Torsten:
> Obviously with so many different, but near-homophonous and near-
> synonymous reconstructed roots Bomhard hasn't shown single origin
> for these collections of words. On the contrary, this is the type
> of picture you get when you try to find a proto-root for what is
> actually one root loaned several times over from somewhere else.
Oh my god, Torsten. What's gotten into you? You're making so
much sense that I find myself questioning the world in which
I live. Reality itself! The world will end soon. There is no
doubt in my mind now :)
I agree here. I think Nostraticists go too far one way, trying
desperately to prove that languages are related to each other
with whatever fluffball evidence they find while many IEists
are too far the other way, rejecting anything pre-IE,
including some very obvious Semitic loans that could impact
on a greater understanding of linguistic and cultural
interactions in the neolithic. As kookoo and nerve-racking as
I admit to being, I try to have a more balanced position on
long-range comparison that neither dismisses unfairly nor
accepts unquestioningly.
= gLeN