Re: Which Manansala? (was [tied] a(i)s-)

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:12:04 -0000, tgpedersen@... wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> >>Rosenfelder does not advocate any
> >>alternative "theory" of his own. What he shows is that a "method"
> >>based on counting eye-catching resemblances cannot be a reliable
> >>procedure at all.
> >
> >In order to get a set of words into Marc Rosenfelder's Procrustean
> >theory, ....
> >And BTW, you may point out for the umpteenth time that no, no,
> >Rosenfelder shows that you can't use "similarity" in linguistics.

But

> >I agree, he does; unfortunately in the process he has shown
> >that "proper" linguistics is impossible too. That's why I called

for

> >a modification of his theory.
>
> It is *not* a theory.
>
> Marc states it very clearly in the article:
>
> "To analyze a claim about language relationship based simply on
> resemblances (as opposed, of course, to one based on the comparative
> method), we can apply the principles and formulas developed above."

OK, so it's not a theory (does that mean it can't be refuted?). In
that case I would say that he should use other principles and
formulas.

Torsten