Mark O:
>Some astonishingly broad claims are made on the basis of even more
>astonishingly thin data. Greenberg's mass comparisons is just taking
>other guys' dictionaries (and all the errors in them) and comparing
>word lists. It's a place to start, but no more than that.
I agree with you there. It's a place to start... but we can't start
forever and a day. It's time to move on and Greenberg's views are
too general, vague and outdated. I'm attempting to provide better
solutions.
>Everyone, even you Glen, seems to enjoy picking on Merritt Ruhlen,
>but from my perspective, you all suffer from Ruhlen's syndrome. You guys
>are spinning language families out of nothing.
Firstly, Mark, I haven't published anything yet except my webpages.
I wouldn't go to the expense and time of writing books with
minimal data and half-thought-out ideas. Ruhlen has his merits but
there is room for improvement as well. When I publish something
some day, I promise to give you first dibs at cutting me with your
razor-sharp critiques. Afterall, we can't all agree with each other,
can we? And why should we! I'm having more fun disagreeing with
you :)
Secondly, don't be fooled. I don't spin language families out of
nothing. This is my logic...
The study of comparative linguistics is governed by logic.
(Comparative linguistics is thus a science rather than a creative
artform like basket weaving.)
Any two languages or language groups are related somehow. Thus,
isolate languages do not exist in reality. For every question
on language relationships, there is one correct answer. However,
physical proof is impossible. Here, only theory can provide
solution. Therefore, there *is* and *always* is an "optimal
theory" to answer relationship issues.
So, if there is no corresponding theory to answer a certain
question, a theory must be created in order to answer that
question. To not have a theory is to not quest for the answer,
which is antagonistic to the very reason for science. Further,
any theory must evolve when conflicting information is provided
in order to optimally approximate the one true answer.
A good example is Nostratic. It is a theory created to answer a
question about the relationship and origin of certain language
groups. If it is not optimum it must be made so through further
contributions. A person who insists that Nostratic is flawed
without providing a better solution is to not quest for an answer,
and is therefore antagonistic to science and logic itself.
At that, we come to you, Mark. If my theories are not optimum,
I request contribution so that my theories can adapt. You
continue to criticize Nostratic and yet, as it currently stands,
you have not contributed to a better solution. Therefore, you are
antagonistic to science and logic. And... is this not the very definition of
true madness? :)
-------------------------------------------------
gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!
home:
http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email:
glengordon01@...
-------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp