--- In nostratic@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:
> >How might we forget... etc. The way you formulate it, it sounds
like
>a rhetorical question, which really means: We can't reconstruct
>something that is 15,000 years back (but 8,000 is OK). Yes? But what
>are your reasons for claiming that? You might do it as a two-stage
>process, if you wish.
Torsten, have you been reading my posts?? I am very much a *long-
range* proponent.
Yes, but only the civil ones. It's a policy I have.
I _encourage_ long-range reconstruction no matter how far back... but
only when it is done carefully and judiciously. Relating IE directly
to AA with disregard for the previous
stages of either group is complete carelessness and doesn't do anyone
any good.
>You claimed Møller was a member of a some movement, without offering
>any evidence, and placing him about 30 years wrong.
>So I did the same to you, to see how you would react.
>
>Funny, eh?
Well, when it comes to joke telling, they do say that timing is
everything :P
True, you should have a good estimate of your audience's reaction
time :P
>But actually,
>I didn't see any joke at all since I show no communist tendencies.
>It's clear however that Møller shows Indo-Semitic ones if he has
>attempted to relate IE with AA with total disregard for the in-
>between stages of the two language groups. Unless he was
>reconstructing pre-IE in detail and in relation to Uralic, Altaic,
>etc, he can easily be labeled under the "Indo-Semitic" ilk.
Why "ilk"?
>Did Møller reconstruct pre-IE in relation to other Eurasiatic
>languages first before relating it to AA?
No.
>>And since nothing can be reconstructed 15,000 years back, then any
>>cognates Møller and Cuny might have come up with are wrong, by
>>definition. Is that it?
>You've totally gone off an unnecessarily confrontational tangent
>this time since I'm in agreement with you.
You are? About what? I'm not making a statement here. I was asking
you a question about what your opinion was.
>What I mean is that everyone is so hyped up about reconstructing a
>stage 13,000 years ago (15,000 BCE), but what about 8,000 years
>ago?? What was the state of Nostratic languages 10,000 years ago?
>12,000 years ago? Etc?
>In other words, there is a large gap in Nostratic studies (between
>13,000 and 6,000 years
>ago) that needs to be filled in order for it to gain better
>credibility and popularity. What's
>wrong with saying that?
- gLeN
Oh, is that what you were saying?
Torsten