Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)
| From: | Joe <joe@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 21:10 |
|---|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stone Gordonssen" <stonegordonssen@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)
> >I'm particularly frustrated with "laryngeals" popping up in every other
PIE
> >reconstructed word (or so it seems). I think PIE-ists are just using
those
> >when they Really Don't Know what the correct form is. But maybe I'm
wrong
> >(once again, lol).
>
> Somewhat like _e_ [@] in the reconstructon of ancient Egyptian? "Gee, we
> can't find one, but there must have been a vowel here somewhere."
Well, that's just so it's pronouncable, AFAIK. So people can actually talk
about the language. Although I wonder why they don't use Coptic vowels.
Would make much more sense, IMNSHO.