From: Pamela Crossley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: May 19, 2006 7:41:57 PM EDT
To: [log in to unmask] (Wayne is Vain)
Subject: Re: [SAHALIYAN] is "Tungusic" part of "Altaic" anyway?

Well, my comment was that one of the things occurring to me when observing the (apparently) "Jurchen" elements that you demonstrated in Kitan is that the Mohe/Jurchen speakers to the east were always more populous while also being close. That being the case you would kind of expect an influence --when most of the people in a border region speak one language and a minority speak another, you'd expect the majority language to be more influential unless there is a strong countervaling factor (maybe political). But it seemed to me the influences might really be pre-Jurchen, and that was what interested me about Beckwith's book. Turkic political vocabulary came east for pretty obvious reasons, but strangely Turkic horse vocabulary didn't. I'm sure somebody knowing something about linguistics can probably find evidence for "Tungusic" words going west.  I'm not sure the west/Turkic to east/Tungusic scheme will prove dominant in all genres.


On May 19, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Wei Yu Tan wrote:

Hi Professor Crossley!

Yes, I think it's been argued before that maybe that perhaps Tungusic was a family by itself. I'm not sure though, cos' the linguistic borders are so porous and words just enter the lexicon across languages so easily. My gut is that Tungusic still belongs to the Altaic scheme, and the spread of words was from Turkic to Mongolic to Tungusic - so maybe Tungusic is the youngest of the three?

But like you pointed out during the discussion, the Tungusic peoples have been more populous, so it's strange why the spread didn't go the other way too.

That's something I've been thinking about since yesterday