Nemo, concerning my statement that "Comparative linguistics defies yet to be
properly measured.":
>This is what concerns me. Why so little effort is made to use new
>tools in comparative linguistics in order to get more objective and
>verifiable results? Which tools? I don't know. Perhaps more
>statistics, probability, deterministic chaos, fuzzy sets...
>Painstaking? Again Piotr:
My understanding is that comparative linguistics is purely theoretical and
therfore _inexact_. Due to this, it is quite impossible to measure CompLx
with _exact_ tools such as statistics, probability, etc since they are
contrary to the inexact nature of CompLx. As well, comparative linguistics
involves almost random human and social behaviour in the end.
So, if you get a chance Nemo, I want you to translate human and social
behaviour to me into an exact mathematical model. When you've done that,
we'll get to work on finally measuring comparative linguistics and after
that, we'll start devising ways to measure other things like "love" and
exactly how many angels there are on the head of a pin. :)
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com