Ned to Andy:
>Although, it may be accepted by a majority, I know that some
>linguists are still questioning the unity of Altaic. (And by saying
>that a majority may accept Altaic, I am only referring to the unity
>of Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic- the inclusion of Korean and/or
>Japanese is more controversial.)
Yes. However, I suppose it could be summarized that the problems
regarding Altaic are more to do with classification than reconstruction.
This is because, whatever one wishes to identify Japanese as, it
remains that there are identifiable Altaic elements in the language
which still help in the reconstruction of that language. It doesn't
matter what you classify Japanese as, as long as it is understood
that Japanese is still important to Altaic studies. And I think most
rational people will agree that words like /kokoro/ "heart" or /yotsu/
"4" are quite connectable to Turkish /ko"ku"z/ "breast" and /do"rt/.
(Turkish /d/ equates, by many clear examples, with Japanese /y/, btw.)
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail