>Glen xiangsheng, qing bie2 yong4 "tong2zhi4" zhege ci2, bie2 wang4ji4
>ta you gong1chan3dang de wei4dao4. Hao3 kong3bu4 !
Well, you know. Workers unite and all that. That's me, my wacky Finnish
fluent-in-Chinese tongzhi with a French name that spells "ambiguous cultural
background". Can you please talk in Swahili, the pinyin notation is giving
me a headache and I find myself understanding you all too well. :P
>I am not accepting Starostins' comparisons, I am talking about his
>reconstruction of archaic chinese, which is based on Jaxontov's >ideas.
Bizarre. Well, if these reconstructions are "based" on Jaxontov's ideas and
Starostin is reconstructing them, then I guess they qualify as "Starostin's
comparisons" and automatically one should be weary of the research he's put
in them based on the Altaic garbage.
>It is basically much the same as Baxter's and Zhengzhang Shangfang's,
>one of the most brilliant chinese researcher. I am pleased to see you
>don't accept them either. His attempt to reconstruct "sino-tibetan" >(I
>don't like this word anyway) lacked of rigour, to say the least.
Then what does Chinese belong to? What do you call this "family" then if TB
is Austronesian?? I would suggest that you bie2 yong4 the term
"Sino-Tibetan" and bie2 confusing cao4-de dou1 ren2 on this list with
SinoTibetan reconstructions that Xi1zan4yu doesn't directly derive cong2,
hao3 ma? :P Tuk sa myket, watashi no Franz�sisch-Kinesisch peng2you.
Lei bu2 hui4 gagner. Ich weiss troppo di spr�che humaines pour accepter
sinun id�e comme wahr. Capiche?
>"Mainstream linguistics"... Many people in China (like Zhengzhang of
>Fudan daxue) work now like me.
Yikes. Well, excuse my "ignorance" but a good encylopaedia by the name of
"Brittanica" goes into great detail and accuracy on the subject of World
Languages and it seems to still have Sino-Tibetan as one of the listings.
I'm sure if Zhengzhang and Fudan were working properly, they'd have some
passing mention in it at least. I have also not seen any books that
seriously relate Tibetan to Austonesian in my university. The books there
consistently link Chinese and Tibetan together with long lists of examples
to show for it and vraisemblable reconstructions that don't use paranthetic
phonemes and the like to prove an impossible case.
This combined with my knowledge that Starostin can't be trusted at point
blank for being accurate, leaves me in opposition to your views.
>It is difficult to explain the reason why there are so many loanwords
>in TB. You need first to know thouroughly Baxter's work before I can
>explain to you.
>Basically, siamese also loaned numerals from chinese (and personnal
>pronouns from khmer...), although it comes from an AN language.
>Japanese and korean also loaned chinese numerals and some personnal
>pronouns, like boku in Jp.
Japanese did loan Chinese numerals, yes, but boku? The male first person
informal pronoun? I recall that this was derived from an actual noun like
"servant". How does it derive from AN? Is the word "servant" borrowed? What
AN term? I don't recall a first person in AN of that form.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________