Communication Centre for Sino-Uralic and Sino-Germanic Etymology and Affinity Studies

Publication: Monograph: Gao 2005, on Sino-Finnic (95%) and Sino-Germanic (5%).

Gao, Jingyi(高晶一) 2005: Comparison of Swadesh 100 Words in Finnic, Hungarian, Sinic and Tibetan: Introduction to Finno-Sinic Languages, Tallinn: Estonian Language Foundation. [ISBN 9985-79-135-5]

Main text written in English. A brief conclusion written in Estonian.

Full DOM method plus lexicostatistics method. Etymological units in DOM Chinese with Unicode.

Selected phonetic data within DOM: Dialect points of Beijing and Shenyang (Mandarin) in author's own transcription. Document point of 1161 (Middle Chinese)  in author's own transcription system with a mapping chart. Fusion of document points of 601~1161 (Middle Chinese) in Chinese records.

Primary DOM target languages: Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian and Tibetan. Secondary target languages: Swedish, Danish. Occasionally referred target languages: Russian, Burmese (depends on references). European languages in orthographies, Tibetan in transcription with a mapping chart. P-FW, P-FP, P-FU, P-U according to UEW.

Results of common etymological units: | Chinese ∩ Estonian | = 87; | Chinese ∩ Finnish | = 88; | Chinese ∩ Hungarian | = 39; | Chinese ∩ Tibetan | = 60.

Positions on definitions: Chinese and Uralic languages had common grounds in western China or Central Asia in the past. Chinese and Proto-Germanic had prehistoric contacts in western China or Central Asia in the past. Finno-Sinic, Indo-European and some other languages had common grounds in the further past.

Author's updates since this publication:

DOM errors corrected in Gao 2008. Definitions slightly changed in Gao 2008.


[Read more at the homepage]

©2008-2014 CCSUSG

wordpress visitor counter