Talk:Classification of the Japonic languages

message: Somebody put in the following false statement in the 'Other connections' section at the end of the article:
, though in the 1990s, Christopher Beckwith proposed a Japanese-Chinese connection. His efforts were sharply criticized by specialists in Japanese. Now, Beckwith is a proponent of the hypothesis linking Japonic to the extinct Manchurian and Korean Peninsular languages of Goguryeo, Baekje, Buyeo, and Gojoseon. 
This is completely untrue. There is no doubt that there are early Chinese loanwords in Japanese (I am not the only one who has studied them), but I never claimed the two languages were related. Note that the statement gives no citation. In short, I am the accused and I never made any such claim.Chris B 05:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Connections

message: I added the 'no references/sources' template to this section. I'm not sure if I was right in doing so, but I didn't see any links to sources there. If the sources for this section are simply referenced elsewhere in the article, feel free to remove this template. --TheSlyFox 11:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austronesian Hypothesis 

message: I have started to formulate a theory that some words in the Japanese language, especially certain botanical names, have been borrowed into the ancestor of the Japanese language from an ancient language of the Korean Peninsula that has left some relics in the modern dialects of the Gyeongsang region of southeastern Korea. Gyeongsang is, of course, the region in which the capital of the ancient kingdom of Silla was located, so it might be possible to identify these words as "ancient Silla dialect words." One example is the Japanese word yuri ("lily"), which I believe is related to the modern Gyeongsang dialect word 돌개 dolgae ("Chinese bellflower, Platycodon grandiflorum"). In Japan, lilies have traditionally been considered a source of food, as their bulbs were often dug up and eaten like onions. As for the Chinese bellflower, its root is a common foodstuff even in today's Korean cuisine. Gyeongsang dialect dolgae appears to ultimately be cognate with Standard Korean 도라지 doraji ("Chinese bellflower"), but I think it is likely that Japanese yuri was borrowed from an ancient Korean form that was directly ancestral to either Gyeongsang dialect dolgae or Standard Korean doraji. I would also point out that various Japanese dialects have aberrant forms for "lily," such as dore (Toyama Prefecture), dōren (another part of Toyama Prefecture), inera (Hachijoo-jima), and *yure or *yore > yuri (Nakijin dialect of Kunigami language in Okinawa; regularly corresponding form would be *yui). Has anyone else encountered a theory that tries to explain some of the Japanese botanical names that display a high degree of irregular correspondences among Japanese dialects as ancient loanwords from a Korean language? Ebizur 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient [[Korean language|Korean]] dialect loanwords in Japanese 

message: What is the reason to link "Chinese 'zodiacal dog' 戌 *zyüt" to Altaic? Surely, there is no mainstream scholar connecting Chinese and Altaic? If anything, *zyüt must be an early loanword. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese 戌 *zyüt "Dog (of the Asian zodiac)" is probably a loanword from an ancient Austro-Asiatic language, as are most (or all) of the names for the other animals of the Asian zodiac. The word for "dog" in the Munda languages (a subgroup of Austro-Asiatic that is spoken by indigenous tribal peoples in parts of India, such as the Mundas, Bondas, and Santals) is seta or gsod, which is basically identical to the Ainu word for "dog," and also obviously similar to the Chinese name for the Dog of the zodiac. --Ebizur (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But 戌 doesn't mean "Dog of the Asian zodiac", it means "to wilt" or "perish".  The connection with Austro-Asiatic languages would only be legitimate if the entire Zodiac concept was borrowed from those ancient peoples, forcing the Chinese to adapt some arbitrary character. None of the Twelve Branches have any inherent animal meaning.White whirlwind (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese 'zodiacal dog' 戌 *zyüt

message: The wording of the first paragraph is rather confusing. What I think it's trying to say, but doesn't actually spell out, is that the "Japanese is an isolate" school of thought assumes that Ryukyu was just a bunch of dialects, but now they're considered languages of their own, and hence it's the Japonic languages together that are in a class of their own. Jpatokal 19:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. So it is. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: Restored some necessary connective tissue to the final section. In particular, it is important to emphasize that relationships can be correctly perceived (e.g. in lexis, phonology, or morphosyntactic alignment) without this perception necessarily resolving by itself whether the relationships are genetic or diffusional. This represents the crux of many controversies in language classification. It isn’t superfluous. 
It is also necessary to indicate the interrelationship of the methodological issues in linguistics referred to and future progress in classifying Japanese: only the dialectic between theory and praxis is likely to resolve the more difficult and controversial cases. This too is not superfluous. 
VikSol 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final section 

