--- In nostratic@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:

> Torsten:
>Nonsense. Bomhard is comparing the reconstructed Proto-forms of the
>languages, thus PIE and PAA, not IE and AA as such. Forget about
>15,000.

>I'm sorry - I don't follow. How might we forget about the immense
>span of time that surely seperates these two language groups.
>Secondly, how can we assert that IE and AA ablaut patterns are
>related when AAists can't even agree as to how conservative
>Semitic's features are in respect to the larger AA family. Perhaps
>Semitic's vowel permutations are innovative... Who knows? Certainly,
>not our good 19th-century friend named Møller who had far less
>information to work with than we do now. Being that Indo-Semitic
>theories flourished at this time, I can't help but place Møller
>within that now-outdated movement. (Just in case you disagree: Indo-
>Semitic is now outdated because it is generally agreed in the modern
>day that IE is probably related closer to other languages like
>Etruscan, Uralic and Altaic, and likewise, Semitic is more closely
>related to Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic and Chadic. Thus direct
>comparison between IE and Semitic is pure folly without
>understanding the greater linguistic context in which these two
>groups are found.)

Being that socialist theories flourished ten years ago and that you
were probably 50 then, I can't help but put you in that movement;
therefore you're probably a commie, so I don't have to listen yo your
theories?

Møller wrote in the early part of the 20th century, and he uses the
term Nostratic to desribe the group of languages he was interested
in. Nobody else (except Holger Pedersen) did then.

I understand your plight, of course. Møller wrote a very convoluted
German, when he didn't write in Danish. But why not just come clean
and say you can't be bothered instead of writing an English essay on
what you thought might have been the case?

Torsten