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

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:29:12 -0000, tgpedersen@... wrote:

>> 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.

For what? I think the principles and formulas are perfectly adequate
for the stated goal. If you think you can refute Mark's article, feel
free to do so. So far, all you've offered is 1) a misunderstanding;
2) a demonstration that Mark's model is not a theory about proving
language relationships, which it, of course, isn't.