From: Brian M. Scott
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott"Not a category mistake in the way that I meant it: these
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> At 6:06:39 AM on Monday, February 6, 2006, tgpedersen wrote:
>>> --- In email@example.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.
> Applying the above objections to the idea is a categorial
> mistake, they must apply to the individual members of the
> individual proposed sets (at least wrt the first two,
> I'm not sure what the third means?).Ruhlen uses attested forms in particular languages,
> Thus they can be used to reject individual members of setsAs far as I'm concerned, that's the wrong question: the
> or individual sets of cognates, not the theory. If you
> have such objections for eg. the "aqua" set, let's hear