Bomhard - A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics (5th revised, corrected, and expanded edition 2023 [revised 3 August 2024]). (5 volumes, 3,239 pp., combined into a single PDF). (2024)

Anglia, 2015

Comparative Romance Linguistics Newsletter. Vol. 25, No. 1. 22 pp., 1975

The Officers of the Comparative Romance Linguistics Newsletter of the Modern Language Association named me as Editor of the Comparative Romance Linguistics Newsletter. I served for a two-year term (1975-1977). The format at that time was two issues per year. The first issue contained “personalia” in which members provided brief summaries of their professional work for the previous year. The second issue contained a comprehensive bibliography of all work published in the previous year in the Romance Languages. Volume 25, No. 1 contained the recollections of the original members of the CRLN from Lawrence B. Kiddle (U Michigan), Yakov Malkiel (U California, Berkeley) and Victor Oelschäger (Florida State U, first Editor of the CRLN). Brian Imhoff (Texas A&M U) is current editor. It publishes an annual bibliography comprehensive bibliography. It is now in its 70th year (2022).

Journal of French Language Studies, 2005

Notes on Linguistics, 2001

Abstract: These four volumes of the journal present articles, review articles, abstracts, dissertation abstracts, and reports. Articles include the following:" The Linguist's Role in Archiving Linguistic Data Sources"(Joan Spanne);" The SIL Language and Culture Archive: An Interview with Joan Spanne"(Eugene Loos);" The Value of Comparative Linguistics"(Joseph E. Grimes);" Historical Linguistics in Southeast Asian Language Programs"(Paulette Hopple);" Comparative-Historical MesoAmerican Reconstruction and ...

LinguistList, 2019

In this chapter, I discuss the relation between language typology and historical linguistics. After briefly illustrating mutual influence in the course of the development of the two disciplines, I discuss some classic topics at the interface between language typology and historical-comparative linguistics, such as language reconstruction. I then focus on language contact as an area of possible interaction between typology and historical linguistics, and show that areal typology has consequences on our understanding of language relatedness, while changes due to contact may result in typologically unlikely developments. Finally, I address the issue of directionality in language change, and show that careful study of attested changes can help gauge the validity of typological generalizations based on large samples of languages. I conclude by suggesting that both typologists and historical linguists could learn a lot from one another, especially if they were willing to accept the idea that their own methodology does not always necessarily provide the most insightful way for tackling specific issues.

In this article, I propose two new Indo-European etymologies, as well as comment on and revise one Nostratic etymology originally suggested by Václav Blažek.

Linguistics. An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 2007

Review article of Brian D. Joseph / Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics: 2003. Linguistics 45/2007: 349-372.

The Indo-European theory is the theory of the colonialist-racist side of Europe. It represents the dark period in science. Nostratic theory represents enlightenment. But if the measure of success is to get the majority of academia to accept its point of view, it has failed. The Nostratic movement was not successful because it adhered to the basic scientific method. Because while the majority confronting Nostraticists is shouting a so-called science with a loud noise, they actually behave like cult followers. Indo-European is a religion, a belief. Of course, most of the linguists of I-E side are not aware of their racist attitude, they even believe that they are doing science with the most humanistic feelings and in good faith. The problem is rather political, ideological and psychological, not scientificity. This is the main problem in social sciences, in fact, this is the main issue in all branches of science. In this article, I will first examine two major weaknesses of the Nostratic Theory. Then I will summarize the views that indicate how strong and intense Turkish is in the Western languages. In so called I-E languages. Then I will illustrate and prove all this through two studies of Allan R. Bomhard and one by Kassian and his colleagues.

1975 article comparing Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic. Note: This was my first paper on distant linguistic relationship. My views have matured considerably since then -- my latest work (2018/2020) on the subject is entitled "A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics". It is available for free download from academia.edu.

Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 2015

Language, 1984