THEORY: the ignorant popular press (was THEORY: Languages divided by politics and religion)
|From:||Jonathan Chang <zhang2323@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, May 30, 2000, 0:24|
>In a message dated 2000/05/29 11:34:04 PM, >Brad Coon email@example.com wrote:
>>As we all know, genetics does not equal linguistics. I don't think
>>Greenberg's Amerind is even controversial in the true sense, what is
>>annoying is seeing the ignorant popular press still parroting it. It
>>was DOA and rightly so. Terrible, terrible work, appalling methodology,
>>and supreme ignorance. Not that I have any strong feelings about it :)
> "the ignorant popular press" good description, Brad.
> In the ignorant popular press, I still see Chinese mislabeled anideographic language,
>a monosyllable language, etc..
> In the ignorant popular press, I see the words _chaos_ & _anarchy_ usedin the
>same sense, interchangeably.... usually in the derogative, negative sense.(I wonder
>if the Sacco & Vinzetti (sp?) trial could have been the start of thisnegative
>sense & use of the word _anarchy_ in the ignorant popular press?)
> "Inglis blong virus"