Danny Wier:
>Today I e-mailed Serget Starostin, [...] I also
>don't accept Etruscan as a likely Nostratic offshoot.
As far as I know, it's the likeliest theory to date of Etruscan's origins
and it would be closest to IE (hence Nostratic). The problem I find with
Nostratic theories as far as I've read up to now is that there is often
little attempt to internally subgroup the Nostratic languages with any sense
of accuracy. This would require at least some grammatical comparison which
doesn't seem well done even by Bomhard. I still think the very use of /mi/
as "I", an accusative -n(i), and an occasional nominative as well as
genitive both in -s, exactly as we find in IE, is too much to ignore. If we
add up all the coincidences, the relationship becomes painfully clear, even
despite the impoverished state of our knowledge of the language.
>you also have a possible (though again not very possible)
>Basque->Aquitanian affiliation.
Vasconicist Larry Trask seems to accept it and he tends to be conservative
on matters of relating Basque to other languages. Hmmm....
>Same case with Sumerian, which should just be considered an
>isolate until we really find out differently.
Can't agree at all. The pronouns in themselves (eg. -mu, -zu, -ani)
demonstrate that the language is at least in part related to Nostratic and
not mere coincidence. I believe what makes it difficult to relate this
language to Nostratic is its Caucasic substrate. Bomhard views the language
as having split early, again, probably because of the Caucasic influence.
I don't think that a null hypothesis is ever the best option. We should be
striving to attain the _best_ hypothesis. Therefore, Sumerian is more likely
Nostratic or influenced by a Nostratic language, given the evidence - hardly
an isolate. Same with Etruscan. Ignorance is not an option.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com