From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 58230
Date: 2008-04-30
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: beyond langauges
<...>
> --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
> > Patrick:
> > ***
> Yes, that may be true but you don't confuse them even
> more by blurring the issue
***
Patrick:
He is not writing for you and non-Indian interested parties.
***
> > >
> > > 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
***
Patrick:
For you, perhaps. To me, it was quite clear what he was doing, and why.
***
> >
> > 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
> materiel
***
Patrick:
I agree.
I forgive because I underatand the motivation.
***
> > ***
> >
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
This has absolutely nothing to do with 'mass comparison'!!!!!!!!!
Have you never been to the Tower of Babel website?
Do you think Starostin used anything but recognized reconstruction methods?
Macro-Nostratic is not necessary if Eurasiatic is in place.
Larry Trask was a brilliant man but he believed Nostratic _could not_ be
reconstructed, a priori. You are not accurately representing his view.
The "hard work" on connecting PIE and PAA has already been done; and for any
objective observer, the core case is proven.
Like so many, you can find so many reasons for putting off stating your
position.
I ask again: has it been proven that PIE and PAA are related - in your
opinion?
***