Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 fantasies... If the facts don't fit the theories, it's not the facts that need changing. /BP 8^)> -- B.Philip Jonsson (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. ;)