> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 11:12:17 +0100 > From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> > The idea of a family with that distribution mightn't be implausible, but > why Basque and why Kartvelian? First, why Basque rather than Iberian or > Tartessian? Second, why Kartvelian rather than N or NE Caucasian, since > (a) a 'Vasco-Caucasian' connection has traditionally been the most popular/ > least foolish of theories of Basque connections (though Trask's _History > of Basque_ rubbishes every such theory, mainly on the grounds of their > utter ignorance of the reconstructible history of Basque), and (b) as > longrange speculations go, an IE-Kartvelian connection is relatively less > baseless. About the only theory of Basque connections that I know of that > does work from reconstructed Pre-Basque in one posted by Miguel Carrasquer > Vidal to the Nostratic list which suggested that Basque could be Nostratic > [since pre-Basque lost most initial consonants, the problem is actually that > finding potential cognates for Basque words is too easy]. I liked mcv's reconstruction, though I've forgotten the details now. The strange thing is that Kartvelian is often included in Nostratic(*), so bringing Basque into the latter would prove a connection. But of course the Basque-Kartvelian connectionists want to compare the modern forms, not the reconstructed ones. Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <[log in to unmask]> (Humour NOT marked) ____________________ (*) Or was that in the bad old days, when people just assumed that all the Caucasian languages were a unit?