Re: [tied] Re: kinship systems

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 2935
Date: 2000-08-02

John:
>Personally I see it was the Nostratic language spoken by the Zarzian
>culture (circa 12,000 - 8,500 BCE),

8500 BCE is far too late to be a serious proposal. 12000 BCE is cutting it
very short.

John:
>[...](I am not thoroughly consulting my chronology on this matter)[...]

I can tell.

>[...] to be the language that could have spread to the Hattic.

Are you sure you're talking about Hattic or maybe Caucasic? As far as I
understand, NorthEast Caucasian, Hattic and HurroUrartian would have spread
from a Caucasic mother language at around 8000 BCE or earlier. Whether you
believe that or not, Hattic is an inappropriate term for the language of
that time frame.

John:
>This Zarzian culture I see as close to the root of the Eurasian
>or perhaps the Steppe group you posit Glen.

Of course, any proposal at whim without deep thought or research into what
you're talking about. What language might they have spoken then? Another
imaginary language on your part, just to be chic?

You misunderstand the purpose behind my theory of Semitish. I don't simply
propose the existence of a language for entertainment value. It's a
necessity to explain the seemingly close ties between Semitic and IE at a
very early date when it is virtually a done-deal now that the IEs were never
even remotely close to the Semitic language. It's clear that such a language
like Semitish would have irrevocably altered IE and is highly significant,
if true, to IE studies. It can be justified in terms of linguistic
comparison, religion and archaeology.

Proposing an unattested language without _any_ substantiation, all for a
_single_ word that one may _possibly_ but certainly not definitely link with
some name of a Hattic goddess is purely lunatic. You missed your calling. I
think you should go become a Hollywood movie scriptwriter. This plot sounds
like a summer smash. I'll then rent your flick at a local Blockbuster's...

Blockbuster's - Make it a Blockbuster night!

>Culturally it seems that Altaics moved one way, whilst Uralics and
> >Indo-Tyrrhenians moved another, and Elamo-Dravidians moved in a >third.

Of course, anything you say John. Altaic in no way has parallels to Uralic,
right? They just happen to have strong grammatical correspondances because
of the alien abductions? It's always the alien abductions. Why won't the
aliens leave us poor defenseless non-matriarchal humans alone, huh?

All I can say is that I'm not impressed and I'm sure that a far better
explanation can be weilded from your local library, which you should visit
today... all day.

- gLeN

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com