Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: A possible Proto-World phonology

From:Roger Mills <romilly@...>
Date:Thursday, June 29, 2000, 2:52
Danny Wier wrote:
>And regarding the Nostratic theory in general: I do accept at least some of >it, even to the point where I can call it a hypothesis instead of a theory, >for these reasons, expressed in these parallels:>
(snip the 10 interesting points of evidence)
>So Nostratic is a semi-educated guess concerning the "missing link" of >language evolution. At least it has evidence to back it up. I've >investigated reconstructions (25 from Ilich-Svitych and 125+ from >Dolgopolsky; I have one of his books) and I'm actually convinced. But the >more radical macrolanguage proposals, like Sino-Caucasian or
>Amerind, Eurasian, and especially a supposed Proto-Language or Proto-World, >are much more dubious -- and probably indeed unprovable.>
If you have time and patience, search the cybalist (egroups) archive for the last several months, approx. March-May. There was spirited and lengthy discussion of all this, some trying to adduce purely linguistic evidence, others bringing in the archeological/culture horizons evidence. I never did figure out if they were aiming at Proto-World, or just trying to unite Afro-Asiatic/IE/Karvelian/Uralic etc. etc. as "Nostratic". Curiously, my field, Austronesian, gets left out of all this speculation. The level of reconstruction is _almost_ comparable to IE (though lacking in early documentation).