Just wanted to say that trying to prove that Vietnamese is a Sino-Tibetan language by examining the origins of the Vietnamese could prove fruitless since it is NOT true that: "genes = language"
--brand new anthropology article; Feb 1, 2005.
"Gene flow across linguistic boundaries in Native North American populations"
Keith Hunley * and Jeffrey C. Long
"Cultural and linguistic groups are often expected to represent genetic populations. In this article, we tested the hypothesis that the hierarchical classification of languages proposed by J. Greenberg [(1987) Language in the Americas (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA)] also represents the genetic structure of Native North American populations. The genetic data are mtDNA sequences for 17 populations gleaned from literature sources and public databases. The hypothesis was rejected. Further analysis showed that departure of the genetic structure from the linguistic classification was pervasive and not due to an outlier population or a problematic language group. Therefore, Greenberg's language groups are at best an imperfect approximation to the genetic structure of these populations. Moreover, we show that the genetic structure among these Native North American populations departs significantly from the best-fitting hierarchical models. Analysis of median joining networks for mtDNA haplotypes provides strong evidence for gene flow across linguistic boundaries. In principle, the language of a population can be replaced more rapidly than its genes because language can be transmitted both vertically from parents to children and horizontally between unrelated people. However, languages are part of a cultural complex, and there may be strong pressure to maintain a language in place whereas genes are free to flow. "
--- many languages at first, then few---all from one set of genes, Native Ams, i.e. Few Genes vs Many Languages,
"Linguistic diversity of the Americas can be reconciled with a recent colonization"
Daniel Nettle, Merton College, Oxford
"The Americas harbor a very great diversity of indigenous language stocks, many more than are found in any other continent. J. Nichols [(1990) Language 66, 475-521] has argued that this diversity indicates a great time depth of in situ evolution. She thus infers that the colonization of the Americas must have begun around 35,000 years ago. This estimate is much earlier than the date for which there is strong archaeological support, which does not much exceed 12,000 years. Nichols' assumption is that the diversity of linguistic stocks increases linearly with time. This paper compares the major continents of the world to show that this assumption is not correct. In fact, stock diversity is highest in the Americas, which are by consensus the youngest continents, intermediate in Australia and New Guinea, and lowest in Africa and Eurasia where the time depth is greatest. If anything, then, after an initial radiation, stock diversity decreases with time. A simple model is outlined that predicts these dynamics. It assumes that early in the peopling of continents, there are many unfilled niches for communities to live in, and so fissioning into new lineages is frequent. As the habitat is filled up, the rate of fissioning declines and lineage extinction becomes the dominant evolutionary force."
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... s=10739760
---on genetic disparity of Khoisan speaking Kung & Khwe
"mtDNA variation in the South African Kung and Khwe-and their genetic relationships to other African populations."
Chen YS, Olckers A, Schurr TG, Kogelnik AM, Huoponen K, Wallace DC.
"The mtDNA variation of 74 Khoisan-speaking individuals (Kung and Khwe) from Schmidtsdrift, in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa, was examined by high-resolution RFLP analysis and control region (CR) sequencing... the Kung exhibited a set of related haplotypes that were positioned closest to the root of the human mtDNA phylogeny, suggesting that they, too, represent one of the most ancient African populations. Comparison of Kung and Khwe CR sequences with those from other African populations confirmed the genetic association of the Kung with other Khoisan-speaking peoples, whereas the Khwe were more closely linked to non-Khoisan-speaking (Bantu) populations. "
----So, Kung and Khwe both speak Khoisan, but Khwe are quite genetically dissimilar to Kung. Kung are light skinned Africans but Khwe are dark skinned Africans.
Genetically, Vietnamese, Cantonese, Fujianese, and even those from Zhejiang, etc. are very close for they are all descendants of the Yueh. This is especially true of the Vietnamese and Cantonese, because the more nothern Fujianese and particualarly the Zhejiangnese have more Northern Han genes due simply to proximity, southward immigration, and so on. However, according to the 3 cited papers above, same genes does necessarily not translate to same language. This is NOT to say that Vietnamese is not Sino-Tibetan, just that genes can only indicate linguistic origin, but can not provide definitive proof either way.