Actually, no. He's arguing for the original language of the human race, which he identifies as Nostratic, being re-constructable.

It may or may not be true that Nostratic was the original language and it may or may not be true that it can be re-constructed. I have my doubts, but it is a possibility.

What I fail to see is why those who disagree with him should be demonised as the liberal ideologues who still chase the butterflies of independent language invention and believe in "borrowing frenzies" and who are seeking to "quibble away" the results of his analysis.

Bingley

Bingley