`  == History of the name ==  This article seems to rely on Van Driem's account of the history of ``Tibeto-Burman``, a number of variations of which occur in his publications.  Unfortunately that account is made quite confusing by his habit of always using his own definition of the term (the family including Chinese, which nearly everyone else calls ``Sino-Tibetan``).  For example, in the Languages of the Himalayas (2001) p. 334 he says ``Klaproth outlined the Tibeto-Burman family`` and ``Klaproth observed that Tibeto-Burman included Chinese``.  But in a paper in 2008 he acknowledges that Klaproth did not name any of his Asian phyla.  So he means that in 1823 Klaproth outlined a family containing Tibetan, Burmese and Chinese but not Thai, Vietnamese or Mon, namely the family Van Driem calls ``Tibeto-Burman``.  The term ``Tibeto-Burman`` was first used in 1856 by John Logan, in the obvious sense of a family consisting of Tibetan, Burmese and dozens of less well-known languages related to these two, and later authors seem to use it the same way.  Indeed Shafer avoided the term precisely because it denoted a group that he felt was not a valid subgroup of ST.  But this is obscured because Van Driem just says ``Tibeto-Burman`` all the time.  As far as I can see no-one before him used the term for a family that included Chinese.   `