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

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 58259
Date: 2008-05-01

--- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
>
> >> 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.
> =========
> Ainu is related to Uralic, Chinese, etc
> Cf.
> Vogul nom-t "thought"
> Chinese nian1, nian4 "to think, thought"
> Ainu namu "spirit".

Ainu has many loanwords from Nivkh, Japanese and
probably Tungusic. So beware of that. Paul Sidwell
made the case that it's related to (I believe)
Austro-Asiatic at some level and Vovin seconded that
(albeit about 8 or 9 years ago).

>
> The complete idiocy is to put Indo-European in here,
> in a family made of Asiatic languages.
> So long as a super-family will start with that
> premice, it's dead-born.
>
> Arnaud
> ===========
Let's test the hypothesis first, then you can crow
like the cock of the rock
...


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