Dear Glen and Nostraticists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 9:32 AM
Subject: [nostratic] Pat's "RESPONSE"

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

How nice to learn that Glen "commands" French!

> 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.

I do not care for people with small anythings. Is that your ultimate problem?

> Pat continue à écrir:
> >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.

Perhaps if you invest your valuable time by reading rather than scanning, you might find the focus.

> Pat démontre 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:

Unlike Bomhard, I will adresss these points of criticism --- even though they originate from a detestable smart-ass.

> 1. Entirely fabricated IE forms
> *bel- "to cut out" (IE has no such labial stop)
I believe that it does though, as I explain, most Nostratic *p? shows up initially in IE as *w.

> *gher- "to rumble" (onomatopoeic)
So you say. It is also a root that has regular reflexes in a number of derived languages. Even if it were originally onomatopoeic in Nostratic, it would not matter.

> *el- "to be tired" (please justify)
Please state problem. And generally, I have no need to "justify" myself to little smart-asses.

> *en- "year" (erh... Latin /annus/ < *H2et-no-)
What is the question?

> *ger- "to turn, wind"
What is the question?

> *ka(:)r- "height" (you mean *k^er- "to grow"?)
I wrote in that entry: "(a variant form of *<em>ker</em>- (<b>sic!</b>: no palatalization) "head")". Try reading (with comprehehension) rather than scanning.

> *ka(:)r- "praise" (*k^ens-??? *gerH2-???)
If you have Pokorny (which I doubt because of this ignorant question, among others), this entry is on p. 530. What is the problem?

> *ka/a:k(h)- "bent stick, plow"
On page 523.

> *kek(h)u- "club, hammer"
On p. 543. Well, let me suggest that you repose these questions after you save your allowance for some decent reference materials.

> *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.

That is, of course, a sour remark but it still does not justify an ignorant spelling of 'dill-usion' for 'delusion'. Do you even know what the word means?

> 2. Inaccurate IE forms
> *gYen- "to know" (standard orthography *g^en-)
It is my position that *g^ is not an original IE phoneme, and that it originated from *ge, and in this case: gyV.

> *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^-)
Same comment as above.

> *lo(:)u- "to wash" (actually *laH3u-)
Well, that just shows you the futility of scanning. Perhaps you have an attention deficit disorder? It is my position that IE *lo: is not the result of *le + a coloring laryngeal but a Nostratic *lo that has been retained because of being followed by a laryngeal, which had ONLY the effect of lengthening the Nostratic vowel, and thus maintaining it into IE.

> *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)
This comment, by itself, shows you are totally out of the league. Orel-Stobova's root #1878, *mu?, 'man', shows quite clearly the existence of an *m(h)o; the -? is a stative formant, producing 'manly'.

> *mo(:)r-i- "body of water" (weakly attested)
> *ne(y) "no" (known by _everyone_ as *ne, not **ney)
> *wa:- "to be apart" (actually *wei-)
No, actually none. The form is in Pokorny, p. 1108. Get a dictionary, get a life!

> Obviously, a clear lack of expertise in IE is
> demonstrated by the use of these twisted forms.
And obviously your inability to possess the most basic reference works that you make most of your puerile comments superfluous.

> 3. Inconsistent orthography
> One sees both *g^en- and *gYen- without predictability.
See above.

> 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 **ns "to expel"
I guess you have neither Sumerian nor Egyptian reference materials either. Why not come back when you have grown up, and can afford to obtain the toys you need to play with the older boys?

As just one example of your inattentiveness, I wrote "**<em>ns</em> (for **<em>njs</em>) "to expel, to drive apart, to put away ("to shake off")"". Are you even aware that s is different than s in Egyptian?

> Truely the most deranged attempt I've ever seen at trying
> to extract justification for an idea out of the vacuum
> of empty space. Schrödinger and his cat would be proud of
> you.
Perhaps you think playing the enfant-terrible among mature men is fun. Actually, I find you disgustingly boring.

> 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.
Since you can barely afford the time to "scan" this critique, it would be pointless to suggest that you read some of the 18meg bytes of information I have at my website doing just that.

> Here are some ludicrous examples of typological disasters
> that do not befit the attested character of Nostratic...
If Nostratic was "attested", we would hardly be trying to reconstruct it.

> *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.
You immature little idiot! Those are not "consonant clusters"!!!!!! Those are Nostratic phonemes.

> 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.
As written above, you will probably never know because you cannot read.

> 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
Bomhard is not competent at all. And he did not detail "this needed information" anywhere that I know. He borrowed from here and there as to his whim of the day. And, there is nothing deceptive in anything I write. And if you have been deceived, it is only with the idea that I give a fig for what you think about anything. The response I have written here is (if you can read it or not) intended for other members of this list.

I follow mainstream methodology faithfully.

And now we come to the real bottom line: "complete proto-World domination". You sick little twerp. I am not the slightest bit interested in the ravings at your website (and, I may add, no one else is either). But you perceive my work as a threat to your crazy, undigested, naif speculations. Do not worry at all. They are not even in the same ballpark.

> >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.
"ennui" is not a verb. If you mean "bore", then it is NOT my plan to bore anyone. I only expect readers who CAN read, and are interested in these questions, and who have the references necessary to evaluate my work. You are not one, obviously.

> 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.
Even a few pages is enough to judge your confused thinking as utterly worthless.


PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: and PROTO-RELIGION: "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)