Geoff:
>The assumptions are not mine;
I meant "you" as in "people in general" but whoever I
direct the arguement to, I'm simply analysing the logic
of the premise.
>they are a digest of the findings and assumptions of
>specialists in this academic field, who have a far more
>intimate knowledge of the area through historical and
>geographical time than either of us.
How can you be sure? I've seen some dilly theories put
forth by "specialists" before. It's our job to question
everything otherwise we'll accept something silly like
that the world is flat.
>What they do /not/ do is to subscribe to or try
>to fit these findings around any pre-conceived Nostratic
>theory.
I'm not sure what is being got at here. Is this meant as
a devilish stab? Are you suggesting that Nostratic has no
basis at all? Do you have any knowledge concerning the
Nostratic theory? All I mentioned was that NWC is not
included in the Nostratic hypothesis for the obvious reason
that it couldn't be more different from the languages that
have been classified as Nostratic. There is little doubt
that NWC is far removed from these languages. This doesn't
mean that I base my objection to what you are saying
entirely on the Nostratic theory at all. ???
>Their thinking, however, is no more speculative than >elements of Nostratic
>theory.
I doubt you know what you're talking about. The premise
of the Nostratic theory is a logical one. Granted the
theory needs much more depth to it since we are dealing
with something going back some 17000 years and naturally
there are a lot of intricacies to cover and discuss, but
this doesn't detract from the basic premise of the theory
that certain language groups are more closely related than
others. Like duh!
This is a much meatier theory than one that endeavors to
connect a language never ever written (without decendant
languages to boot) via hydronyms and toponyms that can't
possibly be proven to be Kaskian. There are so many holes
in this idea that I'm very confident in saying that this
theory is much much much weaker than the Nostratic
hypothesis by far.
>Can you disprove that the use of toponyms/hydronyms is >relevant?
Why should I have to disprove speculation?? Do you see the
bad logic here or must I elaborate? Of course, I can't
prove that unicorns don't exist either! Goodbye reasoning,
hello insanity.
>What alternative reasoning would you put forward for the
>probable linguistic affiliation of the Kaski?
I have already suggested that the Kaskian could be
"Semitish" descendants that journeyed from the Balkans
circa 5000 BCE. But don't worry. I realise that this theory
is no more superior to that which you mentioned.
It seems that I think that people moved counter-clockwise
around the Black Sea (that is, from the Euxine event onward)
and you seem to think that people moved clockwise. Would
there be any archaeological finds in Turkey showing
movement either way?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
http://mobile.msn.com