Re: [tied] Re: searching for common words for all today's languages

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian M. Scott

To: mkelkar2003

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:46 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: searching for common words for all today's languages

<snip>

> "LUIGI CAVALLI-SFORZA: When we took all the (genetic) data
> from American natives, they clearly fell into three
> classes, and they correspond exactly to the linguistic
> families that have been postulated by Greenberg."

Cavalli-Sforza is not a linguist.  (Cavalli-Sforza has in
fact demonstrated rather startling linguistic ignorance.)

[snip more non sequitur]

Brian


***

Patrick:

 

Here we have Brian's normal position on every question:

 

1) I am right about everything (through knowledge);

 

2) You (anyone but 'I') are wrong about everything (through ignorance);

 

3) I do not need to prove anything since 'you' are ignorant and 'I' am knowledgeable.

 

4) Accept my opinion without discussion!

 

FACT:

 

Cavalli-Sforza has never claimed to be a 'linguist'; nor has anyone, of whom I am aware, claimed that he is either. I am sure he does not want to be one!

 

Brian's 'put-down' of Cavalli-Sforza is intended

 

to discredit the FACT that

 

the groupings that Greenberg makes of Amerind languages 

 

correspond to

 

the groupings that Cavalli-Sforza has found genetically among Amerinds.

 

Does one need to be a 'linguist' to recognize the names on two lists fall into the same groupings?

 

Does one need to be a 'geneticist' to recognize the same thing?

 

No and no.

 

One needs only to approach this question with honesty and normal, non-ideological visual capabilities.

 

Whether Cavalli-Sforza or Greenberg (or both) is right or wrong, their independently arrived-at conclusions coincide; this lends some credibility mutually to the conclusions.

 

***