[tied] Re: Laryngeal Loss (was Does Koenraad Elst Meet Hock s Chall

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

> > > Since blood groups are not even spread around the world, but are
> > > clustered and regional, and since linguistic features are also

not

> > > evenly spread, but clustered and regional, it is therefore to be
> > >expected that there will a "high correlation" between at least
> > > some blood groups, and some linguistic
> > > features. Any such "high correlation" is therefore

statistically

> > >insignificant.
>
> > I don't understand what you're saying.
>
> OK, I'll rephrase. Since blood groups and languages are clumped,

it is

> highly likely that some blood-group-clump and some language clump

will

> roughly coincide. But since coincidence somewhere is highly

likely, it

> proves nothing.
>
> A second and different point is that there might be another factor,

namely

> the roughly static nature of populations as a source for both

language

> clumping and blood-group clumping.
>
> Take a real example: Blood groups are regional - for example,

Kel+ is

> found almost entirely in the Pacific. Language groups are

regional - for

> example, Polynesian is found almost entirely in the Pacific. That

in itself

> does not mean there is any causal connection between someone being

Kel+ and

> speaking Polynesian. Correlation does not equal cause. If the

history of

> the world had been different, Kel+ people would be speaking

something else.

>
> Here we can suggest this third factor, namely social groups which

share

> genes and share
> a culture including related languages. But that doesn't mean the
> blood-group has anything to do with the particular qualities of the
> language.
>
> Peter

Of course. You can't conclude from co-occurrence to causal
connection. But there is a world of difference between "not
necessarily" and "necessarily not".

Torsten