Timeline for Why are the Sinitic languages so different from the rest of Sino-Tibetan?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2017 at 8:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackLinguist/status/944130106569699328 | ||
| Dec 19, 2017 at 12:44 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 19, 2017 at 14:44 | |||||
| Dec 18, 2017 at 19:51 | answer | added | Sir Cornflakes | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 19:49 | history | edited | Sir Cornflakes |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 18, 2017 at 5:16 | comment | added | WavesWashSands | Sinitic is definitely the more innovative branch. The loss of morphology (which was virtually complete by Early Middle Chinese) may have been the result of language contact. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 3:30 | comment | added | jlawler | I've been told by many specialists that Old Chinese lost affixes and therefore agreement systems. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 1:24 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 18, 2017 at 11:26 | |||||
| Dec 17, 2017 at 20:24 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 17, 2017 at 20:31 | |||||
| Dec 17, 2017 at 20:21 | history | asked | MechVarg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |