[tied] Proto-Language

----- Original Message -----

From: P&G

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:35 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Proto-Language

>Until you have read my work, why not spare us your uninformed comments?

Thank you for your kind abuse.

It was in fact your web sites on Proto-World (though I think you called it
Nostratic back then?) that helped to get me back into historical
linguistics some years ago, and I will always be grateful to you for that.

 

***

Patrick:

 

Why do you insist on mislabeling my work "Proto-World"?

 

I have NEVER used this term to designate my work since Greenberg and Ruhlen appropriated it for their classificatory process.

 

Are you not trying to be purposefully offensive to me?

 

In my earliest work, I did _mis_-use the term "(Proto-)Nostratic", however, to designate a form of language earlier than what Bomhardt was attempting to reconstruct.

***

 

It was realising how deeply flawed they were, that made me concentrate on
what we can know.  There is of course a valid place for the sort of
suggestions you make, but - in my informed opinion - they must remain
suggestions only, and not be accorded the kind of academic respectability
you are seeking to give them.

***

Patrick:

 

Does that mean you are prepared to accept the challenge I made to Brian?

 

Or will you hide behind categorical generalizations?

 

***