11-07-03 11:20, A.S.Sundar wrote:
> Regarding `chance resemblance' as a
> possibility ,please read my suggestions on `chance resemblances' in
> Linguist List 14.1630 before responding.
> A.S.Sundar
Dear A.S. Sundar,
I have read them. What can I say? You signed your posting to the
Linguist List "A.S. Sundar, Etymologist". In fact, you're a Lookalike
Hunter. You present superficially "similar" forms and stop there without
even attempting a historical linguistic analysis. You don't try to
_demonstrate_ that the similarities aren't accidental; you just
_believe_ they aren't, and you invite other people to share your belief.
All your critics on the LL dismissed your "links" as chance resemblances
... well, that's what they are. I'm not going to go through the motions
of refuting them; competent people have already done that and I'd have
little to add, except for the following warning: Don't expect a more
favourable evaluation unless you are prepared to learn something about
the history of the languages you are comparing, and about the techniques
of linguistic comparison. We've seen too many lists of meaningless
similarities.