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

Hallo!

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:21:09 -0500,
Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:12:01 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
> wrote:
>
> > > [pre-PIE *a]
> >
> > I don't know about the reconstructions you talk about, but as for why
> > I reconstruct the pre-ablaut forms with *a rather than *e, see my
> > previous post in the "Schwebeablaut" thread.  As *a doesn't contrast
> > with an *e in pre-ablaut PIE as I see it, it is merely a matter of
> > naming, and I prefer a name that describes what must have been.
>
> I see from your other post what you were getting at. However, it seems (to
> me) excessive to try to describe an even earlier form of the protolanguage
> (than is required to explain the daughter languages), unless you're trying
> to investigate a further level of relatedness (e.g. the various Nostratics)
> .
Well, one can investigate the origins of patterns observed in a
reconstructed protolanguage without trying to relate the family
in question to something else.

And regarding Nostratic, I am open-minded towards such hypotheses,
yet not content with the evidence provided.  There are indeed several
versions of Nostratic, comparing the same languages but postulating
different sound correspondences.  Yet each camp comes up with an
impressive list of "cognates", and at most one of these lists can
be correct.  Clearly, a method that yields so many false positives
must be unreliable.

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.

ObConlang: My conlang family "Hesperic" is another member of that
possible macrofamily, most closely related to Indo-European.
My interest in PIE prehistory and long-range comparison
indeed stems from my work on Hesperic.

> 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?
No, I can't give you URLs, it is the result of my own reasoning.
But it was influenced by stuff I saw on various mailing lists,
and Gamkrelidze's and Ivanov's book _Indo-European and the
Indo-Europeans_.

Greetings,

Jörg.