Danny:

>Come to think of it, after looking at the family-level reconstructions, I wonder why
>Bomhard has only three phonemic vowels. As you [Pat] said, Dravidian data seems to
>challenge that theory and call for a proposal of all six vowels being phonemic.

Dravidian data must be interpreted carefully. If we can all agree that Nostratic did not have
long vowels, why is it that Dravidian *does*. Either Dravidian's vowel system shows that
Nostratic should be reconstructed with a very large vowel inventory with both short
and long vowels, or Dravidian's vowel system is highly innovative.

The latter option is the least involved and yet still satisfying: Dravidian is highly innovative.
And frankly, with all the other oddities of this language group (like, the pronominal system,
for example: *yan-, *nin-, etc), is this really so surprising? Unfortunately,
repetitive as I am, people still don't get it and they try (and fail) to connect Dravidian to
Nostratic the ol' fashion way without noticing the ElamoDravidian vowel shift. If I recall,
some of Bomhard's Dravidian cognates are a little lazy in detail. In re of Dravidian vowels,
Bomhard doesn't appear overly careful... which just proves my point all the more that
the relationship of the Dravidian vowel system to Nostratic is still left undefined.

Danny:

>Still, I think AB's a little too conservative on his phonemes, while Dolgopolsky is probably
>too liberal (he has more sibilants among other consonants and seven vowels).

I think both are too liberal. I still don't hear any justification for the lateral affricates/fricatives
in Nostratic (nor in AA) and some of the phonemes presented in his "IndoE. and the Nostratic
Hypothesis" are provided little to no supporting evidence. Positing ablaut alternations for
Nostratic is also hardly "conservative". I would say however that Bomhard's Nostratic is
much more ordered and probable than that of Dolgopolsky.

>Most cases are justified by the occurence of palatal-velar-labiovelar stops in Indo-
>European and Afro-Asiatic.
 
Arrrgh. Yet again, Indo-Semitic rears its ugly head. Look, IE and Afro-Asiatic are just two
totally different language groups with entirely dissimilar grammar and phonology. Piotr
offered a "uvular" explanation of this IE system to explain the overabundance of unmarked
(labiovelar and palatal) phonemes (that is, palatal = plain, velar = plain). This system only
goes back as far as IndoTyrrhenian (7000 BCE) because it relates to the centralized vowel system. Uvular stops (traditional "plain velar" stops) were created when velars were in the environment of  low-central vowel *a while plain velar stops were maintained in the
environment of mid-central schwa *&. Due to the predominance of *&, plain (traditional "palatal") is most abundant in IE.

Labiovelars in AA arise independantly from IE but through similar processes probably. However, since the palatal series in IE is an illusion, it therefore cannot be related to AA
at all. One still can't find the justification of palatal velars *within* the Eurasiatic subbranch! Simply put, palatal phonemes can only be justified in Kartvelian and AA at
most.

Oh and by the way, there are only two sibilants in Nostratic as far as I'm concerned
(plain *c and ejective *c?). All palatal variants that show up in Kartvelian or AA come
later. Now excuse me, I have to contemplate more about Proto-Hattic. :P

The End.

- gLeN
 

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