Arabic and IE

[Ralf-Stefan Georg]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------

>I can and you know that, because I have named him in various
>postings in discussions you were involved in (and in print,
>but who has time to read!?). Gerhard Doerfer is certainly
>a better known name in hist ling than yours or mine, and
>he did for many years claim precisely that Semitic is not
>related to Cushitic, he then seemed a couple of yearsago
>to take it back (to my great relief), but I have reason to
>believe he in fact did not mean to take it back and still
>holds that opinion.  But I am not 100% sure.

But, Alexis, while you know me to admire Doerfer even more then you do (;-)
?), I don't see a reason for mentioning his name in the context of AA. It
is true that he said those things. But is also true that he has never
worked on it (he knows Arabic well, but that's it), he just voiced his
general doubts on AA in some footnotes or footnote-like passages, trying to
fight critique against his anti-Altaistic positions off. He may have been
ill-advised to do this, but his claims to this effect *do not play a single
role* in AA studies. I take it that, while every Altaicist - pro or con -
knows Doerfer, there may be excellent AA'ists who have never heard his
name. And they don't have to, for G.D. is simply not one of them and never
wished to be. Actually, though I hate to say this in public about a scholar
whom I regard in many respects as a (semi-) teacher of mine, what Doerfer
said on AA was simply uninformed nonsense. Why quote it ? AA is really, to
the best of my knowledge, uncontroversial today, i.e. with those people who
know enough about the issue to have a say in it.
By your procedure, you'd require everything, for which the smallest voice
of dissent may exist somewhere - well-informed or not - , to be called
"controversial". What then isn't ? Is the proposal of a Basque - Armenian
connection (to the exclusion of IE) "controversial" ? At least one person
out there holds it (and I think only one, and this was on an e-mail list,
but these things *do* sometimes get published !). If I write in one of my
next papers that I don't really understand what makes people believe in the
validity of such an abominable thing as "Algonquian", while everybody knows
that Cree is Siouan, Menomini Na-Dene and Fox Sino-Tibetan,  will you call
Alg. "controversial" and point people to what I've written ? No, you'll
drop me a note and ask me whether I'm feeling OK and (hopefully) forget
about the issue, assuming I was temporarily out of my mind (if I'm lucky !).
Is Sino-Tibetan controversial  (Roy A. Miller fights it ruthlessly, but he
seems to be the only one) ? Is Uralic (Doerfer in his younger days was
quite skeptical about it, but again without having actually worked on it) ?
Is Indo-European (remember Trubetzkoy !) ?

Let's stop this futile discussion, if I don't think that two or more
languages are related, I say so, assuming that everyone listening to me is
educated and intelligent enough to know that I'm a human being only and by
this virtue - fallible. Everybody who asks around will find that there are
actually people who do believe that, say, Altaic is valid grouping. I
happen not to. And when I say "No, I don't think it is", this is an
accurate information. About what I think, that is. Even saying "It isn't"
is not more than that. Every intelligent and truly interested person will
then go on asking me what makes me so positive about it, and I'll have no
choice but to mention all those names, including yours, who hold different
views. If I'm not asked further, so what, then the asker doesn't deserve
better.
What's the problem with that ?

St.G.

Stefan Georg
Heerstrasse 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
+49-228-69-13-32