--- Patrick Ryan <
proto-language@...> wrote:
> Patrick:
>
> Having been to Rotary Club meetings, I can assure
> you that matters of great
> of great complexity are routinely simplified beyond
> recognition for these
> audiences.
>
> ***
Yes, that may be true but you don't confuse them even
more by blurring the issue
>
> >
> > The guy says I-A, Dravidian and Munda forma a
> language
> > family --not that they're part of the same
> Nostratic
> > phylum or whatnot. Then he contradicts himself by
> > throwing in IE, as if his iA-Dravidian-Munda node
> is
> > part of IE. I'm sure college sophomores all over
> > America would like to have some of what he's
> smoking.
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> And he also said that that nature of that "family"
> is areal.
He's either being disingenuous or blurring the issue
out of all recognition
>
> He terms the IE-derived languages "North Prakrit",
> and specifically
> identifies "North Prakrit" with conventional IE.
>
> He does not mix the two!
>
> ***
Prakrit is a grossly inappropriate term in that it
applies to vernacular IA languages genetically related
to Sanskrit, which are descended either directly from
Sanskrit or a related dialect
You're never forgiving whenever anyone else on the
list fudges facts or blurs concepts, and you should be
even less forgiving when it comes to published
matieral
>
>
. . .
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> Yes. I can finally agree.
>
> However, if Eurasiatic is reconstructed, why would
> we need
> "Macro-Nostratic"?
But Eurasiatic is not reconstructed to the
satisfaction of most linguists. We have Greenberg's
mass com --which includes Ainu, a languages that is
clearly not part of that proposed phylum. We don't
have a consensus on its subdivisions or even on what
Altaic is or isn't. So there's still a lot of work to
do.
Macro-Nostratic is necessary if you really want to get
beyond a mere mass com of Euriastic and its congeners.
You have pointed out that there is still no acceptible
reconstruction of AA. How can even start to conceive
Macro-Eurasiatic if you don't know what AA really
looks like?
>
> The reasons for Nostratic's not being recognized
> have more to do with
> prejudice than science, IMHO; this is because of the
> core hypothesis.
>
> ***
I disagree. I think most linguists are probably
amenable to the idea. I think the diehards like Lyle
Campbell and Terence Kauffman are a minority, vocal to
be sure. There is a lot of skepticism of Nostratic but
I'm sure most linguists have a wait and see attitude
much like Larry Trask who believed there was
definitely something to Nostratic but he wasn't sure
if it could be proven. It will just take a lot of hard
work for a long, long time. This will mean adjusting
paradigms to suit new data. And if you don't do this
you run the risk of hoisting a "Mission Accomplished"
banner on the deck of an aircraft carrier before the
real war has even begun.
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