Re: Re[4]: [tied] How should Nostratic be viewed?

Isn't there even a theory put forth by some linguists that all languages
can be traced back to Uralic?
ANd would it be safe to say that Indo-European, Altaic, and Uralic are
closer to one another than to any other language families (that we know
of) ?

The problem seems to be "genetic gaps." we have evidence of
Indo-European languages and Uralic languages, but no "missing link"
language groups between them, and this can be said about many languages,
and even within the Indo-European family. It seems like languages should
have "drifted into each other" more as far as their evolution.
Adeus,
-Michael

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:38:09 +0000 "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> writes:

> Gerry:
> >If there was such a language/family as Proto-World, [...]
>
> I don't think one needs to question whether there was a "proto-
> World" or not since surely all languages derive from some common
> ancestor, no matter how old. It's outright inconceivable for a
> vocal language to appear out of nowhere so a monogenesis
> is pretty much a done-deal, afaic. Proto-World could be compared
> in concept to the mitochondrial Eve. We don't question that there
> was such a person, because quite obviously there must have been.
> All humans are related afterall and, like vocal languages, people
> can't pop up out of thin air.
>
> That is seperate from whether Proto-World reconstructions have
> any merit thus far in the linguistic world -- They don't.
>
>
> - gLeN
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com