Editing Nostratic languages (section)

==Status within comparative linguistics==

The Nostratic hypothesis is not endorsed by the mainstream of [[comparative linguistics]].

Nostraticists tend to refuse to include in their schema language families for which no proto-language has yet been reconstructed. This approach was criticized by [[Joseph Greenberg]] on the ground that genetic classification is necessarily prior to linguistic reconstruction,<ref>Greenberg 2005:337.</ref> but this criticism has so far had no effect on Nostraticist theory and practice.

Certain critiques have pointed out that the data from individual, established language families that is cited in Nostratic comparisons often involves a high degree of errors; Campbell (1998) demonstrates this for [[Uralic languages|Uralic]] data. Defenders of the Nostratic theory argue that were this to be true, it would remain that in classifying languages genetically, positives count for vastly more than negatives (Ruhlen 1994). The reason for this is that, above a certain threshold, resemblances in sound/meaning correspondences are highly improbable mathematically.

Pedersen's original Nostratic proposal synthesized earlier macrofamilies, some of which, including [[Indo-Uralic languages|Indo-Uralic]], involved extensive comparison of inflections.<ref>Cf. Sweet 1900:115–120.</ref> It is true the Russian Nostraticists initially emphasized lexical comparisons. Critics argue that were one to collect all the words from the various known Indo-European languages and dialects which have at least one of any four meanings, one could easily form a list that would cover any conceivable combination of two consonants and a vowel (of which there are only about 20×20×5&nbsp;=&nbsp;2000). Nostraticists respond that they do not compare isolated lexical items but reconstructed proto-languages. To include a word for a proto-language it must be found in a number of languages and the forms must be relatable by regular sound changes. In addition, many languages have restrictions on [[Proto-Indo-European root|root structure]], reducing the number of possible root-forms far below its mathematical maximum. These languages include, among others, Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic—all the core languages of the Nostratic hypothesis. For a highly critical assessment of the work of the [[Moscow School of Comparative Linguistics|Moscow School]], especially the work of Illich-Svitych, cf. Campbell and Poser 2008:243-264.
Campbell and Poser argue that Nostratic, as reconstructed by Illich-Svitych and others, is "typologically flawed". For instance, they point out that, surprisingly, very few Nostratic roots contain two voiceless stops, which are less marked and should therefore occur more frequently, and where such roots do occur, in almost all cases the second stop occurs after a sonorant.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Campbell |first=Lyle |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/263493207 |title=Language classification : history and method |date=2008 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |others=William John Poser |isbn=978-0-511-41450-3 |location=Cambridge, UK |pages=250 |oclc=263493207}}</ref> In summary, Campbell and Poser reject the Nostratic hypothesis and, as a parting shot, state that they "seriously doubt that further research will result in any significant support for this hypothesized macro-family."{{sfn|Campbell|2008|p=264}}

Proto-Indo-European ''*b[h]ars-'' seems to be a cultural loanword from Semitic (though several reputable Indo-Europeanists dispute this and consider it to be a native IE word). Much of the IE agricultural lexicon is not shared among all branches and seems to have been borrowed, thus supporting the view that the expansion of IE languages was post-Neolithic rather than a Neolithic one as postulated by Renfrew's theory.