Re: (unknown)

----- Original Message -----

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: Nostratica@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 3:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Nostratica] 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.

*** Oh, yes.  I am certain that it is.  I was giving "stem comparisons" as an example (one of many possibilities).

>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.

*** This link should be better: http://www.sumerian.org/sumerian.htm

>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.

 

*** Or another possibility is that he dinged Sumerian because he was a supporter of Semitic as the first language.  Just flying kites though.

>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.

 

*** Oh,  don't know where that came from.  Likely it wasn't from Alexeev.  I'll check it out and get back to you.

>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.

 

*** Now that's a good answer.  Are you referring to Basque?  What other aspects of Indo-European  continue being unresolved?  Sumerian?  Are there many others?

>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.

 

*** Perhaps my question should have been, how does one separate a language from a dialect?  Don't forget, I'm only the gatekeeper here and really have a limited linguistics background.  Is a dialect something that all people can understand whereby a language is something that when spoken, only those raised with the particular language will  understand it?  But then, this doesn't hold true for one (or several) of the Scandanavian languages which although they are considered different languages, folks can understand each other.

 

Cordially,

Gerry