Re: [tied] Pat's ProtoWorld Playland

In a message dated 01/03/01 14:54:41 GMT Standard Time,
glengordon01@... writes:

> >Pat's theories are better argued than some Nostraticist offerings.
>
> You definitely don't know what you're saying. I have some Nostratic works
> before me as we speak. Which Nostraticists are you aware of, might I ask?
> Let me guess: You've judged the entire state of modern Nostratic studies
> totally on Mr Greenberg, right?

Well, yes, right city. I was thinking of Merritt Ruhlen actually.

> Now, here you are, pretending that Pat should be respected for this insane
> view and make the outlandish claim that Pat is just as good as any
> Nostraticist like Bomhard, IS, Dogolpolsky or Kerns.

I didn't say that. I am not particularly well read up on Nostratic.
But I don't go for Greenberg and Bomhard's 'proof' that Etruscan is
closely related to IE either. And IS and Dolgopolsky have been pretty
much superseded, no? There are some Nostraticists I respect. Alexis
Manaster Ramer comes to mind.

> It's a dog-eat-dog world and you gotta get wise or get
> lost.

No, I don't go along with dogs eating dogs. Scientific debate is
civilisation. The capitalist world outside isn't.

> >On a technical point: Esperanto is not perfectly regular in every way.
> You're grasping at argumentative straws and losing focus.

That wasn't meant as part of the argument. It was just meant as a
correction of a common linguistic misconception, like I would do if
somebody said "Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow".


Ed. Robertson