On a side note, Gerry innocently wrote:
>I thought Sarmatians were latter day Scythians?
I thought Samaritans were latter day saints, myself. Oh well. Who's to say?
Dennis:
>Maybe I'm just an old Luddite, but I don't like the
>idea of reducing language to numbers, or translating machines or >talking
>computers for that matter.
You're probably a Luddite since I don't see how talking computers are a bad
thing. Making a computer talk and having a computer replace comparative
linguists are two different things. Without talking computers, our blessed
Steven Hawking could have been some anonymous mute in a wheelchair.
What's more, aside from general speculation on what such an algorithm or
equation would involve, people who try to support the use of these
linguistic mathematics continue to suspiciously avoid altogether getting
into detail required to actually solve the problem.
Personally, I would expect to see at least a general equation or algorithm
laid out for this topic to make any headway. I don't believe that this is an
unreasonable request if comparative linguistics can truely be reduced to
numbers at all.
And why are we pretending that glottochronology is a useful tool in
linguistics?? I get trashed for making some specific booboos on IE while
general booboos (like embracing glottochronology as a real science) go
unabated. Not to mention that this whole topic barely has to do with IE at
all despite moderation.
So I'm feeling very confused over here. Whatever, happy belated Easter
everyone.
Dennis:
>I can only echo the cry of the Prisoner in the old sixties TV series : >"I
>am a man, not a number".
Wow! I can't believe it. You mean I'm NOT the only one that has seen that
show? What was with that giant beachball on the ocean, huh?? :)
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com