> (note: listserv site went haywire within forty seconds of my attempt to post
> this. Multiple postings are S.E.F.P. No apologies.)
>
> >*skims*
> >There are facts there, hidden behind the groutesque propaganda viewpoint.
>
> The best of those pages is
>
http://www.dalitstan.org/books/a_sans/a_sans3.html
>
> Some gems:
>
> "while Proto-Germanic had 6 cases, Modern German only has 4 and modern
> Hindustani only 2. The most archaic language, Proto-Indo-European, had 8
> cases. Sanskrit, which also has 8 cases, is thus a member of the most
> primitive language class in the world."
>
> "A complex grammar is never an indicator of the richness of a language,
> rather a cumbersome grammar indicates a less evolved state."
>
> "the Bushmen languages have a highly complex grammar involving `click'
> sounds, but nobody except Bushmen claim that these languages are very rich"
To go off a tangent, I've been told that the Khoisan languages on the contrary
have quite simple grammars - I've even seen them cited as support for a more
or less sane hypothesis that languages with complex morphology have simple
phonologies and vice versa. Who's right?
Andreas