Re: [tied] Tyrrhenian and its relation to IE

From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 8691
Date: 2001-08-23

Dear Cybalisters:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 9:42 PM
Subject: [tied] Tyrrhenian and its relation to IE


> That's right, sunshine. Sumerian is an *ergative* language with
> *ERGATIVE* and *ABSOLUTIVE* cases. AA, Kartvelian and Sumerian
> all demonstrate ergativity.

Sumerian is an ergative language. Kartvelian is a mixed nom-acc./erg.-abs. language. I know of no demonstrated eragtive characteristic of Afro-asiatic.

So how on earth can we
> insist that Nostratic had an accusative case with *ma that just
> happened to survive in function and form for 9000 years completely
> unscathed? This should be simple to understand - There is no
> substantiation for a Nostratic accusative case despite what
> prominent Nostraticists may casually rant.

I agree. Most likely, Nostratic was an active language. Lehmann has detected residues from that stage in IE.

> Ergo, the so-called "ergative stage of IE" is synonymous with
> Nostratic.

Does not follow.


PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: and PROTO-RELIGION: "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)