No, no, Gerry! "Playful" is a *good* thing... It's "unfocused"
that's bad... :P

Gerry:

>The point I was making was simply that written evidence doesn't
>stretch back to the times of the origins of language no matter whether you
>divide them into three:

Of course there is no written evidence past about 3000 BCE.
However, you were confusing three different "origin" issues and
it's best to keep them seperate for the sake of clarity. Otherwise,
any debate on this gets very icky.

>Without written documentation, origins becomes nothing more than
>conjecture.

This is correct... however, yet again, you're blurring different
things together in this notion of "conjecture". There is good
conjecture and bad conjecture. Good theory and bad theory. Quantum
mechanics, for instance, is a very _good_ theory because it
describes what classical physics couldn't. You may note that QM is
not thrown out the window simply because it's "conjecture". However,
the idea that the world is flat is a _bad_ theory for obvious
logical reasons.

So what's the lesson? Very simple - Use your head and judge
theories according to Occam's Razor. Theories must take into
account *all* available facts... which is why an Etruscan-HU or
Etruscan-NEC connection is ridiculous linguistically. There will
always be bigger and better theories so there's never a 100% correct
answer. The goal is to shoot as close to 100% as possible.

>As far as Proto-World -- that sounds like a decent handle.

My, you must be new! Proto-World is a decent handle because it's
the most commonly used term for it in linguistics. Don't worry,
we'll take good care of you on this list and keep you up-to-date
on all the snazzy terms.

>IMO it should be able to encapsulate all the groups that Nostratic
>left out. However, and I repeat for the zillionth time, Alekseev >always
>said that all languages from the beginnings of time were mixed. Thus, even
>Proto-World has a problem in reconstruction.

Now you're dabbling with the concept of mutual influence of
neighbouring languages over vast amounts of time. Yes, this is a
complex problem, but it's an even bigger problem if your thoughts
are disorganized and prone to distraction. Focus, people, focus! ;)

Languages have to be looked at carefully and individually in order
to eliminate as best as possible this "linguistic static". I feel
that Nostratic linguistics doesn't look hard enough into the issue
of this mutual influencing of neighbouring languages - This
frustrates me. For instance, Bomhard lists many reconstructions
where only IE and AfroAsiatic are attested. I automatically label
these items as "Recent Semitish Loanwords" because I'm pretty sure
now that IE had contact with a Semitoid tongue long after the
Nostratic breakup (IndoEuropean *septm is a pretty obvious relic
of such contact). These kinds of contacts can blur relationships
and make two languages look more related than they really are.

-------------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
Webdeveloper

home: http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email: glengordon01@...
ph: (604)904.0320
-------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp