Phill quotes me in part as I wrote to Fiery Red: "Either they were in touch and borrowing from each other...or they were not. You can't have it both ways."<>...

Phill then says: You missed the bit where FR said WHEN they met the Chinese. They didn't know each other from the starts of their civilisations, therefore no contradiction.

For many hundred years they did not know about each other so they evolved independently, and then when they discovered each other they fought each other for many more hundred years and took ideas from each other - most of the developments of that time were gained from wars. The stirrup, a Chinese invention, was poached by the Japanese, for example, because it was a good idea for cavalry, making fighting from horseback less problematic.
<>...

I respond: No Phill. I did not miss anything. I read what she wrote and feel I got the sense of what she was saying, but the sticker is...why can't you borrow from oral language...when you can borrow from the written?

To quote Fiery: "As to your question on the Japanese and Chinese languages, the Japanese are conciderably seperated from the Chinese mainland by a large body of water, and the langueges evolved among very different lines. In other words, for a few thousand years, the Japanese were culturaly isolated on thier island, very little, if any contact was made with other cultures, exepting the Ainu.
The written forms were a concious effort on the part of the Japanese who, when they encountered the Chinese were rather in awe of the Chinese culture, and deliberatly adopted many things from them, including the written language."<>

I go on: I am not trying to "nit pick" here, but for the oral language to be so different for two peoples so close...there must be a plausible explanation. Then to add more fuel to the fire, how about the Koreans? Their language is different from Chinese and Japanese...and its historical development is also a mystery. So...once again, why the difference? If evolution is true, and we branched out from a single pair, as is commonly held to be the case by certain scientists today, then there logically should be certain roots common to all languages.

The achaic English example, given in a previous post, on its notable difference to today's modern English, does not erase the fact that there are still many very certain similarities between modern and historical English; primarily, I imagine, the alphabet itself.

Personally, I am of the opinion, that while language certainly changes, it does not leave its roots completely.

The fact that language was changed by a higher source, and peoples were scattered about the earth...according to tongue, makes more sense to me. Having been accomplished to confuse man, I feel its plausability...everytime I hear a foriegn language and try to understand it, with no education on the language I am listening too; almost total confusion.

I know...you don't feel that way, but I do. So...I guess that is that.

Thanks,
El Stevereno