Torsten:
>Of course I'm also against all this lumping on methodological
>grounds, but if I don't make a big lump then no one will have the
>chance to pick out their favorite set and disapprove of the rest of
>the lump. I'm just being social.
Yes, but consider this: There's a difference between a lump and a dump. No
offense :) If we were to keep track of all the coincidences that exist
between languages, we'd never get to finding out what's really going on. We
have to be critical from the beginning and weed out the unlikely
coincidences. This is what I call the "efficiency of thought" principle.
This doesn't mean forgetting the coincidences but it does mean that the
connecions are prioritized according to probability. A connection between
IndoEuropean and Algonquian must be put low on a list for good reason, but a
connection between IndoEuropean and Uralic should be given far more
priority. Factors such as geographical proximity, archaeological evidence,
common consensus by specialized linguists, etc, must be understood in order
to prioritize appropriately.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com