On Aug 27, 8:48?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:16:11 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
One interesting
claim (see website) is that the Tartar dialect of Chinese and the
Apache tongue are virutally the same language- so close that speakers
of Tartar and speakers of Apache can converse easily without ever
formally studying the other language. The mathmatical odds that two
societies that had never interacted would independently assign the
same meanings to sounds and structures comprising a language are
pretty remote.

Heh - would you believe that a sub-dialect of Hebrew also closely
matches the native Apache language and hints of other Native American
languages?

That's where the whole American Indians being the 13th Tribe of Isreal
thing came about.

Also, Navajo, if I remember correctly, is supposed to match Tartar
closely.

I'm not a linguistics expert, but I have some questions about the
Chinese Tartar claims.

1 - There are seven different Apache languages and not all of them
"match".

A - A lot of the evidence of this closeness of language is acnecdotal
and not direct.

2 - Chinese Tartars live almost exclusively in Northwestern China and
it would seem unlikely that they would even be on a ship at sea
serving as seamen as they are largely horse nomads with a very sparse
population.

A - There are a ton of different types of "Tartar" groupings, but
mostly it related to Eastern Europe which would also make it seem
unlikely.

3 - The Apache language is closely related to the Athabaskan language
family of languages which has no relation to the language of the
Tartars.

So, where does that leave us.

Wondering what the statistical probablities are that cultures so
distant and removed from one another independently developed such
extremely similar
sytems of sound and structure to express thought.

I thought it was interesting that in comparing the Pro-1421 website
and the "1421 Debunked!" site that the debunking site seems limited to
addressing only a handful of the scores of items supposedly in
evidence to support the Chinese navigation contention.

Have you read the book? It's very interesting.