From: mkelkar2003
Message: 53630
Date: 2008-02-18
>I do not.
> Do you have something against genetic mixing?
> --- mkelkar2003 <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
> > <fournet.arnaud@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
> > <fournet.arnaud@>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [I'm allowing this through as a discussion of the
> > Uralic Continuity
> > Theory', not as a discussion of AIT/OIT, which has
> > been reclosed.
> > I've therefore taken the liberty of changing the
> > subject title. -
> > Richard.]
> >
> > The UCT has been received in the familiar fashion.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/isolintu/voodoo.html
> >
> > "The model Wiik et. al. proposed on Proto-Uralic and
> > its evolution
> > suffered from the problem that it contradicted
> > everything we know
> > about language evolution. Languages do not mix
> > unless in rather
> > special circumstances, yet genetic mixing and the
> > multiple-rooted
> > language family trees associated with it were
> > cheerfully adopted by
> > the 'innovationist' Uralists."
> >
> > The above claim is just false. Languages do mix and
> > could have
> > multiple parents. See McMahon and McMahon (2005).pdf
> > in the files. The
> > intricate web of boxes indicates genetic mixing.
> >
> > M. Kelkar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>