Re: Mitanni and Matsya

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 56863
Date: 2008-04-06

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> >> >
> >>
> >> 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. Rick
> >
> ==========
> > Nostratic has been irrefutably demonstrated.
> > On the minor points need to be refined: phonology being a major concern.
> > > Patrick
> >
> ==============
> I'm not sure we can assert that Nostratic has been demonstrated.

***

Scholars love to quibble over quaint differences but remember the impetus
for Nostratic in the first place was the idea of a relationship between PIE
and PS (Møller).

That relationship is so patently obvious that only that only a willfully
difficult person could possibly deny it.

***

> One of the core assertions of Nostratic is that PIE is closely related to
> Asiatic languages
> and PAA is a far-away member.
> I definitely disagree with that core assertion. I think the reverse is
> true.

***

??? What is the "reverse"?

***


> The second point is Nostratic cannot handle ST languages,
> which is another way of stating that the reconstructions are inadequate.
>
> Arnaud
> ============

***

A visit to the Tower of Babel should convince you that ST has nothing to be,
per se, with Nostratic (PIE and PAA).

ST is a higher node; and the big squabble is what counterposes ST and the
other side - Nostratic but how many others?

I have found, to my great surprise, that Nama, a Hottentot language, has
clearly demonstrable ties to Nostratic and, indirectly, ST.

How does the tree branch from the earliest earliest language (PL)?

Scholars who dispute the existence of the tree itself will, no doubt, have
even more trouble with its branches.


Patrick

***