Re: oldest places- and watername in Scandinavia

--- On Sun, 11/16/08, G&P <G.and.P@...> wrote:

> From: G&P <G.and.P@...>
> Subject: RE: [tied] Re: oldest places- and watername in Scandinavia
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 3:50 AM
> >How reliable are reconstructions of non-IE families?
>
>
>
> We'd really need to hear from someone who works in that
> field. Trouble is,
> some who work in that field are convinced by evidence that
> is unconvincing
> to others. Nonetheless, some things are clear,
> particularly the patterns of
> what belongs with what and what is still to be proved.
> Altaic appears to be
> a disaster area. Was it a family? How does it relate to
> Uralic? Some
> non-IE families, such as Polynesian, can be fairly well
> reconstructed. The
> most exciting area is perhaps A-A, because of possible
> links with PIE. But
> I gather that there are big problems there too. In
> general, no other family
> is as well known or well understood as PIE, mostly because
> of lack of
> sufficient diverse early evidence.
>
>
>
> Peter

That's pretty much what I surmised.

Altaic isn't enough to prove and is too much to deny

Uralic is solid but may be linked to others such as Yukaghir and Eskimo-Aleut

The Boreal m-, t-, for 1 & 2 singular however, stands out like a sore thumb
as does the n-, m- in Native American languages --even those that otherwise look nothing alike such as Oto-Mangue, Chibchan and Uto-Aztecan
The only way I can square things is possibly descent from a single family and then a continuous pattern of groups splitting from and joining with other groups, as Dixon posulated for Australia (or what I understand he postulated since I only know his argument 2nd hand)

If so, the Nostratic hypothesis will keep people occupied for a whole lot longer than we can imagine