Alexander schreibt:
>>At any rate, carry on. We all know that AfroAsiatic is from the
>>Middle-East and not Africa. Nostratic in the Zagros, though?
>
>[...]
>Which of this variants can be associated with Nostratic? IMO only >the 1st
>one.
Interesting... but what if Nostratic is associated with both? It's not as if
Nostratic-speakers were glued under a single government in a single place
with a border. It's next to impossible to connect Nostratic with the
archaeology. How can we be absolutely sure a word meant "goat" instead of
"sheep", and so on. This requires long debates about each etymology and
being secure in its reconstruction.
Then, we can talk specifics like Zagros.
John a dit:
>Excellent point, except I would think that this division separates
>between the Anatolian and the Iranian branches of my hypothetical
>Caucasian-Japethic family.
Look, John, this Caucasian-Japhetic family is cute and all but if you don't
explain it properly, how are we supposed to infuse realism into it? I am
curious as to why you're fighting the well-known name "Nostratic" with an
obscure racist one. It would be nice if this theory was based on
_linguistics_ first BEFORE any archaeology or genetics were used to further
confuse this topic.
Secondly, there is absolutely no linguistic evidence to warrant a linguistic
division of "Arctic". Eskimo-Aleut, Chuckchi-Kamchatkan and Yukaghir
(closely related to Uralic) are Nostratic. Yeniseian and Burushaski appear
to share close ties and are part of the larger Dene-Caucasian group. Being
that I accuse Nostratic of being in reality a DC language itself means that
all the Arctic languages are potentially of Dene-Caucasian origin. You have
no linguistical leg to stand on.
Malheureusement, John a continu� avec:
>This is certainly what the genetic evidence suggests, (and yes Glen, >I am
>aware that language and genetics do spread differently, but as
>Carvalli-Sforza showed in the History and Geography of Human >Genetics -
>there is a moderately close corelation between the >genetic phylogeny of
>the human race and reconstructed linguistic >ones.)
John, if you are so aware of the basic, inescapable fact that language and
genetics spread differently, then why do you insist on genetical arguements
over linguistical ones? Whether or not there is a "moderately close
correlation" between genetics and linguistics, your acknowledgement that
they are different things diffuses your whole point and brands you
irrational. If you supply linguistical evidence to support your outlandish
assumptions, I for one will not consider you the racist that you appear to
be for holding on to groundless fantasies.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________