From: Brian M. Scott
> From: Brian M. Scott<mailto:BMScott@...>Indeed I am: it's true.
>> At 6:43:28 AM on Sunday, February 5, 2006, Patrick Ryan
>>> Trask willingly conceded the _possibility_ that all
>>> language descended from one common ancestor.
>>> At the same time, he fervently _believed_ that any
>>> information regarding that most ancient ancestor was not
>> Yes, because he understood exactly why this is the case.
>> It isn't, as you are trying to suggest, a matter of blind
>> belief or faith; it follows directly from what we know
>> about linguistic change and the age of human language. If
>> any signal of common ancestry has actually persisted down
>> to the present, it cannot rise above the level of the
>> background noise and therefore cannot be shown to exist.
>> Looking for traces of proto-world is a waste of time;
>> believing that one has found them is at best naive.
> You are repeating the same thing Trask did.
> Dogmatically.No: it is an inference from what is known, and therefore --
> Without looking at possible indications of such "traces".This also is false.
>>> and, I fault him for this, was unwilling to seriouslyRead what I wrote: I said nothing about Greenberg. I am
>>> look at anything which purported to prove otherwise.
>> He looked seriously enough to eviscerate the Basque
>> evidence offered by Bengtson and Ruhlen. (Some of this
>> evisceration is, I think, unpublished save in a series of
>> posts to sci.lang made in late 2003 in a thread 'Ruhlen's
>> way with words'. It is presented in his usual clear
> And here you reveal your almost religious fanaticism
> against the idea.
> How many times do you have to be told that this is not
> what Greenberg (particularly) and Ruhlen (secondarily)
> were trying to do?