From: Pamela Crossley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: May 19, 2006 4:56:34 PM EDT
To: Wayne is Vain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [SAHALIYAN] is "Tungusic" part of "Altaic" anyway?

Hi Wayne! What I'm wondering about particularly is the implication of  
Beckwith's argument for the long-accepted relationship of Tungusic to  
the Altaic scheme.  It seems to me he suggests a different  
relationship of the Tungusic languages to each other than what some  
of us are used to. Maybe not.

>
> On May 19, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Wei Yu Tan wrote:
>
>> --- You wrote:
>> If I'm understand Beckwith's disassociation of Koguryo(ic) and  
>> Japanese from other Altaic languages, does this imply that  
>> Tungusic languages are only in some incidental way connected to  
>> "Altaic" languages at all? Does it mean that if there is an Altaic  
>> family it really has only two branches --Turkic and Mongolic? Does  
>> it leave the Tungusic languages as a free-standing language group?
>> --- end of quote ---
>>
>> Hi Professor Crossley,
>> The Tungusic languages have always been part of the Altaic  
>> language family - one of the branches in a dendritic  
>> classification.  It's the status of Korean and that of Japanese  
>> that are disputable.  In the early years, Korean and Japanese were  
>> grouped together with the Altaic languages and identified with the  
>> Tungusic languages.  The Korean-Japanese-Tungusic link is not  
>> clear and I doubt we can prove that Korean or Japanese were part  
>> of Tungusic.  I think Roy Andrew Miller once attempted to argue  
>> for the Altaic status of Japanese.  Some have called Japanese a  
>> language isolate, like Korean.  It'll be interesting to see what  
>> others make of the relation between these languages.
>>
>> Best,
>> Wayne
>