From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 39420
Date: 2005-07-25
----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:00 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels
<snip>
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
Nostratic started out as an attempt to find common origin with Semitic
languages. Semitic and Egyptian are Afrasian-derived languages.
I gave you a link to the essay at my website which "proves" the connection.
Did you even look?
When you do, you will see roof is there. Also, there is Bomhard, who uses a
slightly different set of correspondences but also arrives at a 'proof'.
***
> 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.
***
Patrick:
Well, if you want to learn all there is to know about PIE, you must go
beyond PIE to other comparisons. Internal reconstruction only takes us
halfway. If you are unwilling to do that, then some of the most interesting
aspects of PIE will remain ever hidden to you.
***
> I know that you're a member of Nostratic-L. Do many on
> that list accept your theories?
***
Patrick:
I do not know. I get some encouragement and some severe criticism.
***
> > 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.?
***
Patrick:
I think your recollection is a bit unbright. I never have said or written
anything like "penis - bright - bright - make". Where do you think you got
that?
***
>
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
Excuse me, but that is ridiculous.
If I say I like vanilla ice cream for the color, and another says he likes
it for the flavor, we can both be said to find vanilla ice cream desirable.
***
> > 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
***
Patrick:
Ah, subjective. A pig is a pig, and Marilyn Monroe is Marilyn Monroe. The
appreciation of beauty is built into every healthy human being, and has
genetic commonality thoughout the world.