Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!simtel!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!jda_pc.me.su.OZ.AU!johna
From: johna@tiny.me.su.oz.au (John Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Korean and Japanese (was Scots and English (was: Re: Flemish and Dutch))
Message-ID: <johna.59.000BD048@tiny.me.su.oz.au>
Lines: 19
Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU
Nntp-Posting-Host: jda_pc.me.su.oz.au
Organization: Mech_Eng,Sydney University
References: <3nqtn1$b7v@bertha.gssec.bt.co.uk> <D8rGGz.5FM@midway.uchicago.edu> <3ph342$o3m@clarknet.clark.net> <D8uF69.1v9@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <D8uxuw.4wG@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 01:48:44 GMT

deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff) writes:

>More specifically, lexicon; two languages can have identical or nearly
>identical grammar (e.g. Korean and Japanese) and still not be considered
>related.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

Nearly identical grammar?  Not as I recollect.  Both are verb-final and 
have most of the other properties which frequently correlate with this 
(and which they may have inherited from proto-Altaic, if you believe that 
theory).  Both have borrowed extensively from Chinese (mostly lexicon, 
but some grammar).  But other than that their grammar is anything but  
"identical".  

Maybe someone who actually knows these languages can comment.

Anyway, I'm sure there are much better examples of the point you're 
trying to make!

John
