>>Torsten, have you been reading my posts?? I am very much a *long-range* proponent.

>Yes, but only the civil ones. It's a policy I have.

My policy is that I'm only civil with people that are on the list to learn and advance. Don't
worry - You're an okay joe, even though you can get weird at times :)

>>Well, when it comes to joke telling, they do say that timing is everything :P

>True, you should have a good estimate of your audience's reaction time :P

I'll give you that one.

>>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.

>Why "ilk"?

I had already used up all the other synonyms :) I mean "ilk" as in that type of lazy or outdated
linguistic work that I have no time for. (Again, I'm not saying Møller is the anti-christ. I'm
just saying that when looking for Nostratic leads, he may not be a strong one to depend on
in this current century.)

>>Did Møller reconstruct pre-IE in relation to other Eurasiatic languages first before
>>relating it to AA?


Ah, well... THERE's the problem. That's my point all along! That's what frustrates me about
Nostratic linguistics. We have to first make an effort to classify these languages properly
and understand them in the context that they are in (such as, understanding how IE relates
to Eurasiatic first) before trying to go to great length's to relate very distantly related
languages. If not, it's Indo-Semitic garbage all over again. Like I mentioned before, we
need to fill in this "gap", and making direct AA-IE connections is not going to help us one

- gLeN


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