Taranis
Elite member
?
But there IS a relationship between Caucasian languages and Indo-European languages. But nobody knows to which degree. And Caucasian languages are very very old.
According to this scheme Caucasian languages are not so far placed from the more archaic the Nostratic language. And according to this scheme Caucasian languages (KartveloEusian) are ANCESTORS of IE languages!
Sorry, no. The Nostratic hypothesis is by no means accepted by all (or even the plurality of all) linguists. The way the Nostratic languages are usually set up you get the impression of a grab-all-bag for the languages of much of the Old World, which I find in itself quite a challenge. Especially I find that tree you present there completely untenable.
There are many problems associated with the Nostratic hypothesis, some which I will elaborate: one problem is that their internal reconstruction of proto-languages and the assumption about the exact nature of the proto-languages are often far from certain (even with the Indo-European languages, which are probably the most intensely researched and well-established language family, there is controversy about the exact nature of PIE). The other, equally problematic issue is that so-called 'Wanderwörter' are completely ignored by the Nostraticists. These 'wandering words' are words that appear in different languages but where their exact origin is undiscernable. A typical example would be the word 'wine'. Nostraticists tend to take 'wanderwörter' as exact cognates, which can cause a completely false image.
This, and a number of other problems, are the reason why the Nostratic hypothesis is rejected by mainstream linguistics.