The Finnish-Chinese guy wrote:
>Well, mandarin has a 3rd person plural tamen, which though not
>systematic, is widely used. cantonese also has kh��23 tei22.
Yes, no gender distinction in Chinese 3rd person (except in writing but that
doesn't count).
>[...]although there were many different 3rd prs. pronouns in this >language
>(that makes finding a cognate with other
>language families easy) :
Hmm, another argumentative attack at me, perhaps? I don't think I or any
Dene-Caucasianist claims to base his comparative analysis solely on 3rd
person alone to connect Sino-Tibetan and other DC languages together, not
even Starostin I'm sure. Get your facts straight and read up. Let's stop
using sensationalistic knee-jerk comments as logical rebuttles against
long-range comparative linguistics.
In order to understand the Dene-Caucasian theory, you have to first study
the languages beneath it. What do you know of Burushaski? What do you know
of NEC? What do you know of Basque? Etc. Please learn about them and then
we'll discuss.
I remain highly leery of your use of incompetant sources for these
reconstructions of "Sino-Tibetan" that ironically aren't Sino-Tibetan at all
if Tibeto-Burman has, according to you, borrowed everything from Chinese.
However, the MC elements are familiar. I will be verifying.
>b/ty > MC tsyi
>b/g(r)i > MC gi (potential cognate with uralic, watch out !)
Please. You wouldn't know what Uralic is if it hit you on the head. You
yourself have admitted to that so you're fooling no one.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________