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

>>>>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 :)
>So are you, you can't be blamed for being Irish :)


>>>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that type of lazy or outdated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.

You have no time for it, and therefore Møller's work is lazy. Perhaps
I should brush up my English. It seems to have changed a lot sinced I
hitch-hiked across America.

>(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.)

Aha.

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

>>No.

>Ah, well... THERE's the problem. That's my point all along! That's
>what frustrates me about
>Nostratic linguistics. We have to

"have to". Sez who? Versace?

>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
>iota.

>- gLeN

Yes, Møller didn't know what would be canonical knowledge a century
after he wrote his stuff and he is a very bad guy. Now the question
is: does that invalidate the several hundred cognates he has found
and the rules he posited to relate them? He doesn't just list the
roots like Bomhard in one chapter and the rules in another but
indicates the derivation, like Pokorny or EIEC, for each set of
cognates. And if you don't believe me, take a peek at

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/austric.html

and look at some of the roots (it's OK, I won't tell anyone). The
quotes marked SIG, IESSG, and VISW are from Møller's books (and I
have even tried to translate it into English!). That's how detailed
it is.

Torsten