From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 56865
Date: 2008-04-06
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> ***
> That relationship (PIE, semitic) is so patently obvious that only that
> only a willfully difficult person could possibly deny it.
> ***
I consider it true but not obvious.
It's fairly tricky to demonstrate.
Arnaud
=========
> >> 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 reverse is :
PIE is close to PAA (I consider that it can be held to be part of it but
let's keep standard names for clarity's sake)
PIE is not an Asiatic language and has no connection with this Eurasiatic
thing.
which clashes with every cultural and ethnographical knowledge we have on
PIE speakers.
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?
>
> Patrick
>
> ***
I am a regular user of ToB and I am convinced ST languages are closely
related to Eurasiatic (minus PIE which has nothing to do here)
Arnaud
==============
>