[tied] Re: pre-Nostratic *male[:]k?xa, 'milk (vb.)'

From: mkelkar2003
Message: 43386
Date: 2006-02-13

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 6:21:19 PM on Sunday, February 12, 2006, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 10:21:42 AM on Sunday, February 12, 2006, Daniel J.
> >> Milton wrote:
>
> >>> Despised as Ruhlen may be by at least some Cybalisters,
> >>> one of his better-looking roots is "MALIQ'A "to suck(le),
> >>> nurse, breast", with exemplars from (besides the IE and AA
> >>> of Patrick's posting) Uralic, Dravidian, Eskimo-Aleut,
> >>> Caucasian and Amerind. Dan
>
> >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14477>
>
> > Of the 35 most basic word vocabulary PIE and OC have 23%
> > cognates. That is too many for a chance occurence.
>
> This is a non sequitur. It's also obviously incorrect:
> apart from a tiny handful of possible borrowings, there are
> *no* known cognates, since OC is not known to be related to
> PIE at all.

Refer to Table 2 below:

http://www.ee.cuhk.edu.hk/~wsywang/publications/lg_diversity.pdf



Presumably you mean that 23 items are
> superficially similar. I suggest that you read the articles
> by Mark Rosenfelder the Piotr mentioned in the Cybalist post
> that I cited.
>
> Brian
>
Yes. I have read the zompist articles. Linguistics is not an exact
science. Chance can mislead *all* linguists. Not just Nostraticist who
reconstruct langauges 12000 years ago or IEL who reconstruct them
"only" 6000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rosenfelder

m. kelkar