Re: Mitanni and Matsya

----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 11:21 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "David Russell Watson" wrote:
> >
> > How do you propose to prove that any of them are from an older
> > 'ber-'?
>
> By pointing at cognates in related languages where *b, or its
> descendant, have not been spirantized.

You're talking about P.I.E., though, which has no known
relatives. Without having first properly demonstrated
a relationship between the languages, you can't claim
cognates for them.

***

Anyone who cannot see the relationships between PIE and PS is willfully
blind.


***



> > 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.
>
> You are many years behind the times.

No, your own certainty about the matter emboldens you to
represent Nostratic as an established fact, but which it
is not. Faith blinds reason.

***

You are ill-informed and uninformed. Nostratic is a fact if by that we mean
PAA and PIE.

***


Rick nicely summarized the actual situation at

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/56837 .

At this time I would also like to direct to the list of
Cybalist's rules at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/files/Administrative .

Please look under "Off-topic postings and pseudoscience".

David

***

Yes, Rick can be insulting, too, but I think he attempts humor rather than
exudes malice and jealousy. Like you, his hang-up is racial sensitivity.

Why do you also not take a look?

What in this answer of yours touches on linguistics or PIE?

Of course, proper logical processes are always a sub-topic that is
justified, I hope.


Patrick

***