# Burmo-Qiangic languages

The Burmo-Qiangic or Eastern Tibeto-Burman languages are a proposed family of Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Southwest China and Myanmar. It consists of the Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic branches, including the extinct Tangut language.

## Classification

Guillaume Jacques & Alexis Michaud (2011) argue for a Burmo-Qiangic branch of Sino-Tibetan (Tibeto-Burman) with two primary subbranches, Qiangic and Lolo-Burmese. Similarly, David Bradley (2008) proposes an Eastern Tibeto-Burman branch that includes Burmic (a.k.a. Lolo-Burmese) and Qiangic. Bradley notes that Lolo-Burmese and Qiangic share some unique lexical items, even though they are morphologically quite different; whereas all Lolo-Burmese languages are tonal and analytical, Qiangic languages are often non-tonal and possess agglutinative morphology. However the position of Naic is unclear, as it has been grouped as Lolo-Burmese by Lama (2012), but as Qiangic by Jacques & Michaud (2011) and Bradley (2008).
Sun (1988) also proposed a similar classification that grouped Qiangic and Lolo-Burmese together.
Jacques' & Michaud's (2011) proposed tree is as follows.
Bradley's (2008) proposal is as follows. Note that Bradley calls Lolo-Burmese Burmic, which is not to be confused with Burmish, and calls Loloish Ngwi.
However, Chirkova (2012) doubts that Qiangic is a valid genetic unit, and considers Ersu, Shixing, Namuyi, and Pumi all as separate Tibeto-Burman branches that are part of a Qiangic Sprachbund, rather than as part of a coherent Qiangic phylogenetic branch. This issue has also been further discussed by Yu (2012).
Lee & Sagart (2008) argue that Bai is a Tibeto-Burman language that has borrowed very heavily from Old Chinese. Lee & Sagart (2008) note that words relating to rice and pig agriculture tend to be non-Chinese, and that the genetic non-Chinese layer of Bai shows similarities with Proto-Loloish.

## Branches

Yu (2012:206–207) lists the following well-established coherent branches (including individual languages, in italics below) that could likely all fit into a wider Burmo-Qiangic group, in geographical order from north to south.
* (Baima) [possible Burmo-Qiangic substratum]
* Qiang
* rGyalrong
* Lavrung
* Ergong
* Choyo
* nDrapa
* Guiqiong
* Minyak
* Ersuic
* Namuyi
* Shixing
* Naish
* Prinmi
* Lolo-Burmese
* (Bai) [possible Burmo-Qiangic substratum]
Additionally, Tangut, now extinct, is generally classified as a Qiangic language.
Yu (2012:215–218) notes that Ersuic and Naic languages could possibly group together, since they share many features with each other that are not found in Lolo-Burmese or other Qiangic groups.
Proto-language reconstructions for some of these branches include:
* Proto-Rma (Sims 2017)
* Proto-Prinmi (Sims 2017)
* Proto-Ersuic (Yu 2012)
* Proto-Naish (Jacques & Michaud 2011)
* Proto-Lolo-Burmese (Matisoff 2003)
* Proto-Bai (Wang 2006)

## Lexical evidence

Jacques & Michaud (2011) list the following lexical items as likely Burmo-Qiangic lexical innovations.
| Gloss | rGyalrong | Tangut | Na | Proto-Naish | Burmese | Achang | Hani |
| copula | ŋu | ŋwu$^2$ | ŋi˩˧ | ? | hnang$^2$ | – | ŋɯ˧˩ |
| star | ʑŋgri | gjịj$^1$ | kɯ˥ | *kri | kray$^2$ | k$^h$ʐə˥ | a˧˩gɯ˥ |
| forget | jmɯt | mjɨ̣$^2$ | mv̩.p$^h$æ$^{L+MH}$ | *mi | me$^1$ | ɲi˧˥ | ɲi˥ |
| be ill | ngo < *ngaŋ | ŋo$^2$ | gu˩ | *go | |
| flint | ʁdɯrtsa | – | tse.mi$^H$ | *tsa |
| to hide | nɤtsɯ | – | tsɯ˥ (Naxi) | *tsu |
| to swallow | mqlaʁ | – | ʁv̩˥ | *NqU < *Nqak |
| dry | spɯ | - | pv̩˧ | *Spu |
| thick | jaʁ | laa$^1$ | lo˧˥ | *laC$_2$ |
| jump | mtsaʁ | – | ts$^h$o˧ | *ts$^h$aC$_2$ |
| winter | qartsɯ | tsur$^1$ | ts$^h$i˥ | *ts$^h$u | c$^h$oŋ$^3$ | tɕ$^h$ɔŋ˧˩ | ts$^h$ɔ˧˩ga̱˧ |
| knee | tə-mŋɑ (Situ) | ŋwer$^2$ | ŋwɤ.ko$^H$ | *ŋwa |
| sun | ʁmbɣi | be$^2$ | bi˧ (Naxi) | *bi |