> --- In cybalist@..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:the
> That's not fair. You're supposed to analyse each language back to
> earliest stage reachable with your ability. I don't think you'vedone
> that for the English set of roots.is
> 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?)
> 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
> that the shortest actual travel time (by sea for the periods inwhich
> question) instead of mere terrestrial contiguity should be part of
> that metric.
> No. My ideal is to compare a language (or proto-language) for
> you would not argue a Sundaland connection with Austronesian.Right. You introduced a accessibility metric.
> Unfortunately, my knowledge is probably not good enough. That iswhy
> I asked for a location that wasn't reachable. I though non-Niger-(Timbuktu
> Kordafanian non-coastal sub-Saharan Central or West Africa
> way) would do. If not, where? Central Asia is of little use, forwe
> don't have Swadesh 100-word lists for any Altaic language butTurkish!
>Chadic is AfroAsiatic. Some argue it has a special connection to
> Incidentally, how do _you_ explain the Chadic-Austronesian links.