Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!nntp.primenet.com!netcom.com!netcom13!alderson
From: alderson@netcom13.netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III)
Subject: Re: Nostratic?
In-Reply-To: Marco Menna's message of Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:36:47 +0200
Message-ID: <ALDERSON.96Aug19144441@netcom13.netcom.com>
Sender: alderson@netcom13.netcom.com
Reply-To: alderson@netcom.com
Organization: NETCOM On-line services
References: <32186DEF.4F5D@iam.unibe.ch>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:44:41 GMT
Lines: 29

In article <32186DEF.4F5D@iam.unibe.ch> Marco Menna <menna@iam.unibe.ch>
writes:

>I thought that the Nostratic theory is usually dismissed as humbug by serious
>linguists (because of methodological problems in the reconstruction process
>and because of the poor evidence that can be provided by means of traditional
>comparative linguistics).

You're right, in so far as the perception of methodological problems has
contributed to dismissal of the Nostratic theory, but I would hesitate to say
that the linguists who do accept it are any less serious than those who do not.
Some of the people working on Nostratic are among the most serious linguists of
my acquaintance.

>Does this hold anymore or does the Nostratic theory have a better standing by
>now? Is it becoming communis opinio in the end?

No, the general standing of the theory is no better than it ever was.

>Has a new sort of 'Nostratic comparative linguistics' been devised?

No, the best Nostratic work has been done with the most rigourous comparative
methodology.  The question raised by those linguists who do not accept it is
whether the tools available are good enough for the task.
-- 
Rich Alderson   You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
                of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
                logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
                know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
                as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
                what not.
                                                --J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@netcom.com                               _The Notion Club Papers_
