Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

----- Original Message -----
From: "P&G" <G&P@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels


> >Nostatic ... There is virtually _*NO*_ disagreement about which words or
> >which attested phonemes correspond in which attested words,
>
> An amazing claim.
> Either the original statement is wrong - I forget who said it - or your
> claim here is wrong.
> The original statement was that there are two different sets of
> correspondences, Bomhard's and someone else's (Illic-Svityc? Pat Ryan?)
> That is certainly what I believe to be the case. For example:
> Bomhard has proto-Nostratic *t' gives PIE **t' > *d and
> Proto-AA
> *t'
> Illic-Svityc has proto-Nostratic *t' gives PIE **t and
> proto-AA *t'
> That means one system has AA *t' ~ PIE /t/, the other has it ~ PIE /d/.
> Thtese are not the same.
>
> Peter

***
Patrick:

Peter, it was Bomhard's and mine. I cannot warrant Illic-Svityc or Møller or
anyone else.

I think I can prove quite easily what I am claiming.

In

http://geocities.com/proto-language/NostraticDictionary.htm

my main object is to critique Bomhard's Nostratic phonology.

Take a peek and tell me that I am wrong.