Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

Rob Haden wrote:
> I understand all this.  What I meant was that I would like to see
> reconstructed (or reconstruct myself) a form of PIE that could have
> actually existed.
Early versions of PIE were relatively "realistic" looking, but left a lot of
things up in the air or simply overlooked.  More data and more attention to
the loose ends required revision to a more abstract-looking entity. At one
point, IIRC to account for some of the long vowel ablauts, a "schwa" and a
"schwa secundum" were employed, but those have now been replaced by the
"laryngeals".
>
> Perhaps we should move this discussion to a Yahoo group or something, as
it
> has relatively little to do with conlanging (although you could say that
> PIE is something of an a posteriori conlang).  I would be happy to create
a
> group for that purpose.
>
No need for that....
Take a look at Cybalist at yahoogroups, if you haven't already.  Aside from
two or three posters who have bees in their bonnets, it's a very serious &
informed (and moderated!) list.