CentralTibeto-Burman orCentral Trans-Himalayan is a proposed branch of theSino-Tibetan language family proposed byScott DeLancey (2015)^[1] on the basis of shared morphological evidence.

DeLancey (2018)^[2] considers Central Tibeto-Burman to be alinkage rather than a branch with a clearly nested internal structure.

DeLancey's Central Tibeto-Burman group includes many languages inMatisoff's (2015: 1123–1127)^[3] proposedNortheast Indianareal group, which includesTani,Deng (Digaro), “Kuki-Chin–Naga”,Meitei,Mikir,Mru, andSal.

DeLancey considers there to be strong morphological evidence for the following Tibeto-Burman branches being part of Central Tibeto-Burman.

• Sal:Jinghpaw,Bodo–Garo
• Lushai-Naga
• Meitei
• Meyor

Jinghpaw andKonyak are likely part of a widerSal (Brahmaputran) language grouping that also includes theBodo–Garo andDhimal branches. DeLancey accepts this grouping and calls itBodo-Konyak-Jinghpaw (BKJ). DeLancey (2015) notes thatBodo–Garo languages do not have much of the conservative morphology present in Jinghpaw, since Bodo–Garo has undergone extensivecreolization during theKamarupan period.

TheKuki-Chin branch is often considered to be part of a widerKuki-Chin–Naga grouping that also includes theAo,Angami–Pochuri,Tangkhulic, andZemeic branches. DeLancey (2015) suggests that some or all of the "Naga" branches, namelyAo,Angami–Pochuri,Tangkhulic, andZeme, may also belong to Central Tibeto-Burman.

DeLancey (2015) also considers the possibility of theNungish branch being part of Central Tibeto-Burman. However,James Matisoff (2013)^[4] considers similarities between Jingpho andNungish to be due to contact. Thus, Nungish is not particularly closely related to Jingpho, and is not a Sal language. On the other hand, Matisoff (2013) notes thatLolo-Burmese, particularlyBurmish, appears to be more closely related to Nungish than to Jingpho.

Taking all of these language branches into account results in Central Tibeto-Burman consisting of theMeyor,Sal, andKuki-Chin–Naga groupings, and possiblyNungish. Question marks (?) signify uncertain or unconfirmed membership of a language group within Central Tibeto-Burman.

Central Tibeto-Burman

• Nungish?
• Meyor–Miju
• Sal (Bodo-Konyak-Jinghpaw)
  • Bodo–Garo
  • Konyak
  • Kachin–Luic
  • Dhimal?
• Kuki-Chin–Naga
  • Kuki-Chin
  • Ao?
  • Angami–Pochuri?
  • Tangkhulic?
  • Zemeic?

DeLancey (2015) lists the following morphological features shared by different Central Tibeto-Burman subgroups.

Jinghpaw andNocte-Tangsa

• Cislocativer- verbal operator
• Perfective glottalization

Jinghpaw andNorthwest Kuki-Chin (Monsang-Moyon)

• Change-of-states- prefix on agreement words
• Pluralm- prefix on agreement words
• Copulani as a verbal operator

Furthermore,Monsang-Moyon (Northwest Kuki-Chin),Nocte-Tangsa, andMeyor all share ak-copula.

• DeLancey, Scott. 2015. "Morphological Evidence for a Central Branch of Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan)."Cahiers de linguistique - Asie oriental 44(2):122-149. December 2015.doi:10.1163/19606028-00442p02

• Sino-Tibetan languages

• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Families rejected by Glottolog