The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

And I explained several times that (1) the dictation of that Very Very Old Written Chinese text, even if literal one-hanzi-at-a-time, would have turned each hanzi into a syllable of the local language (say, Cantonese as spoken in 1400 CE) -- because, for one thing, the Dictator would not have the foggiest idea of how the Divine Farmer would have read those hanzi in 300 BCE; and (2) any differences between the syntax of the Divine Farmer's language and that of Cantonese would hardly be visible in the SBJ sentences, because they are extremely short and simple (mostly 1 to 4 hanzi).  Why can't I get this point across?

The last question I can answer easily enough: You long ago got this point across, at least in broad strokes. The continued attempts to get me to understand it are misguided.

My issue, at its core, is that Cantonese is not a collection of disconnected syllables---no language is. You cannot simply go through and give a list of cognates in one language and expect it to make clear another; false friends and changing grammar will wreak havoc on interpreting the output. This is true of phonetic Irish, this is true of phonetic Latin, and this is true of phonetic Chinese. When the languages are in Europe, you can see this because you have some familiarity with them. When it is in Asia, you are happy to repeat this falsehood because it appeals.

As you've tried to undermine Mair you said this:

It is also frequently asserted that, while there may be enormous differences in vocabulary, pronunciation, and idiom among the major spoken Chinese fangyan, they basically share the same grammar. This assumption, too, remains to be proven, both in absolute and in comparative terms.

(Emphasis mine). So that claim is not false, it is just not proved yet?

Mair actually answers your question in a footnote, and it cuts right to the heart of this:

The burden of proof rests with those who insist that Sinitic languages are not subject to the same universal laws of phonology, morphology, grammar, and syntax that govern all other human languages.

The reason it remains unproven is that it cannot be proved. Languages do not keep their grammar and lexicon for two and half millennia, and it would be extraordinary if Chinese were exceptional.