Dear Glen and Nostraticists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <nostratic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 9:40 PM
Subject: [nostratic] Nostratic and Proto-World... not the same thing at all


>
> Pat:
> >"I am including Proto-Language forms in the examples I discuss. I am not
> >going to argue for a wider inclusion of language-families
> >with Nostratic into a higher grouping in this essay. I would hope
> >that those who reject such an idea a priori would regard the
> >Proto-Language forms as simply pre-Nostratic."

[GG]
> Hoping is irrelevant.

[PCR]
Let me spell it out for you: disregard the Proto-Language forms if you wish.

[GG]
The important question is whether the method
> in which you reconstruct your Nostratic or Proto-World
> terms is a logical one.

[PCR]
You wish for "no insults" and yet you insult me. My recontsruction is called Proto-Language not Proto-World, which I am sure you very well know. Proto-World is a term used by Ruhlen and his group for their reconstrcutions.

[GG]
Made-up cognates aren't proper components
> in this logical method.

[PCR]
Keep repeating that until you are blue in the face, and it will not change the fact that I have made up NO cognates. The cognates are the result of comparative methodology.

[GG]
I'm glad you have opened your
> reconstructions up for debate. I hope you can accept the arguements
> against them and play nice...
>
> ... AND SO I EXPLICITLY ASK YOU TO STOP THE INSULTS IF WE
> ARE TO DEBATE IN RATIONAL FASHION...
>
> This is my critique of your six reconstructions
> (Une 'tite indice: "cinq" veut dire "five" et non "six").
> These critiques have no bearing on you personally and should not
> be seen as a personal attack (even if I may be very tempted) so
> please discontinue the unneeded remarks:


[GG]
> 1) The use of double asterisk means that a form is unattested,
> or rather "guessed at". You write S "**gin-na (n.) 'child'"
> which ironically disqualifies Sumerian altogether. Bomhard
> lists /gan/ without double asterisk.

[PCR]
There is nothing ironic about it.

As far as Bomhard's gan is concerned, it means 'stand, rack, support'; and this suggests strongly that in reference to a child, it means simply 'carry, bear'. Bomhard has added "to bring forth, to give birth to" to suit his own purposes; he feels quite comfortable redfining any word that does not quite fit in his equations. But even that does not really do it because his initial definition: "to get, to acquire, to possess, to create" --- quite clearly suggests 'procreation', which is certainly the meaning of IE *g^en-.

I explained why I thought S **gin-na, 'child' = 'procreated one', was a reasonable inference from the data: "Two sign reading DUMU and DIS, together read gina(n). When combined with GA, 'milk', the resulting combination means 'unweaned child'. I propose that the 'child' element is contained in DUMU-DIS, reads **gin-na, 'what has been begotten' = 'child'." You may not accept the speculation; and because it is speculation, I have marked it with double asterisks. All reconstructions are 'guesses'; and it is the nature of Sumerian that many readings are 'guesses' also.

[GG]
> Showing all the grades of an IE root is redundant and
> it would simply suffice to write PIE *g^en-. However, there
> is nothing invalid about this root.

[PCR]
Yes, that was Bomhard's style. Perhaps I shall discontinue it. And the word is 'superfluous' not 'redundant'.

[GG]
> You have Dravidian *ken.- and yet Bomhard lists *kan-.
> There is incongruence here that needs to be explained.

[PCR]
Starostin's website, which you might want to visit: http://iiasnt.leidenuniv.nl/cgi-bin/main.cgi?flags=eygnnnl
has no trace of Bomhard's *kan-.

As for the other matter, I did explain it: "And he also seems unaware of Dravidian *ken.-, 'have sexual intercourse', which correlates with *<em>g^en</em>- perfectly." This form comes from Starostin.

[GG]
> As for AA, Bomhard lists *k?an- with initial velar ejective.
> You have no such ejective present here and yet you continue
> to reconstruct an ejective for Nostratic anyway! If Nost *k?
> becomes AA *k, one wonders what Nostratic phoneme becomes
> AA *k? or rather what conditions cause *k? to become *k in
> one instance and *k? in another.

[PCR]
Wrong again. I reconstructed: "(275)PN *k?en^w- "to have intercourse, to beget"". What is the difference between his *k? and my *k?---------???????

> Overall, there are sound correspondance issues and
> cognate credibility issues that need to be resolved before
> asserting that this is a valid Nostratic item. Only two
> forms (IE and AA) seem to truely exist here at all.

[PCR]
Not to mention spelling issues.

How can you overlook the PD form? It exists truly.


[GG]
> 2) Again, it would suffice to write simply IE *ger-.

[PCR]
I did write IE *ger-: "PIE *ger/or- /*gR- "crane""

[GG]
> To include Uralic and Dravidian forms here, you must first
> explain away the *-k- endings. (Bomhard doesn't do a good
> job of this either).

[PCR]
I do not believe it is necessary at all. However, Nostratic did have several methods for designating bird-names: -*r(a:), -*w(a), -*khx(a).

[GG]
> There are two problems with this root however. First is that
> it is onomatopoeic and thus untrustworthy.

[PCR]
Prove that it is onomatopoeic.

