Some words have not changed for 15,000 years!

[Gagundathar]

Wait a minute there, Wendell.
How do you know that we aren’t all bowing before you in terror?

[septimus]

@Jragon

so much garbage it throws the validity of the plausible reconstructions into doubt. Kind of like if I told you the answer was “4” for any math problem you gave me. Sure, there’s an infinite number of problems where 4 is the right answer, …

The pronouns ‘I’ /na/ and ‘you’ /ma/ are ubiquitous among Amerindian languages, and not seen elsewhere. Is that a coincidence?

@Wendell_Wagner

You can’t do any better than “There’s obviously a conspiracy among the professionals in this field”? You’re claiming that the linguistics professors of the world who specialize in American Indian languages are a tightly-knit group who regularly get together to control the world? They are the ones responsible for wars, depressions, and, just incidentally, declarations that anyone who claims to have reconstructed the earliest forms of American Indian ancestral languages is a crank. [I’ve added emphasis – septimus]

It sounds like the question holds no interest to you. I’d offer to move this subthread to the BBQ Pit, but I don’t choose to deign such gibberish with any reply.
(ETA: Do be assured, however, that if I do get around to a meta-post about “academic controversies” your comments here will be featured.)

[Inner_Stickler]

@septimus

It sounds like the question holds no interest to you. I’d offer to move this subthread to the BBQ Pit, but I don’t choose to deign such gibberish with any reply.

Perhaps you didn’t realize but your comment which Wendell replied to is, frankly, rather rude. The implication that an entire field of linguistics denies the legitimacy of a claim for the sake of their egos is not one to be bandied about lightly and if you choose to make such statements, don’t be surprised when people find they have better things to do than talk to you.

[septimus]

@Inner_Stickler

Perhaps you didn’t realize but your comment which Wendell replied to is, frankly, rather rude. The implication that an entire field of linguistics denies the legitimacy of a claim for the sake of their egos is not one to be bandied about lightly and if you choose to make such statements, don’t be surprised when people find they have better things to do than talk to you.

The point I made repeated the exact same point made by very respected linguists. As a bystander, I can’t help it if these linguists are hurling harsh charges at each other.

Given the vehemence of their debate, it would be interesting to understand it and see if we can reach any tentative conclusion about which side has logic on its side. Appparently, however, SDMB is not the forum for such discussions.

[JKellyMap]

I have read Ruhlen carefully (the same book clairobscur mentioned). I am not a linguist, but a longtime fan of the subject, and I have direct familiarity with two Amerindian languages of different families.

And yes, septimus, I’m convinced that we can indeed detect a few commonalities among all Amerindian languages from the bottleneck 15 or 20 thousand years ago (to clarify, this is different than the Na-Dene bottleneck a little later on). The -n- for first person singular/-m- for second person singular thing is pretty straightforward, and is clearly not from borrowing nor can it be coincidental.

So, I’m one data point you’re looking for. Half a point, I guess, since IANAL.

[JKellyMap]

I should add that, like clairobscur, I think Ruhlen does go too far with the World language stuff. There, he’s just being a dik.

[Kenm]

Together, they hint at what has been important to people during the past 15 millenniums.

“Millenniums,” indeed.

[Hari_Seldon]

If all they are saying is that “what” and “qui” are daughters of the same word, I yawn. Notice, BTW, that “thou” is essentially gone from modern English.

[septimus]

A recent paper on prehistoric American linguistics (“Linguistic Phylogenies Support Back-Migration from Beringia to Asia”) may be of interest. (It relates to Na-Dene, not Amerindian.)