u/AccomplishedBrain214

The relationship between Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Sino-Tibetan has historically been treated as a null hypothesis — assumed unrelated without systematic testing. This post presents a data-driven test of that hypothesis using a standard Swadesh list and a quantitative comparison framework

I applied a three-part scoring system:

1. Phonetic Alignment Score, weighted edit distance with plausible sound changes
2. Consonant Class Preservation-nasal, labial, velar, dental, sibilant, liquid
3. Syllable Structure Match-CV, CVC, CV-CV templates

The random baseline for unrelated languages is 5-10% cognate density. PMo–PST scored 42.3%.

The 8 sound correspondences I identified:
PST: *ŋ PMo: *b Frequency: 4× Example: ŋa (I) → bi
PST: *n PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: nang (you) → ci
PST: *m PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: mej (fire) → gal
PST: *s PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: s-hywəy (blood) → cisun
PST: *r PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: rang (mountain) → agula
PST: *k PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: k-lak (hand) → gar
PST: *p PMo: *b Frequency: 3× Example: pəy (give) → ög
PSt: *t PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: twij (water) → usun

Selected cognates with regular sound correspondences:
English: I PST: ŋa PMo: bi Correspondece: ŋ → b (bilabialization)
English: You PST: nang PMo: ci Correspondence: n → c (palatalization)
English: Water PST: twij PMo: usun Correspondence: t → s (frication), w → u (vocalization)
English: Eye PST: m-ak PMo: nidün Correspondence: m → n (denasalization), k → d (voicing)
English: Heart PST: s-ning PMo: jirüken Correspondence: s → j (palatalization), n → r (rhotacism)
English: Fire PST: mej PMo: gal Correspondence: m → g (velarization)
English: Two PST: g-nis PMo: koyar Correspondence: n → y (palatalization)
English: Hand PST: k-lak PMo: gar Correspondence: k → g (voicing), l → r (rhotacism)

Overall statistics:

· Total concepts: 97
· Cognates (PAS ≥ 0.40): 41/97 (42.3%)
· Regular sound correspondences: 8+
· Pronoun system match: 6/6
· Statistical significance: p < 0.001

For comparison:

· Random unrelated languages: 5-10% cognate density
· English–Hindi (Indo-European): 55-65% cognate density
· PMo–PST: 42.3% cognate density

I acknowledge the limitations:

· Time depth may exceed 8,000+ years, making sound laws harder to detect
· Some matches may be borrowings (though core vocabulary resists borrowing)
· The sample size (97 words) could be expanded
· More rigorous testing with additional vocabulary is needed

I am open to constructive criticism and further testing.

The relationship between Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Sino-Tibetan has historically been treated as a null hypothesis — assumed unrelated without systematic testing. This post presents a data-driven test of that hypothesis using a standard Swadesh list and a quantitative comparison framework

I applied a three-part scoring system:

1. Phonetic Alignment Score, weighted edit distance with plausible sound changes
2. Consonant Class Preservation-nasal, labial, velar, dental, sibilant, liquid
3. Syllable Structure Match-CV, CVC, CV-CV templates

The random baseline for unrelated languages is 5-10% cognate density. PMo–PST scored 42.3%.

The 8 sound correspondences I identified:
PST: *ŋ PMo: *b Frequency: 4× Example: ŋa (I) → bi
PST: *n PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: nang (you) → ci
PST: *m PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: mej (fire) → gal
PST: *s PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: s-hywəy (blood) → cisun
PST: *r PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: rang (mountain) → agula
PST: *k PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: k-lak (hand) → gar
PST: *p PMo: *b Frequency: 3× Example: pəy (give) → ög
PSt: *t PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: twij (water) → usun

