Ural-Altaicist (fuit That's *so* MULAN!!)
|From:||BP Jonsson <bpj@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, August 23, 2000, 13:51|
> John Cowan <cowan@...> Subject: Re: That's *so*
> MULAN!! To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Leo Caesius wrote:
> > While I'm not a Ural-Altaicist (where have all the good Ural-
> Altaicists > gone? Have they all unsubscribed?)
> Gone to flowers, every one....When will they ever learn?
> (Or do you just mean Altaicists? The notion that the Uralic and Altaic
> languages are *specially* related, as opposed to through some macro-
> phylum, is pretty well exploded these days.)
While I be far from denying the probable veracity of this statement, do you
have any particlar reference?
I wouldn't call my own brain-child Boreasiatic
(PIE-Uralic-Altaic-Japanese?-Korean?) a macro-phylum a-la Greenberg, but
has anybody in a position suggested anything like that? In spite of
obvious nexions the even more obvious Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis explodes
an attempt to include Drav into Boreas, but as any reader of
Author: Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward
Title: The rise and fall of languages
Publication: Cambridge, 1997
Material: 169 s.
knows reality can be way more complicated (yet more interesting and
absolutely more plausible) than anything in the long-rangers wildest
If the facts don't fit the theories, it's not the facts that need changing.
B.Philip Jonsson mailto:bpX@netg.se mailto:melrochX@mail.com (delete X)
"Truth, Sir, is a cow which will give [skeptics] no more milk,
and so they are gone to milk the bull."
-- Sam. Johnson (no rel. ;)