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

--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Howey"
<andyandmae_howey@...> wrote:

> 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.

Andy,

I fully agree with what you and Dr. Hubey have said, the proper name
of the language is Proto-Nostratic, and its correct usage should be
encouraged. However, we do have to recognize that very often the term
"Nostratic language" is used, however improperly, in cases where from
the context it is abundantly clear that "Proto-Nostratic language" is
meant (a google search for "Nostratic language" will confirm this).
Thus, I believe my original point, quoted by Gerry:

> Gerry- when one speaks of "THE Nostratic Language" it means the
> conjectured single common language which some believe to be the
> ancestor of the Indo-European languages, the Afro-Asiatic languages,
> the Dravidian languages, the Uralic languages, the Altaic languages
> and so forth. This conjectural single language is also referred to

as

> Proto-Nostratic. When one speaks of "Nostratic LanguageS" in the
> plural it means all the languages supposed to be descended from that
> single ProtoNostratic language

is still correct, as a descriptive not prescriptive statement.


Ned