This paper reviews the evidence and arguments for reconstructing a person–number agreement paradigm for the Proto-Trans-Himalayan (=Sino-Tibetan) verb, and assesses the counter-arguments which have been presented in the literature. We demonstrate the cognacy of verb agreement paradigms across the family, and show that there is no plausible subclassification of the family which would place all the attesting languages in a single branch of the family, and no case for a “Rung” branch. The agreement systems of Jinghpaw and Northern Naga and the archaic postverbal paradigms of South Central/Kuki-Chin are demonstrably cognate to those of Rgyalrongic and Kiranti, and these languages have no common ancestor more recent than PTH.

This paper describes the inverse marking systems of two closely related Khroskyabs varieties, Siyuewu and Wobzi, and hypothesizes the historical development of the Khroskyabs inverse marking system. I propose that a hypothetical prefix, *Cə-, which is probably related to the second person markers attested in many Trans-Himalayan languages, existed in Proto-Khroskyabs, and that it has different reflexes in the two modern Khroskyabs varieties.