TheTibeto-Kanauri languages, also calledBodic,Bodish–Himalayish, andWestern Tibeto-Burman, are a proposed intermediate level of classification of theSino-Tibetan languages, centered on theTibetic languages and theKinnauri dialect cluster. The conception of the relationship, or if it is even a valid group, varies between researchers.

Western Tibeto-Burman languages, largely following Thurgood and La Polla (2003).^[1]

Benedict (1972) originally posited the Tibeto-Kanauriaka Bodish–Himalayish relationship, but had a more expansive conception of Himalayish than generally found today, includingQiangic,Magaric, andLepcha. Within Benedict's conception, Tibeto-Kanauri is one of seven linguistic nuclei, or centers of gravity along a spectrum, withinTibeto-Burman languages. The center-most nucleus identified by Benedict is theJingpho language (including perhaps theKachin–Luic andTamangic languages); other peripheral nuclei besides Tibeto-Kanauri include theKiranti languages (Bahing–Vayu and perhaps theNewar language); theTani languages; theBodo–Garo languages and perhaps theKonyak languages); theKukish languages (Kuki–Naga plus perhaps theKarbi language, theMeitei language and theMru language); and theBurmish languages (Lolo-Burmese languages, perhaps also theNung language andTrung).^[2]

Matisoff (1978, 2003) largely follows Benedict's scheme, stressing the teleological value of identifying related characteristics over mapping detailed family trees in the study ofTibeto-Burman andSino-Tibetan languages. Matisoff includes Bodish and West Himalayish with theLepcha language as a third branch. He unites these at a higher level withMahakiranti asHimalayish.^[3][4]

Van Driem (2001) notes that theBodish,West Himalayish, andTamangic languages (but not Benedict's other families) appear to have a common origin.^[5]

Bradley (1997) takes much the same approach but words things differently: he incorporates West Himalayish and Tamangic as branches within his "Bodish", which thus becomes close to Tibeto-Kanauri. This and hisHimalayan family^{[same as Mahakiranti?]} constitute his Bodic family.^[6]

• Bradley, David (2002). "The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman". In Christopher I. Beckwith (ed.).Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages: proceedings of a symposium held in Leiden, June 26, 2000, at the 9th Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies. Brill's Tibetan studies library. Vol. 1.BRILL. pp. 73–112.ISBN 978-90-04-12424-0.
• Hale, Austin (1982). "Review of Research".Research on Tibeto-Burman languages. Trends in Linguistics. Vol. 14.Walter de Gruyter. pp. 30–49passim.ISBN 978-90-279-3379-9.
• Singh, Rajendra (2009).Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics: 2009. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs. Vol. 222.Walter de Gruyter. pp. 154–161.ISBN 978-3-11-022559-4.

• Bodish languages

• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata