The relationship between Tibeto-Burman and Chinese, as noted above (§2), is a remote one. Indeed, on the basis of morphology alone, we should be quite unjustified in positing any direct genetic link between the two stocks. Chinese does, to be sure, resemble Tibeto-Burman in its use of monosyllabic roots, its system of tones, and its isolating characteristics, yet Thai, Kadai, Annamite, and Miao-Yao, all unrelated to Sino-Tibetan, also share in these features. Chinese actually approaches these languages rather than Tibeto-Burman in being a relatively ‘pure’ isolating language, lacking any but the most rudimentary system of affixes. As regards syntax, Chinese agrees with these languages and Karen in placing the object after rather than before the verb (there are occasional transpositions, as in Karen), in violation of the cardinal principle of Tibeto-Burman word-order.

Prefixes: Chinese has numerous initial consonantal groups, some of which can be interpreted in terms of prefixation, but only sporadic examples can be cited, e.g. ńįâr ‘near’, snįӑr ‘seal’ (‘something affixed’); nįôk ‘ashamed’, snįôg ‘ashamed; to shame’ (cf. TB *s-rak); mǝk ‘ink’, χmǝk ‘black’ (cf. T nag-po ‘black’, snag ‘ink’, and B maŋ∼hmaŋ ‘ink’). Certainly no system of prefixes existed even in Ar. Ch., i.e. no general morphological role can be assigned to elements such as s- and χ-.