--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.humis.utah.edu/humis/docs/organization_919_1166141662.pdf
>
Don't we have our backs to the wall?! It is worth reading this passege
from Campbell over and over again.
"The ancestor of English and Hindi did not begin to diversify into
separate languages
until some 5,000 or 6,000 years ago, but they share only some five
clear cognates on the
Swadesh 100-word list (Campbell and Poser in press). If the impact on
the vocabulary of
clearly related languages is so great after only a few millennia,
surely there is no hope for
comparisons at very remote time levels. In short, too much loss and
garbling has taken place
from very remote times (say beyond 15,000 years) for anything to
survive or be recognizable
today in related languages that diversified so long ago."
English and Hindi are "clearly related" because we the comparative
lingusits say so. They did not start diversifying until 4000 BCE
because we the comparative linguists say so. And yet the fact is they
have only 5 cognates on the Swadish list because 6000, (and not 15000
years of history why because again we the comparative lingusits say
so) has wiped the similaritie off.
May be, MAY BE, 15000 years of history has garbled the similarity
between English and Hindi and comparative method being so good as
Campbell says is able to "clearly" establish the connection.
If Campbell wants to make the case the comparative method is THE
method why not just bite the bullet and say come what may, 5000 or
5,000,000, years we the traditional comparative linguists decide which
languages belong to families.
Campbell might have just said "I want to have my cake and eat it too."
M. Kelkar