Re: Deeper relations of Chinese

From: Rex F. May (rex.may_at_comcast.net)
Date: 09/19/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:17:35 GMT

in article 414D7D74.53D5@worldnet.att.net, Peter T. Daniels at
grammatim@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/19/04 6:37 AM:

> Anti-imperialist wrote:
>>
>> "Rex F. May" wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting. Can you point to some good websites?
>>
>> Not really. Google "Dene-Caucasian" and see what you can find.
>
> It would be preferable, of course, to start with truth rather than
> falsehood. Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan phylum. Anything beyond
> that is sheer speculation, unsupported by any evidence.

I would guess that there are degrees of whackiness. Somebody wrote a
strange book claiming that Zuņi and Japanese are related, for example, which
would be at the ultra-violet end. Are there any such notions that are
considered more reasonable than others? I would think that two language
groups might be related, but have diverged so much that there could be
reasonable disagreement about their relationship.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deeper relations of Chinese
    ... > in article 414D7D74.53D5@worldnet.att.net, Peter T. Daniels at ... >>It would be preferable, of course, to start with truth rather than ... >>that is sheer speculation, unsupported by any evidence. ... > reasonable disagreement about their relationship. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: AmE just solution/gist in time
    ... Peter T. Daniels wrote: ... the same sound as "just". ... To tell the truth, I've heard the word 'us' pronunced with a much much ...
    (sci.lang)