On the general acceptance of Austric

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Alexander Vovin <vovin at hawaii.edu> wrote:
 
>    I am aware that most Munda specialists are sceptical about Austric and
>Austroasiatic itself [..]
 
I don't know anything about Munda or Austroasiatic, but I wonder how
the Munda specialists account for the numerals, if there is no genetic
connection?
 
   Mun.d.a:ri:  Santali    Mon      Khmer
1  mi'd         mit_       moa      mu at y
2  baria        bar        ba:      pii
3  apia         pe         pei      b at y
4  upunia       pon        pon      bu at n
5  mon.r.ea     mo~r.e~    msaun    pram
6  turuia       turui      tarao:   pram-mu at y
7  ea           eae        thapoh   pram-pii
8  i'rilia      iral.      tec^am   pram-b at y
9  area         are        tec^it   pram-bu at n
10 gelea        gel        c^oh     dOp
 
 
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv at pi.net                 |_____________|||
 
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig