This is analogous to IndoEuropean isoglosses - we could split IE any number
of countless ways, but are they all correct? Which gene do we pick out of
the countless millions to obtain our flawed results?
Why couldn't we say based on this 90,000 year-old gene that Welsh and Papuan
lgs are related? How does one choose "good" genes from "bad" genes for the
purposes of this research? By what arbitrary criteria?
Correlated to linguistic "similarities" using whose views? What is your
linguistic measuring stick?
John, demonstratably unable to reason, states:
>Glen, if you like, I can post to you information on the specific
>mathematical tests that have been conducted,
Insignificant. I logically requested in the previous post, "I would like you
to explain solely through _linguistic_ reasoning the basis of these
classifications. If you cannot, please forfeit this childish game." In
response you stated, "Challenge accepted."
However you've failed in my request, willing only to supply trivial
mathematics based on dubious reasoning. You have thus demonstrated that you
are either too incompetent or too ignorant to discuss this level of
linguistics.
Your game has officially ended. You have been assimilated.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________