>Glen, Piotr, or anyone,
>
>Any truth to the following that Sumerian was more closely related
>to Finnish than to I-E or Semitic?
Oh Gerry. I'm disappointed. This question could have been easily
answered at your local library. Sumerian is generally regarded as
a language isolate. In more serious versions of the Nostratic
theory, Sumerian is probably closer to Elamite or Dravidian than
to Uralic, IE or Semitic (which first must be compared with closer
Egyptian, Chadic, Omotic, Cushitic and Berber before comparing it
to Sumerian in any way). But even this theory has its share of
problems still and needs more work.
The reason for this myth that you state probably lies with the fact
that the pronominal elements look uncannily like Finnish
counterparts (eg: /-mu/ "my", /-zu/ "your" where Sumerian /z/ is
likely pronounced as [ts], compared to Finnish /mina"/ and /sina"/).
But we all know that Finnish is from Uralic first and foremost and
that the Finnish /s/ in this case is related to *t elsewhere
(Lappish /mon, don/ "I, you"). Finnish has softened *t before /i/
to /s/. Another example is /vesi/ "water" from *vetI where
softening is proven by other case forms /veten, vetta"/.
While most Nostraticists feel there is a connection between your
list of language groups, the connection is over a long stretch of
time and full of special details to consider that you don't realize
and which schizophrenic internet hobbyists are not concerned enough
with.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail