> 6) And finally, adding the feature of glottalization (complete glottal
> closure) as against aspiration (incomplete glottal closure) allows new
> maximal contrasts: *?P, *?M, *?F, *?PF, *PH, *MH, *FH, *PHF, *?T, *?N,
> *?S, *?TS, *TH, *NH, *SH, *THS, *?R, *RH, *?K, *?Q, *?X, *?KX, *KH, *QH,
> *XH, *KHX, *H, *?, *HH, *¿.
> 7) With the maximally contrasting vowels, this provides an optimal
> phonological inventory of 33 phonemes with the least effort for earliest
> language, producing, when combined, 90 monosyllables.




As a working hypothesis, I have utilized the phonological inventory
specified above to analyze roots in over 10 language families; to date, I
have seen no compelling reason to add or deduct phonemes from this array.

I notate these 30 phonemes slightly differently than indicated above:

*P?, *M, *F, *P?F, *PH, *MH, *FH, *PHF, *T?, *N, *S,
*T?S, *TH, *NH, *SH, *THS, *R, *RH, *K?, *Q, *X, *K?X, *KH, *QH, *XH,
*KHX, *H, *?, *HH, *¿.

And I have assigned meanings to each of the 90 monosyllables at:


One of the most frequent objections to long- and medium-range comparisons by
our critics is
to state the impossibility of comparison because of phonological and lexical
loss over long periods of time.

I believe my current essay, in which I relate roots in Nama (KhoiSan) to
roots in PIE, Sumerian, and Hieroglyphic Egyptian (as the PAA
representative) through _regular_ correspondences in the phonological system
postulated above, is the

*decisive refutation*

of these essentially misguided objections.

If this essay is held to be methodologically valid, we have succeeded in
making comparisons over an approximately 100ky separation!

Nama has apparently remained relatively stable over this great period of
time, probably due to the social isolation of the group.


I am explicitly requesting the severest critique of my methodology and
overall approach in this essay.