Re: A SinoTibetan-Vasconic Comparison: A very, very, very, very len

Kaer Glen,

First of all, I would like to apologize. I said MC khu luw could be
reconstructed as a/k-lu. This is not true, I made this reconstruction
in my head without verifying the phonetic series. It belongs to a
series which must be reconstructed normally with an r-. Besides, it is
preferrable to reconstruct the vowel as -o, because one word of this
series rimes in the book of ode as -o, not as -u (the ambiguity exists
if one uses purely internal reconstruction from MC as I did). So this
word was a/kha ro, it cannot be a cognate with syuwX < b/lhu? Besides,
luw is attested early only in combination with duwk luw < a/dok ro,
with khu as in modern dialects.
J'ai été un peu vite en besogne.

> 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 I am, please tell me the URL of this text. I have very few
references on Burushaski at home.

>
> >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.

There was a h- in your DC. There was a x- in chinese. It would have
expected h > x in AC, and r > r... Besides, how come DC -u- split into
-iw- in this word and remains -u- in others ?
Old chinese has 6 vowels, i e a o u y, how do you explain their origin ?

>
>
> 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?

1pl ex is amen (nia- in bound form) and 1pl.ic. is atjen (tja in bd
form).
Anyway, ts and t merged in PMP. Impossible to explain unless you
suppose a series "major unconditionned splits" in all taiwanese
languages.

>
> >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?
>

AA = austroasiatic. It is the usual name for this family. Mon khmer +
Munda languages. Anyway I don't think austric is a good hypothesis,
although it has proponents among serious scholars such as Laurence Reid
in Hawaii.

Guillaume