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 >