Pat �crit:

>The font color changes to red only for corrected entries.

The font sizes "6" and "10" are far larger than professional
web developers would allow. It is not only unaesthetic but
impractical for those with small screens.

Pat continue � �crir:

>What other than "sentence after sentence of critiques on Bomhard's >methods
>and conclusions" would you expect to find in a critique of >Bomhard's
>methods and conclusions?

A clear and ordered sense of focus. There is unfortunately no such
indication.

Pat d�montre le concepte de l'ironie:

>I agree with no Bomhardian reconstructions because his phonological system
>is, in my opinion, fatally wrong.

Your work is underdeveloped, wrought with a pile of errors
and lavish fantasies that do more to _credit_ Bomhard than to
tarnish his "fatal" mistakes. It is vital that you immediately
correct the following before one can begin to respect your work
as even slightly academic and worthy of interest:

1. Entirely fabricated IE forms

*bel- "to cut out" (IE has no such labial stop)
*gher- "to rumble" (onomatopoeic)
*el- "to be tired" (please justify)
*en- "year" (erh... Latin /annus/ < *H2et-no-)
*ger- "to turn, wind"
*ka(:)r- "height" (you mean *k^er- "to grow"?)
*ka(:)r- "praise" (*k^ens-??? *gerH2-???)
*ka/a:k(h)- "bent stick, plow"
*kek(h)u- "club, hammer"
*le:u(t)- "to make dirty" (*leuH2- "to wash"???)
*lem- "to bend"
*mer- "to blacken" (you mean "to die" right?)
*mer- "to disturb, anger" (actually "to die")
*mer6- "to be dying" (what form is this?)
*merew- "to be dead" (again, what form is this?)
*mei-n- "palisade"
*nedo- "reed" (please justify)
*wa:il- "weak, poor"
*wa:t- "to be emotionally excited"

... to name just a small percentage of dillusions.

2. Inaccurate IE forms

*gYen- "to know" (standard orthography *g^en-)
*kEn6ko- "honey, honey-yellow" (weakly attested)
*k(h)enk- "to peg, drape" (actually *k^onk- "to hang")
*k^(h)enk- "to hang" (same as above)
*leukh(y)- "to shine" (actually *leuk^-)
*lo(:)u- "to wash" (actually *laH3u-)
*ma:- "full, good" (actually *me:-)
*ma(:)d- "wet, drip" (actually *mad-)
*met- "middle" (actually *medhyos)
*mel- "to lick" (actually *melit "honey")
*meley- "sweet" (same as above)
*me:r- "to crush" (you mean *mer-)
*mo-n-u-s "man"
(properly segmented & represented as *man-u-s)
*mo(:)r-i- "body of water" (weakly attested)
*ne(y) "no" (known by _everyone_ as *ne, not **ney)
*wa:- "to be apart" (actually *wei-)

Obviously, a clear lack of expertise in IE is
demonstrated by the use of these twisted forms.

3. Inconsistent orthography

One sees both *g^en- and *gYen- without predictability.

4. Glaring, non-existent words used desperately as some
kind of justification

Sumerian **/ginna/ "child"
Sumerian **/pu/ "to go away"
Egyptian **[mn] "to be fenced off"
(actually means "to remain")
Egyptian **n� "to expel"

Truely the most deranged attempt I've ever seen at trying
to extract justification for an idea out of the vacuum
of empty space. Schr�dinger and his cat would be proud of
you.

5. Ad-hoc phonology, typology and morphology reconstructed
for Nostratic without full justification and professional
explanation indicative of a competent linguist or a
rational human being.

Here are some ludicrous examples of typological disasters
that do not befit the attested character of Nostratic...

*khxano(y)nkh-
*nkhaysW-
*nkhaykhx-
*p?ferehnk-
*t?sewarW-
*thsarY-

Last time I checked, we were reconstructing Nostratic, not
Klallam. Is this an earnest attempt at reconstruction? Or
is it a bad day on the keyboard? Initial consonant clusters
are simply unsupportable for Nostratic.

What is the model shape of your reconstructed roots? What
phonological system have you devised for Nostratic?
How is each phoneme justified? How is each consonant
cluster justified? Is the phonological system attested
elsewhere? What sound correspondances have been found?
Etc, etc, etc.

Bomhard at least was competent enough to detail this
needed information in his writings, open for immediate
scrutiny by the reader. Your strategy, otoh, shows more
underlying deception. Continuing to dodge mainstream
methodology only sabotages your efforts for complete
proto-World domination :P

>Obviously, 200+ pages takes some time to read.

Indeed. This appears to be your well-thought out plan - To ennui
the reader into belief. Your site is certainly quite impossible
to _create_ without a lot of time on one's hands (or hand).
Truely amazing for someone who is employed full time. I applaud
you.

Unfortunately, two hundred pages isn't enough to hide the logical
flaws of your obsessive pet theory. You need a couple thousand
more for that, I think.

- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com