message: Some nameless user keeps adding a list of unsourced "correspondences" between Japanese and Korean vocabulary. This list is ridiculously amateurish; I might as well make a section for "Japanese relationship to Chinese" and a list of Japanese words that sound sort of similar to Chinese words. You have claimed that Korean /i-/ (copula) is cognate with Japanese /i-/ ([animate] to be), but this is untenable; Modern Japanese /i-/ descends from Classical Japanese /wi-/, and the Korean and Japanese forms are completely different in usage. I might as well claim that Japanese /wi-/ > /i-/ is related to Chinese 為 wéi ("to be; to serve as"). The Japanese and the Chinese forms are historically much closer to each other, both phonetically and semantically, than either is to the Korean copula, /i-/ (which occurs only after consonant-final stems, by the way; this /i-/ morpheme has an allomorph, a null/zero/empty form, which occurs after vowel-final stems).
If you are going to add your list of supposed Japanese-Korean cognates, then I will add a list of Japanese-Chinese cognates and Korean-Ainu cognates, too (e.g. Korean /nun/ "eye" vs. Ainu /nu-kar/ [v.t.] "to see", Korean /ijaki/ "speech, story" vs. Ainu /itak(-i)/ "speech, story," Korean /pjə/ "rice" vs. Ainu /pi(-ye)/ "seed," Korean /ni/ > /i/ "tooth" vs. Ainu /ni-mak/ "tooth" and /ni-rus/ "gums," etc.). This is just a small list that I came up with off the top of my head in less than five minutes; it is amazing how many meaningless similarities human beings are able to convince themselves of seeing even when there is no real pattern in the data.
Anyway, you need to understand that language families are not established on the basis of irregular "lookalikes" of the sort that you have presented on the main page. Please refrain from reposting such irrelevant nonsense, especially without citation of a reliable published source. Ebizur (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specious "cognates" 

message: I have switched the reference style of the article from footnotes to author-date referencing. If anyone has strong objections to this, I have no problems with switching it back. However, I believe the change is helpful to the article for the following reasons: 
The controversies over the relations of Japanese or absence thereof have a very large bibliography, and it is visually easier to survey this in a list of works than in a series of endnotes, which are necessarily interspersed with other material. 
I think the bibliography of this article needs to be very substantially expanded. 
A list of literature thereby becomes essential, and it would overlap in a confusing way with the notes already given if these are not integrated into the list. 
It should be noted that author-date citations have become an extremely popular style of citation in scholarly publications and are an entirely acceptable form of citation on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Citing sources). 
While Wikipedia suggests not changing the established reference style of an article in order to discourage pointless switching back and forth, in this case the need to expand the bibliography seems to me to decide the issue in favor of the change proposed. I hope others will agree. With regards to all. VikSol 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in reference style 

message: I consider the following passage highly dubious:
:Like other language classifications of Greenberg's, the Eurasiatic family is often attacked on the ground that it is based on "mass lexical comparison"; however, this is a fictitious method. Greenberg's own terminology was originally "mass comparison", which he later changed to "multilateral comparison"; from his first use of it in the 1950s on, it always involved comparison of grammatical formatives as well as of lexical items. See Greenberg's Genetic Linguistics (2005) for his methodological positions.
Whatever term you use for Greenberg's methods, the point of his critics stands: he does not establish relationships between individual members of his putative families with sufficient rigor, relies too much on "false friend" cognates, and uses data of dubious provenance. --Peter Farago (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing even faintly neutral about a complaint that mass lexical comparison isn't taken seriously enough by mainstream historical linguistics. This paragraph should not have survived this long. It's gone now. Excalibre (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass Lexical Comparison

