Guto Rhys:
>Apart from Greenberg�s theories how much credibility is given
>to Nostratic?
Not enough :) Although, things are changing... slowly. At least,
Nostratic is now mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. I don't
think that Greenberg's ideas are the most optimal to choose from,
yet these seem to be the most readily visible to the general public.
The prevailing problem with Greenberg was his "mass comparison" technique of
eyeballing long lists of vocabulary in various languages
or language groups and finding matches in order to show a
relationship. Since he didn't go through the rigour of examining
each item's history, his methodology yielded imprecise results,
even if, on a whole, he may be vaguely correct. One thing he is
surely wrong about is the question of Ainu. Ainu is simply a
non-Nostratic language.
Anyways, people have to understand that there is more than just
Greenberg. We have Dogolpolsky, Illich-Svytich and Bomhard, for
starters, that have been working in the Nostratic field as well.
Even though Allen Bomhard's theories aren't perfect, I think that
there is something to gain from his ideas, particularly on his
tint on the IndoEuropean Glottalic Theory and its relationship to
Nostratic ejectives. Perhaps the reason for the continuing
credibility issue facing Nostratic studies lies in the general lack
of understanding on the subject and the recent progresses (no
matter how little) that have been made by others. Methinks the
mainstream is still reeling over goofy papers produced fifty years
ago and neglecting to focus on the present and future of this
budding field.
- love gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
http://mobile.msn.com