Re: [tied] Macro family tree

Michael:

>I found a book in the Languages and References section of a Book
>Outlet by an author with the last name Pink (that's about all I
>remember), and in it is a language tree map showing Nostratic,
>Sino-Tibetan, and New Guinean as 3 branches of of single original
>language, with Nostratic further branching into Afro-Asiatic,
>Dravidian, and Eurasiatic, and Eurasiatic into Indo-Euro, Altaic
>and Uralic. I'm confused because I thought Nostratic and Eurasiatic were
>alternative to each other. Anyone know?

Eurasiatic is usually, for the most part, considered a subset of
Nostratic as long as we cut out Ainu from the Greenbergian
definition of the term, which is surely not Nostratic in any way
conceivable.

In Bomhard's version of Nostratic, Eurasiatic is explicitly defined
as a subset of the larger macrofamily. Although I know nothing of
Pink, I suspect from the description you give that he is following
more of the Bomhardian model which supports the correspondance
IE *t = Nostratic *t, rather than IE *t = Nostratic *t? (ejective).


- gLeN


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail