Re: OT: Historical Linguistics Question

Steg Belsky wrote:

> On Sep 14, 2005, at 8:49 PM, Tom Chappell wrote:
>
>>
[snip]

>> I wish members closer to Oxbridge, or to places where Greek and/or
>> Hebrew are L1s, will tell me whether and/or by how much, each of
>> these  men is a cracked pot.
>> And, who is Semerano, and did he or she (or possibly it or they)
>> really revolutionize anything, or is Amedeo talking through his hat,
>> as I frequently do?
>> Thanks,
>> Tom H.C. in MI
>
>
> I have no idea who these people are, or what kind of crack they're
> smoking.
Nor have I any idea, but....

> Hebrew is not related to Greek at all (except maybe at some  kind of
> Nostratic or *Proto-World level).
Yep - the two languages just ain't related, except - as Steg says - at
some very remote prehistoric stage when some Urprache may have been spoken.

(Of course, there was a time a few centuries ago when it was seriously
held that Hebrew was the language of Adam, and that all the earth's
languages are ultimately derived from Hebrew - but I thought that idea
was long dead)

Why do people come up with these crackpot ideas?  For the past few
months I've been receiving emails from some guy who found my Eteocretan
page and seems to claim that:
- Eteocretan was a form 'Pelasgian';
- that Pelasgian was essentially the same as Albanian;
- that Albanian is not an Indo-European language;
- that both Etruscan and ancient Greek are derived from Albanian/Pelasgian.

How does one counteract such people?
--

Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://wwww.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Reply