Peter_Constable@... wrote:
> On 11/11/2001 11:45:38 AM Michael Everson wrote:
> >This is historical and it is interesting.
> >
> >What would a classification based on "script properties" entail, and
> >why would it be interesting?
> I forgot to add to my earlier message:
> Some linguists are interested in diachronic relationships, and that is
> valid and interesting. Others are interested in synchronic properties --
> e.g. Greenberg's work had nothing whatsoever to do with historical
> relationships -- and that is also valid and interesting. I don't see why
> people with some background in linguistics would question why the same
> couldn't be true here as well.
> I certainly support Lars in his interest. But as he as said, it seems that
> people are talking past each other, which is unfortunate.

As I said in the first message with the above header, a typology in
linguistics -- as pioneered by Greenberg -- is not an exhaustive
"classification" and cannot be used as such.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...