>> references to "proto-nostratic" and "the first spoken word"
> I think that is important to know based on some facts that
> Romanian is a ...
> is it important to know that "PIE > is a ??? ..
Of course all questions are valid - but not all answers have the same
status. Some are based on facts, and can be checked by other scholars, and
accepted, improved or rejected, on the basis of facts. Others, such as a
suggestion as to what the first word was, are plain daft, silly, cranky,
and, however interesting they might be to some, they are without value.
Discussion of IE and PIE is more or less of the first kind (though I guess
we know wild theories about PIE, too!). Of course it is not only right, but
important to know that some people suggest wider connections for PIE, into
Uralic, Semitic and so on. It is also important to know the status of these
suggestions (plausible, but not yet proven; some are convinced, others are
not).
My query is about suggestions beyond this.
So Nostratic - an unproven field, still debated;
but Proto-Nostratic - we are beyond anything that can be academically proved
in any meaningful sense;
the "first word" - we're into fantasyland.
Of course occasional postings of that kind are no problem, but when almost
all are like that, I wonder where the scientific base of our discussions has
gone. I wonder, that is all ... and merely ask what others think.
Peter