Re: Stacking up on standard works

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>
> > > Then why on earth do you imagine that Starostin's PNC can
> > > reasonably approximate Proto-Vasco-Caucasian?
>
> > There's a number of reasons. For example, while PNC has a huge

consonant

> > inventory, Basque has a very reduced inventory, lacking e.g. voiced
> > fricatives. There're also some hints that Sino-Tibetan could be an
> > offspring of PNC rather than a sibling as in Starostin's
> > "Sino-Caucasian".
>
> That would make Sino-Tibetan part of North Caucasian - by definition,

North Caucasian includes the 'crown clade' of the NEC and NWC languages.
(What else it should include is ill-defined and a matter of
convenience.)

>

The problem lies on Starostin's own definition of "North Caucasian", as
he thought of it as a family when it's actually a larger phylum.

> It's conceivable that PNC could approximate Proto-Vasco-Caucasian much

as Sanskrit approximates PIE.

>

I'm afraid both cases aren't comparable. In fact, it was neogrammarians'
"PIE" which was largely modelled after Sanskrit and Greek, a biased view
which still persists today.