After thinking some more, I caught a cute faux-pas from Mark
that may or may not be intentional (y'never know with clever
ol' Mark):
>>Your theory makes it hopelessly hypothetical.
Of course, theories *ARE* "hopelessly hypothetical". (Duh!)
IndoEuropean, being a theory (a damn good theory), is hypothetical,
being a theory, a "hopelessly hypothetical" theory that IE is.
All of comparative linguistics that deals with prehistoric (aka
"un-recorded/un-seen/un-heard/un-experienced") languages
will forever be, by its very nature, hopelessly _theoretical_.
In such an instance, while logic can't immediately tell us what
is true or what is false, it still sides towards the theory of
greatest likelihoods to give us proper answers. This is a
gradual approximation of truth, an infinite quest, rather than
an immediate, absolute truth. It's all analog signals versus
digital, iterative algorithms versus recursive, circles versus
polygons, and physical studies versus the theoretical.
So there can never be "absolute truth" in comparative
linguistics when it delves into prehistory as it does here. Still
though, as long as this basic concept of "optimum theory" and
logical approximation reigns supreme, fantasy and whim can be
directed to the exit sign. Just because the things we discuss are
not tangible doesn't mean there is an excuse for idled minds, no
more so in quantum mechanics than in comparative linguistics.
-------------------------------------------------
gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!
home:
http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email:
glengordon01@...
-------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp