>Sorry, I don't have time to go through your basque comparisons at the
>moment.
Gee, at least have the courage to admit that my letter is too lengthy and
boring :( You're the one that asked for an explanation, though. So, tea
culpa. Mm, that reminds me, I think I'll boil a pot right now...
>Well, semitic also has something like that, the s^-stem of akkadian.
>Does it suffices you to compare afroasiatic with chinese ?
You're talking stupid again - Of course it doesn't! I'm not trying to link
every family group directly to every other family group like a ProtoWorlder
does. I never go for little tidbits here and there to arrive at my
conclusions. This is arrived at via a greater scope, weighing the
probability of the coincidences as a whole and with greater weight placed on
_regular_ correspondances and preservation of _sets_ of words or systems
(like declension, conjugation, etc) when possible.
We all agree that one or two chance similarities, like, say, the teensy
unsyllabic tidbits between Chinese and Austronesian, are barely enough to
establish anything serious. Especially, when you are analogously trying to
compare Japanese to Hebrew.
With the case of Burushaski-Yeniseian, both languages of the family have *u
and *ku attested for second person, BOTH pronouns _together_ as part of a
grammatical set! Along with a first person form, something like *aja (found
in Yeniseian ?aj and Burushaski ja & ja:), this should lead most people to
the conclusion that a relationship, even if thousands of years do seperate
the two, is highly plausible. They're are simply no other human languages
with these characteristics. In addition to this, other vocabulary terms have
also been linked between the two such as that of "intestine" and
"woman/witch".
Now, in the light of DC, this pronoun *aja can be explained as an oblique
form of *ti, as in NEC *idi found in AvarAndian languages to replace the
plain form *su (Starostin's NC *zo:). Likewise, BurYen *ku might be
similarly based on an oblique form *i-ngu whereas *u is certainly from *ngu
showing loss of initial *ng-.
One cannot consider a direct relationship with Yeniseian and Chinese. The
relationship must be seen as that between SinoTibetan and BuruYen or at the
very least, between Chinese and BuruYen, since Burushaski and Yeniseian are
surely closely related despite the modern-day geographical seperation. There
is some sophisticated online text that I have found in PDF format on the
matter of Burushaski grammar. It does mention highly plausible connections
to Yeniseian (and even SinoTibetan) with scientific seriousness. If you're
interested...
>well, you correspondance is not so convincing mriwk ~ m-huk < m-hutl
>???
How so? Please try to be more to the point when refusing a theory I put
forth? _Explain_ your reasoning. Give me a "why?", if not for my sake, for
the sake of others on this list who may also be confused.
As I've said before *-tL > Chinese -k. Quite simple. The same rule is
attested in *rutL "six". I'm not sure why you can't understand this
correspondance since you didn't explain but I'll elaborate:
*-tL > *-kL > *-k: > -k.
>What is the phonological system of your DC ?
Sigh. Let's see, so far I have:
Affricates: *tL, *c, *c?
Liquids: *l, *L, *m, *n, *ng, *r
Sibilants: *s
Laryngeals: *h, *?
Semivowels: *w, *y
Stops: *b *d *g
*p? *t? *k?
*p *t *k
Vowels: *a, *i, *u, (*m), (*n)
I'm undecided yet whether there are nasal vowels. The form *mnrit "eight"
might be *munrit instead. Hard to say. The syllable structure was CV(C) but
I don't bother to write initial glottal stop. A final stress accent might be
theorized.
>>Anyways, the *m-hutL saga goes on. I was in the library today and
>>glimpsed at a book "Atlas of Languages" (1996). [...]
>>
>> Austronesian MonKhmer Kam-Thai
>> *mata *mat *taa
>>
>> DeneCaucasian Austric
>>eye *m-hutL(a) *m-hutL *m-ata
>>we *tLu *tLu *ta
>
>Aie aie aie. In fact, AN is matsa (cf paiwan), but
>proto-malayo-polynesian has mata, because -ts- -t- merged.
Beg my ignorance, but both this book I quote and Encyclopaedia Brittanica do
display *mata and not *matsa for AN. How can we be sure that the ts/t thing
isn't a later innovation on the part of Paiwan? Does the first person plural
have "ts" or "t" in Paiwan?
>The AN language that became proto-Kam-Dai was a PMP language. We >have the
>well know pair :
>AN Thai
>matsa taa "eye"
>matsay taay "die"
Interesting.
>So the comparison AN <-> Kam/Dai is genuine. However, I am not sure >the
>comparison with AA is a good idea,
Erh, you mean, MonKhmer? You mean we should expect **mta/**mca in MonKhmer,
right? Where did AA come from?
>Anyway, I need to read some more on uralic and IE before I can give >my
>opinion on the subject.
Cool. Please do, tomodachisan. It'll probably take years of sifting through
all the data but you'll come around to Nostratic yet :)
- gLeN
______________________________________________________