Re: [tied] How should Nostratic be viewed?

----- Original Message -----

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 6:50 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] How should Nostratic be viewed?

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:40:31 -0800, "Geraldine Reinhardt"
<waluk@...> wrote:

>Oh?  What about  M. Räsänen (Uralo-Altaic)? 

Martti Räsänen was a Turkologist, author of a 1965 paper "Über die
ural-altaische Sprachverwandschaft".  I haven't read it.  Have you?

GR:  No.  So what?

There are certainly typological similarities between Uralic and
"Altaic", and as far as I know even some indications of cognacy,
especially involving the personal pronouns and a small amount of basic
vocabulary.  But this does not prove that Uralo-Altaic is a valid
genetic grouping.  English and Lithuanian are doubtlessly related, but
that doesn't imply an Anglo-Lithuanian language family exists.  Uralic
and "Altaic" might simply be independent members of a higher taxon
(Nostratic or Eurasiatic, whatever). 

 

GR:  Hasn't "everybody" united Uralic and Altaic?

Gerry

The same goes for Altaic itself: it is as yet undemonstrated that the
language families classified as "Altaic" (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus,
Korean and Japanese) are in fact descended from a single Proto-Altaic
language.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.