Language and Anthropology in the Americas

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Alexis (manaster at umich.edu) wrote:
 
>Note well that I am defending Greenberg's Amerind
>as such, but to say that it is no good for lack
>of regular correspondences tabulated in a neat
>little chart is definitely not acceptable in 1998
>as it may once have been. Heck, I am pretty sure
>I used to say this--before I learned better.
 
Alexis, you are putting words into my mouth.  I merely commented on
the methodological differences between Nostratic and Amerind.  Is it
not a fact that Nostratic has sound correspondences, and Amerind
doesn't?
 
The real reason that I reject Amerind is not its lack of sound
correspondences.  John Bengtson has published sound-correspondences
between North Caucasian and Basque, and I'm afraid I must reject that
too.  The real reason is that I have read the evidence as presented,
and I didn't like it.  I've read the evidence presented by
Illich-Svitych for Nostratic, and I liked it.  I have not seen the
evidence for Altaic, so I don't know if I like it.  I can explain
what I like about Nostratic, but this is neither the time nor the
place.  It is much harder to explain the opposite reaction (apart
from errors of fact etc.).  It is largely gut, I'm afraid.  That's
why it's so difficult to have a fruitful discussion about these
matters.  But we can try...
 
 
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam