From: jouppe
Message: 57626
Date: 2008-04-18
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Håkan Lindgren <h@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Piotr,
>
> Some time ago, I sent you an email with a couple of questions about
the claims on the Nostratica web site. You said you would reply
later, when you had the time. I haven't heard anything from you yet
and I would like to make sure I haven't lost your reply somehow.
There's absolutely no rush - please take your time if you're busy.
>
> Best regards,
> Hakan
> ...................
>
> Dear Mr. Gasiorowski,
>
> I'm one of the lurkers at Cybalist. I was surprised to see that
Kirill was back and followed his link to the Nostratica web site. I
would like to hear your opinion about the claims made at that site.
They describe Nostratic as a scientifically proven language family
(quote below, from http://www.nostratic.ru/index.php?page=6 ). I'm
not even an amateur linguist, but I haven't heard this before - is it
true?
>
> "The Nostratic macrofamily of languages is a scientifically proven
genetic unity of a number of language families of the Old World,
which descend from a common ancestor called the Nostratic proto-
language which existed around 12,000 - 14,000 years ago. ---
Therefore, we now know the approximate characteristic features of the
Nostratic proto-language spoken some 12,000 years ago."
>
> We do?
>
> When reconstructing PIE, Proto-German, etc, you compare data with
data. On the Nostratica site they say they compare reconstructions
with other reconstructions, which must mean that the
uncertainties/errors are on a much higher level. Aren't the
uncertainties too high to make menaningful comparisons between
reconstructed languages?
>
> How far back (beyond the written texts that have survived) are we
able to reconstruct languages with reasonable certainty?
>
> From Nostratica: "It was proven that the changes in the 100-item
list of the basic lexicon occur with a similar speed in all the world
languages: e.g., in 1,000 years 86 out of 100 words are supposed to
survive in the language. The mathematic calculation of these changes
can help to identify the age of the language even if neither
historical nor archaeological evidence can be found."
>
> Is this true regardless of other factors (isolation/contact with
other languages)? What about the last 1000 years on Iceland compared
to Britain?
>
> Is there any legitimate scientific research done in this field? Any
books/articles you would like to recommend?
>
> Are all the world's languages deeply related? Is there anything
that suggests that languages have developed independently, in several
parts of the world?
>
> At the Nostratica site, they refer to an "international group of
scholars within the framework of the Evolution of Human Languages'
project in the University of Santa Fe". When I looked for
the "University of Santa Fe" it turned out they mean the Santa Fe
Institute (where a lot of interesting research has taken place!) -
how is this work regarded by other scholars?
>
> What is your opinion of the scholars at the Nostratica site, such
as Greenberg, Dolgopolsky, Kortlandt, Starostin, Ruhlen?
>
> I hope you don't mind that I ask you this directly, outside of
Cybalist. The reason I do this is that I don't want to start a debate
between you and Kirill.
>
> I'm a freelance journalist and I'm thinking about writing something
about long range language comparisons, if I can find a
newspaper/magazine willing to publish such a story. It's definitely
an interesting subject, even though I'm sceptical about the claims of
the nostraticists.
>
> I like very much to read your posts on Cybalist. You have an
excellent ability of sharing your knowledge in clear and simple
language. As a matter of fact, you seem to know so many languages,
past and present, that I sometimes wonder...
>
> ........................
>
> Dear Håkan,
>
> I have much to say about the subject, but I have to run off to work
now
> and may not find the time to write a long reply in the evening.
Please
> forgive the delay -- I'll be back with some thoughts about
Nostratic.
> Just as an appetiser: I don't think comparing reconstructions with
> reconstructions is a methodological fault. We routinely compare e.g.
> Proto-Celtic reconstructions with Proto-Germanic, Proto-Indo-
Iranian and
> Proto-Tocharian. The problem with Nostratic is rather the opposite:
> there are no secure protolanguage reconstructions for many of its
> putative members (including such important ones as Altaic and
> Afroasiatic), and what the Nostraticits do too often for my taste
is the
> practice of "reaching down": they take a word from Amharic, another
one
> from Greek (both without well-established cognates in their
respective
> families), another one from Mari of Saami to represent Uralic, etc.,
> *ignoring* intermediate reconstructions (whoch normally serve as
useful
> controls).
>
> Best,
>
> Piotr
>