--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> Well, you can speak philosophically about what the function
> of a 'brother' in early societies might have been, and who
> can refute your speculations?
You asked "What, pray tell, did the primeval son 'carry'?",
so I explained how the brother word was actually supposed
by some to be connected to *bher-.
> But the form of the word argues against a derivation from
> *bher-. Where would the *a: have come from?
No idea. Until today I'd never had any thought one way or
another on the origin of the brother word. Although after
seeing your "penis - bright - bright - make" explanation
for 'brother', and "pair of breasts - bright - bright -
make" explanation for 'sister', I have to say I'm suddenly
very much on the side of a connection to *bher-.
> Nostraticists believe that AA and PIE are related; and Egyptian is
> an AA language.
They believe in what sense? I know that they suspect a
connection of some sort, but have they ever really made
a proper demonstration of that connection in the same
way that one has been demonstrated between Indo-Iranian,
Slavic, Hellenic, etc., for example? My understanding
was that Nostraticists have yet to achieve that.
Until such a demonstration is properly made, Nostratic
speculations have no place in the reconstruction of
P.I.E., which is what you have been trying to do with
this list. You've been trying to get us to accept a
version of P.I.E. all your own which better suits your
own particular Nostratic theory. When justification
for your view of P.I.E. is demanded, you then cite the
necessity of explaining those Nostratic connections in
which you believe, but which have not been proven.
That's circular.
> I have proved that Egyptian and PIE are related at
> http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3.htm
Oh I recognize that site: I came across it a few years
ago. You don't still believe that you can reconstruct the
first human language, do you?
> Read it and tell me how I am wrong.
Well that would be somewhat of a job, and moreover not
properly a job for me. I joined a list for Indo-European
linguistics, while yours is a question of Nostratics.
I know that you're a member of Nostratic-L. Do many on
that list accept your theories?
> Whether anyone looks at the proof or not is another matter.
Well I did look briefly through some of your site, but
everywhere I looked I saw the same problem that has been
pointed out to you before: yours is a method that could
find a connection between any two languages whatsoever.
You collect a set of forms that you believe correspond
formally, then find some commonality of some sort of other
in their meanings - something which can be done with any
random set of words - you then split the forms into tiny
pieces and try different semantic associations on each
piece until you come up with an apparently complementary
network of (pseudo-)morphemes. The artificiality of the
word-building affixes and compounds that you posit is
painfully obvious though, when you present the like of
"penis - bright - bright - make". Can you name any known
language that derives words in the manner you describe
here for Nostratic and Pre-P.I.E.?
> Bomhard thinks Sumerian is Nostratic, and so do I. Here, check
> http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-SUMERIAN-5.htm
>
> Again, I challenge you to show me where I am wrong.
>
> Though Bomhard and I differ on the details of the correspondences,
> even flubbing up a bit cannot conceal the obvious relationships.
That's significant though, because even if you both agree
that Sumerian is Nostratic, your two voices don't constitute
cumulative support of that when you differ in your actual
reconstructions.
> Due to the efforts of one list-member,
I thought that there were two of us? Are you discounting
the efforts of Brian, or those of mine? ;^)
> I may not make these links active to save you the trouble of
> keyboarding them. Sorry but I have to post in plaintext which does
> not allow hyperlinks.
Normally I read and post at the website, where the links
automatically appear converted, although I just checked my
inbox and your messages appear with active links there as
well.
> And looks ugly to boot.
Beauty is subjective, and a true artist can work within
whatever parameters are given him anyway. ;^)
David