As per the questionmarked link on the Uralic page (which I will overhaul soon), I propose that we add a questionmarked mention of Nissen together with Uralic. As a quick guess I'd propose something like this:
__Nissen -> etc. / Uralo-Nissen -- \--Uralic -> etc.
or, perhaps, though I'd be less inclined to this one, this:
____Altaic -> etc. / / "Asiatic" ---------Nissen -> etc. \ \----Uralic -> etc.
The exact structuring of the second idea is open for debate of course, that's just an illustration for convenience.
Thinking a bit more, I'd be more inclined to something like this, even, than the second:
____Tunguzo-Turkic -> etc. / / "Asiatic" -----Mongolo-Uralonissen-----Mongolic -> etc. \ \---Uralo-Nissen----Nissen -> etc. \ \--Uralic -> etc.
- It's interesting, but I'm wondering how close it is to the understanding of linguists here. BoArthur
Well, I've heard of theories that Japanese and Korean have some relation to Uralic, and Mongolian. I don't know the details, so I just made this suggestion up quickly, trying to remember what I do know about the languages in question...
I would like to point out that in the understanding of linguists *here*, Uralic is closer to IE than the Altaic languages, and certainly closer to IE than Japonic languages. Most linguists shy away from engaging in these long-range connections as they're too problematic. Frankly, if anything the "Nissen" languages are more likely to be related to Altaic (q.v. Glen Gorden's "Proto-Steppe" theory).
Also, note that *here* Japanese and Korean are generally seen as isolates, although there is a large faction which subscribes to a theory of extremely remote relationship. Apparently, most similarities in Korean and Japanese are relatively easily explained away by either Chinese influence or long-lasting contacts between the two languages. Although this is most definately not my area of speciality and I may well be misrepresenting the views of some scholars, IMHO the Japanese-Korean connection is more likely to be a Sprachbund rather than an actual genetic relationship. Deiniol 10:09, 12 Mar 2005 (PST)
Hm. Just wondering. I'm currently focussed in on the germanic languages, so I'm not all that aware of much outside of IE. Maybe in IB they've made that switch and leap of logic because of the closer relationship of Korean and Japanese there. We'll have to see what Nik says. BoArthur 10:20, 12 Mar 2005 (PST)
- Well, as I understand it, it's rather debated *here* whether there's a genetic relationship or not. I personally don't know enough about Korean to form an opinion one way or another. Nevertheless, the theory exists *here* and would likely exist *there* as well. With the political unity of the two, it seems likely that the idea that the two are related would be stronger.
- Note, also, that I did say Unlike many of the other groupings such as "Romance" and "Slavic", Nissen's validity is less certain. The Japonic branch is definitely valid, but it's relationship to Corean is uncertain, indicating that this is an iffy branch. Nik 21:07, 13 Mar 2005 (PST)