Re: House and City

--- In cybalist@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>

etcetera etcetera.
With respect to the *b/p-l/r- lump/dump I put it out on two separate
occassions for two separate reasons:

1) To establish a connection between Austric and IE/AA. The
"unreasonable" part of is of course the inclusion of Austric, since
the similarities wrt that gloss in IE and AA were noticed long ago by
greater minds than mine. Therefore the unreasonableness hinges on
whether Austric could be physically in contact with IE and AA at the
right time. Oppenheimer has argued for that better (and more
copiously) than I can here. Read his book.

2) Someone was arguing for a link between some of the particular
glosses that were also listed in my *b/p-l/r- lump/dump. So I said
they could help themselves to whatever they could find in the
lump/dump. No claim on my part.

Torsten