Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

Bomhard made a systematic correspondence of language
families that form Nostratic. He saw your work as
unprofessional because you limited yourself to mass
com. Bomhard may have errors or may be on the wrong
track BUT he used a falsifiable scientific method.
Mass com, in and of itself, is not a falsifiable
scientific method.
Bomhard can certainly be criticized and his results
will surely be superceded when better data is
available but only someone who can master
reconstruction will be taken seriously.

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

> To try to put my position in perspective, I am not
> convinced I have proved my hypothesis.
>
> I do feel that enough connections have been made to
> warrant the hypothesis.
>
> I have been in communication with Bomhard for many
> years, and before I began independent work, I
> offered him a few suggestions which, it is fair to
> say, he absorbed but without acknowledgment.
>
> After I began my own work, I tried to see if his
> correspondences and mine could be reconciled but he
> was not interested in the enterprise. I wrote a
> critique of his methods which is a partial
> fulfillment of your requirements, and posted it at
> my website, hoping it would motivate him into a
> mutually productive exchange but my efforts proved
> fruitless.
>
> If anyone has any interest in this, it is available
> at Nostratic Dictionary - Critique of
>

Bomhard<http://geocities.com/proto-language/NostraticDictionary.htm>

>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Piotr
> Gasiorowski<mailto:gpiotr@...>
> To:
>

cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>

>
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences
> (was Brugmann's Law)
>
>
> On 2008-01-20 16:47, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > A very 'fair and balanced' appraisal of the
> state of affairs, Piotr.
> >
> > But forget PAA for a moment, do you not agree
> that sufficient data has
> > been collected and analyzed to warrant a
> 'probable' connection between
> > Semitic and PIE?
>
> If you mean a genetic connection, I think it
> remains "possible" rather
> than "probable". Several people have tried to
> establish systematic
> correspondences between the two, in each case
> achieving what might be
> construed as partial success, but there is no
> "consilience of
> inductions" as Whewell put it, and the competing
> reconstructions can't
> be reconciled with each other. I know how much
> confidence you have in
> your own analysis, but so do others who have tried
> the same. The
> strength of the subjective conviction that one is
> on the right track
> does not mean having a strong case.
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