Сино-тибетские как макросемья

[Asmat headhunter]

Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of NorthEast Indian languages
Roger Blench and Mark W. Post

"For example, Aka (Hruso) has been known since the early nineteenth century, and has been referenced as a “Sino-Tibetan”language ever since it was surveyed by Konow (in Grierson 1909) and Shafer (1947).However, evidence for this alignment is minimal. Aka not only shows few clear cognates with Sino-Tibetan, but there does not even appear to be a significant level of borrowing. Similar doubts must arise concerning Miji, Koro, Puroik (Sulung), Bugun and Mey (Sherdukpen), at a minimum."

"Even where a Sino-Tibetan affiliation is well-accepted, groups such as Bodo-Garo only have about 25% of their basic lexicon drawn from inherited Sino-Tibetan lexemes (DeLancey p.c.). The rest must be presumed to derive from assimilated substrate languages. Given the massive grammatical restructuring characteristic of Bodo-Garo (DeLancey 2012), it would be just as logical to regard the family as an isolate with heavy relexification from Sino-Tibetan."

Короче, что-то неладное с этой "семьёй". Многие языки плохо изучены. Внутренняя классификация противоречива. Некоторые языки, возможно, вообще изоляты.