From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-03-12T03:57:44+09:00
Subject: Re: the name of Matz

On 3/11/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 11, 2007, at 5:15 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> > >
> > > I've also heard that there are certain linguistic similarities which
> > > indicate that Japanese and Finnish are close relatives, not that I
> > > know what those are or have any clue why it might be so.
> >
> > No, there are none. Japanese has a strong relation to Korean. Both
> > have a relation to Mongolian.
>
> Well it appears that there are at least some linquists who beleive
> that there may be a relationship between Finnish and Japanese,
> although not as close as I implied.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural-Altaic_languages
>
> Describes a (controversial) theory that they are related by a common
> extinct ancestor language.
Interesting stuff Rick
>
> Ural-Altaic
>    Ural
>       Finno-Permic
>          Finnish
>    Altaic
>      Mongolic
>         Mongolian
>       Japonic
>          Japanese,
>      Korean
>
> Which would make Finnish and Japanese second cousins.
Is this list complete? I am missing Hungarian who is a far relative of Finnish.
>
> There are actually two levels of controversy in these theories.  One
> is whether or not there really was a prototypical Ural-Altaic which
> was a common ancestor of the Ural and Altaic families.  Second is
> whether or not the Japonic family (which includes Japanese, Okinawan,
> and some others I haven't heard of), and Korean which forms it's own
> family, should really be considered members of the Altaic family.
>
>
> --
> Rick DeNatale
>
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>
>

Robert
-- 
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous