Sino-Tibetan again (was: Re: Alexis on Wald ...)

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Scott DeLancey <delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
 
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
>> Scott DeLancey <delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>> >great time depth to S-T.  But there's good reason to think that
>> >the reason for this divergence is an extended period of intimate
>> >contact between pre-Chinese and indigenous languages in south China
>> >(Kadai was definitely a major factor, and A-A and Austronesian
>> >probably also involved).  Massive areal influence of this kind can
>> >result in substantial changes in a language in a relatively short
>> >time.
>>
>> Yes, for Min, Cantonese, Hakka, etc.  But how does that affect
>> Mandarin?
>
>Mandarin, except for a few creeping agglutinative tendencies
>(which Mantaro Hashimoto always attributed to Altaic influence)
>is a pretty typical Southeast Asian language, very similar in
>structure to Thai or Vietnamese.
 
What I meant was that if this is so, that would imply intimate contact
with indigenous languages already in *north* China [something which is
of course entirely plausible, despite the fact that none of these
indigenous languages have survived].  Unless Mandarin can somehow be
shown to have S. Chinese roots and not to be the direct continuation
in the North of "Shang Ur-Chinese".
 
 
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam