Re: Finnish KASKI

----- Original Message -----
From: "jouppe" <jouppe@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 1:50 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKI


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> ***
>
> Jouppe, I think you have not been on the list long enough to know
that I
> refer to PAA (Proto-Afro-Asiatic whenever the connections suggest
its
> usefulness.
>
> There is really nothing "anachronistic" about comparisons between
PIE and
> Semitic or Hieroglyphic Egyptian under the rubric Nostratic.

I used the term "anachronistic" in relation to individual semitic
languages like Arabic and Hebrew. Hebrew barely dates back to the
second millennium BCE whereas PIE is several millennia older. Arabic
is even younger than Hebrew, albeit rather conservative. My whole
point was why not use Proto-Semitic in place of Hebrew and Arabic as
reliable reconstructions exist. It is still a valid node despite your
attempted older reconstructional levels, isn't it?

Jouppe

***

Certainly, PS is valid. I just do not think a proper job has been done to
reconstruct it.

Orel & Stobova's Hamito-Semitic (PAA) is usable though Ehret is not.


***

<snip>

I don't understand your numerical coding system for Nostratic, but I
will make one additional effort. Any reading aid available?

Jouppe

***

The numbers in the tables refer to numbered examples of the correspondence
which are found beneath the table, ordered numerically.


Patrick

***