--- Patrick Ryan <
proto-language@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
> So-called Nostratic "evidence" is unacceptable. The
> Nostratic theory is an interesting but unproven
idea. As of
> today P.I.E.
> has no known relatives.
>
> David
> ***
> You are many years behind the times.
> Patrick
> ***
Nostratics has most definitely not been proven. There
is not even a uniform definition of what composes
Nostratic. There are no universally acceptible
proto-languages for most postulated members of
Nostratic. On Cybalist, our colleagues are still
hashing out the fine points of IE and doing an
excellent job of it, but work among other families
"tentatively" assigned to Nostratic has much farther
to go. Nostratic, at best, is promising and is a work
in progress. That's not to say there aren't some
excellent and dedicated people at there hammering
away. Bomhard et al, are taking on something the size
of Mount Rushmore almost single-handedly. But it can
only be completed if people follow sound rules of
reconstruction instead of blindly resorting to hald
measures such as mass comparisons and twisting
evidence by ignoring reconstructions because present
forms look closer to what one wants.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com