message: I've noticed most of the sources listed in the References section of the article deal with individual hypotheses rather than giving a general overview. I've had a look around for some sources which give a general overview of the different hypotheses on the origins of Japanese, and here's one I find on JSTOR:
*
Regards,
Jagged 85 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: The cite tag has been on the 1907 ref for the Koguryo section for quite a while. I know nothing about it, but wiki-ja mentions Izuru Shinmura (1916), who noted that the Koguryo numerals 3, 5, 7, and 10 were very similar to Japanese. wiki-ja also gives some cognates: 古次 "mouth" (modern Sino-Korean koch'a, modern Japanese kuchi), 波且 "sea" (p'ach'a : umi—seems to be an error in here somewhere), 伏 "deep" (pok : fuka < *puka), 尸臘 "white" (shirap : shiro), 烏斯含 "rabbit" (osaham < *osakam : usagi), 烏 "boar" (o : wi), 旦 "valley" (tan : tani). kwami (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But note that the section from which I assume kwami is quoting does not cite external sources, and the page is tagged NPOV (or am I mistaken about the wiki-ja source?). Cnilep (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no citations, or I'd've cited them. But it is notable that they say nothing about 1907. kwami (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. You're suggesting that Shinmura 1916 is the earliest version of the hypothesis we can cite? That seems correct. Cnilep (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: According to Beckwith's 'recent monograph': "The earliest reports on Koguryo as a language were published in the early twentieth century by Japanese scholars, in Japanese (Naito 1907; Miyazaki 1907)" (2004: 3). Thus it seems to be not the Japanese-Koguryoic Hypothesis that dates to 1907, but the description of Koguryo as a language distinct from Korean. I have removed the long-contested claim. Cnilep (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1907 ref 

message: Sorry im not an expert; just a common reader. But is there a reason why the language does not fall under the Chinese language family tree? Or why the possibility does not arise? The article Sino-Japanese vocabulary says that 60% of the words in a Japanese dictionary are of Chinese origin, or something like that. Just curious. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese vocab was borrowed along with the writing system, apart for 3-4 words which predate that. Nothing suggests the languages are actually related. Japanese also has tons of English vocab, but that's from the 20th century and doesn't mean they are related either. kwami (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i get it. So the they are merely load words, as opposed to words which evolved from Chinese? And Japanese non-loaned words has no connection/similarity with Chinese? Maybe we can say something about this in the article for the benefit of people who are as confused as i was. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's it. (For example, the jin in Nihonjin "Japanese person" is clearly cognate with Mandarin ren "person", but the native Japanese equivalent hito has no such connection. The English equivalent would be French, Latin, and Greek borrowings, which don't make English a Romance or Hellenic language. And yes, it should be made clear. kwami (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not so much because they are loan words, as because linguistic typology classifies languages according to structure (syntax, grammar) rather than lexicon (vocabulary, origins of words). That is, when we talk about languages being related, it doesn't matter so much where words come from as how they are ordered, inflected, or otherwise used in sentences. /ninly (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any proposed language family that is defined typologically. All are based on basic vocabulary, like a Swadesh list. Though if you can relate grammatical morphemes, that is considered especially good evidence. kwami (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sino-tibetan? 

message: User:Kwamikagami protected Classification of Japanese, however the current content reflects the modification by User:Trikemike. This portion was last modified by User:Kwamikagami on 10 June 2008 and have never been modified since then. So I think User:Kwamikagami's version should be the current consensus and a start point. User:Trikemike, formerly banned user name User:Izumidebito made repetitive edits without any explanation on Talk page. If his/her edit were permitted and included, Wikipedia's credibility would be denied. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've also "made repetitive edits without any explanation on Talk page". What exactly is the problem? The differences are so minor that it seems silly to get in an edit war over them. kwami (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make repetitive edits, instead reverted unexplained edits with an edit summary requesting an explanation on Talk page.  This incident started from Japanese language and the user never came to the discussion. Now it spreads to this article, History of Japan, Japan, Japanese people, Japonic languages and Altaic languages. This isn't a minor problem. By the way you seemed to be a proponent of Altaic hypothesis. I think you should not relate to this incident as a neutral admin. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, since you're objecting that I didn't revert to my own version of the statement in question, you can hardly call me biased. I simply protected an article undergoing a rather silly edit war. I don't really care who is correct; figuring that out is what the talk page is for. Your reverts elsewhere where justified, and I can understand why you might revert everything this editor does, but your accusations of "vandalism" here appears ridiculous, since "an Altaic hypothesis is also often suggested" is factually correct and not misleading. Trikemike was also being ridiculous, of course, which is why I simply protected the article as I found it without reverting to any particular version. kwami (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say "vandalism" except this and this. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection of this article

