Re: Elamo-Dravidian and Nilo-Saharan

"When Greenberg finished his first classificatory sweep of Africa, he ended up with fouteen phyla. Of those, one was AA [Afroasiatic]. One was N-C [Niger-Congo], which then had Kordofanian joined to it. The fourth was Khoisan. All the rest, or 10 phyla of the first classification, were put together as Nilo-Saharan. It represents far less consensus, far less agreement on sub-grouping, and very little progress on reconstruction."

[H.C. Fleming in his review of Ruhlen's _Guide to the World's Languages_. _Diachronica_ 4, 1987.]

Fleming is an enthusiast of long-range comparison and generally supports Greenberg's classification. Yet in the same paragraph he notes that Nilo-Saharan has been called Greenberg's waste-basket.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Hammarstrom

To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:35 PM

Subject: SV: [nostratic] Elamo-Dravidian and Nilo-Saharan

> Nilo-Saharan (a very good established family according > to my teacher of Semitic Linguistic) is impossible. According to M. Lionel Bender in Heine/Nurse "African Languages" Nilo-Saharan is the least widely accepted of the four phyla proposed by Greenberg for African languages. best wishes Harald

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: nostratic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.