Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Japanese & Amerindian languages -related?

 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room Post Reply
26 messages over 4 pages: 1 24  Next >>
Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 6072 days ago

4228 posts - 8257 votes 
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

 
 Message 17 of 26
07 September 2012 at 9:53pm | IP Logged 
paleolitik wrote:
Chung wrote:
paleolitik wrote:
I didn't say Mayan language is relative of Turkish, but if there are many common words they may be "borrowed words" and this may mean "Turks and Mayans were neighbors" at least.


Have you not considered conincidence as brought forth by Ari?

paleolitik wrote:
Japanese and Turkish also are related, because they have many common words, suffixes and same rules. I used the term related for them because they are really related. I didn't say "relative" again. Ponimaesh?


Did you pull your examples from this thread?
I have got a book: Japonca ve Altay Dilleri (by Talat Tekin).It contains many comparisons amongst Japanese, Turkish, Mongolian and some other languages.


I don't mean to be an ass, but so what? I've read Roy Andrew Miller's book "Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages" (since I have no practical ability in Turkish) and while his work (and presumably Tekin's) is done fairly well and isn't amateurish, it's hard to take a decisive stance when you compare what else has been written on the subject. In the same way, I believe that I'd do myself an intellectual disservice by confining myself to the research done by "Anti-Altaicists" and "splitters" among comparative linguists who continually shoot down the idea or possibility of Altaic's existence, let alone Japanese belonging to it.

The most that I can say is that there are arguments put forth by several linguists with the result that there's no consensus among them. So it still pays to keep an open mind and support more research rather than to simply proclaim the validity or invalidity of the classificatiory schemes by slavishly following conclusions put forth by just one author. If I wanted to play your game and hide behind some scholar's book I could validate my thinking by citing Gerhard Doerfer's book Bemerkungen zur Verwandtschaft der sog. altaische Sprachen ("Remarks on the relationship of the so-called Altaic languages" - even the title hints at his professional bias (sneering/smirking?) by using the term sogennante "so-called").

On this subject, I do not share your confidence in a special relationship between Japanese and Turkic (or Altaic) but I am open to getting more research by the professionals. I am as cautious of the findings by "Anti-Altaicists" such as Janhunen, Georg and Clauson as I am of those by the "Pro-Altaicists" such as Johansen, Starostin and Miller.
1 person has voted this message useful



paleolitik
Newbie
Turkey
Joined 3429 days ago

8 posts - 11 votes

 
 Message 18 of 26
07 September 2012 at 10:01pm | IP Logged 
I am NOT saying that these languages are RELATIVES, but they have many COMMON WORDS, SUFFIXES and RULES. At least, this MAY prove those people were neighbor or lived together (this is the relationship).Why are you explaining the same things again and again?

Edited by paleolitik on 07 September 2012 at 10:11pm

1 person has voted this message useful



Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 6072 days ago

4228 posts - 8257 votes 
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

 
 Message 19 of 26
07 September 2012 at 10:49pm | IP Logged 
paleolitik wrote:
Japanese and Turkish also are related, because they have many common words, suffixes and same rules. I used the term related for them because they are really related. I didn't say "relative" again. Ponimaesh?


paleolitik wrote:
I am NOT saying that these languages are RELATIVES, but they have many COMMON WORDS, SUFFIXES and RULES. At least, this MAY prove those people were neighbor or lived together (this is the relationship).Why are explaining the same things again and again?


You seem to be having problems staying on track. First you state that Japanese and Turkish are related, and then you deny saying that they're relatives. Which is it? There's no semantic difference when looking at languages here as "having a relationship" and being "relatives" since both of these concepts imply that the languages in question developed from a recognizably common ancestor.

Look, no one denies that Japanese and Turkish have some similarities. However finding these similarities doesn't mean that they can only be related or are relatives.

Because Azeri shows more similarities to Farsi in vocabulary than Turkish does, should you or I be so quick to assert then that Azeri and Farsi are relatives / related?

Anyway, the real question of the last few posts is why Japanese and Turkish show similarities. Was it areal influence or descent from a common proto-language? Could it have been both? Could it be coincidence? The research done so far hasn't progressed enough to yield a decisive answer and this is why I question the value of latching onto papers and treatises which proclaim one stance over others in this field. You're stretching the limits of what is known about human history by following along the suggestions that the similarities of 400 items in Turkish and Mayan vocabulary hint at Proto-Turks and Mayans having been neighbours, whatever language they spoke.

