| Rung | |
|---|---|
| Eastern Tibeto-Burman | |
| Geographic distribution | China, Burma, Nepal, India |
| Linguistic classification | Sino-Tibetan
|
| Subdivisions | |
| Language codes | |
| Glottolog | None |
The Rung languages are a proposed branch of Sino-Tibetan languages. The branch was proposed by Randy LaPolla on the basis of morphological evidence such as pronominal paradigms. However, Guillaume Jacques and Thomas Pellard (2021) argues that these languages do not constitute a monophyly based on recent phylogenetic studies[1][2] and on a thorough investigation of shared lexical innovations.[3]
LaPolla (2003) lists the following languages as part of his provisional "Rung" group.[4]
- Rung
- Rgyalrongic (also often included into the Qiangic branch)
- Nungish
- Kiranti
- West Himalayan (Kinauri-Almora)
- Kinauri
- Almora
- Kham
- Magar
- Chepang
Kham, Magar, and Chepangic have also been proposed to form part of a Greater Magaric group.
- ^ Sagart, Laurent; Jacques, Guillaume; Lai, Yunfan; Ryder, Robin J.; Thouzeau, Valentin; Greenhill, Simon J.; List, Johann-Mattis (2019-05-21). "Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (21): 10317–10322. doi:10.1073/pnas.1817972116. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 6534992. PMID 31061123.
- ^ Zhang, Hanzhi; Ji, Ting; Pagel, Mark; Mace, Ruth (2020). "Dated phylogeny suggests early Neolithic origin of Sino-Tibetan languages". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20792. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1020792Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77404-4. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7695722. PMID 33247154.
- ^ Jacques, Guillaume; Pellard, Thomas (2021-02-03). "Phylogenies based on lexical innovations refute the Rung hypothesis". Diachronica. 38 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1075/dia.19058.jac. ISSN 0176-4225.
- ^ LaPolla, Randy. 2003. "Overview of Sino-Tibetan Morphosyntax". In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages. London: Routledge.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search