Re: [tied] How should Nostratic be viewed?

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

From: Daniel J. Milton

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:46 AM

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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Geraldine Reinhardt" <waluk@......>
wrote:
> Andy,
> Interesting.  I had been under the (apparently false) assumption
that the Maori were Australian Aborigines.  The Pama-Ngungan family
seems to be a new kid on the block (although I do find a full
listing in Google).  Is the Pama-Ngungan language truly a "family"
or could it assume the label of "dialect"?  Are you thus claiming
that Pama-Ngungan is the "sole" language for Australia?
>
> Gerry

  Gerry, if you're really interested in genetic classification of
languages, instead of finding random statements on the Web and
asking stupid questions, why don't you do some homework?
  I suggest you get Ruhlen's 1987 "A Guide to the World's Languages,
Vol.1: Classification (I don't believe there is a Vol. 2 yet). 
Ruhlen has his (and Greenberg's) biases, and objections can and have
been raised about his basic approach.
Nevertheless, in this book he gives a fair presentation of rival
classifications.  At the least, reading it won't do you any harm,
and I think it might do you some good.
Dan Milton



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