Re: languages of pre-I.E. Europe and onwards

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:30:40 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>> I won't comment further on Jörg's reply, which I am in agreement with,
>> except this:
>>
>>>>>       and ancient population movements can be
>>>>> reconstructed by molecular biology.
>>> Be careful.  The idea of grafting language family tree on genetic
>>> trees, as done by Cavalli-Sforza and his followers, is generally
>>> met with suspicion, as genetic relationship does not necessarily
>>> imply linguistic relationship, and vice versa.
>> Yes indeed - *be careful*. Genetic relationship does *not* necessarily
>> imply linguistic relationship, and vice versa.
>
> Indeed.  Where is your disagreement with me?
Sorry - badly worded on my part    :(

The 'except' was not meant to go with "which I am in agreement with"
(perhaps parentheses around that clause would have been better than mere
commas), but with "I won't comment" (i.e. I won't make any other comment
except this one).

There is no disagreement whatever. I wanted to _emphasize_ the point you
made as I think it is very important. IMO too much mischief has been
caused by the erroneous notion that genetic relationship necessarily
implies linguistic relationship & conversely that linguistic
relationship necessarily implies genetic relationship. Neither
implications are necessarily valid.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
CENEDL HEB IAITH, CENEDL HEB GALON.
(A nation without a language is a
nation without a heart)
[Welsh proverb]