Re: NATLANG:Proto-Pontic
| From: | Doug Dee <amateurlinguist@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 0:08 |
|---|
In a message dated 10/20/2003 1:10:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
magwich78@YAHOO.COM writes:
>There is a
>good book called The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics,
>by Angela Marcantonio, which gives some very good reasons why there
>probably was *never* a unified Proto-Uralic tongue, but rather a continuum
>of dialects spread across a rather wide area.
As a point of interest, I'll mention that this book came in for some very
negative comments on Linguist List not long ago.
See
http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-1963.html#1
The author is accused of:
Flaw #1: Insufficient competence in diachronic linguistics.
Flaw #2: Defective knowledge of Uralic data and research in
Uraliclinguistics.
Flaw #3. Invalid application of statistical methods.
Flaw #4. Inconsistency.
and
Flaw #5. Misleading and erroneous quotes and references.
The book is also negatively reviewed at:
http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/am_rev.html
(I'm not taking sides. I'm not knowledgeable abut Uralic. I just thought
the argument might be of interest.)
Doug