GREEK PREHISTORY AND IE (EVIDENCE?)

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Georg" <georg at rullet.leidenuniv.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 10:08 AM

<PRp>

>> How would some of you feel if Renfrew's premise were altered to:

>> Nostratic spread through Europe with agriculture.

>> ?

<SG>
> Renfrew seems to be about to alter this premise himself, maybe (judging
> from his active role in organizing Nostratic conferences and the like), but
> it of course begs the question of the existence of Nostratic.

> It doesn't exist, so it didn't spread anywhere, less so through Europe, and
> least so with agriculture.

<PR>
Stefan is undoubtedly right in his major premise.

But (is there no always a 'but') I sincerely believe that, however the
details may eventually sort themselves out, the correspondences between
Semitic and IE are so demonstrable that no objective observer can doubt
them --- even if we consider oursleves still in the MLC of inspection.

The question of AA and IE is obviously much more complicated. The
non-Semitic languages of AA are not easy to get at because of neglected
study and relative dearth of references.

Those efforts that have been made (e.g. Ehret) have not satisfied AAists let
alone Nostraticists (presuming they exist).

I sympathize with those who have looked at Nostratic and found it wanting.
Only for linguists who cut their teeth on Hegel is Mo/ller  stimulating
reading; and others like Linus Brunner seem to have missed the Brunne
altogether.

However, Bomhard has assembled a lot of data which, I believe, has
substantial merit and exploratory power.

Although I differ with him principally phonologically, I certainly do
believe that many of his comparisons have ultimate validity.

Bomhard had to, I believe, rely on data that was faulty because, in some
cases, better data was not available.

Critics have seized on these discrepancies, and viciously attacked Bomhard's
work. This, in my opinion, is equivalent to refusing a date with a beautiful
woman because she has a mole, which can always be surgically removed.

Almost no one has looked at his work with an eye to refining it --- only
rejecting it.

And I believe this is a serious and intellectually unforgivable mistake.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ek,
at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim meipi er
mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)