Here's why:
* Lack of evidence: There is no strong linguistic evidence to support a genetic relationship between the languages traditionally grouped as Austric. The proposed similarities are often superficial or can be explained by borrowing or coincidence.
* Diverse language families: Many languages previously grouped as Austric have been shown to belong to different established language families, like Austroasiatic, Austro-Tai, and Papuan languages.
* Focus on individual families: Linguists now prefer to focus on well-established and supported language families instead of using broad, controversial classifications like "Austric."
Instead of talking about "Austric" languages, it's more accurate to discuss the individual language families within the geographical areas previously associated with the Austric hypothesis:
* Austroasiatic: This family includes languages like Vietnamese, Khmer, and Mon, spoken in Southeast Asia.
* Austro-Tai: This family includes languages like Thai, Lao, and Chinese, spoken in mainland Southeast Asia and southern China.
* Papuan languages: This vast and diverse group includes languages spoken in New Guinea and surrounding islands.
Therefore, it's not appropriate to speak of "Austric" languages spoken by a particular group of people. Instead, focus on the individual language families that are now recognized and the diverse populations that speak them.