Nostratic and Nilo-Saharan

[Alexis Manaster-Ramer]

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


On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Alice Faber wrote:

>
> I'm glad to find that I had been mistaken in my impression that Nilo-Saharan
> and other language families had been ignored in long-range language
> comparison. I've undergone enough of a career shift since 1988 that I haven't
> been able to follow the literature as well as I might have earlier.

But we need you back!

>
> As for my assertion that some of those who search out a link between Semitic
> and Indo-European being in part motivated by a perspective involving the
> Judeo-Christian tradition, I'd like to make clear that I'm not including any
> modern investigators of Nostratic here.

Thank you.  I am assuming that you are including Pedersen, Collinder
et al. under 'modern'.

> I'm thinking of folks who simply don't
> care (or perhaps don't know) that Hebrew is part of Semitic is part of Afro-
> Asiatic, but simply look for superficial similarities between Hebrew, Latin,
> and Greek. There's a big difference between saying that Hebrew and Latin are
> related and saying that Hebrew and Latin are related because Afro-Asiatic and
> Indo-European are part of Nostratic. Both are hypotheses that can be
> discussed, and perhaps refuted, but only the latter is consistent with a wide
> body of published literature.

Yes indeed and I am sorry if I gave the impression of anything else.

> Many folks who work on the history of Semitic
> languages are quite sensitive, perhaps over sensitive to the difference.
>
I can see why.  They do have to put up with a lot of silly misconceptions
among the (as Michael Silverstein would say) "ignoranti". Since those
of us who work on Nostratic (and ipso facto have to deal with Semitic
too) have to put up with a similar burden, I think we can all agree to
empathize. But the bigger question is how do we fight the misconceptions
that seem to be SO darn prevalent?

AMR