Paul K. Benedict (1972) placed a particular emphasis on Old Chinese, Classical Tibetan, Jingpho, Written Burmese, Garo, and Mizo in his discussion of Proto-Sino-Tibetan.
[1] While Proto-Sino-Tibetan is commonly considered to have two direct descendants, Proto-Sinitic and Proto-Tibeto-Burman,[2] in recent years several scholars have argued that this was not well-substantiated,[3] and have taken to calling the group "Trans-Himalayan".
[5] Reconstructed features include prefixes such as the causative s-, the intransitive m-, the miscellaneous b-, d-, g-, and r-, suffixes -s, -t, and -n, and a set of conditioning factors that resulted in the development of tone in most languages of the family.
Jacques explains these discrepancies as at least partially triggered by pre-syllables that were lost or decayed on the way to Chinese, Tibetan and Burmese.
[12] Furthermore, in Proto-Tibeto-Burman, the finals *-g, *-gw, and *-d underwent the following changes: Words which do not have reliable Sinitic parallels are accompanied by a (TB).