Re: semantics question

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:33:47 -0500, Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>
wrote:

><rant>
>
>Might I point out, politely, that as far as conlanging goes
>I see no problem with using forms from Ryan's putative 'Proto-
>Language' as an a posteriori source of lexemes.  But I also feel
>obliged to point out that most of what Mr. Ryan has to say on
>these pages would be considered by the vast majority of professional
>historical linguists to be the thoughts of a crackpot. Thus, you
>should also be warned that many, many people will not take you
>seriously if you pay him cite him.
>
></rant>
I understand this.  However, might I also add that it is a shame that the
professional historical linguistic community is not as open to new ideas as
it could be.  But then again, every field is subject to dogmatism somehow.
I don't agree with everything that Mr. Ryan has to say, and I view some of
his ideas with considerable reserve, but I do think that it's interesting
to play around with ideas and see if they work or not.

- Rob

Reply