Torsten, if all you can come up with is unclever sarcasm to every sentence I write then you
are wasting everybody's time. I will not look at your online list because your
strategy of mass-comparison is inheirantly flawed. I don't give a rat's ass whether you haven't
read enough material to understand why, or whether you can tell the difference between the
US and Canada or not.

(PS: I'm from Canada, not "America" which is short for the "United States of America". It
doesn't refer to my country unless you state "_North_ America", nor do many think that
Canada and the US are very similar culturally or politically, even though we share the same accent to some degree.)

Moller is out-of-date, I've expressed clearly why it's of _little_ use (not "no" use, but *little*
use) in the modern day. I don't care to discuss it further with you until you can talk more sensibly and address what I'm actually saying for the sake of debate rather than for the sake
of one-liners.

- gLeN


>From: tgpedersen@...
>Subject: [nostratic] Re: A reworked Nostratic
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:30:35 -0000
>--- In nostratic@..., "Glen Gordon" 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that type of lazy or outdated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 M�ller'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 M�ller 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 M�ller 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, M�ller 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
>and look at some of the roots (it's OK, I won't tell anyone). The
>quotes marked SIG, IESSG, and VISW are from M�ller's books (and I
>have even tried to translate it into English!). That's how detailed
>it is.
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>The Nissan Sentra
>Everything but compact
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at