Andy:
>Please, none of this answers my original query of whether the hypothesis
>stated at web site http://www-lib.icu.ac.jp/LibShuppan/lecture/6-2-1.html
>of proto-Japanese originally being a creole of an Austronesian language and
>an Altaic language is valid.
It doesn't matter whether it is valid if you are interested only in
comparative linguistics rather than classification. As I've said, Japanese
demonstrably has an Altaic vocabulary at the very least, even if
it may be morphologically Austronesian-ish. So, Altaic may still be
reconstructed based on Japanese data regardless of whether Japanese is
an "isolate", a "creole", an Altaic language, an Austronesian language
or even a tasty plate of sushi... mmm, that reminds me, I'm getting a
little hungry.
If you're interested in classification, it might be stated that, using
a lose everyday definition of "creole", any language is a creole
(as in, a masala of various languages) including English. However, the
linguistic definition of "creole" is stricter and personally, I don't
know enough to state with any certainty whether Japanese is truly a
creole. But obviously this remains a matter of controversy since books
disagree constantly on the relationship of Japanese to other language
groups to this day.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail