From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----From: Brian M. ScottTo: mkelkar2003Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:46 PMSubject: 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]
***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 intendedto discredit the FACT thatthe groupings that Greenberg makes of Amerind languagescorrespond tothe 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.***