Re: Re[10]: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

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

From: Brian M. Scott

To: Patrick Ryan

Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 3:26 PM

Subject: Re[10]: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

At 3:35:37 PM on Saturday, May 13, 2006, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott


>> At 3:01:33 PM on Saturday, May 13, 2006, Patrick Ryan
>> wrote:

[...]

>>> Perhaps you are not aware, Brian, but I am not the only
>>> amateur or professional historical linguist who
>>> entertains the idea that very early forms of human
>>> language may be reconstructed.

>> I know of no historical linguist who believes any such
>> thing. In particular, I don't consider Ruhlen a linguist,
>> but 'a crackpot and a charlatan' (quoting Larry Trask).

>   More ad hominems, second-hand, of course.

No.  It would be an argument ad hominem if I said 'Ruhlen's
a crackpot and a charlatan, so you shouldn't believe
anything he says about Proto-World'.  In fact, however, the
inference goes the other way: examination of what he says
leads to the conclusion that he's a crackpot, just as
examination of Edo Nyland's fantasies leads to the
conclusion that *he* is a crackpot.

That's it for me, unless you've something on-topic to add.

***

Patrick:

 

When you state that Ruhlen is no linguist but a crackpot and charlatan, you imply that so categorizing him mandates not considering his work seriously. The implication need not be spelled out for an argumentum ad hominem to have been employed.

 

When you mentioned the majority or totality of linguists does not believe in the possibility of very early language reconstruction, this is an argumentum ex cathedra even thoug you do not explicitly follow up with: if they do not believe it, neither should anyone else.

 

If your remarks above are actually considered an exercise in logic — by you — I fear for your mind.

 

Still no answer as to whether Starostin, for example, is a linguist?

 

***