Benedict completed the manuscript of his work in 1941, but it was not published until 1972. Instead of building the entire family tree, he set out to reconstruct a Proto-Tibeto-Burman language by comparing five major languages, with occasional comparisons with other languages. He reconstructed a two-way distinction on initial consonants based on voicing, with aspiration conditioned by pre-initial consonants that had been retained in Tibetic but lost in many other languages. Thus, Benedict reconstructed the following initials: TB Tibetan Jingpho Burmese Garo Mizo S'gaw Karen Old Chinese *k k(h) k(h) ~ g k(h) k(h) ~ g k(h) k(h) *k(h) *g g g ~ k(h) k g ~ k(h) k k(h) *gh *ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ y *ŋ *t t(h) t(h) ~ d t(h) t(h) ~ d t(h) t(h) *t(h) *d d d ~ t(h) t d ~ t(h) d d *dh *n n n n n n n *n ~ *ń *p p(h) p(h) ~ b p(h) p(h) ~ b p(h) p(h) *p(h) *b b b ~ p(h) p b ~ p(h) b b *bh *m m m m m m m *m *ts ts(h) ts ~ dz ts(h) s ~ tś(h) s s(h) *ts(h) *dz dz dz ~ ts ~ ś ts tś(h) f s(h) ? *s s s s th th θ *s *z z z ~ ś s s f θ ? *r r r r r r γ *l *l l l l l l l *l *h h ∅ h ∅ h h *x *w ∅ w w w w w *gjw *y y y y tś ~ dź z y *dj ~ *zj Although the initial consonants of cognates tend to have the same place and manner of articulation, voicing and aspiration are often unpredictable. This irregularity was attacked by Roy Andrew Miller, though Benedict's supporters attribute it to the effects of prefixes that have been lost and are often unrecoverable. The issue remains unsolved today. It was cited together with the lack of reconstructable shared morphology, and evidence that much shared lexical material has been borrowed from Chinese into Tibeto-Burman, by Christopher Beckwith, one of the few scholars still arguing that Chinese is not related to Tibeto-Burman.
Benedict completed the manuscript of his work in 1941, but it was not published until 1972. Instead of building the entire family tree, he set out to reconstruct a Proto-Tibeto-Burman language by comparing five major languages, with occasional comparisons with other languages. He reconstructed a two-way distinction on initial consonants based on voicing, with aspiration conditioned by pre-initial consonants that had been retained in Tibetic but lost in many other languages Thus, Benedict reconstructed the following initials: TB Tibetan Jingpho Burmese Garo Mizo S'gaw Karen Old Chinese *k k(h) k(h) ~ g k(h) k(h) ~ g k(h) k(h) *k(h) *g g g ~ k(h) k g ~ k(h) k k(h) *gh *ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ ŋ y *ŋ *t t(h) t(h) ~ d t(h) t(h) ~ d t(h) t(h) *t(h) *d d d ~ t(h) t d ~ t(h) d d *dh *n n n n n n n *n ~ *ń *p p(h) p(h) ~ b p(h) p(h) ~ b p(h) p(h) *p(h) *b b b ~ p(h) p b ~ p(h) b b *bh *m m m m m m m *m *ts ts(h) ts ~ dz ts(h) s ~ tś(h) s s(h) *ts(h) *dz dz dz ~ ts ~ ś ts tś(h) f s(h) ? *s s s s th th θ *s *z z z ~ ś s s f θ ? *r r r r r r γ *l *l l l l l l l *l *h h ∅ h ∅ h h *x *w ∅ w w w w w *gjw *y y y y tś ~ dź z y *dj ~ *zj Although the initial consonants of c,ognates tend to have the same place and manner of articulation, voicing and aspiration are often unpredictable. This irregularity was attacked by Roy Andrew Miller though Benedict's supporters attribute it to the effects of prefixes that have been lost and are often unrecoverable. The issue remains unsolved today. It was cited together with the lack of reconstructable shared morphology, and evidence that much shared lexical material has been borrowed from Chinese into Tibeto-Burman, by Christopher Beckwith, one of the few scholars still arguing that Chinese is not related to Tibeto-Burman.