Re: oldest places- and watername in Scandinavia

--- On Fri, 11/14/08, etherman23 <etherman23@...> wrote:

> From: etherman23 <etherman23@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: oldest places- and watername in Scandinavia
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 8:51 PM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> > How reliable are reconstructions of non-IE families?
> > I realize there are 3 or so reconstructions of
> Afro-Asiatic, all by
> respected scholars. But how do they compare with IE
> reconstruction?
> > Also Uralic et al. Do we really have anything truly
> well elaborated
> to compare with yet?
> >
>
> Uralic is very well elaborated. There are open issues, of
> course, but
> that's no different from PIE or any other language
> family. It's my
> understanding that Uto-Aztecan and Algonquin are also
> fairly well
> developed.

From what I've seen of Uto-Aztecan, it seems to be pretty well reconstructed but the family doesn't strike me as very old.
But as for "Altaic", "Nostratic Paleo-Siberian", Eskimo-Aleut, Dravidian, AA, Karvelian, and everything else proposed as a relation to IE. Is there anything truly reliable?