Re: Nostratic (was Re: Schwebeablaut (was Re: tolkien?))

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Well, one can investigate the origins of patterns observed in a
> reconstructed protolanguage without trying to relate the family
> in question to something else.
Yes, good old internal reconstruction.  It can lead to good insights, even
if they may not be provable to everyone's satisfaction.

> And regarding Nostratic, I am open-minded towards such hypotheses,
> yet not content with the evidence provided.
My view, too.

> I think the most useful approach is to examine not six or more
> families at a time, but to concentrate on two or three first,
> and then look at similarities of morphology.  From my own studies
> in this area, I consider it likely that Indo-European, Uralic,
> Eskimo-Aleut and perhaps Etruscan are indeed related to each other.
I tend to go along with that; many would add Afro-Asiatic, or at least
Semitic... The better versions maintain fairly strict standards, e.g. Family
X has a 1st pers. morpheme /m/ and this seems to resemble the IE 1st pers.
/m ~mi/ etc.  However, others try to claim Y's /n/ = IE /m/ because both are
nasals, or Z's /w/ = IE /m/ because both are labials.......well..........

Paul Bennett wrote:
> > The 2 (and a half) vowel e/o/0 ablaut (with i and u as vocalic
consonants)
> > suffices for me, although a six vowel a/i/u/a'/i'/u' ablaut is an
> > interesting theory, that I had never seen before. Do you have any URLs
to
> > hand that explain it with examples, and describe why it is important?
I'm not sure whether current handbooks go into the (somewhat out of fashion)
status of *a, but you could look.  Failing that, join the yahoogroup
Cybalist and cruise their extensive archive; the most reliable and
knowledgeable are Piotr Gasiorowski, Jens Rasmussen and Miguel Carrasquer
Vidal.  Glen Gordon for comic relief.
At one point, Piotr had posted some extensive info on IE phonology and
morphology in the Files section; I think it's still there.