From: mkelkar2003
Message: 48167
Date: 2007-04-01
>http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/150000/146390/p339-batagelj.pdf?key1=146390&key2=6896835711&coll=&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >They claim that the results are similar to the more well know study by
> > This is an unusal study in terms of the selctionof langauges. The
> > position of Persian and Albanian are notable.
>
> Ah! The Sino-Celto-Albanian group!
>
> > Persian is no where
> > close to Indic languages.
>
> The alogrithms are too crude and the data too limited to pick out the
> remoter connections. It didn't pick up Indo-European in general or
> Austronesian. (It picked up Malay and Indonesian, but they're the
> same language.)
>
> The data, of course, is a mess. There are some very odd 'Sanskrit'
> forms. There may also be some transcription effects - I was surprised
> that Tunisian Arabic and Hebrew came out close than Maltese, which
> originated from Arabic. I suspect this may be due to ayin being
> transliterated as zero for Arabic and Hebrew, as opposed to 'gtr' for
> Maltese. ('tr' is there ASCIIfication of Maltese 'h with stroke' -
> Planck's constant divided by two pi for many of us.)
>
> Richard.