Meitei

Ethnologue classifies Meitei [mni] as the sole member of a Kuki-Chin-Naga group within the Sal subgroup of Tibeto-Burman. The problem is that the label “Kuki-Chin-Naga” is otherwise used by experts who posit such a group as the label for a much larger group. Although the Ethnologue classification does not include a Kuki-Chin-Naga group, all the other languages that other people treat as part of Kuki-Chin-Naga group are treated by Ethnologue as immediate daughters of Tibeto-Burman, namely Angami-Pochuri, Central Naga, Kuki-Chin, and Tangkhulic. There are many competing classifications of Tibeto-Burman languages and the existence of a Kuki-Chin-Naga group that includes the four groups just mentioned is controversial. And where Meitei [mni] fits into the classification of Tibeto-Burman is itself unclear, though it is clearly not closely related to any other language (Chelliah 1997). However, as far as I know, the original proposal of a Sal group by Burling (1983) or subsequent versions of Sal do not include Meitei. Given that the other languages that are included in a Kuki-Chin-Naga group are treated by Ethnologue as immediate daughters of Tibeto-Burman, the most natural treatment of Meitei would be the same, as an immediate daughter of Tibeto-Burman.

However, even if Ethnologue maintains the current classification (which is not unreasonable given the controversies regarding the classification of Tibeto-Burman), I would strongly urge Ethnologue not to use the name Kuki-Chin-Naga for a group that consists only of Meitei since that label is otherwise used by experts as a label for a larger group. The minimal change would be to simply remove Kuki-Chin-Naga as the label for a group that only Meitei belongs to and simply call that group Meitei.