>How might we forget... etc. The way you formulate it, it sounds like
>a rhetorical question, which really means: We can't reconstruct
>something that is 15,000 years back (but 8,000 is OK). Yes? But what
>are your reasons for claiming that? You might do it as a two-stage
>process, if you wish.
Torsten, have you been reading my posts?? I am very much a *long-range* proponent.
I _encourage_ long-range reconstruction no matter how far back... but only when it is done carefully and judiciously. Relating IE directly to AA with disregard for the previous
stages of either group is complete carelessness and doesn't do anyone any good.
>You claimed Møller was a member of a some movement, without offering
>any evidence, and placing him about 30 years wrong.
>So I did the same to you, to see how you would react.
>
>Funny, eh?
Well, when it comes to joke telling, they do say that timing is everything :P But actually,
I didn't see any joke at all since I show no communist tendencies. It's clear however that
Møller shows Indo-Semitic ones if he has attempted to relate IE with AA with total
disregard for the in-between stages of the two language groups. Unless he was
reconstructing pre-IE in detail and in relation to Uralic, Altaic, etc, he can easily be
labeled under the "Indo-Semitic" ilk. Did Møller reconstruct pre-IE in relation to other
Eurasiatic languages first before relating it to AA?
>And since nothing can be reconstructed 15,000 years back, then any
>cognates Møller and Cuny might have come up with are wrong, by
>definition. Is that it?
You've totally gone off an unnecessarily confrontational tangent this time since I'm in
agreement with you.
What I mean is that everyone is so hyped up about reconstructing a stage 13,000 years ago (15,000 BCE), but what about 8,000 years ago?? What was the state of Nostratic languages 10,000 years ago? 12,000 years ago? Etc?
In other words, there is a large gap in Nostratic studies (between 13,000 and 6,000 years
ago) that needs to be filled in order for it to gain better credibility and popularity. What's
wrong with saying that?
- gLeN