This paper examines the state-of-the-art for the historical study of the Rma (Qiang) language (< Trans-Himalayan/Sino-Tibetan) and points out some methodological issues in earlier work. The paper discusses how vowel correspondences have been obfuscated by loanwords, onomatopoeic forms, and analogical levelling. It also discusses the analysis of compound forms and points out how certain compound forms have been incorrectly etymologized. It deals with broader, more fundamental issues in prior work such as top-down rather than bottom-up reconstructions, and problematic conceptualizations of what constitutes reconstructions. The article offers potential solutions to the issues discussed and points out where future work would be most profitable.

This paper reviews the evidence and arguments for reconstructing a person–number agreement paradigm for the Proto-Trans-Himalayan (=Sino-Tibetan) verb, and assesses the counter-arguments which have been presented in the literature. We demonstrate the cognacy of verb agreement paradigms across the family, and show that there is no plausible subclassification of the family which would place all the attesting languages in a single branch of the family, and no case for a “Rung” branch. The agreement systems of Jinghpaw and Northern Naga and the archaic postverbal paradigms of South Central/Kuki-Chin are demonstrably cognate to those of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti, and these languages have no common ancestor more recent than PTH.

The aim of this short paper is to examine the morphological categories of direction and direct-inverse marking in Northwestern Rma/Qiang (< Trans-Himalayan/Sino-Tibetan). Based on evidence from published sources (LaPolla and Huang 2003; H. Sūn 1981; Liú 1998, 1999; Sun and Evans 2013), it is argued that the verbal systems of some northern varieties are more characteristic of hierarchical alignment than previously recognized.