message: I'm not sure if I'm even correct in my understanding, let alone transliteration/spelling, but I was watching a Japanese film in which the line "Nan de Kyoto desu-ka?" was used, which as far as I can surmise means something to the effect of "Why in Kyoto?".
This same sentence, in Turkish, would be "Neden (ne+den) Kyoto'da (ki)?". I thought that might make an interesting addition :P  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.196.247 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the question would be what the gloss of that Turkish phrase is. In Japanese, the phrase is more of "why is it ("in" is implied) Kyouto" - if that "'da" in Turkish is a locative marker rather than "to be", it doesn't work. Sjiveru (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altaic additions 

message: all words in current korean table are similar also with english and several i know are similar to udmurt(finno ugric, uralic) and turkic.
current state of the table:
Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese	Comparison with Japanese
Old Japanese            	Japanese                	meaning　                	Mid-Korean              	Korean                  	meaning                 	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
midu                    	mizu                    	water                   	myr                     	mul                     	water                   	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
midu                    	mizu                    	water                   	mos                     	mot                     	lake                    	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
k-u                     	k-uru                   	to come                 	ka-                     	ka-da                   	to go                   	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
kata-si                 	kata-i                  	hard                    	kut-                    	kud-ynkut-yn            	hard                    	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
wi-ru                   	i-ru                    	to be                   	'                       	i-da                    	to be                   	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
naɸ-u                   	na-i                    	not                     	an                      	anh                     	not                     	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
mïna                    	mina                    	all, everyone           	man-ha-                 	manh-                   	many                    	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
kasa                    	kasa                    	hat                     	gat                     	gat                     	hat                     	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	                        	
*as i know, "water", "mot" are like corresponding word in udmurt, but not in turkic.
*ku and "go" are like "kit"(go away) and "kil"(come) in turkic(i say tatar variant).
*kata and "hard" are like "qato" in turkic.
*"i" is like english "is" and "i" part of "i-di", "i-kan", "iy-e-mi", "iy-e" of modern tatar language, but in official variant of tatar "iy-e-mi" is "imi", "iy-e" is "ayye".
*"na" is not like in turkic but is like in english.
*min, man are like english "many", may be related to turkic "bay" which means "rich" and "boton"("all", "whole").
*kasa and gat are like english hat.
so, these words, i think, are not enough to show that japan language should be grouped with korean, these only show that they all are nostratic or eurasiatic. though, but though these all are like words in english, korean and japan have in addition similar grammatics, so, yes, they show... but grammatic structure similarity should be mentioned in the section.
--Qdinar (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just say "well, they look similar," you have to have some sort of theory to explain the changes too  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.181.53.183 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I clearly get what this person is saying. (S)He is trying to link Japanese (and Korean) with the Indo-European languages. To be honest it IS possible that both Korean and Japanese can be related to the Indo-European languages. Japan and Korea are very close to Russia, but I'm not sure when Russian/PIE arrived in eastern Russia. Also, in my opinion, the Indo-European languages and Japonic languages share a similar phonology system ("sh" and "z" are good examples) but many of those "European sounding like words" could be due to a sprachbund effect (similar to Japanese and Sino-Tibetan). But this page is not for posting your own opinions. But if you can find a linguist that agrees with you, then you may as well add it. Kanzler31 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing inherently Indo-European about the sounds "sh" and "z". Proto-Indo-European lacked both, as well as some daughter languages, such as Old Norse, and other languages could have evolved the sounds separately. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  all words in current korean table are similar also with english and ... 

message: In the Korean-Japanese relation, it says that a Korean relation might not deny a Koguryoic relationship. So is there any linguists or scholars supporting the theory that Koguryoic might be a Altaic language? And what is the Chinese "zodiacal dog" doing here? Is anyone also supporting that the Sino-Tibetan languages may be part of the Altaic languages? Also, is there any cognates of Tamil and Japanese? Thanks. Kanzler31 (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koguryoic and Altaic 

