mercedo's Journal: Human Map

I thought about the cases of fauna of plants, animals and bacteria in both the Amazon and deserts. I can assume similar conclusion on human fauna here.

Chinese, Americans are semi-single dominant language group or people in the world, occupying large plain in the continent, which is suitable for living by a large number of people.

Geographically complex areas like Caucasus, Balkan, Central Asia and a rim of Russia are occupied by many peoples with small population each.

In talking about language group, the distinction is more apparent. Indo-European and Chinese are two major language groups with huge population, there are so many other languages with as many peoples.

In ancient America

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There were the original six nations. While every tribe and villiage had it's own dialect due to a lack of mass communication, those dialects came from a very small number of original starting points. Ainu in Japan and my own ancestor's Kwakiutal-T'Chinook-Klickitat (Nation, Subgroup, Tribe) language contain some of the same roots- as one would expect for Northern Pacific Natives. Lahkota Souix share some of the same roots with the Alloquin, who share some roots with the native Laplander tounge in Europe

Re:In ancient America

[mercedo]

No doubt that here in East Asia the most dominant language is Chinese with population of over 1.3 billion, about 10 times as large as that of this tiny island, and Japanese language is definitely correlated to Korean, Mongolian, central Asian Turkey. Ainu is thought to be one of subdivision of this language group diversified along the rim of very large language group-Chinese.

So, the language of your ancester and that of Japanese along with Ainu are correlated back in thousands of years ago, but because of

Re:In ancient America

[Krach42]

I think you're refering to the proposed Altaic languages [wikipedia.org]. It's important to note that unlike evolution this actually *is* contested by linguists, and not generally accepted.

It's generally widely considered that Ainu is unrelated to Japanese, and while it has been postulated by a number of people that Japanese and Korean are related, it has not been proved at all.

Japanese and Korean remain to this day classified as isolation languages, and are generally accepted to have no living relative languages today.

Re:In ancient America

[mercedo]

Apart from the superficial resemblance in lots of loan words from China, Korean and Japanese languages are different in their basic terms, but happened to be similar in syntax -how to order the words, both languages would be agglutinative, not reflexive. They both use post position instead of preposition, so when it comes to superficial syntax, the similarlity of two languages are apparent.

But that similarlity doesn't tell at all that two languages have one common parent language long long ago.

As to the su

Re:In ancient America

[Krach42]

Only recently have I read about Sprachbuende (pl. of Sprachbund) Now that I know about it, Japanese and Korean fit far better under that explanation header than having them in genetic relationship. Doesn't change the matter that many people still insist that Japanese and Korean must have some common ancestor somewhere.

As to the superficial similarity in syntax, English and Chinese are astonishingly similar. But nobody claims that two languages are derived from one common parent language. Two languages -Eng

Re:In ancient America

[mercedo]

Their syntax is no more or less based on logical order than any other language.

I agree any language is based on some grammatical order. Of course there's a grammer. I am saying English and Chinses are much more based upon gramatically logical order than Japanese. For example, in English you say 'This is not a pen'. Probably the most logical order must be 'This not is a pen.', since 'is' has to be negated beforehand.

In Japanese we say 'This a pen is not.' This verbal expression is against our logical order

Re:In ancient America

[Krach42]

I agree any language is based on some grammatical order. Of course there's a grammer. I am saying English and Chinses are much more based upon gramatically logical order than Japanese. For example, in English you say 'This is not a pen'. Probably the most logical order must be 'This not is a pen.', since 'is' has to be negated beforehand.

How do you arrive that this is the most logical order? Why is it not more logical to say, ((this) is (not pen)) (German: "dies ist kein Kuli") Why does it have to be the