Well, yes and no. If they can back up what they say
with plausible reconstructions and are flexible enough
to take criticism, something can be gained.
Obviously too many languages have come and gone to
truly reconstruct a World Language or Proto-Human but
the exercise can be fulfilling. Comparing individual
modern languages or non-reconstructed classical
languages, of course, is a search for fool's gold. You
must go back to proto-languages and the earliest
recontruction possible. You need to assume that the
experts on a certain language family usually know a
whole lot more than you do about those languages.
And for those who don't follow this advice, Noahism
fulfills a truly valuable public service by keeping
those people occupied and off the streets.
--- "Brian M. Scott" <
BMScott@...> wrote:
> At 1:50:48 PM on Tuesday, February 19, 2008, Patrick
> Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > Jouppe,
>
> > clever though the term may be, Noahism is
> certainly meant
> > to be a disparagement of longrange comparison.
>
> Some of us think that much long-range comparison
> deserves
> disparagement.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