In the case of Ainu and Altaic stock serious difference of PAI values is obviously proof of absence of relatedness. Ainu and Korean, Ainu and Japanese are completely unrelated like, for instance, Spanish and Basque.
Moreover, we should keep in mind that Japanese and Korean have probably the highest values of PAI among languages of Altai stock so if we compare Ainu with some “true” languages of Altaic stock the difference is much more striking.
And also the fact there is almost no structural correlation between Ainu and Japanese and between Ainu and Korean corroborates conclusion made with the use of PAI.
2.3.3. PAI suggests that Buyeo stock seems to be real
Japanese and Korean seem to be closer relatives than it has been thought usually, since their PAI values completely coincide (see 2.3.2). And this fact correlates well with their structural and material correlation.
Anyway after discovering closeness of PAI values proximity of grammar systems should be shown.
The question of Japanese and Korean relationship is considered in (5.2).
2.3.4. PAI against Mudrak’s hypotheses
Mudrak believes that such languages as: Ainu, Nivkh, Chukchi-Koryak, Itelmen and Eskimo-Aleut are genetically related (Mudrak 2013).
2.3.4.1. Whether Ainu and Nivkh could be relatives
According to Mudrak Ainu and Nivkh not just belong to that hypothetical stock but belong to same group inside the stock (pic. 4).
Pic. 4. Scheme representing genetic relationships of “Paleosiberian stock” languages accordingto Mudrak (source: [битая ссылка] http://polit.ru/article/2013/04/22/ps_mudrak_linguistics/ – accessed December 2015)
PAI of Nivkh is 0.07 (calculated after Gruzdeva 1997);
PAI of Ainu is 0.75.
Values differ more than tenfold.
Also grammars of Ainu and grammar of Nivkh show serious differences.
Hypothesis of Nivkh and Ainu relationship is same as for instance hypothesis of common ancestor of Estonian and Latvian spoken out by Nivkh or Ainu scientists (if Nivkh or Ainu would have scientists and European languages would be “indigenous languages”). It’s completely naïve and it’s based only on very perfunctory impression of some cultural similarities of Sakhalin Nivkh and Sakhalin Ainu.
2.3.4.2. Whether Ainu and Eskimo-Aleut could be relatives?
PAI of Aleut group and its relatives is zero (Golovko 1997: 115; Menovschikov 1997: 77). PAI of Ainu is 0.75. We have seen some well assembled groups and stocks and know how values of PAI can differ if languages really form a stock. As far as our current math, that we use to count values of PAI and estimate correlation of PAI values, doesn’t know division by zero so we can ascribe to the PAI of Aleut an obviously absurd value (for instance: 0.000001) in order to show the utmost absurdity of any attempts to represent Ainu and Aleut as languages belonging to the same stock.
Pic. 5. Diagram representing PAI values of languages that don’t form stocks.
2.3.4.3. Against term “Paleosiberian”
The term “Paleosiberian languages” was invented to designate isolated languages of Siberia and Far East; it doesn’t mean a hypothetical stock but it is just a set of genetically unrelated languages assembled by their geographic location. Now it would be better to avoid use of this term as far as it doesn’t help to analyse and discover but just inspires development of megalocomparative obscurantism.
It would be better to use term “isolated languages and stocks of Siberia and Far East” rather than to explain every time true meaning of term “Paleosiberian” since it looks much alike name of stock, it looks too mystic and/or intriguing for random amaterish people could properly understand its meaning.
2.3.5. Potential relatives of Ainu seem to be in South
2.3.5.1. Ainu and Austronesian
Murayama believed that Ainu could be a distant relative of Austronesian (Murayama 1993).
Despite naïve lexicostatistic approach the idea potentially can be rather realistic since PAI of Ainu is 0.75 and PAI of Austronesian stock is about 0.6.
2.3.5.2. Ainu and Mon-Khmer
Vovin tried to show that Ainu was a distant relative of Austroasiatic (Vovin 1993). As well as in the case of Murayama the idea isn’t completely off base since PAI of Khmer is 0.66 that correlates well with that of Ainu. However, I am to note that such researches in the field of linguistics should be correlated with data of other sciences.
Any hypothesis about relationship of certain languages should be correlated with correspondent contexts and with data of other related sciences: physical anthropology, population genetics, cultural anthropology and archaeology: if a certain date has been set as an approximate time of existence of a Proto-Ainu then how words of contemporary Ainu can be found in preceding epochs? Also if certain ethnic group is thought to have influenced Ainu language then this group hardly could influence rice cultivating terminology (Nonno 2015: 44).
2.3.6. Particular conclusion about PAI method
1. PAI is something alike safety valve of comparative linguistics: if its values don’t differ more than fourfold then there is absolutely no obstacles for further research about genetic relationship; if values differ fourfold and more then should be found absolutely ferroconcrete proves of genetic relationship; if values differ sevenfold – tenfold or even more then those languages belong to different stocks.
It is possible to say that PAI shows direction in which looking for potential relatives of certain language can be perspectives.
2. PAI can be helpful method in those areas where are many isolated languages/stocks: in North America, in Papua and in Africa.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
