>Or, if there is only a scientist-clown, or a clown-scientist, who >cares?
>"To hold the list under one's terror" has some price, hasn't >it?
Christos, what language are you speaking and why do you infuse irrelevant
side-topics into this? Get with the program and _start_ caring :P
First of all, it would be appreciated if the question was answered by
someone who speaks Modern English. :) At any rate, this is not a trivial
topic. The definition of "proof" for a comparative linguist who attempts to
connect two language groups together needs to be discussed seriously.
Different people obviously seem to have different views on what "proven" is
and what isn't.
Conservative nay-sayers opposing genetic relationships with IE then cowardly
hide behind the vagueness of the definition of "proof", saying nothing but
"It hasn't proven yet". In the realm of theoretical sciences, there is no
absolute and thus "proof" is synonymous with "the likeliest probability".
Without explaining what their proof entails, it becomes a run-around game
where no one wins. Before "proof" is laid out, there needs to be a secure
definition of "proof". Are you up to the task, Christos, my clown-scientist
pal?
- gLeN
______________________________________________________