"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<bvgdi1$b41$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> news:ab0de77f.0401292218.3076200c@posting.google.com...
> > branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote in message
> news:<b9b3de8.0401290517.2f22cb8d@posting.google.com>...
> > > eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote in message
> news:<ab0de77f.0401272216.396eeb1@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<bv3eev$7lr$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > >
> > > > [snip childish linguistic fantasy]
> > > >
> > > > > > Incidently, even broader groups than Nostratic have been proposed,
> > > > > > including attempts to reconstruct words of Proto-World.
> Unfortunately
> > > > > > the only one I recall at the moment is rather indelicate.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's every chance that we can guess at a word that was in the
> vocabulary
> > > > > of somebody who walked out of Babel, maybe in a sound-shifted or
> abbreviated
> > > > > form. After all, all the material in every tribal or supertribal
> language
> > > > > came from someone or other's Babel exit language. It's not common
> for
> > > > > languages to invent words, so even 'shit' has good cognates in
> Greek. If we
> > > > > say that 'skata' is closer, because we can tell it didn't go through
> the
> > > > > Germanic sound shifts which we know all about thanks to Grimm, then
> we can
> > > > > ascert with a good probability of truth that some rather powerful
> man or his
> > > > > wife, with a penchant for talking about his or her bodily functions,
> > > > > received the ancestor word for 'skata/shit' in his or her personal
> language
> > > > > at Babel.
> > > >
> > > > My personal opinion is that your hypothesis is a load of 'shit'... I
> mean 'skata'!
> > >
> > > OK. So which alternative hypothesis do you find more convincing and why?
> >
> > You don't even *have* a serious linguistic hypothesis, only wild
> > conjecture based on the presumption that the Bible stories are
> > correct. Trying to make all the facts fit a fundamentalist religious
> > mindset is hardly a scientific approach, is it!
>
> Too right. Trying to make the facts fit an atheist mindset is the correct
> scientific approach. No-one in your circles will object if someone does
> that.
Care to give some examples of that?
> > I suggest you get your head out of the ancient texts and read up on
> > some modern scientific theories on the evolution of human language...
> > any good library would be a start.
> >
> > EROS.
>
> Why don't you stop bluffing and name some of those theories and authors you
> recommend me to start reading?
I doubt very much that you will even seriously consider reading
them... however, try these for a start (you may have to watch URL
wrapping);-
http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/linguistics.html
http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/pubtype/inbook_TheEvolutionofHumanLanguages.html
http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/paper/nowak99theEvolution.html
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/64674.html
EROS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits."
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |
|