Piotr:
> You got carried away. The evidence for Nostratic is *not* direct,
> >unless you happen to know of some Nostratic inscriptions or the like.
How am I "carried away"? Where IE reconstruction is built on written
inscriptions, Nostratic, being so ancient, can only be mostly based on less
exact reconstructions. Now to say that IE reconstructions from pronouns to
vocabulary and the like aren't solid enough to base further theories on,
fights against the work and purpose of IE reconstruction and comparative
linguistics in the first place, which strives to describe in detail what
these unwritten languages were like in the remote past. Let's not be
paradoxical.
I can accept the view that Nostratic is _less_ direct than IE regarding
attestation and certainly still _far MORE_ direct than proposing an
imaginary language with only one contact (being Germanic) without
descendants of any kind. It's reasonable to presume that Germanic, like
every language, was affected by outside forces. It's not reasonable to
presume that Germanic must have been affected by a single foreign language
or that it is comprised of 30% foreign vocabulary (<- A PROPOSTEROUS AND
VERY CARRIED-AWAY STATEMENT, mind you, given that we couldn't possibly
fathom how much vocabulary Germanic ever had to calculate this figure, let
alone to prove whether something is foreign or not, as you yourself have
explained).
Some people naively assume that because a language like Nostratic is based
on only reconstructions that such a language must be 100% inexact and
futile. This is wrong. While earlier stages of reconstruction will forever
be less exact than the more recent stages, by nature, Nostratic is still as
worthwhile as IE to reconstruct and still attested by evidence in the form
of well-reconstructed languages like IE.
I simply find it ironic that certain people cringe so much at the thought of
Nostratic while imaginary languages without descendants, conveniently off in
some remote corner of the world so as to not even have many linguistic
contacts, can be loved so dearly. This is not to say that such a language or
languages don't exist. It's just an interesting observation of human thought
processes :)
Piotr:
>As for the etymologically obscure part of Germanic vocabulary, it's
> >reasonable to adopt "non-IE" as the optimal null hypothesis about its
> >origin.
I have no problems concerning this particular theory.
Piotr:
>It's difficult to prove that a word is *not* IE (after all, it may >have
>been lost everywhere except in Gmc.), unless you can convincingly >show
>that it's a loanword [...] But a null hypothesis is only a >starting point
>for further research. People who compose glossaries of >a non-attested
>substrate on such a shaky basis can be accused of >jumping to conclusions.
Oh dear, is that politics rearing its ugly head again? An attack towards me
and my IndoTyrrhenian glossary perhaps? I'm sorry, I didn't realize there
was a law against taking what is already known and trying to push the
boundaries of that knowledge. The only way to do this in comparative
linguistics is to provide theories.
People who harbor anger towards those who present new ideas might be accused
of being contrary to the progression of comparative linguistics, which is a
purely theoretical study in the end, yet I remind. Plus, if you are
examining the glossaries I personally provide, you'll notice that they are
evolving and adapting to new ideas as we speak - I hold no thought sacred so
expect changes to occur.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com