Re: Mitanni and Matsya

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya


>
> --- 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.

***

Nostratic has been irrefutably demonstrated.

On the minor points need to be refined: phonology being a major concern.


Patrick