1
Out of Southern China? - Alexander Vovin
Conclusion
I must start with a general note, that Benedict’s idea that Japanese and Tai-K(r)adai are related (1989), should not be rejected out of hand, as I did twenty years ago (Vovin 1994), although I still disagree with Benedict that the relationship is genetic, as I think that although the realationship does exist, it is a contact one.
1) Given the regular correspondences on both segmental and supra-segmental levels between pJ and pTK, the relationship does not seem to be accidental.
2) It does not look like a genuine genetic relationship because of obvious distributional gaps, such as, e.g.:
2a) lack of ‘cognates’ in pronominal systems,
2b) conspicuous near-absence of words with B tones in Tai-K(r)adai comparisons.
3) This leaves us with a contact relationship, which must be:
3a) Quite old, because not too much remains,
3b) Quite intense, because borrowing includes some very basic vocabulary items.
4) The recognition of this areal relationship brings mutual benefits to the internal histories of both Tai- K(r)adai and Japonic language families by:
4a) Providing an independent external piece of evidence for dissyllabic nature of several pTK roots including also the information on the quality of a vowel in first syllables
4b) Providing possible external evidence for the reconstruction of syllable-final consonants in pre-pJ, otherwise unrecoverable either by the comparative method or by the internal reconstruction.
4c) Providing further evidence that H/L register in pJ may reflect earlier voiced-voiceless distinctions.
5a) Helping to localize the Urheimat of the Japonic language family.
5b) And finally driving the last nail to the coffin of the ‘Altaic’ hypothesis.
Bookmarks