From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 58235
Date: 2008-05-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:54 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: beyond langauges
> At 4:33:11 AM on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> >> At 4:51:58 PM on Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Patrick Ryan
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
>
> >>>> --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >>>>> From: "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
<...>
> > You can repeat that mantra until you are blue in the face
> > but it will not change the fact that the major premise of
> > Nostratic, that PIE and Semitic (and through it, PAA) are
> > generically related, has been proven to any objective
> > observer.
>
> No, it hasn't. Don't confuse Patrick Ryan with 'any
> objective observer'.
***
Patrick:
Alright. Let us try it another way.
Who has shown that Bomhard's correlations between PIE and PAA are wrong?
***
> [...]
>
> > But that they do fit in somehow is made certain by my
> > essay on Nama:
>
> > http:/geocities.com/proto-language/c-Nama-14.htm
>
> > which establishes valid correspondences between Nama and
> > three language families: PIE, PAA (through HEgy) and
> > Sumerian.
>
> You must have typoed the URL: no such page exists. And I
> would have looked, though I consider the assertion on a par
> with Arnaud's notion that Salish is IE.
***
Patrick:
Well, go ahead and look. I left out one diagonal slash.
http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-Nama-14.htm
***
<...>