--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Cardoso" <entrelenga@...>
wrote:
>
> I am not sure if this has been discussed here before (or if it is
> on-topic), but I would like to know of the validity of this theory:
>
> Proto-Tsimshian: A New World Indo-European Language, by John A.
Dunn (2001)
> http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/D/John.A.Dunn-1/text/p1.htm
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Clayton
>
I'm still in 2nd year undergrad, but I've done a bit of studying on
Proto-Indo-European and have looked into Eurasiatic and Nostratic and
such.
I wouldn't dismiss the idea completely. However, if the personal
pronouns are different and the number system is too, at best we're
dealing with an IE substrate.
I won't deny that it looks suspicious, but either way, it proves a
point. If it turns out not to be IE at all, then it's more evidence
to suggest that mere word similarities, even on proto-levels, aren't
necessarily enough to prove connections. The evidence he suggests is
very interesting; I'm a bit skeptical about it, but I'm not
dismissing it quite yet.