Edo Nyland wrote

> I think we have to go back one more step, to the language which
> underlies all Indo-European, Semitic and Turkish languages. This
> ancient language is now well accepted in Europe as being an earlier
> form of Basque, the language spoken during the thousands of years
> the Goddess religion held sway over North Africa, western Asia and
> all of Europe. Colin Renfrew wrote in "The Human Inheritance"
> (1999): "the Basque language may be regarded as the only early and
> indigenous language of Europe" (p.27). Many linguists in Germany
> have now endorsed this position.

Hi Edo, can you give me references for this. I was unaware of much
of a Basque Substrate under any European langugae at all. Certainly
the Basque scholar Larry Trask has dismissed the evidence of Basque
connections to other languages. Personally I am happy to see a
Vasconic substrate beneath Celtic, and Ceasar in suggesting that
Celts of Gaul were divided between the Belgae, the Gauls and the
Aquitanians, seems to be suggesting Basquic Celts were in the South
West Corner of France underlying Celtic influences there. But to
suggest that the Basque language underlies the whole area, is to
misunderstand the mosaic pattern of languages which probably existed
in the region at the end of the Ice Age. Clearly there are enough
significant differences in cultural artifacts to suggest great
differences in all levels of culture, language included.

> This also means that there is and never was, a family of Indo-
> European languages because they were all invented by religious
> linguists, even Sanskrit. My book "Linguistic Archaeology" (2001)
> explains it all in detail, how the monks made up all languages of
> Europe using the Basque dictionary, without any exception.

I understand that the Euskal Hiztegia Basque Dictionary is a
comparatively recent affair of the Basque Academy of Sciences,
modelled upon the Academie Francaise. Given that there was not a
Basque dictionary in operation at the time of the earliest
compositions in Anglo-Saxon England, I have great trouble
understanding how the Monks of Alfred's court travelled forward in
time to consult Basque dictionaries not yet in existence to "make up"
their language!

My book may be obtained by going to:
> www.trafford.com/robots/01-0069.html
> Most I-E words have an encoded Basque sentence built in, written in
> shorthand and describing the meaning of the word. My book gives many
> hundreds of examples of how the decoding process works. The modern
> Basque-English dictionary by Gorka Aulestia is perfectly adequate
> to decode most I-E words. The encoding was done in such a
> mathematical format that it may be possible to recover the hidden
> sentence by using a computer. To start this process we have now
> digitized Aulestia's Basque dictionary, which is the first big step
> in our lexicon-statistical project.

Given that Gorka Aulestia's Basque Dictionary was published in 1990,
those time traveling monks were pretty sophisticated. Edo, your
method sounds just as good as Polat's "anagram method" for producing

> The Turkish language may have been made up similarly and not all
> that long ago, but I don't know what system was used or who did it.
> That may be my next project. Turkish certainly was not used to make
> up many I-E words.

Agreed there.