> --- In email@example.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:.....
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > > Why not the other way around? Why the tendency to dismissthings
> > > outside the sphere of order that we constructed for ourselvesas
> > > noise?.....
> > If we didn't demand to see impeccable credentials beforeadmitting
> > outsider into our sphere it would soon be crammed full of
> > but unreal, beliefs.
> I don't think this is a question of method, but of attitude. While
> might agree with you politically (and have disagreed with you inI am inclined to agree with you- our differences are due above all to
> better times), I don't linguistically.
> > >
> > > What exactly _is_ cherry-picking, and why is it inadmissible?
> The way I was using it was to mean picking out similar sounding......
> > and not accounting for there overall frequency.
>Since the mass comparison method is used for the purpose of
> No one uses statistics that way within a recognised language group.
> Ten years ago your argument might have been used against Nostratic,Perhaps it is only another way of saying the critics of the Nostratic
> now it isn't, which is another way of calling it ephemeral.
> Personally, I've mostly left out New World cognates, since I knowSo that if one accepts the Nostratic hypothesis, then we are dealing
> next to nothing about their development. Other than that I've used
> Møller's IE-Semitic and Bomhard's Nostratic etymologies (on the
> assumption that some of them are loans) plus Austronesian (not all
> proto-, true) and Proto-Bantu. You don't get back much further than
>Which is besides the point- the point being that many, if not most
> > > >
> > > > I see now- a conjectural etymology
> > >
> > > As opposed to what kind of etymology?
> > As opposed to a generally accepted etymology
> Which all began as conjectural etymologies.
> > ....... I asked ifshould
> > was evidence of voyages to Taiwan before the Neolithic?
> At the time of low water, Taiwan was highland, relatively. Why
> the inhabitants of the river plain go there? The way I see it, theIs this a way of conceding that you do not have evidence of
> Austronesian speakers of Taiwan are refugees from the floods.
> > .... But if for the sake of discussion I were toYes, I was aware of that point when I asked the question- but there
> > concede your point, then my question would be what would your
> > hypothesis explain which could not be explained by Proto-World?
> Proto-World would have been much older than the domestication of
> dogs. The first emigration out of Africa followed the coast of
> Southern Asia. Dogs being domesticated in East Asia would have to
> have gone the opposite way. In other words, for a *k-n-, *k-l-
> etc "dog" word to be Proto-World, dogs would have had to be
> domesticated for the first time in Africa.
>Well, actually you did. As you may recall, my initial entry into this
> > certainly no devotee of Proto-World, but if confronted with a
> > of just that or the "transcontinental canine trading paleolithic
> > proto-austronesian canoe paddler" hypothesis I am not sure which
> > Brother Oakham would start shaving.
> I haven't proposed these people bartered dogs.
> I think they broughtOK, I don't want to beat the dead horse re trade here- we both
> them with them. Maybe they gave away a puppy or two to the natives?