--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 2:11:36 PM on Friday, June 9, 2006, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > Genetic Distance and Language Affinities
>
> > http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm
>
> > On the genetic distance chart IE and AA speakers appear
> > next to each other if that means anything at all to the
> > linguists.
>
> That's the Cavalli-Sforza chart from the 1991 Scientific
> American article. It's seriously flawed, to put it mildly.
> See, for instance, Jacques Guy's criticism on the Linguist
> List:
>
>
<
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9201d&L=linguist&D=1&P=2989>
>
> Brian
>
This lengthy meaningless critique just demonstrates that GEOGRPAHY not
subjective and in my opinion a rather arbitrary classification of
languages into "families" is the main marker of where people have come
from. The critique is meaningless becuase it just restates the obvious
superiority of genetics over linguistics in predictive power. For
example,
"The Indo European-speaking Indians
themselves have for closest relatives the Dravidian speakers of South
India, and are no more closely related to other Indo-European speakers
than they are to Afro-Asiatic speakers. Thus, out of four
Indo-European populations, none has for closest relative another
speaker of Indo-European."
So? Genetics *proves* that speakers of "Indo-Aryan" and "Dravidian"
genetically as close as they can get. But linguists and in particular
Indo-European lingusits would have one group arrive from Gods know
where including the north pole. Such is is the sway of this
linguistic propoganda that proponents of the Dravidian separatist
movement in India still think Aryan and Dravidian are different races.
Indo-European linguists are too be congratulated indeed!
M. Kelkar