing classifications neutrally.
A large language family of East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia, including the Sinitic languages (Chinese varieties) and the many Tibeto-Burman languages such as Tibetan, Burmese and Meitei; its internal structure is debated.
What it is for: Classifying and studying related languages.
It can be identify branches and member languages; find speaker numbers from sources; compare scripts used; present competing classifications.
Distinguishing features
Second largest family by speakers
Includes Chinese varieties
Hundreds of languages
Internal classification debated
What it looks like
Not physical; seen in speech and in scripts such as Chinese characters, Tibetan and Burmese scripts.
How it is recognised
Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman groupings
Many tonal languages
Proposed macro-families are speculative
Related models
is a kind of - category
includes - members
is classified by - catalogues
is contrasted with - proposals
In practice
Families and kinds
Sinitic languages
Tibetic languages
Lolo-Burmese languages
Kuki-Chin and Meitei
many smaller branches
Identifiers
ISO 639-5 sit language family code
Glottolog sino1245 family id
Standards and regulation
ISO 639 language codes
National language policies
Failure modes and hazards
Presenting speculative macro-families as fact
Treating dialect and language labels as neutral when politically sensitive
Also called
+110
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.
Structure Branches.
Classification is debated.
Branches
Subgroups.
Branches
Branches.
- Which branches are commonly recognised? provenance
- Which classifications disagree? boundary
Membership
Languages.
Membership
Member languages.
- Is this language part of the family, according to which catalogue? provenance
- Is its position disputed? boundary
Speakers Communities.
Speaker data needs dates.
Numbers
Speakers.
Numbers
Speaker numbers.
- How many speakers does the language have, according to which source? measurement
- How current is the figure? provenance
Vitality
Endangerment.
Vitality
Language vitality.
- Is the language endangered? provenance
- Which documentation projects exist? provenance
Writing Scripts.
Scripts vary.
Scripts
Writing systems.
Scripts
Scripts.
- Which script is used for this language? provenance
- Is there a romanisation standard? provenance
Features
Tone.
Features
Linguistic features.
- Is the language tonal, and how many tones? measurement
- Which sources describe it? provenance
Handling Sensitivity.
Labels can be political.
Labels
Language or dialect.
Labels
Naming sensitivity.
- Is the language or dialect label sensitive here? boundary
- How can labels be attributed to sources? action
Proposals
Macro-families.
Proposals
Speculative proposals.
- Is a proposed macro-family being presented as accepted? boundary
- How widely is it accepted? provenance
What the second pass must settle
- Should each branch be a separate entry?
- How should competing classifications be shown?
- How should speaker numbers be dated?