From: tgpedersen
Message: 43291
Date: 2006-02-07
>Applying the above objections to the idea is a categorial mistake,
> At 6:06:39 AM on Monday, February 6, 2006, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Salmons did a pretty thorough job on Ruhlen's alleged
> >> *tik word; some of the criticisms are specific to that
> >> word, but the (rather serious) methodological criticisms
> >> carry over to the rest of the list.
>
> > He probably did, I haven't read it. AfaIk no one proposed
> > so far that the alleged cognates were loans, much less
> > refuted that idea.
>
> Actually, many of the methodological objections to the idea
> that they're cognate are also damaging to the idea that
> they're loans:
>
> * unconvincing semantics;
> * absurdly generous criteria for phonological matches;
> * the fact that he ignores time depth.
>
> In short, it's not clear that there's anything there to be
> explained in the first place, as cognates *or* as loans.
>