Re: [tied] IS's "regular roots"

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:37:25 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>>And Bomhard doesn't have the problem of second syllables, >because his
>>roots are almost exclusively *CVC-.
>
>His *CVC- is a very appropriate root structure for Nostratic and I think
>that this happens to be the structure of the majority of Nostratic roots
>anyway. [...]
>
>Phonology is where I would agree he fails (but then, so do all
>Nostraticists). The field of Nostratic would get along alot easier if the
>phonological system was pinned down to a bare minimum until such time as
>many of these phonemes are justifiable. Some dubious phonemes that
>Nostraticists like to reconstruct to by chagrin include *L (voiceless
>lateral), *tL, *q, *`, *dY, *gY, *z^, *s^ and *c^. Enough with the crap
>already!
>
>Please, I urge all Nostraticists to simplify, simplify, simplify! We don't
>even need half of these phonemes!

Utter nonsense. If *CVC is all you have, you need all the phonemes
you can get! And if a simplified phonemic system is what you want,
you can't have *CVC.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...