Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty
linguistlist.org>
>There are several million bytes of data at my website, which I hope >some of you may care to visit. I have visited the said website, without finding an answer to my question: which evidence is the "PL" "reconstruct" p?fo/p?fe precisely based on, in terms of empirical reconstruction? On the site, one can find the claim that such a morpheme is said to exist (or rather to be assumed for the ancestor language of every other known or unknown language of this planet), without any data this may or may not be based on. Maybe it will be possible to present us after all with this data in plain-text-format? St. G. Stefan Georg Heerstrasse 7 D-53111 Bonn FRG +49-228-69-13-32Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Onomatopeoia, baby talk and technical loanwords are proto-world. Yes, it's sounds silly, but it cuts the Gordion knot and I suppose that the fact that we do pick up onomatopoeia and babies do have the same basic set of phonemes does indicate a certain sort of Proto-World. Not necessarily the same thing that Ryan and others have in mind. So how about: mama, papa, bubble, gurgle, television, assinine, etc.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue