Re: Correct link for "Trees or webs.." by Haggerty

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
> The best tree without Germanic on page 46
> is interesting.
> and the questions on page 47 too !

That question is already answered on slide 50. The probablity that
European languages broke off from the mother tongue as a single block
is 0.44 i.e. less than 0.5. That is means the tree model is wrong when
it comes to Europe.

M. Kelkar

>
> The connection of Germanic with Italic
> is absurd.
> What about future and subjunctive in -bh !
>
> This method looks good,
> if you know how to use it...
>
> Arnaud
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mkelkar2003
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:56 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: Correct link for "Trees

or webs.." by Haggerty

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> >
> >
>

http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/~pah1003/loe/Eng/Papers/06_12_07_DataShow_PaulHeggarty_TreesOrWebsSplitsOrWaves.pdf

> >
>
> "2.5 THE LINGUISTS' RESPONSE?
> Two possible responses to our results for Quechua:
> . A: The method got the classification wrong, so it's useless for
> languages.
> . B: The method seems fair enough -
> maybe the traditional classification is wrong after all?
> In fact, several Andean linguists have gone for . B!
> Linguists aren't all Luddites and Cassandras after all?"
>
> Compare slide 31 to 54 in the above link. The innermost circle is
> where the "homeland" is if there is homeland at all. In the case of
> "Indo-European" it "Indo-Iranian" occupies that position.
>
> M. Kelkar
>