Lolo-Burmese
Geographic distribution	Southern China and Southeast Asia
Linguistic classification	Sino-Tibetan Tibeto-Burman Burmo-Qiangic? Lolo-Burmese
Subdivisions	Mondzish Burmish Loloish ? Mruic
Glottolog	lolo1265

The Lolo-Burmese languages (also Burmic languages) of Burma and Southern China form a coherent branch of the Sino-Tibetan family.

Until ca. 1950, the endonym Lolo was written with derogatory characters in Chinese, and for this reason has sometimes been avoided. Shafer (1966–1974) used the term "Burmic" for the Lolo-Burmese languages. The Chinese term is Mian–Yi, after the Chinese name for Burmese and one of several words for Tai, reassigned to replace Lolo by the Chinese government after 1950.^[1]

The position of Naxi (Moso) within the family is unclear, and it is often left as a third branch besides Loloish and Burmish. Lama (2012) considers it to be a branch of Loloish, while Guillaume Jacques has suggested that it is a Qiangic language.

The Pyu language that preceded Burmese in Burma is sometimes linked to the Lolo-Burmese family, but there is no good evidence for any particular classification, and it is best left unclassified within Sino-Tibetan.

Löffler (1966) and Bradley (1997) consider the Mru language to be closely related to or part of Lolo-Burmese,^[2][3] while Matisoff includes Mruic in the Northeast Indian areal group.^[4]

Three Bailang songs were reportedly recorded in Chinese characters in the 1st century, and survive in quotations from the 7th century. The transmission through Chinese makes interpretation difficult, but most authors believe the language to be Lolo-Burmese or a close relative.^[5]

Guillaume Jacques & Alexis Michaud (2011)^[6] argue for a Burmo-Qiangic branch with two primary subbranches, Na-Qiangic (i.e. Naxi-Qiangic) and Lolo-Burmese. Similarly, David Bradley (2008)^[7] also proposes an Eastern Tibeto-Burman branch that includes the two subbranches of Burmic (a.k.a. Lolo-Burmese) and Qiangic.

Bradley (1997, quoted in Peiros 1997) gives the following classification for the Lolo-Burmese languages. In later publications, in place of Loloish, David Bradley instead uses the term Ngwi based on a conservative autonym in the Sanie language.^[8]

Lama (2012), in a study of 36 languages, finds the Mondzish cluster (Mondzi–Maang, Mantsi–Mo'ang) to be divergent. He did not include Mru or Ugong.

Lama (2012) recognizes 9 unambiguous coherent groups of Lolo-Burmese languages, whereas Bradley considers there to be 5 groups (Burmish, Southern Ngwi, Northern Ngwi, Southeastern Ngwi, and Central Ngwi).

1. Mondzish
2. Burmish
3. Hanoish
4. Lahoish
5. Naxish
6. Nusoish
7. Kazhuoish
8. Lisoish
9. Nisoish

• Proto-Loloish language

• Bradley, David (1997). "Tibeto-Burman languages and classification" (PDF). Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, Papers in South East Asian linguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. pp. 1–71.
• Bradley, David (2012). "The Characteristics of the Burmic Family of Tibeto-Burman" (PDF). Language and Linguistics. 13 (1): 171–192.
• van Driem, George (2001). Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12062-4.
• Huang, Bufan [黄布凡], ed. (1992). A Tibeto-Burman Lexicon (TBL) [藏缅语族语言词汇]. Beijing: Minzu University Press [中央民族学院出版社].
• Lama, Ziwo Qiu-Fuyuan (2012). Subgrouping of Nisoic (Yi) Languages (PhD thesis). University of Texas at Arlington. hdl:10106/11161.
• Satterthwaite-Phillips, Damian. 2011. Phylogenetic inference of the Tibeto-Burman languages or On the usefulness of lexicostatistics (and "Megalo"-comparison) for the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
• Thurgood, Graham (1974). "Lolo–Burmese rhymes". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 1 (1): 98–107. doi:10.15144/LTBA-1.1.98.
• Yunnan Province Geography Gazetteer Committee [云南省地方志编纂委员会] (1998). Yunnan Province Gazetteer, volume 59: ethnic minority languages and orthographies gazetteer [云南省志卷59: 少数民族语言文字志]. Kunming: Yunnan People's Press [云南人民出版社].
• Zangmian yuyin he cihui (ZMYYC) [藏缅语语音和词汇] (1991). Beijing: Social Sciences Press [中国社会科学出版社].

v t e Sino-Tibetan branches
Western Himalayas (Himachal, Uttarakhand, Nepal, Sikkim)	West Himalayish Tamangic Newaric Newar Baram–Thangmi Kiranti Dhimalish Dhimal Toto Lhokpu Lepcha Greater Magaric Magaric Magar Kham Chepangic Chepang Bhujel Raji–Raute Dura–Tandrange
Eastern Himalayas (Tibet, Bhutan, Arunachal)	Bodish Tibetic East Bodish Tshangla Basum Nam? Gongduk ʼOle Tani Chamdo
Myanmar and Indo- Burmese border	Karbi Kuki-Chin Mruic Mru Hkongso Pyu Taman "Naga" Ao Angami–Pochuri Meitei Tangkhulic Zeme Sal Boro–Garo Konyak Jingpho–Luish
East and Southeast Asia	Sinitic Bai Tujia Nungish Karenic Gong Kathu Cai–Long Caijia Longjia Luren Burmo-Qiangic Qiangic Gyalrongic Ersuic Naic Lolo-Burmese Mondzish Burmish Loloish
Dubious (possible isolates) (Arunachal)	Hrusish Hruso Mijiic Kho-Bwa Puroik Miju–Meyor Songlin Greater Siangic Siangic Koro Milang Idu–Taraon
Proposed groupings	Central Tibeto-Burman Kuki-Chin–Naga Macro-Bai Mahakiranti Rung Tibeto-Burman Tibeto-Kanauri
Proto-languages	Proto-Sino-Tibetan Proto-Tibeto-Burman Proto-Loloish Proto-Karenic Proto-Min Proto-Hakka
Italics indicates single languages that are also considered to be separate branches.