Re: CHAT: proto-language

Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
>
> > You really have a knack for raising teremendously interesting issues
>
> Controversial ones, too.
That's what makes them interesting :-)
>
> > :-) 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.
>
Oh, well. But what of the genetic findings he and others claim bolstering it ?

> --
> John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
>         You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
>         You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
>                 Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
>
>


-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=19178