Deja vu

[Alexis Manaster-Ramer]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I have more than once referred to Pedersen's talk
at the 1933 Congress of linguists, but it now occurs
to me that, aside from its historical interest, it
(and the discussion that followed and some of
the other discussions at that congress) actually
were very much like what we face today, esp.
on the negative, anti-Nostratic, side, whose views
came out in the discussions (the same a prioristic,
uninformed, and pretentious posturing, combined with
a staunch refusal to actually look at the relevant
literature, data, arguments, etc.), whereas the
Nostratic side (represented by Pedersen and Collinder)
was not nearly as advanced as it has been since the
1960's.  Except for the IE-Uralic comparison, the
Nostraticists in 1933 did not have much to say for
themselves.
This does not mean that Nostratic is therefore
right.

But I think it helps to place our modern
discussions in context.  To me, the main thing is
precisely that the nay-sayers have not progressed
much (in some ways they have regressed actually)
whereas the proponents have advanced enormously,
both with regard to data and theory.  This STILL
does not mean Nostratic is right, of course.


Reference:

Atti del III Congresso Internazionale dei
Linguisti (Roma, 19-26 settembre 1933-XI),
Florence: Le Monnier (1935). Reprinted (1972)
Nendeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus.  See papers
by Pedersen and Collinder and the comments
from the audience on each.