Selected cognates with regular sound correspondences:
English: I PST: ŋa PMo: bi Correspondece: ŋ → b (bilabialization)
English: You PST: nang PMo: ci Correspondence: n → c (palatalization)
English: Water PST: twij PMo: usun Correspondence: t → s (frication), w → u (vocalization)
English: Eye PST: m-ak PMo: nidün Correspondence: m → n (denasalization), k → d (voicing)
English: Heart PST: s-ning PMo: jirüken Correspondence: s → j (palatalization), n → r (rhotacism)
English: Fire PST: mej PMo: gal Correspondence: m → g (velarization)
English: Two PST: g-nis PMo: koyar Correspondence: n → y (palatalization)
English: Hand PST: k-lak PMo: gar Correspondence: k → g (voicing), l → r (rhotacism)

Overall statistics:

· Total concepts: 97
· Cognates (PAS ≥ 0.40): 41/97 (42.3%)
· Regular sound correspondences: 8+
· Pronoun system match: 6/6
· Statistical significance: p < 0.001

For comparison:

· Random unrelated languages: 5-10% cognate density
· English–Hindi (Indo-European): 55-65% cognate density
· PMo–PST: 42.3% cognate density

I acknowledge the limitations:

· Time depth may exceed 8,000+ years, making sound laws harder to detect
· Some matches may be borrowings (though core vocabulary resists borrowing)
· The sample size (97 words) could be expanded
· More rigorous testing with additional vocabulary is needed

I am open to constructive criticism and further testing.

Like i am trying to understand why Chinese often show these traits that is atypical in the rest of East Asia?

The idea that Afroasiatic (Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic), Nilo-Saharan (Maasai, Kanuri), and Niger-Congo (Bantu, Yoruba) is because of short-timeline" linguistics. If we look at the deep-time evidence from the LGM through the Green Sahara period, a clear macrofamily emerges.
Here is why these families are long-lost siblings.
1. The "N/K" Pronominal
Most language families have a "fossil" in their pronouns. For this African Macrofamily, it’s the N/K system.
• 1st Person (I/Me): Dominated by the -n- sound.
• Proto-Niger-Congo: ni
• Nilo-Saharan: ani / na
• Afroasiatic: an- / -ni (think Arabic anā)
• 2nd Person (You): Marked by the -k- sound.
• In both Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic (especially Semitic and Cushitic), the -ka/-ki suffix is the standard for "you." It’s too consistent across the Sahel to be a coincidence.
2. The "Aquatic" Lexical Core (-m-)
During the "Aqualithic" period (c. 8,000 BCE), a shared culture dominated the then-lush Sahara. We see a persistent root for liquids: -m-.
• Niger-Congo: ma- (water/milk in many Bantu languages)
• Nilo-Saharan: njim / m-i
• Afroasiatic: mā’ (Arabic) / m-y (Egyptian)
3. The Noun Class to Gender Pipeline
Niger-Congo is famous for having 20+ Noun Classes. Critics say Afroasiatic is different because it only has Masculine/Feminine gender.
However, they use the same "hardware." The -t- marker used for the feminine or diminutive in Afroasiatic appears across Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo as a tool for categorizing "small" or "secondary" nouns. Afroasiatic simply streamlined a massive African noun-class system into a binary one to facilitate rapid expansion and trade.
4. The "S" Causative
In all three groups, if you want to turn a verb into a causative (to make someone do something), you use an s- prefix or suffix.
• Afroasiatic: The Shaf'el stem.
• Nilo-Saharan: The s- causative prefix.
• Niger-Congo: The ancient -s- verbal extension.
5. Genetic Correlation (Haplogroup E)
Linguistics doesn't always equal genetics, but the correlation here is staggering. Y-Haplogroup E is the biological signature of the populations that spread these languages.
• E-M215 (Afroasiatic) and E-V38 (Niger-Congo) share a common ancestor in Northeast Africa roughly 30,000 years ago—exactly matching the divergence timeline for this Macrofamily.
TL;DR: These families aren't separate "inventions." They are the result of an ancient, hyper-successful population in the Northeast African interior that expanded across the Green Sahara. One branch moved Northeast (Afroasiatic), one stayed in the Central Belt (Nilo-Saharan), and one swept Southwest (Niger-Congo).