Re: CHAT: proto-language

I appear to have deleted the original post;

> > :-) I'm impressed by Ruhlen, Greenberg and Renfrew : they make me hope >
> > linguists and archeologists may help know a little more about that
> > primary relation.  What do you'll think of Ruhlen's theory (I know it
> > only via his last popularising book) ?
>
> I think it makes a lot of very little, and is methodologically
> unsound.  See the sci.lang FAQ
> at http://www.tezcat.com/~markrose/lang21.html#22 for full details.
>
I quite agree.  Greenberg's data for Amerind and his use of it is
appalling.  His Indo-Pacific evidence is scantier and I have been
told but can not confirm that even his African classifications are
now being called into question.
As for Ruhlen, someone called him Greenberg's bulldog, I think they
were too nice in that estimation.  Even his recent Ket:Na-Dene work
is far from convincing IMHO.
--
Brad Coon
hawksinger@fwi.com
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/everquest/624
        My Conlang and Conculture pages
http://www.ipfw.indiana.edu/east1/coon/web/index.htm
    Most of my pages including my home page
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Gorge/7264
    My Outdoor and Primitive Skills Pages
http://members.tripod.com/~Hawksinger
    My wine pages.
"Life without adventure is merely existance."--Hawksinger