Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50016
Date: 2007-09-21

Suppose I can explain
20% words of Chinese, English, Patagonian Tehuelce
and Kalahari Bushmen
with "unrelated words caused by accident of history"
 
What is your point of view ?
 
Do you still consider this is just random ?
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian M. Scott
To: fournet.arnaud
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 6:07 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

At 3:00:02 AM on Thursday, September 20, 2007,
fournet.arnaud wrote:

> The fact is I am less and less sceptical about
> proto-world.

> I think it is possible to work on very deep cognates,

> I have got some.

> not Ruhlenesque cognates, I mean clean phonetically
> relevant cognates.

If you have any, it's an accident, and there's no way for
you to be sure or to demonstrate their cognacy: at a time
depth of ~50,000 years there is no way to distinguish
cognates that by some accident of history are still
phonetically similar from unrelated words of similar meaning
that accidentally happen to be phonetically similar.

Brian