Firstly on Nostratic components. Currently, the most
plausible version of the Nostratic hypothesis covering
Indo-European, Uralic (WITHOUT Yukaghir), Turkic,
Mongolian, Tungusic, Japanese, Korean (except Roy
Andrew Miller, who thinks nowadays that this concept
may be correct??), Dravidian (WITHOUT Elamite),
Eskimo-Aleut, Sumerian and Kartwelian. Of course, it
would be necessary a complete review of the whole
hypothesis.

Secondly. I have studied Yukaghir language (two years)
and I cannot accept a Uralo-Yukaghir relationship. But
I am not anybody in order to assure it. Irina
Nikolayeva, the most respectable specialist in the
field (and a fluent speaker of Yukaghir and
Hungarian), is STILL working about this realtionships,
without any firm conclusion after 12 years (more or
less) of intensive study. At any rate, specialists in
Uralic linguistics do not accept it either.

Thirdly. Dravidologists do not accept the Elamite
language like a component of the Dravidian family.
McAlpin's articles and books on the topic are a pious
hope, and I think any linguist would be able to find
out a lot of mistakes in them (cf. Krishnamurti's
cruel review, though he is a Dravidologist).

Fourthly. Many specialists in Sumerian language are
very interesting in the Nostratic hypothesis, cf.
Claude Boisson. In the same way, Eskimo-Aleut seems to
be a solid component of the Nostratic macro-family.

At the moment, it is all.

With best wishes,

Jose Andres, from Madrid

___________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Nueva versión GRATIS
Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más...
http://messenger.yahoo.es