The insistence here on common words, suffixes and rules means little in isolation unless one can put them in perspective for how they arose (usually the domain of comparative linguistics), or in a more banal example, how someone could potentially take advantage of these similarities to enhance the learning process (usually the domain of applied linguistics).
1 person has voted this message useful



paleolitik
Newbie
Turkey
Joined 3429 days ago

8 posts - 11 votes

 
 Message 20 of 26
07 September 2012 at 10:56pm | IP Logged 
This relationship may be different from kinship. Is this not clear?
1 person has voted this message useful



Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 6072 days ago

4228 posts - 8257 votes 
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

 
 Message 21 of 26
08 September 2012 at 12:07am | IP Logged 
paleolitik wrote:
This relationship may be different from kinship. Is this not clear?


In comparative linguistics, mentioning "relationship" or "relatives" implies that the languages descend from a common source. By necessity this also implies "kinship" in linguistic terms.

Using "relationship" to describe situations of other groups of languages showing intra-similarities would fail when thinking of a Sprachbund. For example, the "Balkan Sprachbund" consists of Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Romanian and Macedonian. All of these are Indo-European but it is NOT on the basis of the similarities attributable to the Sprachbund that these languages are considered to be "related" / "in a relationship" / "relatives" / "having kinship" by virtue of being considered Indo-European.

Moreover, the similarities shown by these languages have not led to a plausible reconstruction of some kind of "Proto-Balkanic". If these languages were "related", then they would have shared an immediate ancestral form, and even then comparative linguists would have been able to reconstruct at least in part "Proto-Balkanic" and so declare "Balkanic" as a node or clade within Indo-European.

It is on these grounds that "Anti-Altaicists" have discounted Proto-Altaic since the similarities found within at least Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic (if not Korean and/or Japanese) have been explained by them as long periods of mutual influence including "lending" of words, calques, morphological elements or typological traits. This is not an example of a linguistic relationship but areal influence.
1 person has voted this message useful



Aquila123
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Norway
mydeltapi.com
Joined 4222 days ago

201 posts - 262 votes 
Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Italian, Spanish
Studies: Finnish, Russian

 
 Message 22 of 26
07 October 2012 at 12:33am | IP Logged 
The Amerindian languages must of course be related to something in the old world, but the long time-span since the separation has made it very difficult to find credible elements of the relationships.

Ainu is perhaps a better candidate than japanese. The Ket language in Siberia is by now nearly proven to be related to the NA-Dene languages, but many scolars believe this has the origin in a back-migration from America.

There is of course the possibllity that some Amerindian tribes originate from more recent migrations from the old world, for example by sea. Therefore one should not dismiss every claim of such findings at hand.

Austronesian or even Austronesian branches seem to be likely candidates for relationships with some Amerindian languages for this reason.


Edited by Aquila123 on 08 October 2012 at 1:48pm

1 person has voted this message useful



karaipyhare
Tetraglot
Groupie
Paraguay
Joined 4501 days ago

74 posts - 150 votes 
Speaks: Portuguese, Spanish*, English, Guarani
Studies: German, Italian, French, Mandarin, Japanese

 
 Message 23 of 26
25 June 2013 at 5:21am | IP Logged 
Sorry but the text is laughable.
"5) Brazilian researcher Luiz Caldas Tibiriça, who has been studying the linguistic similarities of indigenous
Brazilian dialects with Japanese for more than 40 years, claims to have found more than 2,000 related
expressions. According to his research, the following are a few examples, which compare Tupi (terms listed
on the left) with Japanese (right): ay-ssó/ai-sö = pretty, delicate; a-nhó/an-non = peace, calm; amä/ame =
rain; arassy/arashi = bad weather, storm; mirä/mirai = future; coty/kotchi = next to, this side; mé-mé/mai-mai
= always.
"
Most of those words are not Japonic, that is, indigenously Japanese, but sinogenic, imported from Chinese:
aisou: 愛想
an'non: 安穏
mirai: 未来
maimai: 毎々

So I think people should be more serious when investigating claims like those
1 person has voted this message useful



karaipyhare
Tetraglot
Groupie
Paraguay
Joined 4501 days ago

74 posts - 150 votes 
Speaks: Portuguese, Spanish*, English, Guarani
Studies: German, Italian, French, Mandarin, Japanese

 
 Message 24 of 26
25 June 2013 at 5:42am | IP Logged 
The more I read the more I roll my eyes.
The book published by this Luiz Caldas Tibiriça is sponsored by the Sociedade Criacionista Brasileira, yes,
you guessed right.... Creationists.
I just read the first pages and is pure BS. He doesn't take into account the history periods involved: as I said
in my previous post, he takes the sinojapanese words as evidence of the contact, but he assumes the contact
happened during the Jomon period. The Jomon period was in 10000 BCE while the first imports from the
Chinese language into Japanese dates back to the 5th century.
He also cites the similarity between the Pure Land Buddhism practiced in Japan and the quest for the Yvy
Marane'ÿ (the land with no evil) among the Guarani. Just to remind you, pure land Buddhism was brought to
japan only in 1175 by Hōnen.


1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 26 messages over 4 pages: << Prev 1 24  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 3.2422 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2021 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.