Re: Re[4]: [tied] Pronunciation of "r" - again?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:58 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Pronunciation of "r" - again?


> At 11:44:46 PM on Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> >> At 9:03:52 PM on Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Patrick Ryan
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
<snip>

> No intepretation is required: I need only read what he wrote
> when he quoted the same sentence that I did above.

***
Patrick:

Are you saying your comments were superfluous?

***

>
> [...]
>
> > Although the details may need some fine-tuning, there is
> > general agreement among Nostraticists on what the
> > correspondences are.
>
> There seems still to be more than a little disagreement over
> what's even *in* whatever super-family contains IE.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian

***
Patrick:

That is a trivial detail. It is a question of the nature of _inter_-family
relationships not Language A is _not_ related to Nostratic. PAA, for
example, is considered by some to be a sister language to PIE; by others, to
be a sister language to Nostratic. No Nostraticist doubts they are related,
however that does not prevent valid phoneme correspondences from being
identified.

You might want to consider what the late and, by me, at least, lamented
Larry Trask thought about it all.

He was willing to concede that all languages stem from a single source just
as human beings do; his major objection to Nostratic (and earlier groupings)
was only that he did not think languages at such great time-depths could
actually be reconstructed.

***