--- In historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com, Mnewbroo@...... wrote:
> Re recent
material
>
> Again, please circulate this to other relevant
groups.  Thanks.
>
 
Without asking for any permission from their authors I've been circulating these messages among the following lists of which I am either a member or owner, and will -for the sake of the truth to those who seek the truth- try to continue to devote as much time and effort on this; deeply thank to eveyone for their valuable contributions.
 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/b_c_n_2003/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/turkoloji/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ABD_Turkleri/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historical_linguistics/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nostratica/
 
 

>
> On other points: It is a nonsensical exaggeration to say
that inflected languages 'do not follow rules'.  >
> Mark
Newbrook
 
To my understanding, Polat Kaya is certainly not claiming that the inflected languages do not follow any rule!  To the contrary, his theory was based on the analysis of well-established laws of those inflected languages, the laws which acquired their relative independencies from a perfect model proto language some thousands years ago.
 
BTW, I, like many others, do feel that SIL.org (Ethnologue) have a hidden agenda.  Why don't they just drop the bible translating, and become just an academic organization?  Not that I am being political, but are they flooding the field with religious people. 
 
And then comes the question:  WHY do you insist on suggesting utter denial of GENESIS?
 
Regards,
Kamil Kartal