Re: (unknown)

On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:52:24 +0000, "Gerry <waluk@...>"
<waluk@...> wrote:

>Thank you for your reply Miguel. A few additional questions:
>1) Have the proposed matings (below) been resolved linguistically
>i.e. from stem comparisons?

Linguistics is more than stem comparisons.

>2) You claim that Greenberg: "does *not* include Sumerian, [Elamo-]
>Dravidian or Kartvelian. He does tentatively include Etruscan". Why
>doesn't Greenberg include Sumerian? There is actually much
>information regarding this language:
>http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/sumer-faq.html

That page contains no information whatsoever on the Sumerian language.

>Likely he didn't have access to Google.

Having information on a language (even from Google) is not equivalent
to putting it in Nostratic (or Eurasiatic). Greenberg likely did
consider Sumerian, but found no evidence for linking it to Eurasiatic.
Or decided the Sumerian evidence was too insecure and too difficult
(as it is) to do anything with it.

>3) Why have you placed ??? between Euroasiatic and Austronesian?

Because I though it was a list of language families that could be
included in Nostratic. There is no Euroasiatic language family.

>4) Thus, rather than a proto-World you wish to compile a Nostratic
>list which includes Indo-European. Am I correct in assuming that I/E
>has been completely compiled?

No.

>5) If languages are fluid with each valley of the world containing a
>separate dialect, how can any scholar determine whether a particular
>language such as Basque is a true language (thereby an ethnic group)
>or not?

True language? Thereby an ethnic group? What does that mean?

Basque is a language. It is not an ethnic group.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...