> [...]To quote yourself: for instance. The **tik group is now eliminated
> >>>> 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,
> >> Not a category mistake in the way that I meant it: these
> >> arguments cast significant doubt on the idea that the
> >> **tik words, for instance, are a loan-group.
> > Like I said.
> Not that I can see.
> >> It is of course still possible that *some* of the itemsOne shouldn't act on impressions. My view is a collection of sets of
> >> belong together as loans, just as it's possible that
> >> *some* of them are cognate, but each pair or plausible
> >> small subgroup would have to be investigated on its own
> >> merits.
> > Like I said.
> Not really, no. You at least give the strong impression
> that you're taking some connection as the default position
> and arguing that anyone wishing to maintain a contrary view
> is obliged to eliminate pairs one at a time. This is
> methodologically backwards.
> >>> I'm not sure what the third means?).How so?
> >> Ruhlen uses attested forms in particular languages,
> >> including isolates; shallow reconstructions in tiny
> >> families; remote reconstructions in large and well-studied
> >> families; and reconstructions in highly speculative
> >> macro-families like Amerind. Given a form, he's perfectly
> >> willing to accept as a match either an attested form in a
> >> language X or a reconstructed form in a language ancestral
> >> to X; this obviously greatly increases his chances of
> >> finding a match. Whether or not the extra matches allowed
> >> by this approach are more likely to be false positives --
> >> and I think that they are -- it seems clear that true
> >> positives among them will be harder to identify as such.
> > Because?
> Because loans are easier to identify when contemporaneous
> evidence from both source and borrower is available.