[GG]
Second is that
> the word, if existant, is only present in Bomhard's
> Eurasiatic branch of Nostratic, meaning that this can hardly
> be claimed to be a _Nostratic_ word.

[PCR]
Nonsense!

[GG]
> 3) The IE root is incorrectly written. It is not *ger- but
> *g^er-, unless you're going for the uvular model (*g^ = *g
> and *g = *g.).

[PCR]
Wrong again. It is *ger- (Pokony p. 385)

[GG]
> You then write "PAA *kar- 'to (re)turn'" with unsettling
> use of parentheses. There is a large semantic leap between
> "return" and "turn". Not very likely.

[PCR]
You are easily unsettled. There is no large semantic gap at all.

[GG]
> For your Uralic cognate, please define "limited distribution".
> Limited how? Limited only in FinnoUgric? If so, then it is
> to be written with PFU and not PU. You can't reconstruct
> a Uralic form "based on Finnic-Samic".

[PCR]
You are being very myopic. If one were working only with Uralic data, then a Finno-Samic form might not justify a Uralic reconstruction. But taken in the context of IE and Sumerian and AA cognates, it must be viewed entirely differently.

[GG]
> So, for this one, we have an AA form with bad semantics,
> and a Uralic form that may not even be Uralic!

[PCR]
Poor characterization of the facts.

[GG]
> 4) For your fourth reconstruction, incorrectly labeled as "3",
> IE *g^er- is used a second time, and again incorrectly
> written as *ger-.

[PCR]
Wrong again. And for the same reason. It is *ger-.

[GG]
> The AA form is reused yet again to prove a different root
> and STILL we have the problem of the large semantic rift
> between "return" and "turn", cleverly fused with parentheses.

[PCR]
Since AA lost some semantic precision through phonological changes, this is to be expected.

[GG]
> The Sumerian and Altaic forms are the same presented by
> Bomhard under #239.

[PCR]
Yes, and he was wrong.

[GG]
> The reusage of the same terms for 4) as with 3) smells of
> smoke and mirrors.

[PCR]
I have explained that above.

[GG]
> 5) (Incorrectly labeled "4") Again, please just write
> *ghebhel-. Even the amateur IEists are fully aware that
> the other grade forms are implied. Bomhard's #219 is
> a weak claim. I suspect this *ghebhel- form is merely
> Germanic at best. I'd be surprised if it could be said
> to be IE. Any thoughts on this from the peanut gallery? :)

[PCR]
In view of AA and Sumerian cognates, I doubt that very much.

[GG]
> What is surprising for the AA form is that we now see that
> Nostratic *k?- is supposed to become AA *k- while *k?x-
> is supposed to become a voiced *g (??).

[PCR]
There is no "now" see. Nostratic *k? always becomes AA *k. Nostratic *k?x always becaomes AA *g.

[GG]
> Even just one asterisk on Sumerian forms disqualifies them
> and so, as for *kap, it's off to the city dump with it.

[PCR]
Well, then why not off to the city dump with every IE asterisked reconstruction also? Do not be silly.

[GG]
> Here we have a suspect "IE" form, a suspect reflex of *k?x-
> in AA, and a suspect "reconstruction" for an already written
> language!

[PCR]
Suspect only if one scans rather than reads.

[GG]
> 6) (Written as "5") Absolutely nothing wrong with the IE forms
> aside from the usual grade-form overkill.
>
> Again *k?x- becomes AA *g- which just strikes me as odd and
> incongruent with the typical phonology given for AA, which
> includes all the things we see for Nostratic (ejectives,
> voiced stops, voiceless stops). In other words, the twisting
> sound correspondances don't explain the AA phonology very
> well.

[PCR]
What twisting? I am asserting a different set of correspondences. That is all.

[GG]
> With Dravidian, you seem confused about your own sound
> correspondances. Do you want to present *ci:r- or *ker-?
> Even then, it's not **ker- at all. It's *kir- according
> to Bomhard. Does *k?x- become Dr *c or Dr *k?? If you're
> unsure, how can you possibly expect people visiting your
> site to accept your work?

[PCR]
I am not confused about anything. But I am not certain that our present sources for reconstrcution of Altaic and Dravidian are always right on the mark. For AA, the attempts so far at reconstruction are pathetic.


As for your last question: how utter naif! There is nothing sure about anything here. We have guesses, hopefully educated guesses, based on the mostly fragmentary information we have. Any new information could negate our previous guess. I am not asking anyone to "accept' my work. I provide it as information that, with any luck at all, will be refined further as timegoes on. These are my best guesses of the moment only.

[GG]
> Altaic has a weird *-ga suffix that goes unexplained.

[PCR]
Well, you explain it. And while you are at it, give use your views on the semantics of IE root-extensions.

[GG]
> Parentheses are being used in a suspicious manner for the
> Sumerian forms. Is the "(i)" just another whim on the part
> of Patrick or is it actually there?

[PCR]
Anyone knowing anything about Sumerian knows that every sign has multiple readings.

[GG]
> Here, the IE form is alright but the rest is very iffy.

[PCR]
So you say.


Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "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)