From: david_russell_watson
Message: 56886
Date: 2008-04-06
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rick McCallister"<gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >So you say, and yet refutation sits quoted above this line,
> > 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 aSo you say, and yet a few more serious problems are found in
> major concern.