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

And Rosta quoth:

>There is a reputable but neglected Sino-Austronesian hypothesis,
>according to which Chinese is Austronesian. I forget now whether
>the Tibetan half of Sino Tibetan also goes in with Austronesian.
>The problem with all such proposals like these is that they tend
>to be published in obscure and inaccessible places, with available
>books on classification either defeastistically conservative or
>based on imagination rather than scholarship.
With regard to your final comment:
What do you think of Merritt Ruhlen's (sp?) recent book on language
classification?  I've only just skimmed it myself, but it seems to
be quite sensible - neither too conservative nor too outlandish.
Any thoughts?

Matt.

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