 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Waxiang edit
The inclusion of Waxiang is problematic. Sagart (2011) suggests that Waxiang and Caijia (or at least a layer of it) are closely related descendents of Old Chinese. That should not be used to suggest a Caijia-Waxiang subgroup of Greater Bai; rather it is a contrary view on the affiliation of Caijia, namely that is more closely related to Chinese than Bai, whose oldest layer Sagart believes to be non-Sinitic. Also (though Waxiang doesn't belong here), the developments of OC *l and *r are shared retentions, not shared innovations like the words 'two' and 'milk'. Kanguole 17:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. — Stevey7788 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Sinitic edit
It seems we have:
- the old suggestion that Bai might be Sinitic, which seems to be less favoured these days,
- Zhengzhang (2010) proposing that Bai and Caijia form a branch of Sino-Tibetan,
- Sagart (2011) proposing Caijia-Waxiang as an early branch of Sinitic,
- Hölzl (2021) proposing a Caijia-Luren-Longjia branch of Sino-Tibetan,
but no-one suggesting suggesting that Bai + Caijia et al form a branch of Sinitic. Kanguole 19:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)