From: Tommy Tyrberg
Message: 1087
Date: 2000-01-23
>uvazhaemyj tovarishch,IF there is something to the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis I can think of two
>
>>
>> >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