Mark O:
>Umm, Joseph. Glen is slightly mad, i.e., he's into Nostratic and only
>incidentally Indo-European.
Yes, of course, I'm mad. My apologies. Clearly we should embrace
this FinnoUgric-Hurrian-Etruscan relationship that our talented
Joseph speaks of and ignore all that mainstream nonsense like IndoEuropean
or proper non-Greenbergian methodology. This new
FinnoUgric-Hurrian-Etruscan superfamily is quite superior to
the Nostratic theory that has only been evolving for a century
now. Informing oneself properly on these subjects just takes too
much time in this complex world of french fries and Hollywood
movies.
Now, how might I be "incidentally into" IndoEuropean, Mark? Somehow
because I find Nostratic to be the most appealing of long-range
theories means that I can only be vaguely familiar with
IndoEuropean? You must be pulling my leg again and forgetting
to add smileys where appropriate... It's not nice to tease.
-------------------------------------------------
gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!
home:
http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email:
glengordon01@...
-------------------------------------------------
>
>--- In cybalist@..., "Joseph S Crary" <pva@...> wrote:
> >
> > Glen
> >
> > apology given
> >
> > because I thought you knew enough about the chronology and
> > archaeological material culture of the regions you were discussing,
> > to understand the question, or for that mater form an opinion
> >
> > If you find my statements or questions confusing, again I apologize
> >
> > Still I don't understand why you're devising a theory about an
> > extinct language group, that hypothetically occupied a large region,
> > when the only solid evidence comes from a very much smaller
> > district...
> >
> > ...unless you broaden your search?
> >
> > JS Crary
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp