Re: IE & Nostratic "alternations"... yuck!

--- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
> Miguel:
> >According to Møller, these alternations show
> >that IE and Sem. are related. There are, in any case, a

sufficiently large

> >number of such alternations (D ~ DH ~ T / D ~ T. ~ T) to explain

why both

> >Illich-Svitych and Bomhard could each come up with a sizeable

number of

> >Nostratic etymologies (involving PIE/PAA), while using different

tables of

> >correspondences (Illich-Svitych: T=T./T, D=T, DH=D, >Bomhard: T=T,

D=T.,

> >DH=D). Not to mention Møller's more complex scheme (approx.

T=T/D, D=T,

> >DH=T.).
>
> Ooh, Nostratic? May I interject? Why are we speaking of
> Møller as though he were today an active linguist?
>

This is a criterion I haven't heard of yet.
Grimm is dead too. So Grimm's law no longer applies?

> I personally do not welcome these kinds of "easy" sound
> correspondances in Nostratic.

Should they be hard?

Torsten