In conclusion, the following points in re Chinese and Tibeto-Burman (or Tibeto-Karen) should be resumed: (a) Chinese shows almost no trace of the fairly elaborate TB morphology, (b) the two stocks have only a small segment of roots in common, (c) the phonological systems of the two stocks differ in many respects, and can scarcely be reconciled at all at some points, (d) the tonal systems of the two stocks appear not to be correlated. Our belief that the two stocks are genetically related must rest, ultimately, on the fact that they have certain basic roots in common, and that phonological generalizations can be established for these roots. It might be argued that the ST elements constitute only a superstratum in Chinese, and that the substratum is of distinct origin. In historical terms, the Chou people might be regarded as the bearers of a ST language, which became fused with, or perhaps immersed in, a non-ST language spoken by the Shang people. In any event, it is certain that the ST hypothesis illuminates only one of the many dark recesses in the complex linguistic history of the Chinese.