Re: [tied] Ah, look at all the lonely languages

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:17:00 +0000, Gerry <waluk@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
><piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Gerry
>> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 9:01 PM
>> Subject: [tied] Is Sumerian an Isolate? was: Re: Attention: John
>Croft
>>
>> > 1) are there other language isolates?
>>
>> Plenty of them. Basque, Burushaski, Ainu, etc.
>
>Yes, I'm familiar with the three you mention. Yet Basque isn't a
>lonely isolated language and fuels the Basque separatist movement.

What's the hell is that supposed to mean?

>Many think it is a very old language
>because there are words, such as that for axe ("aizkora"
>or "haizkora") for example, that have the same root as the word rock
>("aitz"> or "haitz").

Rubbish. In the first place, aizkora is loan from Latin asciola "axe". In
the second place, to quote Larry Trask: "Even if the Basques did construct
a few tool names from the word for "stone", what interesting conclusion can
we draw? That the Basques have ancestors who used stone tools? Everybody
has ancestors who used stone tools."

>> > IOW, could Sumer perhaps have been a "city of the gods" (or even
>of the
>> untouchables)?
>>
>> I don't think I understand this question.
>
>I'm simply trying to pull out of the atmosphere some reasons why a
>language becomes (or remains) an isolate.

A language being an isolate has NOTHING to do with the language itself or
its speakers. It merely means that all the languages it's related to have
died out.

>Guess another answer could be "aliens from outer space".

And another answer would be Koo-koo.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...