> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ytielts" <ytielts@> wrote:
> > Is there anyone who knows where to find the common words for all
> > today's languages? I haave just learned from this group that the
> > Chinese word <quan> is correspondent with the latin root<aqua>.
> This is
> > really fascinating.
> Now I am worried you might be ironic. I _proposed_ (as Rob would
> the first to point out) that the PIE root that is ancestral toLatin
> aqua might be _loaned_ from a Sino-Tibetan word ancestral to Earlythat
> Middle Chinese kwen' "watering chanel". The interesing thing is
> the loan might coincide with the invention of agriculture, so thatsome
> it was part of a "culture package" which enabled a small number of
> cultures to expand on an unprecedented scale, thus founding the
> great language families we know today.
> >Is there any information available for the
> > correspondent sound roots in the superfamily of Eurasian(60,000-
> > years ago as proposed by Merritt Ruhlen in 1944), from which
> > language families such as Afro-Asiatic, Eurasiatic including
> > indoeuropean languages and Dene-Caucasian involving Chinese, my
> > language, by the way, are believed to derive by the main stream
> > genetists like Cavalli-sforza, Peter Underhill(both are the
> > authoritative genetists working with the HGP) and linguists like
> > Merritt Ruhlen? Thanks for some reliable referrences.
> Ruhlen's list of look-alikes is a stone in the shoe for
> Nobody knows what to make of it, so it's generally condemned asEurasiatic
> unscientific and Ruhlen is one of the guys we are not supposed to
> play with. Now, if the words on his list were part of a Neolithic
> agricultural culture package, its existence begins to make sense.
> Cf. also mr. Kelkar's long list of "aqua" words: if the original
> sense of the word was not "water", but "watering channel", its
> spread suddenly makes sense.
> And BTW, this means I might tap the reservoir of proposed
> or Nostratic roots and claim them to be Neolithic loans instead.Torsten, thanks for your reply. However, I am not ironic.