Talk:Sino-Tibetan languages

message: A new stub category has been created specifically for Sino-Tibetan languages: 
. Use  rather than  or  to label stubs on Sino-Tibetan languages as such. 
Stub categorizing is a convenient way to keep track of Sino-Tibetan-related stubs and additionally helps in keeping the category of language stubs usable. Whoever feels like it, is invited to browse :Category:Language stubs to sift out any Sino-Tibetan language stubs... Thanks! 
For discussion see: WP:WSS/Stub types#Language and literature and WP:WSS/Criteria#Split of lang-stub. — mark ✎ 23:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new stub category has been created 

message: This list is far from helpful for determining genetic relationship.  By this same list, mostly consisting of numbers, one could presume that Japanese, Korean, and several other unrelated (or relationship undeterminable) languages are genetically related to Chinese.  For a better list please see the list on the page for Germanic Languages, it is very thorough.
the similarities between japanese to chinese, and korean to chinese, are only due to borrowing and language contact, which did NOT happen between tibetans and chinese, or burmese and chinese, due to the fact that they were more influenced by india, proving that this list is correct and you are not...... tibetan and chinese trace back to a common origin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.146.29 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Sino-Tibetan Roots

message: I know the articles says comparative method is hard for this language family; however, can we at least get a table up showing similarities of confirmed languages? --Voidvector (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative 

message: Since there is no such thing as a "Sino-Tibetan people", I moved that article here. kwami (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merged 

message: There are way too much hypothetical guesses in the template and not enough references to support such break-down of lists.  The mainstream view of Sino-Tibetan language is definitely not listed as such, see Encyclopædia Britannica  and Ethnologue .--TheLeopard (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. kwami (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with me?  Then why did you list these names in such [hypothetical] fashion?  Did you not click on the Ethnologue classifications ?  Sino-Tibetan languages consist of Chinese and Tibeto-Burman.  Chinese is directly classified under Sino-Tibetan and Bai language is classified under Tibeto-Burman, not "Sinitic".--TheLeopard (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. After you pointed it out, I saw how silly it was to have the same breakdown both here and on TB. I just needed s.o. to point out the obvious. BTW, you shouldn't rely on Ethnologue. It isn't a reliable source. (For instance, check out their "Bodish". Absolutely ridiculous.) But Bai is widely thought to be a Sinitic language, and Chinese has been argued to be a TB language—just read the article. kwami (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Those are your personal assumptions bud, whether you think Ethnologue is realiable. You need to show legitimate sources to prove otherwise.  You need to present reputable sources to show that "Sinitic Language" is indeed a mainstream designation of this language family [Chinese], and the classification of Sino-Tibetan languages is classified as Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman as oppose to Chinese and Tibeto-Burman. Wikipedia does not tolerate original research, and minor point of view should not presented like this.--TheLeopard (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "buddy", Sinitic is common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about Sino-Tibetan, and the unreliability of Ethnologue is common knowledge to all of us here who work with language classification articles, which is why it's only used as a last resort. Wikipedia should not be reduced to your level of ignorance. I've already told you twice that I will add sources, and I will. I would appreciate the courtesy of a reasonable amount of time to do so—I've put a word search in one source, and haven't even had time to go back and check it yet. kwami (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: You are the one who has been saying Ethnologue is unreliable, that is your opinion and is fine.  However considering Ethnologue is among the most commonly known and used source for linguistics, it holds considerable weight.--TheLeopard (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it does not. It is only used as a one-stop convenience because it covers all of the world's languages. If you don't believe me, ask other Wikipedia editors who work on language classification. kwami (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I must concur. Ethnologue is not entirely reliable. That's not to say it's totally wrong either but when there's a conflict between something Ethnologue says and what an expert of language (family/classification) X says, the expert is probably more likely right then Ethnologue. You just have to do a cursory survey of their language names to see that they get things spectacularly wrong sometimes and - even worse - are apparently unwilling to consider correcting errors when someone with a better understanding of a topic approaches them. Let's face it, of there was a conflict between the X's Guide to All of Africa stating fact Z about Kinshasa and the Lonely Planet Guide to Kinshasa and Central Congo saying otherwise, who would you believe? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Language template

message: Does anyone else agree that the gallery featuring pictures of people of the different ethnic groups is unnecessary?  This article is about the languages they speak, not the people themselves, and the pictures don't seem too relevant.  The article even mentions that Sino-Tibetan is only a linguistic construct anyway.  66.71.70.66 (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The gallery was merged from 'Sino-Tibetan peoples', since that article had no meaning apart from a reification of the language family. But I didn't want to just discard it. You can also argue that it is a very narrow conception of linguistics that considers only languages, without the people that speak them, since of course languages do not exist without people. Linguistics is in its essence a sub-discipline of anthropology. kwami (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So should 'Indo-European Peoples' include photographs from almost everyone in the planet?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.124.173 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery

