Re: CHAT: Re : CHAT: Re: minimum phonemes, was Re: vrindo

Hawksinger wrote:

>> mpearson@pop.ucla.edu writes:
>> >The historical connection between Hawaiian, Tahitian, and Malay is
>> >far from disputed.  All three are Austronesian languages - and fairly
>> >closely related ones at that, since they all belong to the Malayo-
>> >Polynesian branch.  As for Japanese, I've heard some linguists posit
>> >an Austronesian substrate in the language (making Japanese historically
>> >an Altaic-Austronesian creole, perhaps?), but I don't know if that
>> >idea is very widely accepted.
>There is a good survey article in the current Journal of Linguistics
>on the state of acceptance of Altaic today.  I only skimmed it but I
>recall some discussion and dismissal of Japanese as an Austronesian
>lg.  I personally have accepted it as Altaic since reading "Japanese
>and the other Altaic Languages" (Miller? or was it Martin?).
Hm, I'll have to have a look at that article.  Incidentally, to clarify
my original comment, I don't think there's anyone out there who seriously
believes that Japanese is an Austronesian language - so my use of the term
"substrate" here is perhaps misleading.  What's at issue is whether or
not 'Proto-Japanese' speakers had any significant contact with Austronesian
speakers which might have had some effect on the language.  People have
argued that there are old Austronesian loanwords in Japanese, for example.
I could also see Austronesian languages having an impact on the phonology
of Japanese (which is quite different from Korean or any other Altaic
language), much as Eastern Bantu had an influence on the phonology of
Malagasy, or Khoisan had an influence on the phonology of Southern Bantu
(all those clicks in Zulu and Xhosa, etc.).  But as I say, I don't know
the facts...

Matt.

------------------------------------
Matt Pearson
mpearson@ucla.edu
UCLA Linguistics Department
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
------------------------------------