Thus as per you stated, this trilled-r could be an adoptation from outside influences (fishermen's contacts and actors' adoptation of accents). In other words, the pronunciation might be something else than the original linguistic core.



Of course, we should use archaic vocabularies (in fact, all of those words stated can be traced to archaic usages but, that is not the point of importance); however, I was trying to address the fact that, by vocabularies the theories still cannot be defended.

I don't know about the others, but bobo in Tagalog could possibly come from bobo in Spanish, which certainly doesn't have any relation with Korean or Malay.

Of course, that is one possible link; however, geographical linguistics can be another possible link. Please consider the following: Tagalog ako←→Bahasa Malay aku, Tagalog ka←→Bahasa Malay kamu.

However, my stance is not about the possible origins of these languages and what-not. I was voicing the defence of the altaic branch cannot rely upon vocabularies and pronunciations.

To me, it seems like too strong of a trait to be debunked as areal influence. Also, if you look at other nearby languages such as the Ainu & Paleosiberian languages, rhotics are found as word intials.


Admittedly, there's not much strong vocabulary correspondence between the proposed Atlaic branches. But phonology I think is a stronger case because of the aforementioned lack of word initial rhotic & also because of vowel harmony, lack of large consonant clusters (except in Mongolian), & also complementary distribution of velars & uvulars (except in Japonic & Korean, which don't have uvulars). But I think the grammar is also a strong case. The grammar of all the proposed Altaic languages is very similar, especially if we envision an imaginary isogloss with Turkic, Mongolic & Tungusic on 1 side while Korean & Japonic are on the other.

But, hey, I'm not trying to convince everyone that Altaic is real. I'm just trying to show everyone why I think it's a believable proposal.

Why not? Tones are an integral part of the Vietnamese language, yet it didn't even have them before Chinese influence.
I think you need systemic correspondences in the basic vocabulary of a language (ie. a Swadesh list or the like) to demonstrate genetic relationship, because that's the part of language most resistant to change and borrowing.

Well, remember, Japan was relatively isolated from the rest of the world for centuries. It's not like Japanese fishermen were constantly hearing the powerful trills of Russians & Arab traders.


True, but Vietnam was ruled by China for a millenium, during which written Chinese was the sole official language.
Japan was never conquered by the Mongols. And again, I have to bring up the relative isolation of Japan from the rest of Asia. The Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, & Korean speakers were all very close but none of them, apart from perhaps ancient Korean peoples who came to Japan, were constantly in contact with Japan.


But what if Altaic is the exception to the rule? And what about grammar? Grammar is even more resistant to borrowing than vocabulary.

Didn't that isolation begin in the Edo period? Japanese is a lot older than that.
Is it? I thought languages influenced each other's grammar all the time. Look at Arabic shifting to SVO word order, or Indonesian using measure words.

Actually, there are theories of which state the ancient chinese language lacked tones and, were polysyllabic. Thus, the change to monosyllabic tonal language can, be a self-devolopement as well as an outside influence from somewhere else.



...you know, that text was not written by me. Please quote the correct author.



There are similarities in grammar between Japanese and Manchurian:

Manchurian bi oci manju niyalma inu (I'm Manchurian)
Japanese watashi wa nihonjin desu (I'm Japanese)

But if shall we accept this grammarical similarities as the altaic link, how would we explain the same grammar existed within classical chinese:

吾乃中原人是也 (I'm from the Central China/I'm Central Chinese)



I am not against your views, I am just stating some issues in the defences of the theories.

During ancient & classical times, the only people Japan had consistent relations with were Chinese & Korean civilizations. They had little or no contact with Turkic, Mongolic or Tungusic speaking peoples.


I was under the impression that Chinese developed tone under influence from the Hmong-Mien languages.

OK, so I'll provide a summary of all the "circumstantial evidence" for Altaic that I can think of.
Phonology
-vowel harmony found in every branch except, perhaps, for Japonic
-rhotic phonemes do not begin native words in any branch
-a system of complementary distribution for velar & uvular plosives & fricatives is found in Mongolic, Tungusic, & in some Turkic languages
Grammar
-SOV syntax found in every language
-all languages are agglutinative & strictly suffixing
-a case system with nominative unmarked in Turkic, Mongolic & Tungusic; a system of "particles" found in Korean & Japonic
-no articles
-no grammatical gender
-no distinction of singular & plural, except for animate nouns & pronouns; the suffixes used to show plural have similarities: compare Japanese -ra with Uzbek -lar & Tuvan -ler; Japanese -tachi, Korean -deul, Kazakh -dar

As far as I know these same traits are found in Uralic.