message: We are now told that the internal classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages is "in flux".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The vague phrase "at least" is used about membership.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flux 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/17/39/48/PDF/sinotib.pdf
*:Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Why is the genetic studies being rejected? I don't see anything wrong with it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanghaiWu (talk • contribs) 07:06, 29 April 2014‎ (UTC)
:The original addition was a verbatim copy from the source.  Later versions still have copied parts, and those phrases that have been changed often also change the meaning of the original.  But a more serious question is what is there in this article that is useful for a coverage of Sino-Tibetan?  They've investigated the distribution of haplogroup O3-M117, which is centred on the Qiang people and western Sichuan, and leap from there to a speculative hypothesis about ST origins.  They concede that O3 lineages provide only a partial picture (p97) and that O3-M117 may represent only part of the ST population (p96).  At best this should be attributed as the opinion of those authors rather than presented as a statement for fact.  But I don't think it's appropriate to use the primary literature here, per WP:PRIMARY – we should wait for a secondary source to do the synthesis and interpretation for us.  Kanguole 08:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not in a position to evaluate the primary genetic literature.  That is why we should wait for a secondary source to do it for us.  This explained at WP:PRIMARY.  WP:SUBSTANTIATE explains the need to attribute opinions rather than presenting them as fact.  Kanguole 08:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

text: That is only one of the problems listed above.  Kanguole 08:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic Studies

message: Do any authors make a connection between ergative marking in some TB languages and Cikoski's "ergative verbs" in Classical Chinese?  If not, we shouldn't juxtapose them as if they were somehow related.  Kanguole 10:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't mean that they are related. It's just that that paragraph dealt with ergativity, so I put them together. I'll leave it as what it is for a couple of days, and I'm intending to put the Old Chinese ergative verbs back and trying to reorganize that paragraph if nobody does it. Qrfqr (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: By placing that statement there, you imply that it is somehow relevant.  But there is no reason to believe that it is.  Kanguole 23:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Whatever. I can not prevent people from inventing what has not been written. Qrfqr (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that no-one says this is relevant to typology of Sino-Tibetan languages.  Kanguole 14:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that (1) no one has said that the typology of Old Chinese is relevant to the typology of Sino-Tibetan languages, or are you saying that (2) no one has said that the typology of Old Chinese is relevant to the typology of Tibeto-Burman languages genealogically, or are you saying that (3) no one has said that the typology of Old Chinese is relevant to the typology of the proto-Sino-Tibetan language? If you meant (1), as one of Sino-Tibetan languages, of course it is relevant. If you meant (2), then whether one has said it or not does not matter, since the paragraph deals with the typology of morphosyntactic alignment, and by mentioning the morphosyntactic alignments of Old Chinese and Tibeto-Burman languages in a paragraph of which the focus is morphosyntactic alignment, it is very strange to jump to the conclusion that the typology of Old Chinese is relevant to the typology of Tibeto-Burman languages genealogically, just like by reading a paragraph introducing ergative languages, it would be very strange to jump to the conclusion that the ergativity of Basque and the ergativity of Hindi is genealogically related, unless it is explicitly stated. If you meant (3), remember that the article is about Sino-Tibetan languages, not the proto-Sino-Tibetan language, and the readers should be aware of it and be careful not to over-interpret. Qrfqr (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that there's no indication that Cikoski's labelling a class of Classical Chinese verbs as "ergative verbs" is relevant to the typology of Sino-Tibetan languages.  After all, similar verbs occur in many nominative-accusative languages, including Modern Chinese and English.  We don't just include something because it's a feature of a Sino-Tibetan language – there are hundreds of them.  Kanguole 00:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

text: You're mixing up two concepts at the same time: relatedness and notability. (1) Of course the typology of any kind of Old Chinese is related to the typology of that kind of Sino-Tibetan languages, since Old Chinese is a member of Sino-Tibetan languages. A feature any kind of penguins is of course related to a feature of that kind of birds, be it an example or a counterexample. (2) The notability of the occurrence of ergativity in Sino-Tibetan languages: it has being pointed out at least in LaPolla's article. It's just that LaPolla's article was about the TB part. Don't forget that there's no consensus about whether Sinitic and TB are the two first level subdivisions. In the end, the notability of the occurrence of ergativity in TB could be nothing more than "the notability of the occurrence of ergativity in ST minus the Chinese languages", with the exclusion being caused by the scope of that study and having not much significance from the view of the whole ST languages. Qrfqr (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

