Nostratic vs. Proto-Nostratic (was RE: [Nostratica] Re: Swadesh Lis

Gerry:

Nostratic is to Proto-Nostratic what Indo-European is to Proto-Indo-European. Nostratic is the name of the theoretic macro-family that encompasses Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, etc., whereas Proto-Nostratic is the name of the theoretic "language" from which the resultant member languages (Proto-Indo-European, etc.) of the Nostratic macrofamily are descended/derived. Likewise with Indo-European. It is the name of the language family that encompasses Gemanic, Italic, Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, etc.). Proto-Indo-European is the "language" from which the member language groups are descended/derived. In short, Nostratic is the name of the group, and Proto-Nostratic is the name of the language. Following and extending your statement below, one could say that there is no need for Proto-Indo-European because there is already the Indo-European language family. However, Proto-Nostratic and Proto-Indo-European are the root languages of their respective (mega-)families. Hopefully, this helps.

BTW, as I understand some of current classification proposals, there are people who favor listing Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) as a sister group of Nostratic rather than a daughter group. Therefore, instead of having

Nostratic - Indo-European

Afro-Asiatic

Uralic

Altaic

...

We would have

Nostratic - Indo-European

Afro-Asiatic

Uralic

Altaic

...

Afro-Asiatic - Semitic

Hamitic

Chadic

....

Andy Howey

-----Original Message-----
From: Geraldine Reinhardt [mailto:waluk@...]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 19:19
To: Nostratica@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nostratica] Re: Swadesh Lists

Hello H.M. Hubey,

Thanks for your alternate opinion that Nostratic is NOT synonymous with Proto-Nostratic. That's what I think as well. IMO, if Nostratic is the megalanguage family, then there should NOT be a need for Proto-Nostratic.

You write:

English is Germanic, and hence it is descended from proto-Germanic. But protoGermanic is
descended from ProtoNostratic hence, English is "Nostratic".

I reply:

Yes, English is Germanic (IMO descended from Germanic). Because English is a subgroup of Germanic which is a subgroup of Indo-European, which in turn is a sub-group of Nostratic, an hierarchical structure is established.

Yes, I also understand your automotive example. Except Honda, vehicle, and car all mean the same thing. Are you perhaps implying that languages should have the same "non-hierarchical" measurements?

This becomes a tricky etymological problem. Please explain further.

Gerry

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

From: H.M. Hubey

To: Nostratica@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 5:56 PM

Subject: Re: [Nostratica] Re: Swadesh Lists

Geraldine Reinhardt wrote:

Ned, First of all apparently your application to join last week didn't register but I have just approved your membership. You are now a member of Nostratica. Welcome. Yes, I understand that the Nostratic Language is a mega language (conjectured) which includes I-E, Uralic & Altaic, Semitic (Cushitic), Kartvelian, Dravidian, and Yukaghirian. I didn't realize that Nostratic was synonymous with Proto-Nostratic.....
It is not.

It is easy to explain via an example. English, Dutch, German, Swedish etc are members of
a set which is called the (set of) Germanic (languages) e.g. the name for this set of languages
is "Germanic". It is hypothesized that these languages descend from a single/unitary language
called Proto-Germanic.

had been under the impression that Proto meant ancestor to (or coming before). I also was unaware that Nostratic LanguageS (in the plural) were languages descended from a single ProtoNostratic language such as Proto-IndoEuropean.

English is Germanic, and hence it is descended from proto-Germanic. But protoGermanic is
descended from ProtoNostratic hence, English is "Nostratic".

Another example: Honda is a car. A car is a vehicle. Hence Honda is a vehicle.

Now that's REALLY confusing. Plus, your listing below: "Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Afro-Asiatic, Proto-Uralic, Latin, English, Spanish, Arabic, Hebrew, Tamil, Turkish, Korean...and on and on" is haphazard and includes languages and proto languages that show no subordination one to another. For example: Latin and English and Spanish are all members of Indo-European. Perhaps you need to research the hierarchy of language families on the web (if indeed there is any pre-ordained hierarchy). Actually, the more I ponder this concept I also have difficulty separating a language from a regional dialect. About Homo erectus not having a language -- we simply aren't sure of that. What we do know is that manipulating fire was known to erectus (plus he/she lived in a group) and to manage fire takes the ability to communicate. Whether or not this communication was verbal or not, we cannot be positive. Gerry

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

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