Re: Paleoasiatic (was: Favourite Language Group?)

John Cowan writes:
 > Tim May scripsit:
 >
 > > I don't dispute that this is a probable explanation for the facts
 > > before us, and I have no alternative hypothesis.  We are, however,
 > > theorizing from limited data.
 >
 > Here's what I've been able to glean by googling:
 >
[...]
 > (http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/endabs.htm)
 >
[...]
 > (http://nr.stic.gov.tw/ejournal/ProceedingC/v10n1/142-155.pdf)
 >
[...]
 > (http://users.info.unicaen.fr/~tlebarbe/Linguistics_Lexicon/ll_m.html)
 >

Thanks for these, although they don't do much to clear up the
etymology of the Nivkh numeral-classifiers (Gruzdeva's probably would,
if we had the body as well as the abstract).  The other two look like
they include a lot of information of more general applicability.  The
paper on nominal linking devices looks like it answers most of my
general questions on classifiers - I've set it aside to read later.
That Lexicon of Linguistics looks like a useful reference.  Has it
been mentioned here before?  The name seems familiar, but I don't have
it bookmarked.  There's a prettier, and more searchable, but less
browsable version here: http://tristram.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/
As to the specific article on Nivkh - oddly, Campbell doesn't appear
to mention mutation, as such.  He doesn't go into much detail on the
morphology anyway, but still, it's a curious omission.