I'd like to clear up for myself the internal structure of the Nostratic
superfamily (classical composition, i.e. 6 families).

[Piotr]

> Some Nostraticists (especially Bomhard & Kerns) consider the
> membership of Sumerian as possible, while emphasising the loose
> relation of Afroasiatic to the rest of the superfamily (reflecting a
> particularly ancient split).

From other sources (Russian linguists) I also heard that the Afroasiatic
relation to other is the weakest among the 6 families.

Besides, starting from the "Opyt sravneniya nostraticheskikh yazykov" by
Illich-Svitych the East Nostratic subgroup (including Uralic, Altaic and
Dravidian families) is marked out.

On the other hand some Cybalist list members consider IE and Uralic as
especially close relatives. Is not this a geographical instead of
"genetic" (linguistically genetic, of course) approach? Or just a
consequence of the fact that the data on Uralic is more rich and easier
available than the data on Dravidian or Kartvelian? (BTW, there are
observations about special similarity between IE and Kartvelian morphology.)

In other words, is it possible to demonstrate that Uralic is closer related
to IE than to Dravidian or Altaic?

Alexander