) The Nostratic hypothesis is however based on the comparative method, unlike some other superfamily hypotheses.

Recently, a consensus has been emerging among proponents of the Nostratic hypothesis.

While Pedersen's Nostratic hypothesis did not make much headway in the West, it became quite popular in what was then the Soviet Union.

Recently, a consensus has been emerging among proponents of the Nostratic hypothesis.

However, this is an even more tentative hypothesis than Nostratic, which attempts to relate Indo-European, Uralic, Kartvelian, Altaic, etc., and which is widely considered to be undemonstrated.

Other proposals, further back in time ( and proportionately less accepted ), link Indo-European and Uralic with Altaic and the other language families of northern Eurasia, namely Yukaghir, Korean, Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, and Eskimo – Aleut, but excluding Yeniseian ( the most comprehensive such proposal is Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic ), or link Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic to Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian ( the traditional form of the Nostratic hypothesis ), and ultimately to a single Proto-Human family.

He resuscitated the long-forgotten Nostratic hypothesis, originally expounded by Holger Pedersen in 1903, and coined the modern term Nostratics.

" The most recent publication supporting the Glottalic Theory is Bomhard ( 2008 and 2011 ) in a discussion of the controversial Nostratic hypothesis.

At the same time, most of the supporters of a relationship between Indo-European and Uralic have also supported their relationship to additional language families, leading some to regard Indo-Uralic as a subset of the larger Nostratic hypothesis.

Born in Moscow, he arrived at the long-forgotten Nostratic hypothesis in the 1960s, at around the same time but independently of Vladislav Illich-Svitych.

In effect, the three pillars of the Nostratic hypothesis are Indo-Uralic, Ural – Altaic, and Indo-Semitic.

Greenberg basically agreed with the Nostratic concept, though he stressed a deep internal division between its northern ' tier ' ( his Eurasiatic ) and a southern ' tier ' ( principally Afroasiatic and Dravidian ).

These proposals were taken much farther in 1903 when Holger Pedersen proposed " Nostratic ", a common ancestor for the Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, Samoyed, Turkish, Mongolian, Manchu, Yukaghir, Eskimo, Semitic, and Hamitic languages, with the door left open to the eventual inclusion of others.

The language families proposed for inclusion in Nostratic vary, but all Nostraticists agree on a common core of language families, with differences of opinion appearing over the inclusion of additional families.

Greenberg basically agreed with the Nostratic concept, though he stressed a deep internal division between its northern ' tier ' ( his Eurasiatic ) and a southern ' tier ' ( principally Afroasiatic and Dravidian ).

Allan Bomhard and Colin Renfrew are in broad agreement with the earlier conclusions of Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky in seeking the Nostratic Urheimat ( original homeland ) within the Mesolithic ( or Epipaleolithic ) in the Fertile Crescent, the stage which directly preceded the Neolithic and was transitional to it.

* The second possibility as a culture associated with the Nostratic family is the Zarzian ( 12, 400 – 8500 BCE ) culture of the Zagros mountains, stretching northwards into Kobistan in the Caucasus and eastwards into Iran.

He posits that this ancestral language, together with Indo-European and Kartvelian, descends from a " Eurasiatic " protolanguage some 12, 000 years ago, which in turn would be descended from a " Borean " protolanguage via Nostratic.

According to Starostin, the Dené – Caucasian and Austric macrofamilies, together with the Nostratic macrofamily ( as envisaged by Vladislav Illich-Svitych, with some modifications ), can further be linked at an earlier stage, which Starostin called the Borean ( i. e. ' Northern ') languages.

Some proposals would group Eurasiatic with even larger macrofamilies such as Nostratic or Borean, but neither they nor Eurasiatic itself have been widely accepted, since they are not seen by the linguistic profession as being based on valid methodologies.

Most recently, Nostraticists have accepted Eurasiatic as a subgroup within Nostratic ( 2005: 331 ) with Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and Dravidian forming the rest of Nostratic.

The points raised concerning the words for ' name ’, ' water ', and ' give ' require a glance at the possible relations of Indo-European and Uralic with other language families, in particular the languages hypothetically grouped as Uralo-Siberian by Fortescue, Eurasiatic by Greenberg, and Nostratic by Holger Pedersen and various successors of his.

Together with Illich-Svitych, he was the first to undertake a multilateral comparison of the daughter-languages Nostratic.

With regard to the proof of the relationship of the Nostratic languages, not only must all root etymologies and in general all etymological frivolities be kept at a distance, but one should in general not concern oneself with heaping up a mass of material.

The Eurasiatic grouping resembles the older Nostratic groupings of Holger Pedersen and Vladislav Illich-Svitych by including Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic.

The name " Nostratic " is due to Pedersen ( 1903 ), derived from the Latin nostrates " fellow countrymen ".

The name Nostratic derives from the Latin word nostrās, meaning ' our fellow-countryman ' ( plural: nostrates ) and has been defined, since Pedersen, as consisting of those language families that are related to Indo-European.

Pedersen seems to have first used the term " Nostratic " in an article on Turkish phonology published in 1903.

English " Nostratic " is the normal equivalent of German nostratisch, the form used by Pedersen in 1903, and Danish nostratisk ( compare French nostratique ).

In his 1931 book, Pedersen defined Nostratic as follows ( 1931: 338 ):

An early supporter was the French linguist Albert Cuny — better known for his role in the development of the laryngeal theory — who published his Recherches sur le vocalisme, le consonantisme et la formation des racines en « nostratique », ancêtre de l ' indo-européen et du chamito-sémitique (' Researches on the Vocalism, Consonantism, and Formation of Roots in " Nostratic ", Ancestor of Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic ') in 1943.

Various linguists have seen these North Eurasian languages as part of: < ul >< li > a Ural – Altaic language family ( popular until 1960s )</ li >< li > a Uralic and an Altaic family ( Anna V. Dybo | Dybo, Roy Andrew Miller | Miller, Nicholas Poppe | Poppe )</ li >< li > separate Uralic, Turkic languages | Turkic and Mongolian language | Mongolian families ( Gerard Clauson | Clauson, Gerhard Doerfer | Doerfer, Stefan Georg | Georg )</ li >< li > a Eurasiatic or Nostratic macrofamily ( Joseph Greenberg | Greenberg, Sergei Starostin | Starostin, Allan Bomhard | Bomhard )</ li ></ ul >

Under the disputed Nostratic theory and similar theories such as that of monogenesis, some of these examples would indeed be distantly related cognates, but the evidence for reclassifying them as such is insufficient.

Some linguists see this as the earliest arrival of Nostratic languages in the Middle East.

It is not discernibly related to other North American or northeast Asian indigenous languages, although some have proposed that it is related to Uralic languages such as Finnish and Saami in the proposed Uralo-Siberian grouping, or even Indo-European languages as part of the hypothetical Nostratic superphylum.

At about this time, Russian Nostraticists, notably Sergei Starostin, constructed a revised version of Nostratic.

The American Nostraticist Allan Bomhard considers Eurasiatic a branch of Nostratic, alongside other branches: Afroasiatic, Elamo-Dravidian, and Kartvelian.

Similarly, Georgiy Starostin ( 2002 ) arrives at a tripartite overall grouping: he considers Afroasiatic, Nostratic and Elamite to be roughly equidistant and more closely related to each other than to anything else.

Sergei Starostin's school has now included Afroasiatic in a broadly defined Nostratic.

Nostratic is a hypothetical language family ( sometimes called a macrofamily or a superfamily ) that includes many of the indigenous language families of Eurasia, including the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic as well as Kartvelian languages.

The hypothetical ancestral language of the Nostratic family is called Proto-Nostratic.

) Proposed alternative names such as Mitian, formed from the characteristic Nostratic first-and second-person pronouns mi ' I ' and ti ' you ' ( exactly ' thou '), have not attained the same currency.

The chief events in Nostratic studies in 2008 were the posting online of the latest version of Dolgopolsky's Nostratic Dictionary and the publication of Allan Bomhard's latest comprehensive treatment of the subject, Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic, in 2 volumes.

Also significant was Bomhard's partly critical review of Dolgopolsky's dictionary, in which he argued that only those Nostratic etymologies that are strongest should be included, in contrast to Dolgopolsky's more expansive approach, which includes many etymologies that are possible but not secure.

2008 also saw the opening of a website, Nostratica, devoted to providing important texts in Nostratic studies online.

The Sumerian and Etruscan languages, usually regarded as language isolates, are thought by some to be Nostratic languages as well.