Re: Stop the insanity

Oh, where do I put the Nostraticists?

Well, somewhere after Sir William Jones and not quite before Jakob
Grimm.

We have all these wonderful 'laws' which *prove* that PIE was, as I
said, a real language spoken by a real people at a real time in a real
place (place and time are hotly argued). PIE is a fact in the sense of
'science'; PIE was there/then as much as last ice age was there/then.

The Nostratic hypothesis is anything but unreasonable, and I'm the
first to say looking for [m] in the me-word is a reasonable place to
start building it (pronouns are the most extravagantly conservative
items in any languge -- but then, explain English 'she').

But. Jakob Grimm has not yet come along, much less Karl Verner. So,
you Nostraticists sway in the wind, spinning language families out of
nearly nothing.

It's my opinion that the next great leap in historical linguistics
will come from the neurologists, who will tell us how
the language *system* works, much in the same way cardiologists tell
us how the circulatory *system* works. Human language has to be
understood as a system in the same sense doctors understand
other anatomical systems.

--- In cybalist@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:
> Mark O:
> >Some astonishingly broad claims are made on the basis of even more
> >astonishingly thin data. Greenberg's mass comparisons is just
taking
> >other guys' dictionaries (and all the errors in them) and comparing
> >word lists. It's a place to start, but no more than that.
>
> I agree with you there. It's a place to start... but we can't start
> forever and a day. It's time to move on and Greenberg's views are
> too general, vague and outdated. I'm attempting to provide better
> solutions.
>
> >Everyone, even you Glen, seems to enjoy picking on Merritt Ruhlen,
> >but from my perspective, you all suffer from Ruhlen's syndrome. You
guys
> >are spinning language families out of nothing.
>
> Firstly, Mark, I haven't published anything yet except my webpages.
> I wouldn't go to the expense and time of writing books with
> minimal data and half-thought-out ideas. Ruhlen has his merits but
> there is room for improvement as well. When I publish something
> some day, I promise to give you first dibs at cutting me with your
> razor-sharp critiques. Afterall, we can't all agree with each other,
> can we? And why should we! I'm having more fun disagreeing with
> you :)
>
> Secondly, don't be fooled. I don't spin language families out of
> nothing. This is my logic...
>
> The study of comparative linguistics is governed by logic.
> (Comparative linguistics is thus a science rather than a creative
> artform like basket weaving.)
>
> Any two languages or language groups are related somehow. Thus,
> isolate languages do not exist in reality. For every question
> on language relationships, there is one correct answer. However,
> physical proof is impossible. Here, only theory can provide
> solution. Therefore, there *is* and *always* is an "optimal
> theory" to answer relationship issues.
>
> So, if there is no corresponding theory to answer a certain
> question, a theory must be created in order to answer that
> question. To not have a theory is to not quest for the answer,
> which is antagonistic to the very reason for science. Further,
> any theory must evolve when conflicting information is provided
> in order to optimally approximate the one true answer.
>
> A good example is Nostratic. It is a theory created to answer a
> question about the relationship and origin of certain language
> groups. If it is not optimum it must be made so through further
> contributions. A person who insists that Nostratic is flawed
> without providing a better solution is to not quest for an answer,
> and is therefore antagonistic to science and logic itself.
>
> At that, we come to you, Mark. If my theories are not optimum,
> I request contribution so that my theories can adapt. You
> continue to criticize Nostratic and yet, as it currently stands,
> you have not contributed to a better solution. Therefore, you are
> antagonistic to science and logic. And... is this not the very
definition of
> true madness? :)
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> 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