From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 16707
Date: 2002-11-12
--- In cybalist@..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
Torsten:
That's not fair. You're supposed to analyse each language back to the
earliest stage reachable with your ability. I don't think you've done
that for the English set of roots.
Richard:
Doesn't that rule only apply to valid searches for genetic cognates?
The Sundaland argument for comparing Bagirmi and English is weak;
what the argument would justify is doing a Bagirmi-Austronesian
comparison. (Any Bagirmi speakers on the list?)
Torsten:
I think behind your 'valid' is a wish to introduce a reasonability
metric to be applied on the locations of the two languages in
question before one considers actually comparing roots. All I say is
that the shortest actual travel time (by sea for the periods in
question) instead of mere terrestrial contiguity should be part of
that metric.
Richard:
No. My ideal is to compare a language (or proto-language) for which
you would not argue a Sundaland connection with Austronesian.
Unfortunately, my knowledge is probably not good enough. That is why
I asked for a location that wasn't reachable. I though non-Niger-
Kordafanian non-coastal sub-Saharan Central or West Africa (Timbuktu
way) would do. If not, where? Central Asia is of little use, for we
don't have Swadesh 100-word lists for any Altaic language but Turkish!
Incidentally, how do _you_ explain the Chadic-Austronesian links.
Richard.