Re: Can relationships between languages be determined after 80,000 y

tsalam? t?ob

Current macro-comparative attempts lead nowhere
because the first necessary step is to have a clear
and rational reconstruction of what the phonological
system of a potential super-proto-language could be.

It needs to have **at the very least** :

labials m w b p p?
dentals n t d t?
laterals l r tl tl? dl (because of Chinese)
sibilants s ts z dz s? ts? (because of Chinese)
velars g k k?
spirants y h H
glottal stop ?

Any other system is doomed
because it **fails** to account for all the necessary constrasts.

And more phonemes are necessary to account for constrasts.
Especially pre-nasalized phonemes.

The proto-system is the groundwork.
It's absurd to look for ""cognates"" when you don't even understand
what the proto-system was.
It's like looking for gold nuggets in a riverbed
not knowing what color gold is.
Any stone has the shape of a gold nugget.

The method to make good macro-comparative work is :
step 1 : analysis of necessary phonological constrasts
step 2 : potential proto-system
step 3 : legitimate correspondances
step 4 : describe legitimate phonetic changes
Step 5 : sorting out the legitimate cognates
Step 6 : go back to step 1 for improvements

The rest is roaming in the dark with no map.

The first book to write on macro-comparison
is a phonological analysis of existing languages
containing **no** cognate.
Looking for cognates is the **last** step
not the first one.

Arnaud

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Ryan
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:26 AM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Can relationships between
languages be determined after 80,000 years?


I have a web document detailing what I think are Bomhard's deficiencies at:

http://geocities.com/proto-language/NostraticDictionary.htm

I do not know Blench. My impression of Bender is negative.

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Can relationships between languages be determined after
80,000 years?

> Can you speak to the deficiencies of Ehret, Bender et
> al.?
> Perhaps it might be better to do this on Nostratic-L
> I've read Blench's views but my knowledge of AA is
> very limited
>
> --- etherman23 <etherman23@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> > <proto-language@...>
> > wrote:
> > > It is amazing to me how the connections that I
> > theorized from Arabic
> > and
> > > Egyptian are falling into place with Afrasian
> > (Hamito-Semitic).
> > >
> > > I often wonder, even with the flawed work of some
> > Nostraticists, how
> > anyone
> > > can possibly doubt the genetic relationship
> > between PIE and PA.
> >
> > Probably because there isn't a decent reconstruction
> > of PAA yet.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>