Re: [tied] Re: [Nostratic-L] Re: Why are Indo-Europeanist opposed t

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 43398
Date: 2006-02-13

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:47 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: [Nostratic-L] Re: Why are Indo-Europeanist opposed to a "proto-l

> Would you exclude Piotr's recent ingenious explanation of *gWiH3-?
> That has the status of a "pet theory" but a most meritorious one, in
> my estimation.

His theory does not harm and is within the limits of mainstream
linguistics and discussion here. However, your linking of IE,
Sumerian, Egyptian, etc. is riddled with errors (as already pointed
out by others here) and is, in any event, totally irrelevant to Cybalist.
Oh. PIE *kW > *H3. Real "mainstream"!

> The list was formed to provide a forum for the discussion of new
> ideas, and to make current information easily accessible (in the
> form of posted files) to all those who do not subscribe to the
> requisite journals.

If you don't have access to the journals, then you must not have
access to a university library (which could get them through
inter-library loan if not available onsite). Which would mean that you
aren't actually employed within a university. So what business do you
have discussing these matters anyway? Well, if that's what the list
was founded for, no wonder it attracts crackpots and amateurs like
As any "savant" might know, any journal is obtainable in the US through the local PUBLIC library.
Where are you employed?

> It was NOT formed to nurse (*maliq'a) students through their
> studies. Have you considered engaging a tutor at your own expense?

I'm not demanding a list just to teach newbies. However, I would like
to find a list where crank theories like yours are not tolerated, so
that I could better assume that what I was reading on the list
represented mainstream, trustworthy linguistics.
Ho-hum. What a drudge!

> Do you realize how boring it is for people who know even just a
> little about PIE or linguistics to be confronted with simplistic
> questions from "students" who, if they were not too unenergetic to
> do so, could get their answers from any standard textbook?

I've never asked a question on this list without first consulting the

Nice how you ignore my point that macrofamily theories do not belong
on this list. To borrow a line of argumentation you yourself used
recently, your silence on the matter must mean that you learned the
error of your ways and know better now.

Christopher Culver

Babaev (founder of the list) had no problem with them. Why should you?
Riddled with error? Are you far enough along in your undergraduate studies to point some out, or are you like some employed academics who cast aspersions they never can back up?