>Fine with me, and thanx again fer yer input.

Sorry, I didn't mean to capitalize but seriously, Ainu is just
totally unNostratic. It appears to be more para-Austronesian,
if I may use the tr�s chic para- prefix.

>I'm wondering about the relationship between Korean and Japanese. Korean
>is more likely to be Altaic, [...]

Yes, I'll agree that Korean is more Altaic-looking.

>[...] but Japanese is a toughie, since it has such a reduced
>phonology, a ton of Chinese loans, and some differences in grammar
>and syntax.

True. However, is it really novel for any language to have external
influences? Of course not. For some reason though, some languages
invoke heated debate on something so moot. Yes, Japanese is a
hodgepodge of Chinese and Austronesian influences. Does this make
Japanese un-Altaic? Well, it's still obvious that Japanese has
an Altaic element within it. It's not terribly important whether
Japanese should be considered an isolate, Altaic or Austronesian
in origin because it is the Altaic element of Japanese that is
important to the reconstruction of Proto-Altaic.

Personally, however, I still feel that Japanese is more Altaic
in design than anything else.

>So where do YOU put Korean, Japanese and Gilyak/Nivkh?

I prefer something like the following:

Gilyak (heavily influenced by SinoDene lgs)
- Korean
- Everything else...
- Turkic
- Mongolic
- ManchuTungusic
- Japanese (heavily influenced by
paraAustronesian substrate)

Glen Gordon

home: http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email: glengordon01@...
ph: (604)904.0320

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp