Stop the insanity

Mark O:

>So am I, but I keep myself in the "let us prove that IE was a real
>language in a real place spoken by a real people at a real place in
>time".
>
>Your theory makes it hopelessly hypothetical.

Really, Mark, where are you going with this?

First, it's already sufficiently proven that IE was a real language
in a real place and real time because of the myriad of languages to
compare, all the historical materials available and the volumnous
span of time that this kind of research has been going on. The only people
now claiming that IndoEuropean never existed have their
own personal issues to deal with and only have a small, cult
following at best.

Second, how does anything I'm saying work *against* IE? Do tell.

-------------------------------------------------
gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!

home: http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email: glengordon01@...
-------------------------------------------------

>From: markodegard@...
>Reply-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [tied] Re: Stop the insanity
>Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 05:00:15 -0000
>
>Yes, you are mad.
>

>
>
>--- In cybalist@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:
> > Mark O:
> > >Umm, Joseph. Glen is slightly mad, i.e., he's into Nostratic and
>only
> > >incidentally Indo-European.
> >
> > Yes, of course, I'm mad. My apologies. Clearly we should embrace
> > this FinnoUgric-Hurrian-Etruscan relationship that our talented
> > Joseph speaks of and ignore all that mainstream nonsense like
>IndoEuropean
> > or proper non-Greenbergian methodology. This new
> > FinnoUgric-Hurrian-Etruscan superfamily is quite superior to
> > the Nostratic theory that has only been evolving for a century
> > now. Informing oneself properly on these subjects just takes too
> > much time in this complex world of french fries and Hollywood
> > movies.
> >
> > Now, how might I be "incidentally into" IndoEuropean, Mark? Somehow
> > because I find Nostratic to be the most appealing of long-range
> > theories means that I can only be vaguely familiar with
> > IndoEuropean? You must be pulling my leg again and forgetting
> > to add smileys where appropriate... It's not nice to tease.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > gLeNny gEe
> > ...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!
> >
> > home: http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
> > email: glengordon01@...
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >--- In cybalist@..., "Joseph S Crary" <pva@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Glen
> > > >
> > > > apology given
> > > >
> > > > because I thought you knew enough about the chronology and
> > > > archaeological material culture of the regions you were
>discussing,
> > > > to understand the question, or for that mater form an opinion
> > > >
> > > > If you find my statements or questions confusing, again I
>apologize
> > > >
> > > > Still I don't understand why you're devising a theory about an
> > > > extinct language group, that hypothetically occupied a large
>region,
> > > > when the only solid evidence comes from a very much smaller
> > > > district...
> > > >
> > > > ...unless you broaden your search?
> > > >
> > > > JS Crary
> > >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp