Re[2]: [tied] A "senseless" theory (philosophy of language)

At 5:42:41 PM on Thursday, February 16, 2006, alexandru_mg3
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G&P@...> wrote:

>> Is anyone else slightly puzzled by recent postings? What
>> are references to "proto-nostratic" and "the first spoken
>> word" doing on this list? Of course too narrow a
>> concentration of focus would be a mistake, but where are
>> we going?

> Peter, I think that is important to know based on some
> facts that Romanian is a Latin laguage with a Dacian
> Substratum having some important 'waves' of Slavic,
> Greeks, Turkish, French loans etc...

> If I applied this assertion to PIE: is important to know
> that "PIE is a ??? language with an ??? Substratum having
> some important 'waves' of ???? loans "...

Which would still have nothing to do with nonsense about
'the first spoken word'.

Brian