Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:45 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya


> At 2:02:20 PM on Sunday, April 6, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rick McCallister"
> >>> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> >>>> 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. [...]
>
> >>> Nostratic has been irrefutably demonstrated.
>
> >> So you say, and yet refutation sits quoted above this
> >> line, and can be found other places as well.
>
> > No disrespect to Rick but he is simply not competent to
> > judge the issue.
>
> > The last time I made an informal survey, the professional
> > members of the list semmed willing to entertain the idea
> > of Nostratic but considered it unproven.
>
> Which hardly suggests that 'Nostratic has been irrefutably
> demonstrated'.
>
> Brian

***

What members say publicly and what they believe may be two different things.

Nostratic is still sort of the third rail in linguistics.

Would you not agree?


Patrick