Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> > Yes, I know most historical linguists don't study
> > *substrate* languages, i.e. those which only survive in
> > loanwords to other languages.
>
> Splendidly missing the point, as usual. It isn't a question
> of what is studied; it's a question of how to study it.
> You've thrown away most of the progressive of the last
> century and more of historical linguistics.
>

I don't quite understand you, but surely I'd disagree anyway.

> Moreover, (a) there has been quite a bit of serious research
> into substrates, and (b) you don't study substrate
> languages: you make them up.
>

I strongly disagree and I don't see the need to pursue this interesting
conversation.