And Rosta wrote:
>Kristian:
>> This is what I have pictured for Boreanesian. The Boreanesians =
migrated
>> from Japan before sea levels rose over 10K years ago. Japanese, =
Korean,
>> and Ainu are all verb-final. So Boreanesian was perhaps a verb-final
>> language. But due to an areal influence from the surrounding =
Austronesian
>> languages, Boreanesian is now a verb-initial language with a post-
>> positional holdover from ancient times.
>
>I don't see any reason why this couldn't be the case, but 10K years is
>surely long enough for the word order parameters to oscillate several
>times over. Hence, from a synchronic point of view, the =
postpositionality
>can't be relied on as evidence of earlier contact or relatedness with
>Jap/Kor/Ainu (& I doubt we have any idea of what J/K/A were like 10K
>years ago, either). And also, from a diachronic point of view, if
>Boreanesian were postpositional 10K years ago, there'd be little
>reason in particular to expect it to have remained so.
>
Right! Boreanesian is meant to be unrelated to any language. The=20
Boreanesian venue is ideal in that the language would have developed in=20
isolation before the Austronesians arrived. I was merely trying to =
attempt=20
to explain how/why Boreanesian would deviate so much from the =
typological=20
norms of a V-initial language. Even if its not possible to establish an=20
early contact or relatedness with Jap/Kor/Ainu, from a synchronic point=20
of view, it is possible to imagine Boreanesian as once a V-final =
language=20
since the V-initial Austronesians only arrived in Boreanesia about 3K =
yrs=20
ago.
-kristian- 8)