uvazhaemyj tovarishch,
>
> >Chinese reconstruction is NOT based on the comparative method. That's
> >the point. It's 90% internal reconstruction.
>
> "Reconstruction" seems to be the operative word here and I don't
remember
> Chinese written in an alphabet or even a syllabry. What is *s-lhym
from?
Archaic chinese script was clearly not a syllabary, but it was still
95% phonetic. Characters written with the same phonetic (xie3sheng1)had
the same initials (unregarding voicing, aspiration, -r- infix, -s
suffix) and the same final. MC sam has word-families relationship with
words that belong to a lateral series. It takes three pages to Sagart
to explain it rigorously, so please find a copy of his book. He is not
isolated in thinking so. Several researchers in France and Germany
(M.Ferlus, W.Behr, for example) were convinced. Anyway, read Baxter
1992, he explains very well the method of old Chinese reconstruction.
Even if you don't know chinese characters, you can follow this book,
but need to learn eventually *some* characters. Please do not forget it
was the only writing system in Asia until indian and aramean scripts
began to spread in Far Eastern countries. It is a unvaluable bulk of
evidence to help the reconstruction.
>
>
> So you have no cognates for this STAN. Just some possible tiny
grammatical
We do have cognates. It admit a few affixes would be far from enough.
Just check the references I gave. Cognates between AN and TB have not
yet been well established, but there are. I just cite the cognates in
modern languages, because no real reconstructions are yet available.
Examples :
TB,WT'phur AN,paiwan mi-perper (to fly), Chinese MC phjien < b/phen <
b/pher (to fly quickly)
TB,lushai lu "head", AN,paiwan qulu "head", Chinese syuwX < b/lhu?
(shoudu de shou)
The main problem is to work with TB languages. I have to admit that,
apart from tibetan, I don't know much of these, just some kachin and
limbu. Even reconstructing the branch to which tibetan belongs (with
tamang) is not easy. Few exact work has been made even at the lowest
comparative level (even tibetan dialects are poorly known, in my
opinion). Making a reconstruction of PTB without even knowing the
intermediate branches is risky, isn't it - like reconstructing IE with
english, persian and albanian. So finding real cognates with chinese
and AN is not easy - finding similar words is.
>
>
> As well, even if we say that ST _IS_ related closely to AN, there is
still
> the matter of terms that seem to, in the very least, suggest a
> Dene-Caucasian substratum. Besides the unAustronesian pronominal
> relationship to DeneCaucasian, I note some widespread forms:
In France, Germany and the Netherlands, if you speak about
'dene-caucausian', no professor will want directing your PhD. I don't
how linguistics is like in american universities, but please speak of
DC as a hypothesis. You cite numerals as a evidence for DC, but don't
forget that there was a time when people couldn't count ! Therefore,
they had dual and trial number.
Proto-turkic people had only numerals up to six. But they were surely
technologically more advanced than were people by 6000 BC.
I think there might be indeed common substratum languages. But the
evidence is so scare that calling them anything is rather bold.
Besides, many pan-asiatic or pan-eurasiatic Wanderwörter need not
postulate a genetic relationship :
'horse' : breton "marc'h", german "Mähre", mongolian "morin" (that got
loaned into russian), chinese "maeX < a/mra?", tibetan "mrang", etc...
'dog' : IE kuunos, chinese "khwenX < a/khw[i,e]n?"
'leaf' : Chinese "yep < b/lep", Vietnamese la/ (<AA la?), WT lo-ma
These "lookalikes" are surely words that got loaned from unknowned
sources. Substratum ? Adstratum ? Bien malin qui pourrait le dire.
>
>
> Should we depend on these Chinese scholars to determine the origins
of the
> Tibetan culture and language, a culture whose government, that these
> scholars are _trapped_ in, continues to oppress? I find it
interesting that
> there would seem to be many _Chinese_ scholars that would fight a
> SinoTibetan hypothesis in order to make Chinese a proud and fearless
isolate
> from time immortal.
On the contrary, they want to prove that chinese is related to TB, thai
and miao-yao in order to justify their colonialist policies.
>
> equivalent Hmong pronoun kuv.
Well, this only is loaned from a thai language (thai languages are
basically AN); my dictionary of 'standard miao' gives wil for 1sg, bib
for 1pl, ob for 1du (le final tone-letters might indicate tones
different from those of your dictionary - hmong languages need
standardisation in spelling in this respect.
> Hmm, well given what I know of DeneCaucasian, the Austronesian
family, as
> part of a larger hypothetical MacroAsiatic grouping, would probably
have a
> sister-similarity to Dene-Caucasian's:
>
> SINGULAR PLURAL
> 1 ni, ti tLu
> 2 ngu Lu
> 3 i, di, mu, wa, ci...
>
> May I offer the suggestion:
>
> SINGULAR PLURAL
> 1 ka taya
> 2 ku nu
>
> The first and second person would derive from a MacroAsiatic *ngi and
*ngu
> (as in Australian languages)...
>
You seems to have a clearer picture of Dene-Caucasian than I have of
TB. I think comparative linguistics requires to work slowly, the worst
thing to do is to rush and put words together. You american people want
to do things to quickly. Be patient, anyway nobody cares about
linguistics.
The reason I like STAN is that it fits well with archeological evidence
: chinese and AN spread from the expansion of agriculture, based on
millet. This crop was eventually superseded by rice and wheat, but rice
cultivation is linked with AA and miao-yao people, whereas wheat was
imported from occident by IE / "altaic" peoples.
Millet was the predominant crop of Shang chinese, and it is cultivated
since 6500 BC in the Huanghe bassin. It is also the main crop of AN.
Several words for it can be reconstructed, which proves it is very
ancient. Archaic chinese has at least five commonly used term for
millet, but only one for rice. Incidentally, it seems the chinese word
for rice mejX < a/mij? is cognate with AN,paiwan lumay, one of the
terms for millet.
What archeological evidence are there for Dene-caucasian ?
Guillaume