But written/classical Tibetan is based on Sanskrit grammar. It's not a perfect carbon copy, but it does attempt to follow the vibakti system. So while your statement is true in regards to colloquial Tibetan, it's not necessarily so in regards to written Tibetan.
Really? Afaik classical Tibetan belongs to the sino-sibetan language family just as much as colloquial Tibetan.
I'm certainly not an expert on Sanskrit or classical Tibetan, but afaik the Tibetan translations of Sanskrit texts try to imitate
the syntactical structure as far as possible, but still classical Tibetan is a particle based grammar, whereas Sanskrit grammar is based on declination and conjugation.
Some grammar books speak of cases in Tibetan grammar, but actually that is an outdated concept that was some attempt to impose the structure of Indo-European languages on Tibetan grammar which made it completely impossible to understand how Tibetan grammar works. At least that's what my teachers told me at my local University when I attended some classes in classical Tibetan as a guest student. There are no cases like nominative, genitive, dative, accusative in Tibetan grammar - neither colloquial nor classic. There are particles like the la don
, the drel dra
and so on.
But Sanskrit on the other hand has all these cases and times European languages use to have, they even have the aorist, the optative, the dualis, the medium like in Ancient Greek - and some more that even Ancient Greek doesn't have. So if you directly translate from Sanskrit to European languages no brushing the grammar up the wrong way is needed...