--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:
>
> Neither the wikipedia nor the EncBritt are meant
> to replace your brain or the necessity to research
> _independently_ on a given topic. Caveat lector!!!
It's not possible for any one of us in a finite
lifetime to become an authority in every field,
and so must all accept the conclusions of others
on many many questions. Any who imagines that he
accepts none himself is simply self-deluded. My
reference to the encyclopedia is no more than a
short-hand way of saying that I will accept that
"The language that has best retained the Nostratic
sound-system is Arabic" and thus we must adjust
our ideas about P.I.E. *r on that basis, only when
a majority of the recognized experts accepts it.
Can you honestly say that that has happened?
> As much as I loathe being to Patrick's undeserved
> defense, I have to say, David, your statement may
> in fact be too dismissive.
I wonder if I have been dismissive enough. Until
recently I've said little about Nostratics only
because those more knowledgeable members of our
circle, who are really the only linguists I know,
seem never to have objected, and so I felt "how
then dare I?", but it has always seemed to me
that the Nostraticists give themselves an improper
amount of leeway.
> Tyrrhenian and IE are considered by a significant
> number of people to possess common grammatical
> features, not just vocabulary lookalikes. These
> connections have already been stated many times.
Unless, by "grammatical features", you refer to
actual morphemes showing systematic sound corres-
pondences in addition to corresponding grammatical
functions to I.E. forms, then that doesn't really
impress.
Grammatical systems obey linguistic universals,
and as such the same system can pop up again and
again, here, there, and elsewhere without it
indicating any special relationship between its
bearers. The members of a sprachbund incline
toward the adoption of a common grammatical system
too, but ,as I understand it, the Nostratic theory
claims more than just an areal connection between
its suggested members. Does it not?
So similarities in grammatical system don't serve
to convince, and nor do any in the phonological
system either, as these are subject to universals
and areal influence as well.
Besides this, pronouns, inflections, and particles
universally tend to be built with the least marked
sounds, and thus tend toward the same limited set
of sounds in _all_ languages. Add to this the
fact that members of the pronominal system appear
to be especially prone to analogical influence
upon one another (at least such claims appear quite
frequently from Nostratic-L), as are the members
of the inflectional affixes too (going again by
what I read from Nostratic-L), and you end up
with a large number of unreliable correspondences.
The only truly valid correspondences are systematic
sound/semantic correspondences, and in numbers too
large to have arisen by coincidence. If anyone has
properly compiled such a list for their particular
Nostratic theory, I've never seen it.
At the very least, nobody properly has any right
to demand that the reconstruction of P.I.E. defer
to one or another Nostratic theory. We work by
careful steps from the known to the unknown, not
the other way around, and Proto-Nostratic obviously
lies on the far side of P.I.E from the known.
> One's state of knowledge is oftentimes limited
> by one's abilities to keep personal bias at bay
> while exploring what may seem at the time to be
> unconceivable ideas.
If the idea is that the Indo-European may be related
to other language families, then I have no bias
against it at all, nor do I find it in the least
inconceivable.
> There's nothing immediately unlikely about IE being
> closely related to another language group
Of course, and I personally find it difficult to
believe that at least some of the language families
known today are _not_ in some way related to one
another. Exactly which of them and in what way has
yet to be properly demonstrated, however.
> and therefore nothing logically to prevent you from
> exploring this topic for yourself.
What prevents me from exploring this topic myself is
the combination of a finite lifespan and inadequate
interest. I've assigned the "experts" (such as those
who write for the encyclopedia) to act as my agents
in regard to this question; if it really is all that
important to somebody that he convince me, then let
him first convince them.
If even Piotr gave a nod to one or another Nostratic
theory, I would then consider it worthy of further
consideration, but not Patrick I'm afraid, and no
offense, but not yourself either, as you seem far too
personally invested in your ideas (I return you your
friendly advice above on the nature of bias, and in
the same spirit that it was offered (^:).
David