很少有语言学家同时研究汉语和日语,这两种语言从类型分类和谱系分类的角度看是否真的毫无共同之处,思考这一问题的语言学家就更是寥寥无几了。我们可以继续坚持以下的观点,即使这样作是有条件的或者得委婉其词,即汉语是孤立语和单音节语(至少最初是这样),后来成了有声调的语言,并遵循基本的规则(最初是否是这样无关紧要),使之在句法上冠以了SVO语言的名称;而日语则是SOV语言,是粘着型的、多音节的、没有任何声调的语言。然而,我们应该想想现在是否应该重新考虑这些信念。至于笔者,我想尽力试图表明,汉语和日语至少在两个问题上,即在句法和音位学上很相似,甚至几乎一般无二,这两种语言之间的不同则是次要的。Ⅰ假定组成句子的成份不超出三个,其中两个成份(主语,宾语)具有名词性质或是名词,而第三个成份不同于前两者,只有这个成份是谓词性的,那么汉语似乎在词序上与日语相对,而同法语、英语或其他语言词序相同,这一点是对的,并有必要重申,请 Few linguists study both Chinese and Japanese. Whether these two languages ​​really have anything in common from the perspective of genre classification and pedigree classification, there are even fewer linguists who think about the issue. We can continue to hold the view that even if it is conditional or tactful, that is, Chinese is isolated and monosyllable (at least initially) and later becomes a tonal language and follows the basic rules (Whether it was initially irrelevant) to make it syntactically name the SVO language; Japanese is the SOV language, a sticky, polysyllabic, speechless language. However, we should think about whether we should reconsider these beliefs now. As for the author, I try my best to try to show that Chinese and Japanese are secondary to at least two issues, namely, syntactic and phonetic similarities, even almost universal, and that the differences between the two languages ​​are secondary. I assume that the composition of the composition of the sentence does not exceed three, of which two components (subject, object) has the nature of nouns or nouns, and the third component is different from the first two, only this component is predicate, then the Chinese seems to be It is true that the word order is the same as that of Japanese and the same order of words as French, English or other languages, and it is necessary to reiterate that