David:
> 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.
What does that even mean? It makes no sense. In this
statement you're mixing up 15,000 years of language
evolution!
The Nostratic sound system is barely even tentative
and you're assuming that it is written in stone in
order to compare it nonchalantly to Arabic. If you
understand that Nostratic is loosely reconstructed
at best, then why would you waste your time on a
question we can't possibly answer seriously?
> [...] but it has always seemed to me that the
> Nostraticists give themselves an improper amount
> of leeway.
I agree all too well. I want structure in my
Nostratic. I'm tired of it too. However, the very
linguists that could contribute their knowledge would
rather play it safe like stuffy beaurocrats then go
out of their way to develop new theories. I guess
theory is either for the brave of heart or the foolish
:) And that pretty much sums up the field
of Nostratic in a cowardly world where fools dominate.
> 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.
Yes, I realize and I've always emphasized this (but
no one appears to be listening to me because they
are more interested in directing all their criticism
of every Nostraticist who ever existed towards me...
grrr). I'm not the antichrist. I merely perform
sacrifices for him :)
Bomhard already supplied some sound correspondances
and corresponding grammatical functions but it was
unfortunately in a small section of "Indo-European
and the Nostratic Hypothesis". I suppose because it
was a small section, nobody could find the time to
read it and contemplate it. Perhaps it will impress
people if a book is 2,000 pages instead of 200? :P
> Grammatical systems obey linguistic universals,
Yes, yes, but linguistic universals can't explain
the _entire_ evidence as a whole. Those against
the IE-Tyrrhenian connection do this same
distractionary tactic over and over again, pretending
that each connection is a coincidence by treating
each comparandum in isolation, regardless of whether
it naturally belongs to a larger system or not.
We have a lingering deictic accusative in -n (IE
*-m), a genitive in -as (IE *-os), a plural in -(a)r
(IE *-es), a very productive n-infix as attested
in /zilcH-n-ce/ (IE presentive *-n-), a "gerundive"
-as (IE aorist *-s-), a 1ps pronoun /mi/ and its
accusative /mini/ (*me [acc], *mene [gen]), etc.
That shows clearly that both the verbal and nominal
systems are connected between the two language groups.
We may further note that internal reconstruction
demonstrates that IE originally unmarked for the
nominative (like in Tyrrhenian languages) and this
is further likely considering the fact that a marked
nominative as in IE defies the universal tendency.
How can anyone at this point remain so obtuse to
these facts. These elements that I mention above, by
the way, are the core of consensus in Etruscan
studies, fully demonstrable by recourse to the actual
inscriptions.
If you count all the crackpots like Mayani however,
it's no wonder that so many run around in circles
with their heads cut off, not knowing how to assess
the very data that is before them.
This is why, as frustrated as I am, I sympathize
still with the skepticism towards my views.
> So similarities in grammatical system don't serve
> to convince, [...]
True enough, which is why I object to linking IE,
Kartvelian and Semitic ablaut together when nothing
else has been clearly established.
> 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.
That, I think, is an imaginative exaggeration that
has stopped comparative linguistics from progressing.
No one really knows whether the similarities in
entire sets of pronouns are due to long-range
relationship or due to a "limited set of sounds". Who
could possibly assert such a claim when we don't have
all the facts? That's why we search for them, for
heaven's sake.
> If anyone has properly compiled such a list for
> their particular Nostratic theory, I've never seen
> it.
Bomhard has come the closest so far but I have issues
with a few of his comparisons, particularly those
that involve only Semitic and IE. I can't possibly
believe that Semitic and IE share a close kinship
and am far more certain that the similarities are
either red herrings or the result of neolithic trade,
long after the ice age.
> 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.
I keep Nostratic out of it, in fact. There's quite
a difference between 4000 BCE and 15,000 BCE, don't
you think? All I'm concerned about is making baby
steps towards a positive direction. That baby step,
in my view, is strengthening the field of Tyrrhenian
which is abysmal so far. Apparently people are
still debating as to whether EteoCypriot is a
Tyrrhenian language. I just can't see how people
haven't clued in to the clearcut grammatical markers
and cognates with Etruscan when they are so damned
obvious.
This is why I almost feel that there are too many
daydreamers intent on holding on to a mystery and
using Etruscan for their nefarious purposes. I
personally don't find Etruscan as mysterious as is
claimed by the very people who just don't have all
the facts themselves.
> 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.
Fully agreed, which is why I'm focusing largely on
IndoTyrrhenian and pre-IE within a section of
approximately 3000 years. It's only based on those
baby steps that Nostratic could possibly be
reconstructed meaningfully.
> 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 [...]
If "personally invested" means "following my love
of linguistics" then I feel no shame. If you mean
"I stick to one view and never change", you haven't
been paying attention at all. Check the archives
in the past ten years. I evolve, don't worry.
Sorry for the rant. Carry on.
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com