From: Gerry
Message: 24
Date: 2002-12-08
> > *** This link should be better:http://www.sumerian.org/sumerian.htm
>Thomsen's
> It's OK as long as you ignore "The Proto-Sumerian language invention
> process", where John claims not that the Sumerians invented writing
> (which is true), but that they invented speaking (which is silly).
> It's no substitute for learning Sumerian properly, which is a very
> difficult and very time-consuming process. For a linguistic
> introduction to Sumerian, Marie-Louise Thomsens' "The Sumerian
> Language" (Copenhagen, 1984) is indispensable. But reading
> book still doesn't make one a Sumerologist.Oh? Are you claiming that speaking comes after "writing"? Now THAT
> Greenberg was a serious linguist, so he knew that neither Sumeriannor
> Semitic comes even remotely close to being "the first language".and
> Whatever that means. Greenberg considers Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian
> Dravidian (amongst others) not to be part of Eurasiatic, althoughThat's good to hear (that Greenberg wasn't interested in "origins").
> probably related to Eurasiatic on a higher level.
> > *** Now that's a good answer. Are you referring to Basque?completely
> > What other aspects of Indo-European continue being unresolved?
> > Sumerian? Are there many others?
>
> Neither Basque nor Sumerian are Indo-European, so they are
> irrelevant to the question. Not that I understand the question.What
> is "compiled" supposed to mean? Many many aspects of theHmmm. If Basque and Sumerian are not Indo-European then what are you
> Proto-Indo-European language remain unresolved or debated.
> > Basque is a language. It is not an ethnic group.Then why are the Basque Seperatists in Spain mounting an offensive?
> > *** Perhaps my question should have been, how does one separatea language from a dialect?
>standard
> That's not a question to ask a linguist, unless you want the
> reply: A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.Cute answer. All it means to me is that a dialect (like Basque)