Re: Sh!

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> > * I once read an article that denied the validity of the Indoeuropean
> > grouping. Interesting idea, but somewhat marred by the authors
> > apparent
> > belief that the linguistic grouping could be disproved by showing the
> > IE-speakers don't form a biologically recognizable group.
>
>Showing thus a complete misunderstanding of linguistics. Since when do
>linguistic groups have to map with biological groups? That's completely
>misunderstanding how languages work...
>
>  He also
> > indicated
> > that anyone who believes in the IE grouping is most probably a racist.
> >
>
>Well, I'd rather say that someone who doesn't believe in the IE grouping
>for
>this same reason *is* probably the racist one. After all, it's that person
>who
>brought up the subject of biological grouping, not the ones who advocate
>the IE
>gamily group...
I don't think the author was a racist. He rather seemed to imply that there
are _no_ biologically recognizable groups among humans. The logical
conclusion from that would, by his logic, presumably be that there are no
valid gentic groupings of languages either, but from the article you
couldn't tell if he believed that.

                                                     Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx