>Could someone tell me if Japanese and Korean are Nostratic >languages? Many
>linguists say that they are Altaic languages (or >Austronesic). Are there
>Nostratic roots in Japanese and Korean?
Yes, there are Nostratic roots in Japanese and Korean because they are part
of the Altaic grouping. Many people fight this designation for reasons I
can't even fathom, so we will call these people "mad" :)
To be true, Korean and Japanese are different from the rest of Altaic
languages in that they have radically altered their grammar. However Korean
and Japanese are not closely related either and do not constitute a special
"Korean-Japanese" branch.
Evidently Korean is most ancient within the Altaic family. I'm unsure of the
phonological connections between Korean and the rest of the Altaic family
but it seems to me that *m- and *n- are preserved in Korean where they are
in certain situations converted to *b- and *d-, respectively, in the rest of
Altaic. Compare for instance Korean /net/ with Turkish d�rt, Japanese yo-tsu
(y < *d). At any rate, take my word that Korean is a very ancient split
since this is a mainstream view. I seem to recall some Nostratic pronouns
surviving in the language too... I must check that out.
Japanese is on a par with TurkoMongolian and ManchuTungus. The pronouns are
pretty much gone because it favoured using special words like "boku"
("servant") and "watashi" instead of the original Altaic pronouns, just like
Asiatic languages (cf. Vietnamese co). Altaic *ben (< *mu-n) survives in Old
Japanese (Was it /Fa/ or /wa/? Is it connected with /watashi/? Can't quite
remember). There are also Altaic (and ultimately Nostratic) connections to
be made with the demonstratives kono (IE *ke, Etr eca), sono (IE *to, Etr
eta) and ano (IE *e, Etr an "he, she"). Even Japanese /de/ "at" (Nostratic
*di > IE *-dhi, Etr /-thi/, Altaic *da "at"). Unfortunately, the much loved
accusative *-m is not found in Japanese at all.
I can't argue with people who connect Japanese or Korean with Austronesian
languages since there was no doubt some influence because of their
geographical positions. However, that Korean and Japanese are in fact
Austronesian is nothing but fantasy and a weaker theory in opposition to the
many good points that connect the two languages with Altaic. Why, it would
be like imagining Chinese as closely related to AN! ;) IMHO, it would also
be illogical to support a substanceless null hypothesis in order to avoid an
Altaic relationship with much data to support this. Those who describe
Japanese or Korean as being "isolates" are being unnecessarily conservative,
like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________