Re: Related languages (Re: A China-Sumer connection)

From: Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 03/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:10:51 GMT

"António Marques" <m.ap@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:422f68a7$0$15423$a729d347@news.telepac.pt...
> On 09-03-2005 12:15, Comm scrived:
>
>> Imo, Chinese have hated Koreans for a long time. Therefore their
>> language has to be UNrelated. Yeah, LOL. Imo, the misplaced pride of
>> the Anglo Saxonists would require them to dismiss that BIG influence of
>> Frech - don't you know the French are decadent? Again,
>> LOL. I see agendas.
>
> And you might see indigo elephants.
> Chinese and Tibetan ARE related.

I never said they weren't. Sino-Tibetan? I know they are related.

There's one for the way. French and
> English also. Through PIE. Modern French and English share a lot of
> related vocabulary through Norman.

I already said that.
>
>> Israli - and we know they were conquered in history. Bulgarians speak
>> Slavic language now - and they even think they ARE Slavs. They
>> are TURKS!
>
> Please explain why are they not Thracians.

Bulgars are Turks. They came into the area from near Mongolia - as did the
Avars and Kumans and so many others.

Relevant Pages
Loading