text: By the way, although English also has such ergative verbs, the constructions such "A敗", "B敗A" have been study topics for a long time. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that ergative verbs are more notable for Chinese among its other "hundreds of" features. Qrfqr (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This class of "ergative verbs" is a quite different thing from ergative typology.  That something is a feature of one of the hundreds of Sino-Tibetan languages is not a sufficient reason to include it in a section on the typology of Sino-Tibetan languages; it needs to be relevant.  Kanguole 23:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right in the first point. Thank you for pointing it out. However, I must say that I don't agree with the second point: it's mixing up relatedness with notability. My bad (as for the first point). Qrfqr (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Cikoski's analysis of Classical Chinese verbs is notable – it's been discussed by several authors.  It just doesn't seem to be relevant here – perhaps Classical Chinese grammar would be the right place.  Kanguole 23:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ergative 

message: Many of these languages and groups are referred to in the literature under a variety of names, making it difficult to relate what is written here to other accounts.  I know I've found it difficult to unravel.  It's true that other names are given in the specific articles on those languages and groups, but it would take a lot of clicking to find them.  It would therefore be helpful to readers for this article to mention alternative names that are widely used in the literature.  Kanguole 13:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Mentioning alternative names tends to clutter the text or family tree that contains the language. For clarity, we should use the name at which its article is located. The alternative names can and should be mentioned in the articles about these languages. --JorisvS (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already agreed that the alternative names should be given in the specific articles; using the article name is also reasonable.  But I also explained that alternative names serve a purpose in this article too, which you haven't addressed.  Removing them makes this article tidier, but that benefit is outweighed by the loss of utility to readers.  Kanguole 15:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to discuss specific instances to see if they have a distinct usefulness. In general, though, my experience is that less is more: tidier makes for more easy reading and therefore more efficient uptake of the material. --JorisvS (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Both van Driem and Hyslop refer to 'Ole(kha) as "Black Mountain Monpa".  A single parenthetical here will help any reader relate what they read there to what they read here, without having to examine 'Ole language, Gongduk language, Lhokpu language and possibly others to determine which  of these vD and H and talking about.  Similarly (in East Bodish languages), some authors use Bumthap and others Bumthang, and it's not obvious they're talking about the same thing.  Sometimes less is just less.  Efficient uptake is not just rapid scanning of names; it also involves knowing what the names refer to.  Kanguole 11:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it means knowing what the names refer to. The general reader will have to follow the links to these languages' articles regardless. Only certain specialists may be helped in this case, and then a one can expect at least a substantial number who are familiar with both names anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative names 

message: The East and West branches of the tree in Figure 6 seem to have their names the wrong way round, both from the locations of the languages mentioned, and from the discussion elsewhere of Sinitic, Tujia, Bai, etc as eastward migrations (illustrated in Figure 5).  The figure in the conference version has the labels the other way round, but the conference presentation doesn't.  Kanguole 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I had switched them because I was reading through their article here and saw that the labels were reversed. It seems they accidentally reversed their labels. Thanks for spotting. I've reversed them again and added a hidden note to prevent this confusion in the future. --JorisvS (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stammbaum in Blench & Post (2013) 

message: I'll ask here, because there has been no response at Talk:Tibetic languages. At Central Tibetan language there is a hatnote saying "not to be confused with Central Tibetic languages", which then redirects to the Classification section at Tibetic languages. Yet, its Classification section only mentions Central Tibetan. It does mention that some authors break up Central Tibetan. What is the difference and how does it relate to that break up by some authors? --JorisvS (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This old version of Central Tibetic languages might shed some light on the issue. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Tibetan vs. Central Tibetic 

message: You wouldn't find a sentence in Indo-European languages stating there was no ethnic unity among the speakers. Why is it included here? --Explosivo (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There also isn't a "Peoples" section in Indo-European languages.  Kanguole 12:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It implies that people believe there was unity, so the article has an extra section stating the opposite. It sounds like Asians are all the same and it needs to be clarified, whereas it is obvious enough in Indo-European languages not to include a section. If someone added "Peoples and languages" there, it would be ridiculous. The feeling is just not the same, which is a flaw. --Explosivo (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the section was there for a long time before it was trimmed and that sentence added.  If you're arguing that the article shouldn't have a "Peoples" section, I would agree.  (The pie chart would fit in the Classification section.)  Kanguole 14:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peoples and languages - Ethnic unity 

message: this article seems to be more about the study of the languages and historical findings than about the languages themselves. for a non-linguist who is expecting a description of the languages and their roots, it's rather disappointing to find what looks like an academic paper summarizing historical studies, focusing more on who found what than on the topic at hand. might i suggest this article be rewritten to focus on the languages, rather than the study of them, and be worded for the general wikipedia audience, rather than aimed at linguists. much of the current page could be moved to a new page that focusses on the field of studying these languages and its history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.65.91 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Those things are not really off-topic, though it is correct that several rather important areas are missing. Care to help? --JorisvS (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  off topic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sino-Tibetan languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526230734/http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/South%20Asia/NEI/General/Lingres/Declassifying%20Arunachal.pdf to http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/South%20Asia/NEI/General/Lingres/Declassifying%20Arunachal.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130113053002/http://multitree.org/codes/sitb to http://multitree.org/codes/sitb
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I feel like this section seriously needs some clarification, particularly the second subheading which talks only about Chinese, Hmong-Mien, and Tai-Kadai, the last two of which seem irrelevant (being not part of ST according to most recent researchers). Additionally, the wording is occasionally a little confusing.  Does anybody know someone who can clear this up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.175.254.1 (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development into dialects and languages  

message: I have reverted a change from  to .  Firstly, that Western linguists do not include Tai-Kadai or Hmong-Mien in Sino-Tibetan is a significant fact about the family, and summarizes referenced text in the Classification section (particularly under Li's classification).  Sagart's Sino-Austronesian proposal does not place Tai-Kadai within Sino-Tibetan, but rather within Austronesian, which is then viewed as a sibling of Sino-Tibetan.  There is no correspondence.  Moreover, Sagart's proposal is just one of a host of macro-linkage proposals that has found limited support.  To single it out for placement in the lead is undue weight.  Kanguole 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I add more accurate explanation why western linguists dont include Tai-Kadai,or Hmong-Mien into Sino-tibetans,because they had another language familiy Sino-austranesian languages.That's very logic and specific editing.Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is both inaccurate and does not reflect the body of the article.  The inclusion of Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien was discarded in the 40s and because typological similarities are no longer given the weight they once were, and because there is little shared basic vocabulary.  Sagart's proposal came much later (1990s), and is quite different, as mentioned above.  It also have very little support, and has been criticized by Austronesian specialists, so can hardly be taken as representative of mainstream views.  Kanguole 11:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  the mainstream veiws are the chinese categorization of sino-tibetan roughly corresponds to Sino-autraonesian. So I'm curious why u removing my accurate infos, is there underlined meaning for u to remove this editing? Because my editing adds useful materials,and u have no valid points to remove it,I revert it backKsyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The mainstream view (outside of China) is that Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien are separate language families from Sino-Tibetan.  Sagart's proposal that Sino-Tibetan is related to Austronesian, and that Austronesian includes Tai-Kadai as a subbranch, is very much a minority view, and is not at all similar to the view commonly held by Chinese linguists that Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien are branches of Sino-Tibetan.  The mainstream view on the membership of ST is significant, and should not be removed.  The correspondence you wish to assert is not found in this article, nor in the sources.  Kanguole 13:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  dont be too cheesy, I dont' really want to know the gibberish why U can't bear the useful reason I added why there is a conflict or controversy about the different categorization. I'm telling u, u r not a judge of whether the language belongs to a superfamlily or not,u r an editor,u just make the whole item more readable or congruent,that's all.Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to introduction 

message: This section is barely in English (notice the second person) and jumps around in a crazy way between Chinese, Tibetan and Jingpo, with no obvious relevance to anything. The claims are also so vague as to be meaningless. I suggest cutting the section altogether.Tibetologist (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, except that I would extend this assessment to the whole "Development of dialects and languages" section, as well as the "Classifiers and definite marking" section, which was added at the same time.  Kanguole 12:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be happy to see those parts go as well. Tibetologist (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in word structure

message: Old Chinese#Classification has a bigger comparative vocabulary table might be worth incorporating. --Voidvector (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea --Tibetologist (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocabulary table 

message: This map has been placed in the History section, but that section deals with the history of Sino-Tibetal studies; a more relevant position would be the later Homeland section. As described in that section, a range of models have been proposed. This map singles out one variant, and thus gives it undue weight. It might be better to have a map that simply displays the locations of the various cultures mentioned in the text (which are uncontroversial). Kanguole 22:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of origin and spread of the family 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jgags (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

message: The article states: "In morphosyntactic alignment, many Tibeto-Burman languages have ergative and/or anti-ergative (an argument that is not an actor) case marking."
Anti-ergative links to Secundative language. Secundative means that in sentences "Anna hits Bob" and "Anna sends Bob a package", Bob takes the same case in both sentences, whereas the package gets a separate marking.
"An argument that is not an actor" does not - in my understanding - explain or hint at this phenomenon in ditransitive verbs. I have knowledge about typology in general, but not Sino-Tibetan languages, so I cannot clear this up on my own. --Holothuroid (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-ergative?