message: I have removed the tag added to the head of the article in February 2011 reading
  . 
While it may seem a good idea to group material related to the same subject in one place, experience has shown Wikipedians that this can easily lead to overloaded articles and it is often preferable to split up a complex subject into several articles.  This is clearly the case here.  Any glance at this article shows it is already fairly long and would hopelessly overload the article Japonic languages, at least if the subject was to be treated in any kind of adequate detail.  As the subject of the classification of Japanese is an important one, it should not be confined to a few sentences in some more general article.  
I also note that the person posting this tag did not actually offer any arguments for the merger they suggested.  If you want to make a proposal, make one, otherwise do not expect the rest of us to do your work for you.  Finally, there has been no discussion of this tag since it was posted, suggesting there is no very strong sentiment for the merger proposed.  
For all these reasons, I have removed the tag.  Let the article remain.  
VikSol (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with merging with [[Japonic languages]] 

message: I cleaned up the language some under the Koguryoic hypothesis - It was written as if Beckwith's theories are now an accepted conclusion. I removed definitive language such as "clearly related," and the phrase "obvious to anyone familiar with both languages," implying that anyone who disagrees only does so because of their unfamiliarity with the topic. While I happen to support the Goguryeo-Japonic connection (especially since Lee and Hasegawa's phylogenetic analysis) I don't think it was appropriate for the article to imply that the controversy is over. -- Tallasse (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language on Koguryoic hypothesis 

message: There are serious problems with the order of mention and the attestation as to which theories have the most currency.
1. The Altaic theory still has the most currency internationally.
2. The Koguryoic theory is not widely accepted, and if included it should be part of the wider Altaic theory.
3. The Austronesian hypotheses deserve a mention; as you can see from the above mention of the Japanese page it has many supporters among Japanese scholars, especially as a substratum to an Altaic superstratum. This theory has the most currency in Japan (at least in the loose sense that no one denies both Austronesian and Altaic influence in the make-up of Japonic).
4. The Gaya or Kara should not get any mention, as there is no linguistic evidence whatsoever, only an ad hoc mention by Beckwith in one page of his new book.
5. If Nostratic and Eurasiatic macro families deserve a mention, so does the Austro-Tai theory.
The basic conclusion is, the theories outlines here are not representative of the whole scholarly community involved in the issue. Some minor theories are blown out of proportion (Koguryo), some theories that lack almost any support get a mention (Nostratic/Eurasiatic, Dravidian) while others don't (Austro-Thai), and some significant scholarly developments are completely omitted (Austronesian).
Ramentei (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Koguryoic hypothesis is not more widely accepted because of the question over whether the apparent cognates are actually with Koguryo. The other possibility is with s.t. like Kara. This is logically independent of whether Japanese–Koguryo or Japanese–Kara is part of Altaic. — kwami (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

text: In Beckwith (2007) Japonic consists of Ryukyuan and Yayoi, and Yayoi of Japanese and Kara. He sees the Yayoi culture as occupying the Gaya area and northern Kyushu. Japanese–Koguryoic is therefore independent of the Kara connection. — kwami (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priorities need to be sorted out 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Classification of Japonic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529111209/http://www.eai.cam.ac.uk/Aston-and-Korea.pdf to http://www.eai.cam.ac.uk/Aston-and-Korea.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The examples in the table in this section are extremely dubious. For example claiming that orera is the Japanese for "we" is dubious, because it consists of the element for "I" (ore) with a productive group marker -ra. I just removed another one which is obviously bogus: the word for "liver" (organ) borrowed from Chinese. The mystery is that a very quick look at the Starostin database immediately yield vastly more plausible examples, such as this one:
Meanwhile, everyone ignores the elephant in the room: the fact that Japanese and Korean are essentially structurally identical. Hmm. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean hypothesis section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Classification of the Japonic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122101553/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pies03.html to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pies03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have included newer information about proposed relations if the Japanese language.
The first research show why japanese and korean are not demonstrateable  related and explain similarities with intense language contact in past.
The second research is about the reconstruction of Proto-Japanese and its morphology. The research show strong similarities to several southeast asian languages but no similarities to norther languages. 
My edit is well sourced and it is a update of more recent researches. Wikipedia should be actuall and must mention newer versions of linguistic census. The current version implies as would the korean/goguryeo relation be accepted. But it is not accepted and still controversial. Most linguists now agree that japonic is not related to goguryeo/korean.
But my edits get reverted because of unknown reason. No explanation why a revert was done. 
Also a current research summary explain why the austronesian hypothesis will get more support in future. As stated in the research, in past not much was cared about a relation to austronesian but after the research if Alexander vovin and the linguistic census debunking the controversial altaic theory it get more and more attention. I can also included this research summary if needed.
Please explain why this got reverted and please help to update this page.
Greetings212.95.7.183 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertion that just because there is recent research in Japan there is a consensus among specialists is completely false.  There is no current consensus among historical linguists in general along the lines that you write about.  The research that you think is conclusive is entirely based on work in Japan among Japanese linguists.  Vovin alone does not make a consensus of Western historical linguists.  Until a wider array of historical linguists have accepted the results of this work as conclusive, it is just speculation among a minority of specialists and has not been proven.  --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  But then the current version is also wrong as there is no conclusion if japanese is related to korean/goguryeo. Most linguists say both are unrelated. This needs to be corrected.  --212.95.7.183 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what the article says at all.  It says that Japonic has most commonly been considered unrelated to anything else, but that among the theories of relatedness the Japanese-Korean/Goguryeo link "has the most currency".  That simply means that more linguists support it than support any of the other possibilities for relatedness.  It doesn't mean that it's universally accepted or that the majority view isn't still "unrelated to anything else".  It says exactly what you think it should say.  --Taivo (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent/more actuall research Reverted of unexplained reasons 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Classification of the Japonic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226195328/http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/DataGarden/Journal%2802-2%29%282%29.pdf to http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/DataGarden/Journal%2802-2%29%282%29.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Sino-Tibetan theory section, the article claims that "early Sino-Tibetan was non-tonal and had SOV grammar order," which I believe is true, "like still today Tibetan language" is not so. While there isn't necessarily agreement on how many tones Tibetan has, it definitely has contrastive tone. Can this section be fixed? Calahagus (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibetan is tonal... 

