> I would have expected you would call it "in-valuable" but since you
place no
> value on them whatsoever, then I won't either :P
>
> Alright, I'll yield! I will review my views on the form of
SinoTibetan based
> on what you're saying and swallow my pride... but only very
cautiously... I
> remain thouroughly unconvinced of a close Austronesian relationship
although
> I don't deny a remote one to DeneCaucasian as a whole with ST
included.
Well, I am please to see that the debate is advancing.
>
> >There is a trace of this in chinese :
> >"two" nyijH < b/nits
> >"seven" tshit < b/s-hnit
>
> Erh, this isn't a trace of much. Granted the forms have influenced
each
> other because of the obvious semantic relationship but notice the
> similarities between *sNit/*bryat (or s-hnit/brat, if you will). Now
compare
> Basque zortzi/bederatzi. Anything familiar? We should in fact expect
"seven"
> in ST to be *sryat but the numeral was certainly influenced by "two"
in ST
> itself.
Well, there is some similarity, but can you explain me neatly the
correspondance betwwen chinese and basque for these numbers ? (how come
the -de- disappeared ?) I think the final -zi is a suffix for numeral,
isn't ?
Anyway, I am still convinced that ancient people coun't count. Counting
and having special names for such abstract entities as numbers is not
straighforward. Numerals were, in my opinion, "invented" in several
part of the world independently. Besides, having a common word for a
numeral throughout a language family does not prove it was inherited.
People with no number might easily borrow numerals, all at a time.
In TB, there is a not-chinese word for "thousand", cf Tib. stong, which
comes up in the languages that didn't loaned chinese or indic numerals.
However, did TB really have a word for "thousand", that even IE didn't
have ? I think this one is a "local Wanderwort". Other numerals in
other language families might also be.
>
>
> > > DeneCaucasian *m-hutL "eye":
> > >
> > > SinoTibetan (OChin myök, Tibetan myik)
> >mjuwk < AC b/mriwk (This word is nasty, Sagart proposed b/mr-liwk to
> >explain word family connections but I am not convinced)
> >the tibetan word is mig, not "myik".
>
> Whoops, sorry. I knew I would goof on one of these words. Hmm, as far
as the
> theories that I was in contact with go, the SinoTibetan *r was
supposed to
> be uvular, not trilled. Is this Ancient Chinese -r- in /mriwk/
uvular? If
ST r ? who said that ? Never heard of it. If chinese -r- was indeed
uvular, then its uvularity left no trace that I know. Ancient thai,
which had uvular or velar fricative X and G loaned chinese r- as r- (or
l in some cases) in the initial and as a medial, eg: graan2 "lazy" from
chinese lanX < g-ran?
If chinese -r- was uvular, then why didn't it came to be loaned as G ?
Besides, AC r- always become l- in MC. It is easier to explain if it
were coronal.
Notice (en passant) that this chinese word entered almost all southern
asian languages. Chinese settlers/conquerors obviously found local
peoples reluctant to work with them.
Anyway, we can continue discuss DC / AC and IE, but I suggest we
discuss lower levels than DC. Which language family do you think is
most closely related to chinese (apart from TB) ? What I can do it
giving you a limited list of those words that look really cognate
between TB and AC. I cite only tibetan when there is a cognate.
b/wa > yo --- yu2 newari s-wa "to go"
b/pis > pjijH - bi4 --- tib byi-n "to give - the chinese word is
preserved in cantonese, not in mandarin, as lei kôông pei khöü = you
talk to him.
b/lek > yek -ye4 --- tib. lag "hand - in chinese armpit"
a/ling > den -tian2 --- tib zying < lhying "field"
a/ning > nen - nian2 "year" --- tib ning (na ning - last year), rnying
"old"
b/hmyj? > xwaX - huo3 --- tib. me "fire"
This list is just a first draft, you get new comparisons in subsequent
letters, I can't do everything from memory. Nonetheless, I don't think
there are so many more true genetic words between chinese and TB. I
don't think there are more than 50 of them.
I think body parts, basic verbs of action, are the most conservative
words, not numerals. As for pronoms and grammar words, the issue is not
settled.
About uralic-IE, do you know Jorma Koivulehto's book "uralische Evidenz
für die Laryngaltheorie" ? I haven't had time yet to pîck it up in the
library. This book treats old IE loanwords in uralic.
Well, as for uralic-IE, although I am neither competent to juge IE or
uralic reconstruction, I must admit that I was surprised, while
learning finnish, by the pronouns minä, sinä, that are reminiscent of
IE, and words such as vesi that you cited earlier. Anyway, even if
those are real cognates, they are not many enough to prove the
relationship. Finnish is full of germanic and slavic words, not to
speak of early loanwords into uralic (such as honey *mete - note that
finnish has hunaja, which looks a bit germanic, although I this the
proto-germanic word was something like *huningaz, cf dutch honing)
Guillaume