From: Tavi
Message: 69175
Date: 2012-04-01
>asked
> So what prevents you from demonstrating its application? On the one
> hand, you promise a lot; on the other, you sound very evasive when
> to back up your claims.I've already told you where and when to look.
>
> > I never said Vasco-Caucasian was a family but a MACRO-FAMILY, thatis, a
> > distant linguistic relationship.descendants.
>
> Linguistic taxa, like other clades defined on the basis of shared
> ancestry, are all of the same kind, irrespective of their time depth.
> They consist of a most recent common ancestor plus all its
> There are no other valid *genetic* groupings. It doesn't matter whatyou
> call them -- a branch, a family, a macro-family or asuper-mega-phylum.
> A family is nothing special or privileged -- it's just a conventionalthe
> term for a linguistic clade whose wider relationships are obscure at
> current state of our knowledge. It's in fact our present ignorancethat
> defines it. If one day we demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt thatare
> Uralic and Indo-European (or Na-Dené and Sino-Tibetan, or whatever)
> related, we shall have combined two or more families into one (as hasderive
> happened before in several cases). If Basque and (NE?) Caucasian
> from a common ancestor, they are by definition members of the sameConsidering most Vasco-Caucasian languages have become extinct and only
> clade. Either you can prove that by applying the comparative method in
> the same way you would apply it to any "family", or you can't. So you
> can't, can you?
>