message: I have again removed the following text:
:The linguist Juha Janhunen found during his analysis of Asian languages strong similarities between proto-Japanese and Sino-Tibetan languages. He says, similar to Vovin, that proto-Japanese originated somewhere in southeast China but was a Sino-Tibetan (possibly Burmese) language and got later under Austronesian influence. After political or economical problems the proto-Japanese people started to migrate into Japan over the Korean Peninsula. There they possibly were under the influence of Altaic peoples.
This is cited to Janhunen (2003), which can be found in the Further reading section, but does not reflect what that article says.
The cited article does not mention Sino-Tibetan or Burmese at all.  On page 483, he says that Pre-Proto-Japanese had a tonal system and monosyllabic roots, a typology similar to Tai-Kadai, Miao-Yao, Chinese and Vietnamese, indicating that it must have been contiguous with one of these languages – he suggests Shandong.  On page 484, he says that whether Pre-Proto-Japanese had any relatives is an unsolved problem.
I have also deleted the table of "Similarities between ancient Japanese and ancient Chinese languages", which is uncited and appears to be original research.  Some of the words listed (kuni 'county' and ume 'plum') are generally accepted as early loans from Chinese, while zeni 'money' must be a later loan, as voiced initials were not permitted in Old Japanese.  Kanguole 16:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sino-Tibetan 

message: Several IP vandalize this lage and keep pushing a tai-kadai relation to japanese. The siurce of vovin(1998) does not mention tai-kadai but is about the theory that the yayoi/early japanese spoke a language related to Austroasiatic. I also griuped the tai-theory to Austronesian (see austro-tai) because the headline tai-kadai Austroasiatic theory makes no sense as they are not thought to be related. AmurTiger18 (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sock puppet of WorldCreaterFighter / Satoshi Kondo 24.18.81.83 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, i suggest that you are either the sock of WorldCreaterFighter or bookworm8899 because both of you push japanese-tai relation and change the meaning of sources. Stop it, and to delete the talk section is pure vandalism. Also you use 3 IP on the same time which is sock puppetry and already show who you are. AmurTiger18 (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the blocked User AmurTiger18 is a sockpuppet of WorldCreaterFighter, Satoshi Kondo, HainanTai, AustronesianTaiwan. In the Talkpage of user Satoshi Kondo  at Wikimedia Commons, it is revealed that this user is actually a Vietnamese pretends to be a Japanese who uses more than a dozen of Austrian IP addresses such as 212.95.8.138, 212.95.8.158, etc. to make disruptive edits and misinterpret sources across Wikipedia. It's intimidating that English Wikipedia attracts such kind of people roaming across the site. 221.244.237.133 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by IP/VPN IP of blocked user gutmeister/bookworm8899