Re: [tied] How should Nostratic be viewed?

From: Geraldine Reinhardt
Message: 19909
Date: 2003-03-16

I hear you loud and clear, Piotr.  Yes Austroasiatic and Austronesian are substantially different yet the fomer only includes the subfamilies Mon-Khmer and Munda.  Geographically, wouldn't they (Mon-Khmer and Munda) also fit into Austronesian?  If they don't fit linguistically, then possibly they should be isolates.
 
Gerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] How should Nostratic be viewed?

Gerry,

Restrict your recommendations to things you know something about. "Austro-Asiatic" may be spelt "Austroasiatic" but in either case it is different from "Austronesian". They are different familuies!

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Geraldine Reinhardt" <waluk@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] How should Nostratic be viewed?


Austronesian or Austro-Asiatic......aren't they the same?  Hypens breakdown on the computer so I recommend using Austronesian as a practicality. 
Thus Austronesian (your Austro-Asiatic) is a macro family along with  Indo-European, Semitic, Kartvelian, Dravidian, Uralo-Altaic (including Athapaskan), Yukaghirian, Euroasiatic, and Paleoasiatic/Eskaleut.  All of these macro families comprise the Nostratic Mega Family.





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