The subfamily includes approximately 350 languages; Burmese has the most speakers (approximately 32 million). Approximately 8 million Tibetans and related peoples speak one of several related Tibetan dialects or languages.
Recently George van Driem has advocated elevating "Tibeto-Burman" to displace "Sino-Tibetan" as the top-tier language family, with the Chinese languages (Sinitic) classified as a sub-branch within the Tibeto-Burman/Sino-Tibetan family.[2] This proposal has not been widely accepted.
There have been two major classifications: Shafer (1966) and Benedict (1972). Since then, many languages previously inadequately documented have received more attention with the publication of new grammars, dictionaries, and wordlists. This new research has greatly benefited comparative work. Bradley (1997) is a newer classification that incorporates the newer data.
A very influential classification (although tentative) is that of Benedict (1972). This was a collaborated effort of Paul Benedict and Robert Shafer (completed around 1942-1943) with editing by James Matisoff. This classification puts Tibeto-Burman under a larger Sino-Tibetan phylum:
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese
Tibeto-Karen
Karen
Tibeto-Burman
The Tibeto-Burman sub-family is then composed of 7 main branches:
Dzorgai, Lepcha, and Magari seem to be most similar to the Tibetan-Kanauri branch. Lepcha may be a separate transitional branch like Kachin. Margari is also similar to Bahing-Vayu.
Nepal Bhasa (Newari) shares similarities to both Bahing and Khambu. Aka (a.k.a. Hrusso) may belong to Abor-Miri-Dafla. Digaro, Miju, and Dhimal may also be Abor-Miri-Dafla, but this even more uncertain. Kachin seems to be a transitional branch containing features similar to all other branches. Kadu-Andro-Sengmai (a.k.a. Luish) and Taman may belong to Kachin.
Naked Naga includes Banpara, Tableng, Namsang, Tamlu, Moshang, and Chang. Eastern languages of Naked Naga, although similar to Bodo-Garo, have similarities with Kachin.
Deori Chutiya (northern Assam) belongs to Bodo-Garo, although to which sub-group is uncertain.
Shafer (1966-1974)
Unlike Benedict (1972), Shafer's tentative classification does not separate Sino-Tibetan into two branches: Chinese and Tibeto-Burman. Rather, Chinese (Sinitic) is placed on the same level as Benedict's subgroupings of Tibeto-Burman.
^ Cf. Beckwith, Christopher I. 1996. "The Morphological Argument for the Existence of Sino-Tibetan." Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8-10, 1996. Vol. III, pp. 812-826. Bangkok: Mahidol University at Salaya.
^ Van Driem, George "Tibeto-Burman Phylogeny and Prehistory: Languages, Material Culture and Genes". Bellwood, Peter & Renfrew, Colin (eds) Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis (2003), Ch 19.
Bibliography
Benedict, Paul K. (1972). Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. J. A. Matisoff (Ed.). Cambridge: The University Press. ISBN 0-521-08175-0.
Bradley, David. (1997). Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In D. Bradley (Ed.), Papers in South East Asian linguistics: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas (No. 14, pp. 1-71). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Shafer, Robert. (1966). Introduction to Sino-Tibetan (Part 1). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Shafer, Robert. (1967). Introduction to Sino-Tibetan (Part 2). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Shafer, Robert. (1968). Introduction to Sino-Tibetan (Part 3). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Shafer, Robert. (1970). Introduction to Sino-Tibetan (Part 4). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Shafer, Robert. (1974). Introduction to Sino-Tibetan (Part 5). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.