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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 1:38 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: 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.
> >
> > ***
> Opinion and faith are one thing, facts supporting a
> conceptual framework are another. The framework has
> even been created yet and the facts to support such a
> relationship are still out there. I'd have to say not
> yet because AA as a reconstructed language acceptable
> to the majority of AA scholars does not exist yet
> --AFAIK. I don't dismiss attempts to link IE and AA
> and, in fact, support them because my belief is that
> all languages are ultimately related but it's a belief
> still unsupported by facts. Get past all the mass com
> stuff and you'll get there.

***

Patrick:

There are hundreds of cognates demonstrated between PIE and PAA.

Are those not "facts"?

Need more facts:

http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3.htm


***