Caucasian languages and Asia Minor

[Glen Gordon]

W.SCHULZE:

>Naturally every language has its history and it is clear that every
>language has its ancestors. But why should this
>ancestor be represented by one of the language groups we know of
>today?

Probably, for the obvious reason that this is all we have to work with.
It would be really stupid for someone to propose that NEC is related to
some hypothetical language that I shall name "Mumu" for comedic sake
that magically disappeared without a single trace. Obviously, we need an
_actual_ language group to compare NEC with, as remotely related as it
might be. If even you can't, in all probability, accept "isolates", it
only makes sense that we should strive to supply something to compare it
with. Whether the work is properly done or not is another question.

W.SCHULZE:

>There is no scientific need to put all the languages (or language
>fragments or rumors on language fragments stemming from ancient
>sources via ethnonyms) into one or two baskets.

Maybe there's no need scientifically (it won't give us a cure for cancer
I suppose), but without doing something like this, we'll never answer
all the nagging questions about our pre-history. It must be done (but
done better of course).