>I am interested in your rejection of the idea that NWC and HU/NEC are
>directly genetically related. Have you done any work demolishing
> >Starostin's reconstruction of PNC, which seems to be a key building
> >block in the DC theory?
I invite everyone to look at Starostin's work with glasses _on_ :) I
shouldn't have to "demolish" Starostin's reconstruction of PNC because his
reconstruction is in many instances haphazard and left unexplained. I'm not
saying that his work is useless but it needs to be approached with much
caution. His pronominal reconstructions make me scream out for reform (The
exact phonology doesn't seem right - the phonemes here need to be
de-voiced). I totally reject his Altaic section which clearly shows how
embarassingly unknowledgeable he is on that front.
I abhor his loose reconstructive method. I mean, every language I know of
has a clear set of phonemes, a phonological set. Starostin however doesn't
demonstrate that he understands this simple concept. He clings to a myriad
of snazzy phonetic symbols more than a junky craves heroine. He certainly
doesn't lay out explanations readily to help improve clarity and
credibility. Perhaps he is too afraid to expose the truth - that NWC and NEC
are not directly related. Why, that would definitely undermine all his
precious work and he surely couldn't have that.
Now, don't misunderstand me. I believe that NWC and NEC _are_ related but
Starostin may as well call his "North Caucasian" language "Dene-Caucasian"
as far as I'm concerned. After we can all accept that fact, we will better
understand what's _really_ going on. Starostin assumes that NWC and NEC
share all their similarities by genetic relationship (Can you say "naive"?!)
but this is clearly not so if you spend any length of time examining what he
has amassed. The similarities can in part be better explained as borrowings
- even some of the pronouns appear borrowed.
From my own inspection, it would look like NWC and NEC were side-by-side for
about 10,000 years until present (NWC traditionally to the north and NEC
traditionally to the south). This is plenty of time for them to absorb
idiosyncracies from each other but not long enough to erase the fact that
the two families are fundamentally different grammatically because of a
previous 10,000 years of seperation before that. NWC has a reduced set of
vowels while NEC goes overboard with them. What's more, I find NWC shares
closer affinities with SinoTibetan more than anything. If true, this gives
us a plausible pattern of movement. NWC from Central Asia; NEC from East
Anatolia, all occuring around 8000 to 7000 BCE. Case solved, the gLeNny gEe
way.
>I personally think there is a problem even with the assumption that >PEC is
>a totally genetic family. Of course the majority of native >Nakh grammar
>and vocabulary have obvious cognates in Daghestanian >with clear and
>regular sound laws. But there is a big chunk that just >doesn't fit.
There are certainly a big chunk of Starostin's reconstructions that don't
fit the "regular" sound laws. It seems to be anything-goes with him and I
still await his online explanations. I don't know whether NEC should be
thrown away or not. Unfortunately, my university is impoverished and doesn't
like to buy 20th century books so I don't have access to strong information
about this language family & its substantiation :( Shed a tear for me.
>In my opinion this could be the same substrate that contributes the
> >'exotic' bits of Etruscan, i.e. the bits that aren't transparently
> >recent borrowings from IE. HU fits in here somewhere but I'm not sure
> >how just yet.
Can you demonstrate these "exotic" bits found in Etruscan? I suspect that
you're seeing a mirage. I hope you won't do something silly like mention
Etruscan /ci/ and desperately connect it with Hurrian /kig/.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com