Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: beyond langauges

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: beyond langauges


>
> --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: beyond langauges
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > My opinion is that they are very likely related
> > but I
> > > don't see proof positive yet and if it started me
> > in
> > > the face I might not recognize it.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Define the characteristics of "proof positive" for
> > you in this context if
> > you would.
> >
> > ***
> I'd need to see reconstructions with sound
> correspondences that work for all proposed languages
> at the level of Nostratic and AA. We can't do that yet
> because we don't even have reconstructions for all the
> language families. How can you work with AA if you
> aren't even sure what it is? The same can be said of
> Altaic. In any case, comparing IE and AA is not enough
> --what about Uralic, Altaic et al? You have to be thorough.


***

Patrick:

> > > > I ask again: has it been proven that PIE and PAA
> > are
> > > > related - in your
> > > > opinion?

Forget about Nostratic for a moment. For PAA consider only Proto-Semitic.

***