In a message dated 04/03/01 00:07:14 GMT Standard Time,
glengordon01@... writes:
> Ruhlen and Greenberg are probably the weakest comparative linguists one
can
> find this side of UFO abductions. Some of their premises are reasonable
but
> the manner in which they do things is certainly undesirable for many.
At the root of their weakness is their refusal to do internal
reconstruction where possible or to provide some sort of detailed
scenario for how all these alleged daughter languages split up and
when. Chronology, chronology, chronology.
> However, lumping Greenberg and Bomhard seems a little bizarre
> for someone caught up on Nostratic studies. How are they the same?
Speaking
> on Bomhard, what in particular would you refute?
Just to clarify my attitude: I do not accept Nostratic or Eurasiatic
as anything more than a minority theory. Probably something along
these lines happened, but I see no reason for believing these
presentations of the *details* of it. It may be that our understanding
of the details of it is irretrievably skewed by not having the
information from all the daughter languages that have died out leaving
no evidence.
Any idea that we could approach certainty on a level with that achieved
in IE studies is a fantasy. In addition, over-concentration on the
genetic side of things also gives a false picture because it is never
all that is going on. Creoles never happened in ancient history then?
It may also well be that Dixon's model applies to IE's relationship
with its nearest 'relatives' because of the relatively greater social
equilibrium of the historical period in question.
Specifically, I reject the section 'The Question of Etruscan' in
Greenberg's 'IE and its closest relatives'. Greenberg says Bomhard
suggested to him to include Etruscan in Eurasiatic. Etruscan's closest
relative is KOREAN? Come on, pull the other one. And you thought I had
problems getting from the southern Caucasus to Anatolia?
Ed.