I said:
>>Tagalog is a prevalent language in Winnipeg and has a very limited
>> >>phonology with a simple CVC syllable structure.
Miguel whined:
>So now it's syllable structure? Look, I've just lost a 30G hard
>disk, so I'm not in a terribly good mood. This what you said:
>[...]
>So fucking syllable structure has nothing to do with it.
Look, Mr Miguel "Fucking Syllable Structure" Vidal, you wouldn't have lost
your precious 30gig hard drive if you hadn't downloaded so much porn.
There's a fun thing that you can do on your spare time called "back-up". Try
it next time and stop whining, ya big baby. This is a linguist forum not an
I-lost-my-hard-drive-and-now-I-feel-crabby forum.
Now about Tagalog. It has a simple phonology, simple CVC syllable structure
and yes, sorry you don't like this, but it even has roots of the CVC type,
often reduplicated but CVC nonetheless:
may to have
pag on, if, when
dagdag to add
tadtad to defecate
padpad to be shipwrecked
etc, etc...
But whatever. There are many languages to be found (including Sumerian and
Etruscan) which certainly have a large amount of monosyllabic CVC roots and
yet still have nowhere near as many phonemes as Nostratic purportedly has.
They don't have tones either. Etruscan is certain to have had an initial
stress accent and although people like to fantasize that Sumerian was the
"Chinese" of the Fertile Crescent, its tonal status is merely wild
speculation so far.
The Nostratic phonology as it now stands is a farce and Illich-S. has hardly
provided many, if any, credible disyllabic roots for Nostratic. It's not
necessarily impossible for polysyllabic roots to have existed in Nostratic
but the language is still unlikely to have been Japanese-like in nature.
Don't you agree?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com